Payton Porter v. Valencia Jackson

Summary

The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a divorce-custody decree awarding sole custody to Valencia Jackson. The court held that the circuit court failed to include the factual findings required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101 concerning the alleged pattern of domestic abuse and the rebuttal of the joint-custody presumption. The court also directed clarification of whether joint custody was found not to be in the child's best interest by clear and convincing evidence.

Holdings

1. When Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101 requires a court to state the basis for rebutting the joint-custody presumption, the written order must include the supporting facts, findings, and conclusions of law. A court of appeals may not presume those findings when the statute requires them to be stated in the written order.
2. The circuit court's decree was patently deficient because it contained no specific factual findings concerning Porter's alleged commission of an act of domestic violence or pattern of domestic abuse, as required for reliable application of the statutory custody provisions.
3. If the circuit court intended to rebut the joint-custody presumption under section 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(1), it was required to make an express finding, supported by facts, that clear and convincing evidence showed joint custody was not in the child's best interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court's custody decree was legally sufficient when it failed to include specific facts, findings, and conclusions supporting its determination that the statutory presumption favoring joint custody had been rebutted.
2. Whether the circuit court was required to make express findings concerning an act of domestic violence or a pattern of domestic abuse before applying the statutory custody presumptions.
3. Whether, if the circuit court relied on Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(1), it was required to find by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody was not in the child's best interest.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded