JONATHAN GOODMAN v. MISTY GOODMAN (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2018 Ark. App. 515 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-17-1030 JONATHAN GOODMAN Opinion Delivered: October 24, 2018 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 70DR-14-121] V. MISTY GOODMAN HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON, JUDGE APPELLEE SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE ADDENDUM ORDERED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant appeals from the circuit court’s order denying his motion for change in custody and limiting his visitation with J.G., born 04/25/2001, and C.G., born 05/31/2005. On appeal, he argues that the circuit court abused its discretion (1) in denying C.G.’s clear desire to live with her father, absent a report or recommendation from the ad litem about why that desire should not be met; (2) in failing to require a report detailing why the ad litem’s recommendation was anything other than the expressed intent of his client as required by Administrative Order No. 15; and (3) by withholding visitation as punishment for contempt. He also claims there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s rulings. This matter was previously remanded to settle the record and for rebriefing.1 Appellant was advised that the deficiencies referenced in the order were not exhaustive. We are again unable to address the merits; we order supplementation of the addendum. During the hearing below, C.G. testified regarding certain documents she had written detailing why she wanted to live with appellant rather than with appellee. Those documents were presented to her during her testimony and were admitted as exhibits. She also testified regarding certain text messages between herself and others that evidenced her relationship with appellant and his wife, the nature of conversations between C.G. and appellant with regard to the custody arrangement, and C.G.’s preference to live with appellant instead of appellee. While in the record, they are not in the addendum. Likewise, there were text messages evidencing C.G.’s half-brother’s pizza-stealing scheme on which appellant relies as a reason that custody of C.G. should be with him and which go to appellant’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument. Said messages, which were admitted as exhibits, are not in the addendum. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) states that “The addendum shall contain true and legible copies of the non-transcript documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) states that the addendum shall include all exhibits concerning the order, judgment, or ruling challenged on appeal. Accordingly, we order appellant to submit a supplemental addendum correcting 1 Goodman v. Goodman, 2018 Ark. App. 359. 2 the above-referenced deficiencies within fifteen days from the date of this order. We again encourage counsel to review Rule 4-2 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to ensure that his brief complies with the rules and that no additional deficiencies are present as the deficiencies we have noted are not to be taken as an exhaustive list. Supplementation of the addendum ordered. ABRAMSON and HARRISON, JJ., agree. F. Mattison Thomas III, for appellant. Stone & Sawyer, PLLC, by: Phillip A. Stone, for appellee. 3
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.
