Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-31-2024
Case Style:
David Heileman v. Ariel Cahoon
Case Number: 56DR-17-53
Judge: Mary Lile Broadway
Court: Circuit Court, Poinsett County, Arkansas
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Harrisburg, Arkansas family law lawyers represented husband and wife in a divorce.
In August 2017, Heileman and Cahoon were divorced by decree wherein their executed "Stipulation and Property, Child Custody and Support Agreement" was merged and incorporated. Per the agreement, the parties "shall have joint custody of [Minor Child 1 (MC1) and Minor Child 2 (MC2)],[1] with [Cahoon] having primary custody and [Heileman] having secondary custody."[2] Regarding the custodial schedule, the parties' time was divided as follows: During the school year, Cahoon would have the children Monday and Thursday nights, and Heileman would have the children Tuesday and Wednesday nights, with each parent enjoying alternating weekends. In the summers, the parties agreed to one week on, one week off. Overall, this split allowed the parties virtually an equal division of time with their children.
Almost four years later, in August 2021, Cahoon filed a "Petition for Contempt and for Other Relief, Including a Modification of the Custodial Arrangement Between the Parties" wherein she asked the court to "modify the prior orders of the court to grant [Cahoon] full custody of the minor children." Specifically, Cahoon's Petition stated, in pertinent part, the following:
Since the entry of the Decree, there's been a substantial and material change in circumstances which compels this court to modify the custodial arrangement between the parties. These include but are not limited to the following: [Heileman] is working and living primarily out of State (Kentucky), and is not able to exercise the custodial time he was awarded; even during the time he is in the area, the "back and forth" has been and will continue to be detrimental to the children; and [Heileman] is unable to support the minor children as evidenced by his failure to pay child support as was ordered by the Court.
The circuit court held a hearing in which both Cahoon and Heileman testified. In Cahoon's opening statement, she asked the court "that the joint custodial language be changed to full custody, on Ms. Cahoon's part, and to visitation, on the part of Mr. Heileman." When asked about the current custodial arrangement under which they operate, the parties both admitted to a deviation from their original agreement-instead of exercising their time as reflected in the order, they fluctuated on specific days that worked for the parties on a weekly or monthly basis, depending on their corresponding work or personal schedules.
When Cahoon was asked, "Have you . . . [tried to] work out any differences, on the visitation, for the well-being of [the] children?" she responded in the affirmative.[3] (Emphasis added.) To the extent she qualified her concerns with the current schedule, she justified her request for sole custody as follows:
It was okay in the beginning. And then, as they get older, as schools change, and stuff like that. As, just, life changes, in general, you know, it just gets a lot on them, back and forth, and multiple houses, different rules. You know, it's hard, just, with the consistency and the stability. But we did the best, to make it work, as we could. It's just chaotic. They need to know when they're going somewhere, how long they're going to be somewhere, something along -any -- so, it's just chaos. Nobody ever knows what's going on. I believe it has a lot of affect, with not knowing who's picking them up from school, how long they're going to be somewhere, with the schoolwork, you know, the consistency.
Despite admitting the summer split worked well, Cahoon maintained her belief that "a week with Mom, a week with Dad" was not stable enough during the school year. When asked why she did not believe Heileman should have equal decision-making authority, Cahoon stated that decisions are always "a huge conversation, back and forth" but admitted that Heileman has not objected to any decisions about school, medical, or extracurricular activities. In fact, the children were healthy and doing well academically.
During Heileman's presentation of evidence, his new job as a traveling surgical technician was the focus. He testified that after cycling through several other jobs in an attempt to make his financial ends meet, he made the decision to onboard with the University of Kentucky for a higher and more consistent influx of income. The manager of the operating room, Christina Thomas, who is in charge of Heileman's work schedule, testified that he typically works "seven days on, five off, or eight days on, six days off" but that it "really depends on what his custody schedule was." According to Thomas, at the time Heileman signed his contract with the hospital, he made his priority known-"he wants to see his kids as much as he can, so he works as many hours, in the time that he is here, so that he can still keep his -- you know, his work -- what his contract states he works, but, also, meet the needs of his home life." She emphasized the hospital's willingness to accommodate his schedule and provide flexibility because they know Heileman lives in Arkansas to be near his children-which is why he was unwilling to move to Kentucky full time. Thomas admitted one full week on with the next full week off would not be an issue for Heileman's employment.
* * *
Heileman v. Cahoon, 2024 Ark. 164, CV-22-495 (Ark. Oct 31, 2024)
Outcome: Reversed and remanded.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: