Court Opinion

ID: 9393444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 14:02:33.238405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.397784
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 278
                    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION II
                                        No. CV-22-375

                                                 Opinion Delivered May   10, 2023

AUDRYANNA CAMERON                          APPEAL FROM THE UNION
                                 APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                                           [NO. 70DR-19-388]
V.
                                                 HONORABLE MARY THOMASON,
AARON CAMERON                                    JUDGE
                                   APPELLEE
                                                 AFFIRMED

                                   MIKE MURPHY, Judge

        Appellant Audryanna Cameron appeals the February 22, 2022 order of the Union

 County Circuit Court dissolving the joint-custody arrangement she had with appellee Aaron

 Cameron and awarding sole custody of the parties’ minor children to Aaron, subject to

 Audryanna’s visitation. On appeal, she argues that the change of custody was unsupported

 and not in the children’s best interest. We affirm.

        The parties were married in June 2008 and divorced in February 2020. There were

 three minor children born of the marriage. At the time of the divorce, the parties agreed to

 a joint-custody arrangement on a “week on/week off” basis. Both parties remarried. On June

 14, 2021, the parties and Aaron’s wife, Marylu, were at a custody exchange when an

 altercation between Marylu and Audryanna occurred. Marylu was six months pregnant at

 the time. Audryanna was arrested and charged with battery. Marylu sought and obtained an
order of protection against Audryanna, and custody of the children was placed temporarily

with Aaron.

       On September 9, Audryanna filed a motion for contempt and a petition to enforce

the joint-custody agreement. That motion alleged that Aaron was not abiding by the joint-

custody terms. Aaron responded and petitioned to modify custody, alleging that a material

change in circumstances had occurred due to Audryanna’s pending criminal charges and

that it would be in the best interest of the children to award him sole custody. A hearing on

the motions was heard on January 31, 2022.

       Officer Earnest Jackson was the first to testify. He testified that he responded to the

incident on June 14. He testified that he observed Marylu with lacerations on her face and

that he arrested Audryanna. His body-camera footage from the day was introduced. Alison

Cardin, Aaron’s longtime friend, testified next. She stated that in the last six months, the

children have become more respectful and cooperative and seem to be more structured and

happier.

       Marylu testified next. She first testified about the incident at the custody exchange.

She said that she got out of the car because she had one of the children’s phones and was

going to give it to Audryanna. She explained that when she got out of the car, Audryanna

jumped on her, scratched her face, and hit her. Marylu said she grabbed and held Audryanna

in an effort to protect herself until Aaron was able to separate the two women. Marylu stated

all of this took place in front of the children—who were crying—and that she spent the night

                                              2
at the hospital. Marylu said this was not the first time Audryanna had been aggressive or

confrontational; they had called the police on Audryanna before. However, on cross-

examination, text messages introduced indicated that prior to the incident, Marylu had sent

antagonistic text messages to Audryanna. It was also revealed that after the incident, Marylu

posted Audryanna’s mugshot on Facebook.

       Audryanna testified. She started by explaining that her postdivorce relationship with

Aaron was initially civil, but when he received two thousand dollars in back child support

“from his first ex” and purchased a four-wheeler instead of furniture, she called the police so

she could retrieve her recliner from his house. She explained that she knew Marylu was

pregnant the day of the altercation. Audryanna testified that she did not attack Marylu, she

“reacted.” Audryanna acknowledged that the children had watched the whole event,

including when she was handcuffed.

       Audryanna further explained, however, that she has been to therapy and is better at

managing her frustration and feelings. She acknowledged that her behavior and interactions

with Marylu had ultimately hurt her children the most, and she takes “full responsibility”

for her actions. Even still, Audryanna admitted texting her oldest daughter after she was

released from jail, writing, “I’m trying to get y’all back, but your dad and Marylu are keeping

you away. So just know I am trying . . . Mommy loves you so much.”

       The court next heard testimony from Aaron. He said that when Audryanna found

out Marylu was pregnant, she came to his house “acting hostile” and “banging on his door.”

