Zobrist v. Zobrist
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 537
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA09-1249
Opinion Delivered
June 30, 2010
TRACY ZOBRIST
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-2007-931-III]
V.
HONORABLE SANDY HUCKABEE,
JUDGE
DOUG ZOBRIST
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
The parties to this custody case were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their
child, a five-year-old boy, when they divorced in December 2008. Approximately four
months later, appellant-mother filed a motion asserting that the parties could not cooperate
and praying that the court grant her sole custody of their son. After a hearing, the trial court
denied appellant’s motion for a change of custody on the grounds that the evidence was
insufficient to show a material change of circumstances. Appellant argues, inter alia, that the
trial court erred in so finding. We agree, and we reverse and remand.
A change of custody requires the trial court to first determine whether a material
change in circumstances has occurred since the last order of custody; if that threshold
requirement is met, the trial court must then determine who should have custody, with the
sole consideration being the best interest of the child. Jones v. Jones, 2009 Ark. App. 571. In
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 537
cases involving child custody, we will not reverse a trial court’s findings of fact unless they are
clearly erroneous. Id.
The record shows that the parties live fifteen miles apart and that each has assumed
physical custody of the child for alternating one-week periods since the divorce. During that
short period of time, substantial differences have arisen between the parties with regard to day
care, school, and visitation, including telephone visitation. The parties have been unable to
reach agreement concerning what day care or elementary school the child will attend such
that, at the time of the hearing, the child was registered for two different elementary schools.
Appellee frankly testified that he and appellant could not or would not communicate
or cooperate. He stated that he does not always answer the telephone when she calls to talk
to their child. He also said that he does not have conversations with appellant, that his
attempts to talk to her did not work, and that he refused to allow her to visit the child at day
care “to keep the complication down.” He also conceded that the child had been seeing a
psychological counselor who informed appellee that his son was anxious and depressed. The
counselor, Lesa Doan, testified regarding a picture the child had drawn. Her testimony was
telling:
That picture was astounding. It was one of the most astute things I’ve
ever seen in a five-year-old. You know, I’ve been doing this for almost thirty
years. And I walked in, I was late for the appointment, had a lot going on in
my practice, and he was on the floor. I have this dry eraser board and colored
markers, you know, and he had these two faces. They looked like aliens, and
we kind of laughed, you know, because he quite clearly let me know they
weren’t aliens.
-2-
CA09-1249
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 537
[T]he larger one was the mom figure and had a gun pointed to the other
figure which was the dad, and he said, “These are my feelings.” And I said,
“Well, what are you saying here?” He said, “Well, this is how I feel . . . that
mom is going to kill my dad and that my dad is going to run over my mom.”
And so, I’m thinking, “Oh, I have to help this child feel a sense of reassurance
that his parents aren’t going to kill each other.”
[But] before I had the words out of my mouth, he said “No, Ms. Lesa.
I know that.” He said that he knew his parents weren’t going to kill each
other, but what he was talking about was how much they were hurting each
other and hurting him, was my impression . . . that they have so much
hostility . . . toward one another. And so then he took a red marker and he
said, “This is the blood.”
On this record, we must conclude that the trial court erred in finding that no material
change in circumstances had been proven. Joint or equally divided custody of children is not
favored unless clearly warranted by the circumstances. Aaron v. Aaron, 228 Ark. 27, 305
S.W.2d 550 (1957). Because the paramount issue in all custody cases is the welfare and best
interest of the child, such an order is proper only where it is shown that the interest of the
child is better fostered by joint or divided custody. Hansen v. Hansen, 11 Ark. App. 104, 666
S.W.2d 726 (1984). Exercise of joint custody is a difficult task requiring an extraordinary
degree of maturity and the ability to set aside personal hurt and animosity for the good of the
child. The parents’ ability to cooperate in making shared decisions affecting the child is
crucial, and failure to so cooperate constitutes a material change in circumstances. See Jones
v. Jones, 2009 Ark. App. 571; Word v. Remick, 75 Ark. App. 390, 58 S.W.3d 422 (2001);
Thompson v. Thompson, 63 Ark. App. 89, 974 S.W.2d 494 (1998). Such a failure to cooperate
is self-evident in this case. We find no merit in appellee’s argument that there was no material
-3-
CA09-1249
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 537
change of circumstances because the parties could not cooperate at the time the joint-custody
award was entered. It is implicit in a joint-custody award that the parties are henceforth
required to cooperate in raising the child. We hold that the undisputed failure of the parties
to do so in this case constitutes a material change in circumstances.
Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary to address appellant’s remaining
arguments. Because the trial court is in a superior position to observe the demeanor of the
parties and determine what disposition would best serve the child’s best interests, we remand
for any further consistent proceedings necessary for it to do so.
Reversed and remanded.
V AUGHT, C.J., and K INARD, J., agree.
-4-
CA09-1249
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.