Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Schreckhise v. Parry

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division III

January 30, 2019

WILLIAM D. SCHRECKHISE APPELLANT
v.
JANINE A. PARRY APPELLEE

          APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72DR-13-1656] HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, JUDGE AFFIRMED

          Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., by: Curtis E. Hogue and M. Scott Hall, for appellant.

          Clark Law Firm PLLC, by: Suzanne G. Clark and Payton C. Bentley, for appellee.

          BRANDON J. HARRISON, JUDGE

         William Schreckhise appeals the Washington County Circuit Court order giving his ex-wife, Janine Parry, primary custody of the parties' two children. He argues that the circuit court erred in finding (1) that there was a material change of circumstances and (2) that it was in the children's best interest to be placed with Parry. We affirm.

         The parties were divorced in October 2013, and the court awarded them joint custody of their two minor children. The divorce decree provided:

a. Each party will have the children in his/her care and custody two days of the Monday through Thursday time period. The parties will alternate the Friday through Sunday time periods with the exact hours to be agreed upon by the parties. . . .
b. The parties agree to divide equally all holiday and special visitation; however, in the event they are unable to agree, the parties shall follow the holiday and special visitation schedule set forth in the Court's Standard Visitation Schedule[.]

         In March 2017, Parry petitioned to modify custody, asserting that there had been a material change of circumstances and that the children should be placed in her primary custody. Parry alleged that Schreckhise and his new wife had created an "adversarial environment that is not in the best interest of the children" and that Schreckhise had refused to provide her with certain information, like the children's medical-care providers and the names of overnight childcare providers. Parry also expressed concern with "a dangerous situation with Defendant's 22-year-old stepson, who is dealing with serious mental and emotional problems that have put the parties' minor children in immediate danger for their health, safety, and welfare." Schreckhise answered and generally denied Parry's claims; he also counterclaimed and argued that if the court does find a material change of circumstances, it would be in the children's best interest to placed in his primary custody.

         After a day-long hearing on the matter, the circuit court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the children's best interest that sole custody be awarded to Parry. The court's written order contained these findings:

2. After the divorce, the parties interacted seamlessly and frequently regarding the children and the children's needs.
3. Dr. Schreckhise married in July of 2014. In August of 2014, Dr. Schreckhise began implementing a series of rules about how the parties would communicate, including limited communications in person and preferably only when spouses were available; requiring communication by email unless it was an emergency or time-sensitive, with spouses copied on the communication; and limiting interaction at the children's events to a "hi" or a nod.
4. In the summer of 2015, Dr. Schreckhise expanded the rules to add that Dr. Parry was not to talk to him at work, [1] was not to come to his house, was not to walk on the street in front of his house on North Willow Avenue or his wife's house on Washington Street, [2] and that they were to have separate parent-teacher conferences for each child.
5. Dr. Schreckhise testified that on the advice of his marriage counselor, he requested Dr. Parry not be present for the children's medical appointments if ...

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.