Candis Shrable (Now Morgan) v. Brett Shrable

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 454
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-24-641

CANDIS SHRABLE (NOW MORGAN) Opinion Delivered October 1, 2025
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JDR-18-730]
BRETT SHRABLE
APPELLEE HONORABLE SCOTT A. ELLINGTON,
JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Candis Shrable appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition

to modify custody and the decision to suspend her visitation. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

Brett and Candis were married in 2008 and have two children, MC1 (born in 2012)

and MC2 (born in 2014). On October 18, 2018, Brett filed an amended complaint for

divorce, and Candis counterclaimed for divorce. On October 26, the court entered a

temporary order awarding Candis primary custody with standard visitation to Brett. The

temporary order set forth the parties’ duties regarding the children’s care during the pending

divorce and also provided how some of the parties’ personal property was to be divided.
While the divorce was pending, Brett filed several motions for contempt based on

Candis’s refusal to allow him to take possession of his personal property, including the title

to his car; failure to pay his attorney’s fees as ordered; refusal to allow him to sell the property

that the court ordered to be sold; failure to take the children to their yearly physicals; and

failure to comply with the court order to verify her claim that she was pregnant.

On January 16, 2020, the circuit court entered the divorce decree awarding primary

custody to Brett. The court considered Brett’s ability to care for and nurture the children

and found that the best interest of the children “weighs heavily in favor of being placed in

the legal custody of [Brett].” The court found that Candis lacked credibility. Specifically, the

court cited her history of issues related to Brett’s personal property, her false allegations to

Brett’s friends and employer that he had engaged in misconduct, her lack of concern for his

career, and the harm her allegations caused others. The court set forth coparenting terms,

which included not disparaging each other, mistreating each other, or discussing the divorce

with the children; allowing the children access to telephone conversations with the

noncustodial parent; allowing the other parent the right of first refusal regarding babysitting;

cooperating with each other to give extra time with the children; refraining from disrupting

the other parent’s time with the children; and generally keeping the children out of the

decision-making process regarding visitation and custody. Candis was ordered to pay $267

in child support every two weeks, and Brett was to keep the children on his insurance. The

parents were ordered to equally divide any medical bills.

2
On March 3, 2020, Brett filed a motion for contempt. Brett accused Candis of

continuing to refuse to return his personal property, and he asserted that Candis had been

arrested for driving while intoxicated on February 23, at 2:30 a.m. Brett explained that

Candis was supposed to pick the children up the next morning but canceled because it was

raining and “another event interfered,” which he believed was her arrest. Brett contended

that Candis abused alcohol and drove without current tags, a license, or insurance; however,

despite her actions, she held him responsible for her arrest. Brett stated that Candis had

attempted to “poison the minds of the parties’ children” by telling the children that the

change of custody was temporary, and Brett “should be ashamed of himself for stealing

them.” Since then, she had refused to swap weekends to accommodate his work schedule,

had not offered him babysitting and instead left the children with family members, and had

baselessly requested a welfare check at the children’s grandparents’ home, which upset the

children. Brett requested that the court suspend overnight visitation until Candis submitted

to a psychological evaluation and restrain her from leaving Arkansas with the children. On

October 9, Brett filed an amended petition for contempt, termination or limitation of

visitation, and other relief. In addition to his original claims, Brett explained that Candis

had moved without providing an address and had changed jobs, cutting off his child support.

Candis was in arrears $1,176.64 and owed Brett $1,226.78 in medical expenses.

Candis responded, denying that she had interfered with the distribution of property

and denying that she had not been unable to pick up the children because of “any alleged

traffic violations.” She also explained that she was on medical leave from her job for a heart

3
condition and was not in willful contempt of the order to pay child support or medical bills

because she was unable to earn income.

After a hearing on November 9, the court entered an order finding Candis in

contempt regarding the property-distribution issues and for lack of payment of child support

and payment of half the medical expenses. Candis was ordered to make the appropriate

reimbursements and return Brett’s property.

