Lexplug logoLexplug

Baber v. Baber

Supreme Court of Arkansas
2011 Ark. LEXIS 42, 2011 Ark. 40, 378 S.W.3d 699 (2011)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A parent's continued consumption of alcohol and drugs in violation of a specific prohibition in a divorce decree constitutes a material change in circumstances that warrants modifying visitation to protect the best interest of the children.


Facts:

  • James R. Baber and Pamela P. Baber's divorce decree incorporated a settlement agreement that prohibited James from consuming drugs or alcohol at any time during visitation periods with their children.
  • Following the divorce, on August 19, 2008, James tested positive for THC.
  • On October 6, 2008, James entered an inpatient drug-and-alcohol treatment program, from which he was discharged on January 3, 2009.
  • Immediately upon his release from treatment, James began consuming alcohol daily and also used marijuana with a friend, Julia Marable, for approximately three weeks.
  • James admitted to drinking alcohol at his home on one occasion while his son was visiting, although he claimed the child was asleep.
  • On another occasion, James arranged for third parties, who were strangers to Pamela and their son, to transport the child home after visitation.
  • After being informed by Marable of James's ongoing substance use, Pamela exercised her right under the decree to suspend his visitation due to suspicion of him being under the influence.

Procedural Posture:

  • Pamela P. Baber filed a motion to modify visitation in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, the court of first instance.
  • James R. Baber filed a responsive pleading and a separate motion to reduce his child support obligation in the same court.
  • The circuit court conducted a hearing on both motions.
  • The circuit court entered an order granting Pamela's motion to modify visitation to supervised visitation, denying James's motion to reduce child support, and awarding attorney's fees to Pamela.
  • James R. Baber, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's order to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, with Pamela P. Baber as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a parent's continued consumption of alcohol in direct violation of a divorce decree's prohibition constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of visitation from unsupervised to supervised in the best interest of the children?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Jim Hannah

Yes. A parent's willful violation of a court order prohibiting alcohol consumption during visitation, combined with other evidence of continued substance abuse, constitutes a material change in circumstances justifying a modification of visitation to protect the children's best interests. The court found substantial evidence, including the testimony of Julia Marable and James Baber's own admission to drinking during a visit, to show that he had not committed to sobriety after treatment. This behavior directly contradicted the basis for the original visitation agreement and demonstrated a disregard for the court's order and the children's safety. The modification to supervised visitation was not a punishment, but a necessary measure to ensure the children's welfare, which is the court's primary consideration. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility, finding Marable more believable than Baber, was given special deference.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms that the 'best interest of the child' is the paramount standard in visitation modification cases and that courts will give this standard functional weight over a parent's desires. It establishes that a parent's failure to adhere to court-ordered sobriety conditions is a significant 'material change in circumstances,' allowing for stricter visitation terms. The ruling underscores the substantial deference appellate courts give to trial courts' credibility determinations, especially in domestic relations cases where testimony is often conflicting. For future cases, this precedent strengthens the position of a custodial parent seeking to protect children from a non-custodial parent's substance abuse, particularly when there is a clear violation of a prior court order.

đŸ€– Gunnerbot:
Query Baber v. Baber (2011) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Baber v. Baber