Court Opinion

ID: 9393441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 14:02:31.310925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.401709
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 266
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION II
                                       No. CV-22-318

 JAMES CORTER                                   Opinion Delivered May   10, 2023
                                 APPELLANT
                                                APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE
                                                COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                                [NO. 32DR-20-155]
 V.

                                                HONORABLE DON MCSPADDEN,
 NAKISHA CORTER                                 JUDGE
                                    APPELLEE
                                                AFFIRMED

                              RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

       In this one-brief appeal, appellant James Corter argues that the circuit court erred in

its custody and visitation determinations, its calculation of child support, and in awarding

attorney’s fees. We affirm.

       James and appellee, Nakisha Corter, were married on January 18, 2014. Nakisha has

two children from a previous relationship who are not parties to this custody and visitation

dispute, and she was pregnant with a third (MC 1) when she and James married. James has

two older children (MC 2 and MC 3) from a prior relationship. James and Nakisha have one

biological child (MC 4) together.
       In 2019, Nakisha left the home, and the four minor children continued living with

James. Later, Nakisha took MC 1 for a visit but never brought her back and was subsequently

arrested and pled guilty to drug offenses. James filed for divorce; that case was later dismissed.

       On May 11, 2020, James filed the instant divorce case. Nakisha was served and filed

an answer on June 3. There was no activity until April 29, 2021, when the case was set for

trial on November 16.

       Nakisha went to James’s house on August 23, 2021, and got into a physical altercation

with him; all the children witnessed it. James was arrested, and Nakisha obtained an order

of protection against him. At the November divorce proceeding, both James and Nakisha

testified as well as Frank Foll and Justin Hager, who testified on James’s behalf. The minor

children also were examined by the court.

       Following the hearing, the court granted the divorce and awarded custody to Nakisha.

The court found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in the children’s best interest

to be in Nakisha’s custody. The court also ordered James to pay child support in the amount

of $1006 a month and made it retroactive to August 1, 2021. In addition, the court ordered

that the $4024 in arrears be paid at a rate of $200 a month. The court ordered James to

repay Nakisha $3000, representing the amount he received in stimulus money after the

parties’ separation. After ninety days of only limited telephone contact and visitation, the

court allowed supervised visitation between James and the children one weekend a month

from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The court noted that if the supervised visits went

                                                2
well, the court would revisit the issue after March 1, 2022. The court ordered James to pay

$2000 in Nakisha’s attorney’s fees. This timely appeal followed.

       This court reviews domestic-relations cases de novo, but we will not reverse the circuit

court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Doss v. Doss, 2018 Ark. App. 487, 561

S.W.3d 348. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,

the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been made. Id. Due deference is given to the circuit court’s superior position to

determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Id.

       Whether a circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous turn in large part on the

credibility of the witnesses, and special deference is given to the circuit court’s superior

position to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the children’s best interest.

Cunningham v. Cunningham, 2019 Ark. App. 416, 588 S.W.3d 38. There are no cases in which

the circuit court’s superior position, ability, and opportunity to observe the parties carry as

great a weight as those involving minor children. Id. The primary consideration in child-

custody cases is the welfare and best interest of the child, with all other considerations being

secondary. Id.

       James first argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in awarding custody to a

stepparent without a finding that the natural parent was unfit and that its ruling should

therefore be reversed. Here, while the circuit court did not make a specific fitness finding,

we can assume that it found Nakisha to be fit because it awarded custody to her. This court

has held that “in the absence of a showing to the contrary, we presume that the circuit court

                                               3
acted properly and made such findings of facts as were necessary to support its decision.”

Chekuri v. Nekkalapudi, 2020 Ark. App. 74, at 13–14, 593 S.W.3d 467, 475–76.

       Moreover, the evidence before the circuit court here supports a fitness finding. James

physically abused Nakisha in front of the children. The court found that James was the

aggressor, supporting the legislative directive that it is not in a child’s best interest to be in

the custody of an abusive parent.1 The circuit court made the following relevant findings:

       Number one, it’s obvious that the parties do not get along. There’s been
       multiple assaults and batteries over the years, the way that Mr. Corter has
       talked to Ms. Corter, the domestic violence, and that is always something that
       is addressed in child custody suits, and that goes against the person who is
       guilty of the domestic violence, and that would be Mr. Corter.

