Court Opinion

ID: 9636120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:17:05.871288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:42.474493
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice, (Dissenting). In deciding the present case the Chancellor remarked that these child custody cases are ‘ ‘ the toughest cases we have to decide”; and I thoroughly agree with that remark. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Chancellor delivered an oral opinion, which occupies six pages in the transcript, and shows rather clearly how the appearance of the witnesses had impressed the Chancellor. I am unwilling to reverse Ms opinion in a close case like this one, when I see only the printed page. Remember: no one is trying to take the custody of the child from the mother. The father of the child had made a substantial settlement on the mother so she could have a nice home in Fort Smith and have the child reared in a good community, with access to churches, schools, playmates, and doctors. But the mother married a younger man, and now wants to be with the new husband, which necessitates taking the child to live in a trailer on the banks of a lake, miles from churches, schools, playmates, or doctors. The mother’s first duty is to her child. The mother should stay in Fort Smith and raise her child under proper surroundings, and cease living in a trailer on the banks of a lake in order to be near her new husband. The obligations of her parenthood should be held to impose a superior duty on the mother. I would affirm the Chancery decree, which prevented the mother from removing the child from Arkansas.