Ross v. Ross
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 497
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA10-70
ALAN ROSS
Opinion Delivered JUNE 16, 2010
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[DR-2008-366-2]
SHANNON ROSS
HONORABLE MICHAEL R.
LANDERS, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Alan Ross appeals from an order awarding custody of the parties’ minor son to the
child’s mother, Shannon Ross. He contends that the trial court’s decision is based upon
incorrect findings of fact, arbitrarily ignores important evidence, and is clearly erroneous. We
hold there is no clear error and affirm the trial court’s decision.
Shannon and Alan were married in 1989 and divorced by decree entered on October
13, 2009. The parties have one child, a daughter born September 30, 2002, of whom both
parties requested custody. After hearing the testimony of both parties, both sets of the child’s
grandparents, the child’s Taekwondo teacher, the attorney ad litem, and various friends of the
parties, the trial court awarded custody to Shannon and granted standard visitation to Alan.
The trial court’s order incorporated a letter opinion dated September 25, 2009, setting out
the court’s findings and conclusions.
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 497
The trial court first stated that, although both parties were working and had similar
incomes, Shannon had worked for one employer, the United States Postal Service, for over
twenty years while Alan had eight different employers during the marriage and an eighteenmonth period of unemployment. The court found that both parties were loving, concerned
parents and were actively involved in the child’s education and extracurricular activities. The
court also recognized that all of the grandparents lived in the area and were active participants
in the upbringing of the child.
Although Alan testified that he had been the child’s primary caregiver since birth, the
court found that the evidence did not “necessarily establish that fact.” Although Shannon
returned to work following maternity leave, leaving Alan with responsibility for caring for
the child during Shannon’s work hours, and Alan was very involved when Shannon worked
the night shift, the court recognized that Shannon had worked a regular day shift for the past
several years and was actively involved with the child on a daily basis. The court found that
both parties participated with the child in extracurricular activities but that Shannon often
scheduled playdates with the child’s friends and their parents.
The court also said that both parties admitted that they had, on occasion, consumed
alcohol, but the court found no evidence that either party drank to excess or that their
occasional use had adversely affected the child. The court noted that there was “considerable
testimony” concerning the volume of telephone messages and texts sent or received by
Shannon from sources that included a male friend she met at a postal-service meeting in
-2-
CA10-70
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 497
Oklahoma. But the court found no indication that these communications were detrimental
to the child or showed a lack of concern by Shannon for the child.
Noting that the attorney ad litem recommended custody with Shannon, the court
found it was in the best interest of the child for Shannon to be awarded custody, subject to
“reasonable and seasonable visitation” with Alan. The court’s order awarded custody to
Shannon. Alan brought this appeal.
In child custody cases, we review the evidence de novo, but we do not reverse the
findings of the trial court unless they are clearly erroneous. Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485, 491,
65 S.W.3d 432, 436 (2002). A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court, on the
entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed. Id. Because the question of whether the circuit court’s findings are clearly
erroneous turns largely on the credibility of the witnesses, we give special deference to the
superior position of the trial judge to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s
best interest. Sharp v. Keeler, 99 Ark. App. 42, 44, 256 S.W.3d 528, 529 (2007). There are
no cases in which the superior position, ability, and opportunity of the trial judge to observe
the parties carry as great a weight as those involving minor children. Bailey v. Bailey, 97 Ark.
App. 96, 100, 244 S.W.3d 712, 715 (2006).
Alan contends on appeal that the trial court’s decision to award custody to Shannon
was clearly erroneous. He argues that the evidence presented at the hearings demonstrates
that he would better provide for the child’s stability and continuity; that he was the primary
-3-
CA10-70
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 497
caregiver and is currently the most attentive parent to the child’s needs; that Shannon is more
concerned with her cell phone; that Shannon drank alcohol in the past; that the child will not
continue to attend the same school if she lives with Shannon; and that Shannon used
prescription pills (prenatal vitamins) prescribed to another person, displaying a moral, ethical,
and legal problem.
On this record, we cannot say that the trial court’s finding that it was in the child’s best
interest to be placed in Shannon’s custody was clearly erroneous. Alan’s arguments with the
court’s findings fall within the trial court’s province to make credibility determinations. It is
not our role but that of the trial judge to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the
child’s best interest. Further, the evidence demonstrates that both parties are good parents
and that either is capable of being the primary caregiver. Accordingly, we affirm the trial
court’s order.
Affirmed.
ROBBINS and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-4-
CA10-70
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.