Court Opinion

ID: 9684569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:01:32.46459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:57.254608
License: Public Domain

George K. Cracraft, Judge, concurring. Although I cannot agree with all of the reasons for affirmance set forth in the majority opinion and find my own views more akin to those expressed by Judge Cooper in his dissenting opinion, I am compelled to concur in the result announced in the majority opinion. While I find it difficult to visualize what factors the chancellor may have considered in determining that this transitory custodial arrangement would advance the child’s best interest, I must concede that he was in a far superior position than we to properly assess those factors. He saw and heard the witnesses and had access to an impartial report prepared by the Department of Social Services. We have before us only a cold and expressionless written record. There is no type of case in which the personal observations made by the chancellor mean more or are entitled to more weight than in those involving the custody of a small child. Wilson v. Wilson, 228 Ark. 789, 310 S.W. 2d 500 (1958). I am of the opinion that the proper rule to apply in such cases is that stated in Aaron v. Aaron, 228 Ark. 27, 305 S.W. 2d 550 (1957), that divided custody of a minor child is not favored by the law of either man or nature and should never be ordered unless clearly warranted by the evidence. However, in view of the superior position of the chancellor in such matters, I am unwilling to say that his finding in this case was clearly unwarranted by the evidence and erroneous.