                                              3
He called the police. He testified that Audryanna sent him a lot of degrading text messages.

He said that on the day of the incident, he parked far away from Audryanna’s car, but

Audryanna came toward their car. He testified that Marylu got out of the car, and the two

started fighting until he broke them up and called the police. Aaron said that the children

were screaming the whole time. He stated that Marylu then ran to Audryanna’s Jeep and

took the keys out so that Audryanna could not get away before the police arrived. Aaron

explained that Audryanna tried to fight Marylu again, but Marylu “kicked [Audryanna] in

the chest.” After Audryanna was arrested, Marylu went to the hospital, and Aaron took the

children to a sitter before joining Marylu at the hospital.

       Aaron testified that since he has had sole custody, the children have had a remarkable

change in behavior. They are independent and responsible and help with chores. The

children have gone to counseling. He takes them hunting and fishing and horseback riding.

Audryanna’s counsel cross-examined Aaron extensively on his relationship with Marylu prior

to their marriage due to her pregnancy. Aaron testified that Marylu did not stay the night

when the children were with him.

       Grace Palculict, a counselor working out of Harmony Baptist Church, has counseled

the Cameron children weekly for the last four months. She testified that Aaron has a nice,

clean home. She said the children are outgoing and talkative and that they like Marylu. She

opined that the children have a good routine at Aaron’s home. Marylu makes the children

do chores. She said the children also love their mother and she does not think Audryanna

                                               4
poses a danger to the children.

       Brice Baughn, Audryanna’s husband, testified that Audryanna is a good mother. He

said Audryanna has seemed very depressed since the entry of the temporary order that placed

sole custody of the children with Aaron. He said Audryanna has made significant strides in

regulating her emotions. He says the children never seem to want to leave on the weekends

that Audryanna has them.

       Audryanna called her ten-year-old daughter as a witness. The child said she did not

want to make either of her parents mad, and she loves both of her parents. She said she is

happy spending time with both parents. She explained that both parents talked to her about

the case.

       At the conclusion of the evidence, the court took the case under advisement. The

subsequent order found that a material change in circumstances had occurred when

Audryanna physically attacked Marylu in front of the three children. Audryanna was charged

with felony battery, and Marylu, six months pregnant at the time, had to spend a night at

the hospital. The court also found that changing the custody arrangement from joint custody

to the sole custody with Aaron was in the children’s best interest. The court wrote:

       [Aaron] is the only one (out of the two parents and two step-parents) who does not
       appear to want to post or send text messages of an improper nature. He does seem
       concerned about his children. [Aaron] appears mild-mannered. The Court believes
       that [Aaron] will not discuss or allow others to make disparaging remarks about
       [Audryanna] in the presence of the children and will encourage a relationship with
       [Audryanna] and her new husband. The same cannot be said about [Audryanna].

       Aaron was awarded sole custody, and Audryanna was awarded visitation and ordered

                                             5
to pay child support. Audryanna appealed from this order. On appeal, she argues that (1)

Aaron was the ultimate cause of the material change in circumstances due to allegedly

breaching a noncohabitation agreement; (2) the court did not take steps to “reduce areas of

conflict” required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101 (Supp. 2021); (3) the court

erred in allowing two witnesses to testify to the children’s desires; and (4) the court

inappropriately used custody as a way to punish Audryanna, and it was not in the children’s

best interest.

       In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo but will not reverse

a circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the

preponderance of the evidence. Hewett v. Hewett, 2018 Ark. App. 235, 547 S.W.3d 138. We

give due deference to the superior position of the circuit court to view and judge the

credibility of the witnesses. Id. This deference is even greater in cases involving child custody

because a heavier burden is placed on the circuit court to utilize to the fullest extent its

powers of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interest of the

children. Id.

       To modify a custody decree, the circuit court must apply a two-step process: first, the

court must determine whether a material change in circumstances has occurred since the

divorce decree was entered; second, if the court finds that there has been a material change

in circumstances, the court must determine whether a change of custody is in the child’s best

interest. Shell v. Twitty, 2020 Ark. App. 459, 608 S.W.3d 926. We impose more stringent

                                               6
standards for modifications in custody than for initial determinations of custody. Alphin v.

Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d 160 (2005). The party seeking modification has the

burden of showing a material change in circumstances. Id.

