Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Van Winkle v. Van Winkle
Citations: 7 Ark. App. 53; 644 S.W.2d 311; 1982 Ark. App. LEXIS 921Docket: CA 82-136
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; December 22, 1982; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made regarding the trial court's refusal to dissolve a temporary order that changed custody of two children from their mother, Mary Bea Van Winkle (now Estes), to their father, Larmon D. Van Winkle. The original divorce decree on January 8, 1979, established joint custody of the children, aged four and one at the time. Following her remarriage, the mother sought to modify the custody arrangement to allow her to move to North Carolina with her children, which the court granted on December 3, 1979, awarding her custody for nine months during the school year and allowing the father visitation during the summer. Subsequently, on March 25, 1980, the father filed a motion requesting custody for nine months. A temporary order was issued on September 4, 1980, mandating the children be returned to the mother until December 26, 1980, when they would then live with the father until the older child began first grade. The trial court found that the mother's employment since the original custody order did not constitute a material change in circumstances. In February 1981, the mother sought custody during the school term, asserting she was not working. A hearing in August 1981 resulted in the court maintaining the existing temporary order. The appeal contended that the trial court erred in modifying the original December 3, 1979 order without evidence of a material change in circumstances. The appellate court agreed, noting that the trial court's finding about the mother's employment was supported by evidence and that no new changes had been presented. Concerns regarding the children's well-being in their current environment were previously considered during the original order. The appellate court emphasized that modifications to custody require proof of changed conditions, which was not met in this case. The temporary order had self-terminated when the older child began first grade, and the court's failure to issue a permanent order led to the reversal of the judgment. The case was remanded to reinstate the original custody order from December 3, 1979.