Court Opinion

ID: 9649168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:43:52.75687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:08.433034
License: Public Domain

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge, dissenting. I dissent from the majority’s holding that there was no proof of a significant change in circumstances to support a modification of visitation. The parties are the parents of a child born in 1995. Although the parties have never been married, the child was born while appellant was cohabiting with appellee in appellee’s house. Some time after the child’s birth, the parties briefly separated. Appellant moved away from appellee’s home, paternity was established, and an order providing for child support and visitation was entered. This is the visitation order that was modified by the chancellor in the present case. Since that order was entered, appellant returned to appellee’s home, cohabited for a time, and left again. She and the child are currently living with relatives. Appellee has remained in the home where the child has lived for all but four months of her life. The majority appears to have concluded that, because the chancellor did not find a sufficient change of circumstances to support a change of custody, there was therefore no proof of a change of circumstances relating to visitation. This conclusion is in error. Our supreme court has held that, although it is necessary to establish that there are changed circumstances pertinent to visitation in order to modify visitation rights, it is not necessary to establish the same degree of changed circumstances that would be necessary to warrant a change of custody. Harris v. Tarvin, 246 Ark. 690, 439 S.W.2d 653 (1969). The chancellor’s comments regarding the absence of sufficient proof to justify a change of custody therefore have no bearing on the question of whether the circumstances have changed sufficiently to support a modification of visitation. The record shows that, since the previous visitation order was entered, appellant moved out of appellee’s home and, together with the child, went to five in the home of a relative under circumstances that are crowded and less than ideal. There was evidence to show that the environment and influences at appellant’s current residence are detrimental to the best interest of the child. These facts quite clearly establish that there has been a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant increased visitation. See Norwood v. Robinson, 315 Ark. 255, 866 S.W.2d 398 (1993). I respectfully dissent. Jennings, J., joins in this dissent.