Court Opinion

ID: 9640988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:20:18.558941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.396700
License: Public Domain

Robert J. Gladwin, Judge, dissenting. I cannot say that the trial court’s findings were clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence; therefore, I dissent. The majority opinion adequately states the relevant facts. In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo, but will not reverse the trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Middleton v. Middleton, 83 Ark. App. 7, 113 S.W.3d 625 (2003). A finding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. We also give special deference to the superior position of the trial court to evaluate and judge the credibility of the witnesses in child-custody cases. Durham v. Durham, 82 Ark. App. 562, 120 S.W.3d 129 (2003). We know of no cases in which the superior position, ability, and opportunity of the trial court to observe the parties carry as great a weight as those involving children. Dunham v. Doyle, 84 Ark. App. 36, 129 S.W.3d 304 (2003). In custody cases the primary consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child involved, while other considerations are merely secondary. Durham, supra. This case simply turns on a best-interest analysis. The trial court found, as a result of the testimony, that the appellee acknowledged paternity of the parties’ child and had taken responsibility for her in the face of adverse conditions and increasing objections from appellant. Further, the trial court found appellee to be the more stable and responsible adult. Whether a parent is stable and responsible goes to the best interest of the child. I disagree with the majority’s statement that the trial court’s finding that appellee would be the parent more likely to facilitate visitation with the non-custodian is the sole factor that supports the finding that custody should be placed with appellee. The trial court considered all the testimony presented. Further, the special needs of the twins is a proper factor for the court to consider when looking toward the best interest of the parties’ child. Appellee held a full-time job, had the support of his family, and had taken responsibility for his child. The trial court was in the superior position to evaluate and judge credibility of the witnesses. Given the special deference that we give to this superior position, I am not left with a distinct and firm impression that the trial court clearly erred. Miller, J., joins.