On February 21, 2021, Brett filed a petition for emergency relief in which he

explained that on February 17, Candis was driving and struck another vehicle; however, she

continued driving, knocked down a mailbox, and drove home. The other driver followed

her and called the Jonesboro police, who arrested Candis at her house. She was charged with

careless and prohibited driving, leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage,

and DWI. Brett noted that this was her second arrest for DWI and asked the court to

suspend visitation until the issue was resolved. He attached the police reports of the most

recent incident and the officer’s report. He also included the “Driver Control Hearing

Summary” from her 2020 offense. The summary showed that Candis had violated Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-65-103,1 and as a result, she was ordered to attend alcohol education and pay a

$150 reinstatement fee; her license was suspended until September 24, 2020; and after that,

an interlock device would be installed on her vehicle.

1
Driving or boating while intoxicated.

4
On February 25, the court entered the order suspending Candis’s visitation, finding

that “the minor children of the parties could be irreparably harmed if the visitation with

[Candis] is not suspended.” The order was set to expire on March 11, the day of the hearing,

“unless the Court, for good cause, extends it for a 14-day period, or [Candis] consents to a

longer extension.” On March 25, the court granted Candis’s request for a continuance to

obtain counsel and set a new hearing date of April 7. The court found that Candis’s visitation

would remain suspended until the hearing took place.

On September 15, 2021, Brett filed a petition to extend suspension of visitation, for

the appointment of an attorney ad litem, and other relief. Brett explained that MC1

expressed to her therapist that she was anxious about visitation with her mother. MC1

reported that Candis had hit her, told her she wished she was not her child, called her bad

names, and accused her of stealing. MC1 claimed that Candis smelled like alcohol and yet

denied drinking, and Candis had men at the home that she was not comfortable around.

Candis responded, denying the allegations.

A hearing was held on September 27, at which the court addressed Brett’s petition to

extend the suspension of visitation, request for the appointment of an attorney ad litem,

motion to compel discovery, and motion for additional child support and medical-bill

arrearages. Candis had hired an attorney that morning and requested that the court stay all

motions except the petition to extend the suspension of her visitation. Brett objected,

explaining that after the court granted the last motion for a continuance, the court had told

Candis to inform the court when she obtained a new attorney, and a new hearing date would

5
be set. Brett explained that this was the first he had heard about Candis’s new attorney. He

explained that he brought MC1’s counselor’s report to court that morning but had not

scheduled the counselor to be there for the hearing. He stated that he would have done so

had he known that Candis had a new attorney and was ready to proceed. Candis refused to

allow the counselor’s report to come in because she wanted to cross-examine the counselor.

The court continued the case and determined that Candis could have supervised visitation

at Brett’s discretion.

The same day, after the hearing, Candis filed a motion responding to Brett’s petition

to suspend visitation, asking the court to dismiss the petition.

From October 2021 to September 2023, Candis’s visitation remained suspended. On

September 29, 2023, Candis filed a petition to modify custody and other relief in which

Candis alleged that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Namely, Brett had

moved with the children to Mountain Home, making visitation more difficult. Also, Candis

accused Brett of alienating the children from her by speaking negatively about her to the

children, and consequently, the children began reacting negatively to her, even hanging up

on her during phone conversations. Brett refused to allow significant contact with the

children and refused to respond to her texts requesting to speak with them. Brett refused to

send photos, and if he posted photos on Facebook, he prevented her from printing them by

adding a watermark bearing his and his new wife’s name. Candis accused Brett of having

been angry and rageful at games he coaches to the point that parents were complaining.

6
Candis contended that she lived in a stable home and was remarried with a new baby and

wanted MC1 and MC2 to know their sibling.

Brett responded, reserving the right to plead further after investigation of Candis’s

attempt to slander him. Specifically, Brett alleged that Candis had interfered with his

employment by contacting his employer and making false allegations about him.

At the hearing on March 28, 2024, the court heard evidence and testimony regarding

the previous motion and petitions, including Candis’s motion to modify custody and Brett’s

request for continued suspension of visitation. Brett testified that since the suspension of

Candis’s visitation three years earlier, she had come to eat a meal with the children twice,

and she attended one of MC2’s football games, three of MC1’s volleyball games, and three

of MC1’s basketball games. He explained that he had offered Candis visitation during the

holidays and other times, but most of the time she did not take him up on his offer. Brett

testified that MC1 had been in counseling since 2021, which had helped with her anxiety

regarding her mother, but she still “gets some pretty bad peak anxiety whenever she thinks

things are gonna change.” Brett testified that Candis chose to communicate on Friday nights,

when she knew he was coaching a football game. She left voicemails demanding to talk to

the children at that moment, knowing that he was unavailable. The children communicated

through his cell phone because he blocked Candis from their phones after an incident in

October 2021 during which Candis “badgered” MC1 by calling her names until she broke

down and cried. Consequently, MC1 did not want Candis to have access to her by phone.

