FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26DR-13-377]
HONORABLE VICKI SHAW COOK, JUDGE
Amy Doughty, pro se appellant.
Crawford Law Firm, by: Michael H. Crawford; and Kamps &
Stotts, PLLC, by: Adrienne M. Griffis, for appellee.
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge
Joanne Doughty appeals several orders of the Garland County
Circuit Court pertaining to child-custody and visitation
matters regarding her son, E.D., and E.D's father,
appellee Richard Douglas. Due to numerous problems with her
abstract and addendum, however, we must order rebriefing at
we order rebriefing, a history of the procedural matters
between the parties is helpful in understanding our decision.
Doughty and Douglas have one child together, E.D. At the time
of the proceedings below, Doughty was a resident of Garland
County, Arkansas, and Douglas was a resident of Australia.
Doughty filed a paternity suit against Douglas in the Garland
County Circuit Court. The Garland County Circuit Court conducted
numerous proceedings and entered several orders, including an
order entered on October 6, 2014, that gave joint legal
custody of E.D. to Doughty and Douglas.
proceedings that gave rise to the instant appeal began on
November 24, 2014, when Douglas filed an emergency petition
to enforce the court's order, motion for contempt, and
for other relief. Douglas alleged that Doughty was
interfering with the visitation established in the October 6,
2014 order. He also requested immediate emergency custody due
to Doughty's actions. The circuit court entered an
emergency ex parte custody order the same day, placing
custody of E.D. with Douglas and temporarily suspending
Doughty's visitation rights. The emergency order set a
hearing for December 8, 2014.
December 1, 2014, Douglas filed a petition for relief from
order, to correct clerical error, and for interpleader to
clarify orders. This petition sought clarification of the
court's order with respect to the calculation of the
amount of child support that was owed and asked that all
funds that might be owed be held in the registry of the
court. The court entered an order of interpleader on December
2, 2014, directing Douglas to pay a set amount of funds into
the registry of the court.
responded to Douglas's motions on December 2, 2014,
filing a counter-motion to vacate the emergency custody
order. In it, she complained that she did not receive notice
of the emergency petition, that she had complied with the
court's orders regarding visitation, and that the custody
and visitation orders should be modified in her favor.
circuit court held a hearing on the emergency petition on
December 8, 2014. After the hearing, the circuit court
entered a "Custody Modification Order" on December
31, 2014, in which it specifically amended the October 6,
2014 custody order and placed custody of E.D. with Douglas.
The court found that Doughty's visitation with E.D.
should be supervised, although she could eventually be
granted unsupervised visitation if she fulfilled certain
conditions set by the court. Doughty filed a motion for new
trial, for relief from order, to set aside order, and for
emergency stay on January 9, 2015. It is not apparent from
the record before us whether the circuit court ruled on this
appeal in this matter, Doughty has filed two notices of
appeal. She filed a notice of appeal on December 22, 2014
from the November 24, 2014 emergency custody order and the
December 2, 2014 interpleader order. On January 29, 2015,
Doughty filed her second notice of appeal, specifically
designating the December 31, 2014 custody-modification order.
In this second notice of appeal, Doughty asserted that she
was adopting by reference her notice of appeal filed on
December 22, 2014.
raises numerous arguments pertaining to the court's ex
parte order, its rulings during the December 8, 2014 hearing,
and its handling of those proceedings. We are unable to reach
the merits of Doughty's arguments, however, due to
significant errors in her abstract and addendum that require
us to order rebriefing at this time.
Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5)(B) provides as follows with
respect to the abstract:
The abstract shall be an impartial condensation, without
comment or emphasis, of the transcript (stenographically
reported material). The abstract must not reproduce the
transcript verbatim. No more than one page of a
transcript shall be abstracted without giving a record page
reference. In abstracting testimony, the first person
("I") rather than the third person ("He or
She") shall be used. The question-and-answer format
shall not be used. In the extraordinary
situations where a short exchange cannot be converted to a