Court Opinion

ID: 9755535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:41:57.568075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:07.940325
License: Public Domain

JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge, concurring. I concur in the majority’s decision rendered today in this matter. I write separately to suggest that historically a custodial parent’s change of residence within the state has not been a matter requiring prior approval from the chancery court, nor has such an intrastate move been subjected to a prior restraint. While we did recently address an intrastate move in Hass v. Hass, 74 Ark. App. 49, 44 S.W.3d 773 (2001), and applied the criteria adopted in Staab v. Hurst, 44 Ark. App. 128, 868 S.W.2d 517 (1994), as the majority does here, I wish to point out that Staab and the cases on which it relied involved interstate moves, and the consequential loss of jurisdiction that results from such moves. However, this distinction was not contended in Hass, nor by appellant in the instant case. Consequendy, and appropriately, the majority does not address the point, and whether it does or should make a difference must await another day for decision.