Brett explained that MC1 is Candis’s “blame person,” and Candis will not take responsibility

7
for her own mistakes and situation. Brett stated that Candis gets to talk to the kids on his

phone eight times out of ten, and if she calls at a bad time, he has them call her back. Most

of the time, he has to force them to talk to her, and when they are on the phone, Candis

disparages him and his new wife, Kendra. Sometimes the kids hang up on her, and Brett

explained, “I guess you can only tell someone bye so many times before you eventually hang

the phone up.” Brett testified that since the blocking incident, he recorded their

conversations despite the divorce decree order that no phone calls be recorded. Brett claimed

he was not aware of that provision. He testified that the children had been enrolled in

Mountain Home School District for almost four years, since June 2020, and were getting

straight As. He took Candis’s name off the children’s school paperwork when her visitation

was suspended. Brett testified that sometimes he gave Candis the children’s sports schedules,

and sometimes he did not. Additionally, Brett testified that Candis had made allegations to

the Mountain Home School District administration attempting to destroy his career, and he

was interviewed by the school district regarding those allegations. The school district did not

make any true findings against him.

MC1’s therapist, Lynn Delgado, testified that when she first started seeing MC1 in

July 2021, she “presented extremely anxious with low self-esteem and had difficulty

expressing fears regarding visitation with her mother.” MC1 attended therapy on an on-and-

off basis until January 2023 because she was anxious about Candis coming to her school

events and being “really persistent and asking questions from the people that she was

engaging with; her friends, taking pictures of them.” MC1’s friends were uncomfortable

8
around Candis, and Delgado considered Candis’s picture-taking and asking for information

from friends to be a form of stalking. MC1 told Delgado that her mother had hit her, called

her bad names, told her that she wished she was not her daughter, and blamed her for things

that were not her responsibility. Candis had pointed a gun at her own head and told MC1

that she would harm herself and blame MC1 for it. Candis disparaged her new clothes and

did not like that she was bonding with her stepmother by cooking, shopping, and using make

up. MC1 believed Candis was using the new baby to try to manipulate her to visit. Delgado

testified that in therapy, MC1 had developed healthy boundaries and confidence and had

begun to smile. Delgado did not think it was in MC1’s best interest to resume visitation and

stated that MC1 did not want to live with her mother.

Candis testified that she did not remember much about the allegations she made

against Brett regarding misconduct related to his job. She denied trying to get him fired or

hurt his reputation and claimed that she went to the school district only to discuss “things

that I was made aware of for the concern of my children as well as others.” She agreed with

the court’s decision finding her allegations to be unfounded and outrageous, but “the whole

situation, I guess, is different. What was kind of discussed that day is different than the

situation that was going on currently.” Candis agreed that she had not paid child support as

ordered, explaining that she had not been employed due to a heart condition, and she had

chosen to stay home with her new baby. Candis explained that she tried to attend the

children’s sporting events, but Brett had not consistently given her the schedules. Eventually

she joined an online group that listed the football schedule. Candis testified, “I think ever

9
since custody has changed they’ve had to seek counseling, their relationships have went

downhill. We went from co-parenting to no co-parenting.” She did not believe she was

responsible for her estrangement from her children: “I feel like actions that I have taken in

the past is the reason I’m not—they’re not present with me. But their behavior, I don’t feel

like is my fault.” The driver control hearing summary from Candis’s second uncontested

DWI was admitted into evidence and showed that her license was suspended for two years,

from March 2021 to March 2023, and after the suspension, an interlock device would be

put in place. Candis testified that she did not believe the DWIs should have had any effect

on her visitation. Candis denied ever putting a gun to her head and accused Brett of

drunkenly putting a gun to his head in front of the children a few months before they

separated. Regarding phone contact, she stated that the kids hang up on her, and it had been

hard to contact MC1 since she had been blocked. She denied knowing that Brett coaches

on Friday nights. She testified that when she talked with the kids, she could hear Brett yelling

in the background during phone calls, calling her an idiot and worthless, and making

remarks about child support. She testified that she believed Brett was trying to make his new

wife their children’s mother. She accused Brett of being emotionally abusive, encouraging

the kids to be bullies on the playing field, and commenting on MC1’s weight and eating.

