Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. Martin

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III

February 11, 2015



Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., by: Andrew M. Taylor and Tasha C. Taylor, for appellant.

Sherry Burnett; and Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellee.



Page 361


Appellant Jesse Martin appeals from the January 21, 2014 divorce decree and findings of facts and conclusions of law entered by the Hot Spring County Circuit Court. Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in limiting his visitation with his daughter to " an average of 4.5 hours per week and in requiring that all visitation be supervised." We affirm.

Appellant and appellee Jeri Martin were married on August 7, 2010, and lived together as husband and wife until they separated on or about February 5, 2013. One child, W.M., was born during the marriage on April 4, 2012. Appellee filed for divorce on February 15, 2013.[1] Appellant answered appellee's complaints on March 6, 2013, seeking to have them dismissed. He filed a counterclaim for divorce on April 9, 2013.[2] A temporary order was

Page 362

entered on May 13, 2013,[3] awarding appellee temporary custody of W.M., and granting appellant a total of sixteen hours' supervised visitation with the child a month. Appellant was also ordered to undergo a full psycho/sexual examination. Appellant filed a motion for psychological evaluation and modification of visitation on June 22, 2013.

A hearing on the motion took place on July 30, 2013. At the hearing, appellant testified that his visitation with W.M. was always distracted by appellee and her family. He asked that supervision be eliminated and that he receive more time with W.M. According to appellant, not only had his access to W.M. been " cut off," but his family's access had been as well.

Arthur Wayne Chupik testified that he performed appellant's psycho-biosexual assessment. He stated that he interviewed appellant and most of his family members as part of the assessment. He also said that appellant was required to take a polygraph. Chupik testified that he reviewed text messages and Facebook pages, which he used in his assessment. Chupik opined that appellant would not be a danger to his child or any child. He stated that he saw no reason for appellant's visitation with his daughter to be restricted or supervised.

On cross-examination, Chupik stated that he did not speak to appellee about her concerns during the assessment of appellant. He said that he did not ask appellant about his comment to appellee that he wished to have sex with their daughter when she was older so that he could train her because he (Chupik) did not know anything about the comment. He stated that appellant's text message about sexual interactions with his siblings consisted of true events and " simply fantasy-like thinking." Chupik acknowledged that in Exhibit 5, appellant was talking about looking at his then-thirteen-to-fourteen-year-old half-sister's breast.[4] He further acknowledged that appellant reported that he was sexually attracted to fourteen-to seventeen-year-old teenage girls and adult females. He testified that to him, a child for purposes of his report was six years old and younger. He also stated that appellant's attraction to adolescents was not an issue unless acted upon. Chupik stated that he would consider appellant's asking his half-sister to send him a photo of her breast acting upon an impulse; however, he stated that this was a one-time incident and did not show a pattern of behavior. He testified that appellant was acting on an impulse if appellant stated that he would have sex with his daughter when she is older and if he made a request to get a fifteen-year-old girl to his house so that he could get a photograph of her breasts; however, he stated that he did not have this information at the time of the assessment. He further stated that he did not bring the information he received from appellee to court with him because it " would have been too much to carry." Chupik concluded that appellant would have to " act upon it" (his impulses toward young females) before he changed his opinion as it relates to the safety of W.M.

Appellee testified that she received text messages asking her to " sext" appellant because she was no good at talking dirty during sex. She stated that she wanted supervised visitation to continue because she feared for W.M.'s safety. She said that while she was pregnant with W.M. appellant told her that his fantasy was to have ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.