Chastain v. Chastain
2012 Ark. App. 73, 388 S.W.3d 495, 2012 Ark. App. LEXIS 160 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When interpreting a custody agreement, courts will look to the entire context of the document and the parties' testimony to determine intent; language designating one party as the 'primary residential parent' and the other's time as 'visitation' may establish primary custody, thereby creating a presumption in favor of relocation for the primary custodian.
Facts:
- Dustin Kyle Chastain and Courtney Heather Chastain divorced in June 2009 with two minor children.
- Their marital settlement agreement stated custody would be 'joint and equal with the mother having the primary residence.'
- The agreement designated Dustin's time with the children under a section titled 'Secondary Residential Responsibility, Visitation, or Time,' with a schedule that varied based on his rotating work shifts as a state trooper.
- The agreement also provided that Courtney, as the 'primary residential parent,' would receive the tax deductions for the children, and that the parties would split all child-related expenses evenly with no child support paid.
- Courtney, an intelligence analyst with the Arkansas Air National Guard, accepted a higher-paying civilian contractor job at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
- Shortly before the hearing, Courtney married Joseph Dark, a warrant officer stationed at Fort Bragg.
- Dustin had applied for a full-time position with the U.S. Marshals Service which, if he were hired, would require him to attend out-of-state training for five months.
Procedural Posture:
- Courtney Heather Chastain filed a motion for change of custody and permission to relocate with the parties' children in the state trial court.
- Dustin Kyle Chastain filed a response opposing the motion.
- The trial court held a hearing and requested post-hearing letter briefs from both parties.
- The trial court issued an order granting Courtney's motion, finding she was the primary custodian entitled to relocate and establishing a new visitation schedule for Dustin.
- Dustin Chastain, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
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 marital settlement agreement that grants 'joint and equal' custody but also designates one parent as the 'primary residential parent' and outlines the other's time as 'visitation' establish primary custody for the designated parent, thereby creating a legal presumption in favor of that parent relocating with the children?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoofman, Judge.
Yes. A marital settlement agreement that contains conflicting terms must be interpreted by examining the entire context of the agreement and the parties' intent. Although the agreement stated custody was 'joint and equal,' other provisions, such as designating Courtney as the 'primary residential parent,' titling Dustin's time as 'visitation,' and granting Courtney the tax deductions (a benefit typically given to the custodial parent), collectively demonstrated the parties' intent for Courtney to be the primary custodian. As the primary custodian, Courtney was entitled to the legal presumption in favor of relocation under Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski. The trial court correctly found that Dustin failed to rebut this presumption, as the benefits of the move—including a doubled salary, a more stable job for Courtney, and a two-parent household—were not outweighed by the detrimental impact on Dustin's visitation and the children's relationship with extended family in Arkansas.
Analysis:
This decision underscores that in contract interpretation, particularly for pro se settlement agreements, courts prioritize the substance of the arrangement over boilerplate labels. It solidifies the principle that specific provisions (like tax deductions and 'visitation' schedules) can define a primary custodial relationship even when the agreement uses terms like 'joint and equal' custody. The ruling reinforces the strength of the Hollandsworth presumption, making it difficult for a non-custodial parent to prevent a primary custodian's relocation for legitimate reasons like career advancement and remarriage. This case serves as a crucial guide for legal practitioners on the importance of precise and unambiguous drafting in custody agreements to avoid unintended interpretations.
