Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

John and Libby were divorced pursuant to a decree that incorporated the parties' settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided that Libby would serve as the primary custodian of the parties' three sons and Appellant would receive reasonable visitation. The agreement also stated that neither party was to have overnight guests of the opposite sex. The circuit court later entered an order modifying visitation to restrict John's visitation to R.M., who was five years old at the time. When R.M. turned twelve years old, John filed a motion for modification of visitation to allow for, among other things, overnight visits with R.M. The circuit court granted John's motion, finding there had been a material change in circumstances and that it was in R.M.'s best interest to have more time with his father. However, the court imposed a non-cohabitation restriction preventing John's boyfriend, with whom John was in a committed long-term relationship, from being present during any overnight visits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to make a finding as to whether the non-cohabitation provision was in the best interest of R.M. Remanded. View "Moix v. Moix" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were divorced in 2011. Mother was awarded primary physical custody of the parties' two children, and Father was ordered to pay child support. In 2012, Father filed a motion for modification of custody. The day before the set trial date, Mother filed a pro se motion for a continuance, which was denied. The circuit court subsequently found it to be in the children's best interest to change custody to Father and award visitation to Mother. The court further ordered Mother to pay child support and retroactively modified Father's past child support obligations to April 2011. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion for a continuance after granting Mother's counsel's motion to withdraw; (2) did not clearly err in finding that Father proved a material change in circumstances and in awarding him custody; and (3) erred in retroactively modifying child support to April 2011. View "McNutt v. Yates" on Justia Law

Randy Russell filed for divorce from Andrea Russell in 2006, alleging general indignities. Andrea counterclaimed, alleging the same grounds. After a trial, the circuit court issued a divorce decree that ordered Randy to buy at their inferential value corporate shares from Andrea instead of simply distributing existing marital property. Randy appealed this portion of the order. The circuit court also found that the business, National Recovery Specialists (NRS), had a fair-market value independent of the personal goodwill of Randy's stepfather in its valuation of the NRS shares. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in ordering Randy to pay alimony as a complementary device to offset the unequal distribution of marital property; and (2) Randy's contention that Andrea presented no competent evidence that NRS had a fair-market value independent of Randy's stepfather's personal goodwill was not supported by the record. View "Russell v. Russell" on Justia Law

Tammye and Justin were divorced in 2010 by way of a consent divorce decree that included a property-settlement agreement. In 2011, Tammye filed a motion to increase child support, asserting that there had been a material increase in Justin's income, or alternatively, that the original child-support award had been based on figures fraudulently provided by Justin. Although the circuit court discovered assets hidden by Justin at the time of the original award, the court denied Tammye's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court misstated the law when denying Tammye's motion, but the court's erroneous statement of the law was not the sole basis for the circuit court's denial of Tammye's motion; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying the motion. View "Hall v. Hall" on Justia Law

After A.S.'s sister suffered a nonaccidental death, the circuit court found A.S. dependent-neglected. A termination hearing was subsequently held, after which the circuit court found termination of Mother's parental rights was in A.S.'s best interest and terminated Mother's parental rights. Mother appealed, arguing that because a jury convicted her boyfriend for the death of C.S., her parental rights as to A.S. were wrongly terminated. The Supreme Court remanded the case and ordered that a supplemental record be filed, holding that because none of Mother's testimony and other evidence presented at the adjudication hearing was included in the record, the record must be supplemented with Mother's testimony and anything else that was relevant to the termination hearing and the final order of the circuit court. View "Payne v. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

In 2005, Husband and Wife were granted a divorce pursuant to a decree of divorce. The decree incorporated a property settlement between the parties specifying that Husband would pay Wife spousal support until either party's death or Wife's remarriage. In 2010, Wife filed a motion for citation, asserting that Husband had failed to pay her spousal support as required by the divorce decree. Husband counterclaimed, alleging that his signature on the property-settlement agreement was made under compulsion and that he had not voluntarily consented to the agreement. The circuit court dismissed Husband's counterclaim and held Husband in contempt for the nonpayment of alimony. Husband then filed this petition for writ of prohibition and/or certiorari, contending that the circuit court erred in its conclusions and judgment. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding (1) a writ of prohibition does not lie in this case because the writ cannot be revoked to correct an order already entered; and (2) the writ of certiorari does not lie in this case because Husband had an adequate remedy by way of an appeal of the circuit court's orders. View "Thompson v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law

After Husband, who was a resident of Benton County, filed for divorce in Benton County, Wife, who filed for divorce later that same day in Washington County, moved to dismiss Husband's complaint, asserting that the proper venue was Washington County. The Benton County Circuit Court agreed with Wife and dismissed Husband's complaint. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing Husband's complaint where (1) the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which Wife essentially invoked in her motion to dismiss, does not apply between counties in the state; and (2) the plain language of Ark. Code Ann. 9-12-303(a) lays venue where the complainant resides and section 9-12-303(c) grants the venue determination to the first Arkansas resident to file. View "Parker v. Parker" on Justia Law

The circuit court terminated Appellant's parental rights to her three children. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and an amended notice of appeal. However, neither the notice of appeal or the amended notice of appeal contained Appellant's signature. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant did not comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B). Appellant's counsel filed a motion for belated appeal, asserting that Appellant wished to appeal but lost contact with Appellant after the circuit court entered the termination order. The Supreme Court granted the motion for good cause. View "McPherson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant was born during the marriage of Mother and Father. Upon Mother and Father's divorce in 1993, Father was ordered to pay child support. In 2011, Appellant, then age twenty, filed a complaint against Father to collect an alleged arrearage in child support. Father filed a third-party complaint against Mother seeking indemnification from her should he be required to pay back child support. Father then filed a motion for summary judgment for the dismissal of Child's complaint. The circuit court granted the motion, finding Appellant's complaint was barred under the law-of-the-case doctrine based on previous litigation wherein Father had prevailed against Mother on her claim for unpaid child support. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of a final order because the order of summary judgment did not dispose of the third-party complaint Father filed against Mother. View "Chitwood v. Chitwood" on Justia Law

After Mother gave birth to Child, Grandmother filed a petition to establish grandparent visitation with Child, which was granted. Couple subsequently filed a petition seeking to adopt Child, and the circuit judge entered a decree for the adoption of Child by Couple. Mother then filed a motion to terminate Grandmother's visitation rights with Child, arguing that Grandmother's visitations with Child were derived from her relationship as a biological grandmother and that the adoption severed this relationship. Grandmother also filed a motion for contempt in the visitation action, alleging that Mother had denied visitation on two occasions. Ultimately, the judge held Mother in contempt, denied Mother's motion to terminate visitation, and found that the adoption decree did not specifically terminate Grandmother's visitation rights. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Child's adoption terminated Grandmother's visitation rights in Child, and accordingly, the circuit court erred by continuing to recognize Grandmother's visitation rights following the adoption; (2) the circuit court's finding of contempt was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; and (3) the circuit court abused its discretion in the amount of fees awarded to Grandmother. View "Scudder v. Ramsey" on Justia Law