       Given the circuit court’s clear language and our deference to the court’s superior

position to evaluate witnesses, their testimony, and the children’s best interest, we are not

           1
           Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101 (Supp. 2021) provides, in pertinent
       part:

           (c)(1) If a party to an action concerning custody of or a right to visitation with a
       child has committed an act of domestic violence against the party making the
       allegation or a family or household member of either party and such allegations are
       proven by a preponderance of the evidence, the circuit court must consider the effect
       of such domestic violence upon the best interests of the child, whether or not the
       child was physically injured or personally witnessed the abuse, together with such facts
       and circumstances as the circuit court deems relevant in making a directive pursuant
       to this section.

           (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of the child
       to be placed in the custody of an abusive parent in cases in which there is a finding
       by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent has engaged in a pattern of
       domestic abuse.

                                                4
left with a definite and firm conviction that the court erred in its findings to award Nakisha

custody.

       James next argues that the circuit court erred in awarding only telephonic and limited

supervised visitation. His entire argument is simply asking us to second-guess the circuit

court’s determination as to the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

The circuit court properly considered all the evidence and testimony before it, and we, as

the reviewing court, cannot and will not reweigh the evidence in favor of James’s position.

Raymond v. Kuhns, 2018 Ark. App. 567, 566 S.W.3d 142. Given our standard of review and

the special deference we give circuit courts in child-custody cases, we cannot say that the

circuit court clearly erred in determining that supervised visitation was in the children’s best

interest.

       James’s third point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in its calculation of child

support. Specifically, he maintains that the circuit court erred by not taking into

consideration “the lack of support from Nakisha during her abandonment of the children

from May 2020 to August 2021” and that “[a]ny award for retroactive support should have

accounted for both parties’ roles in supporting the children up until that point.” We decline

to address this issue because it is being raised for the first time on appeal. Our law is well

settled that issues raised for the first time on appeal, even constitutional ones, will not be

considered. Tipton v. Aaron, 87 Ark. App. 1, 185 S.W.3d 142 (2004).

       Finally, James argues that the circuit court erred in awarding Nakisha’s attorney’s fees.

As a general rule, attorney’s fees are not allowed in the absence of a statute permitting them;

                                               5
however, a circuit court has the inherent power to award attorney’s fees in domestic-relations

proceedings. Hargis v. Hargis, 2019 Ark. 321, 587 S.W.3d 208. When awarding attorney’s

fees in a domestic-relations case, the court is not required to conduct an analysis using the

Chrisco2 factors or make any particular findings. Tiner v. Tiner, 2012 Ark. App. 483, at 16,

422 S.W.3d 178, 187. Rather, in domestic-relations cases, where the court is intimately

acquainted with the record and the quality of services rendered, we have held that the circuit

court is in a better position than we to evaluate the services of counsel and observe the

parties, their level of cooperation, and their obedience to court orders. Hudson v. Hudson,

2018 Ark. App. 379, at 7, 555 S.W.3d 902, 906. This court will not disturb a circuit court’s

decision regarding attorney’s fees absent an abuse of discretion. Vice v. Vice, 2016 Ark. App.

504, at 10, 505 S.W.3d 719, 725.

       Here, James does not cite any legal authority in support of his argument that the

court’s award was unwarranted. This court may refuse to consider an argument when the

appellant fails to cite any legal authority, and the failure to cite authority or make a

convincing argument is sufficient reason for affirmance. Jewell v. Fletcher, 2010 Ark. 195, at

24, 377 S.W.3d 176, 191 (citing Middleton v. Lockhart, 344 Ark. 572, 43 S.W.3d 113 (2001)).

Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s order directing James to pay $2000 for Nakisha’s

attorney’s fees.

       Affirmed.

           2
               Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990).

                                                 6
GRUBER and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Law Office of Shannon Briese, PLLC, by: Shannon Briese, for appellant.

One brief only.

                                       7