       Audryanna first argues that Aaron’s relationship with Marylu was the catalyst for the

discord between the parties. She alleges that Aaron breached the noncohabitaion clause of

their divorce decree. (That clause was part of the parties’ custody and property-settlement

agreement and restricted the parties from having overnight guests when the children were

home.) Audryanna argues that “[t]he [c]ourt erred when it found a material change of

circumstances had occurred as the only material change was a breach of the cohabitation

agreement by [Aaron].” Audryanna’s argument is confusing and largely misplaced: the court

found a material change occurred when Audryanna was arrested for felony battery in front

of her children. This finding is supported by the record. The order was silent about any issues

regarding cohabitation, and Audryanna did not ask for additional findings. The burden of

obtaining a ruling is on the movant; objections and matters left unresolved are waived and

may not be relied upon on appeal. Woods v. Woods, 2013 Ark. App. 448, at 8.

       Audryanna next contends that the circuit court, in changing custody, ignored the

provisions in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101 requiring circuit courts to attempt

to preserve joint custody relationships by entering orders that reduce areas of conflict. The

only subsection of 9-13-101 concerning reducing conflict when confronted with custody

modification is found in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101(b)(1)(A)(iii). It provides

                                              7
that

           [i]f, at any time, the circuit court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that
       one (1) parent demonstrates a pattern of willfully creating conflict in an attempt to
       disrupt a current or pending joint-custody arrangement and the circuit court is unable
       to enter an order that will reduce areas of conflict caused by the disruptive parent,
       the circuit court may deem such behavior as a material change of circumstances and
       may change a joint custody order to an order of primary custody to the nondisruptive
       parent.

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(b)(1)(A)(iii).

       Here, however, the court did not find that Audryanna demonstrated “a pattern of

willfully creating conflict in an attempt to disrupt a current or pending joint custody

arrangement.” Instead, it found that “the physical attack on the step-mother, Marylu, by

[Audryanna] in the presence of the children” was the material change in circumstances. Had

the court made a finding of willfully created conflict, then Audryanna’s analysis might be

more applicable. That is not the case. Audryanna’s physical attack of the children’s

stepmother in front of the children was a material change in circumstances. It led to her

arrest in front of the children, the entry of an order of protection, and the grant of sole

temporary custody to Aaron.

       Audryanna further argues that the court erred in allowing the testimony of two

witnesses, Allison Cardin and Grace Palculict. She says their opinions were “based on the

statements of the children.” Audryanna cites no authority and makes no convincing

argument to support her position that this was erroneous. The failure to cite authority or

make a convincing argument is sufficient reason for affirmance. Baggett v. Benight, 2022 Ark.

                                             8
App. 153, at 10, 643 S.W.3d 836, 841. Furthermore, when Audryanna’s counsel did object

to the line of questioning (Cardin had testified that the children were more respectful and

had been doing chores since Aaron obtained temporary sole custody), the court overruled it,

finding that Cardin was providing her observations. Counsel never objected to any testimony

offered by Palculict at trial.

       When a witness is not testifying as an expert, her testimony in the form of opinions

or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences that are (1) rationally based on the

perception of the witness; and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of her testimony or the

determination of a fact in issue. Ark. R. Evid. 701. Rule 701’s “rational connection test”

requires that the opinion or inference is one that a normal person would form on the basis

of the observed facts. Hopkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 79 Ark. App. 1, 8–9, 83 S.W.3d

418, 423 (2002). We will not reverse a court’s decision to admit relevant evidence absent an

abuse of discretion. Id. As to Cardin’s testimony, the court stated from the bench, “I think

the observations are crucial, and I appreciate her observations.” Allowing Cardin and

Palculict to testify was not an abuse of discretion.

       Finally, Audryanna asserts that there was no evidence that the children were

negatively impacted by her conduct and that the court is using custody to punish her.

Whether the children were negatively impacted by her conduct, however, is not the standard

against which we conduct our review. As explained, the court found the attack to be the

material change. The next step, then, is to determine whether the children’s best interest

                                               9
may be best served through a change of custody. Regarding best interest, the court found

that Aaron is the parent with the most appropriate behavior and the parent who would foster

relationships between the children and the other parent. The court’s best-interest finding is

supported by the record.

       Affirmed.

       ABRAMSON and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

       F. Mattison Thomas III, for appellant.

       Law Offices of Shepherd & Shepherd, P.A., by: Matthew J. Shepherd, John Thomas Shepherd,

and William T. Hegi, for appellee.

                                                10