She recalled a time at a volleyball game when Brett told her to stop talking to MC2 and that

he would come see her later, and she had noticed that the children looked to him before

they answered her questions.

10
On May 31, 2024, the court entered the order denying Candis’s petition to modify

custody, determining that it was not in the children’s best interest to order joint custody

because she and Brett could not coparent. The court found that the children were thriving

in their father’s custody, and his home was stable. The court found that both parents were

at fault for their inability to coparent, but Candis “bears the much larger share” and refused

to accept any responsibility for the problems she has caused. Brett was ordered to work on

“fulfilling his custodial duty to facilitate a meaningful relationship” between the kids and

Candis, and the court found that the children needed to have a relationship with both

parents. The court determined that the emergency order and the continued suspension of

visitation were justified by the evidence, and Candis was primarily responsible for the delays.

Specifically, the court found that Candis “has been represented by four different good

lawyers during the period of delay, and that she could have obtained a hearing for relief

during that period of delay.” Both parties were ordered to attend six individual counseling

sessions to address coparenting issues, and the court ordered that the suspension of Candis’s

visitation would remain in effect until she had finished individual counseling. The court

determined that after the parties completed individual counseling, family counseling would

begin. The court included “good conduct” provisions in the order regarding telephone

communications; extra time; sharing medical, school, and counseling records; prohibiting

inappropriate conduct; diligent communication regarding scheduling changes; refraining

from involving the children in parenting decisions; and cooperating in fluid parenting

situations.

11
Candis timely filed her notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.2

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo but will not reverse

a circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the

preponderance of the evidence. Hewett v. Hewett, 2018 Ark. App. 235, 547 S.W.3d 138. We

give due deference to the superior position of the circuit court to view and judge the

credibility of the witnesses. Id. This deference is even greater in cases involving child custody,

and a heavier burden is placed on the circuit court to utilize to the fullest extent its powers

of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interest of the

children. Id.

B. Points on Appeal

1. Candis’s petition to modify custody

For her first point on appeal, Candis argues that the circuit court clearly erred when,

in denying her petition to modify custody, it failed to make any findings regarding the best

interest of the children or whether a material change of circumstance occurred. Her

argument is not well taken.

To modify a custody decree, the circuit court must apply a two-step process: first, the

court must determine whether a material change in circumstances has occurred since the

2
After the notice of appeal was filed, Brett filed a petition to delay Candis’s visitation,
which the court did not address and is not relevant to this appeal.

12
divorce decree was entered; second, if the court finds that there has been a material change

in circumstances, the court must determine whether a change of custody is in the child’s best

interest. Shell v. Twitty, 2020 Ark. App. 459, 608 S.W.3d 926. Candis’s argument fails,

because in denying her petition to modify custody, the court made best interest findings

supporting the decision, including that the children were thriving in Brett’s custody, his

home was stable, and Candis refused to accept responsibility for MC1’s anxiety.

Candis also argues that the circuit court erred by failing to find that Brett’s alienating

behavior constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting a change of custody, and

the court erred in denying her petition for primary custody of MC1 and MC2. We disagree.

Generally, courts impose more stringent standards for modifications in custody than

they do for initial determinations of custody. Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d

160 (2005). The party seeking modification has the burden of showing a material change in

circumstances. Id. Factors that are appropriate to consider when determining whether there

has been a material change of circumstances include, but are not limited to, one parent’s

relocation, the passage of time, the remarriage of one or both parents, a strained relationship

between the parent and child, and the preferences of the children. McCoy v. Kincade, 2015

Ark. 389, 473 S.W.3d 8. A change in the circumstances of the noncustodial parent alone is

not sufficient to justify a change of custody. See Fudge v. Dorman, 2017 Ark. App. 181, 516

S.W.3d 306. The crux of these cases is that a child-custody determination is fact specific, and

each case ultimately must rest on its own facts. Redman v. Redman, 2024 Ark. App. 562, at

11, 701 S.W.3d 40, 46; Self v. Dittmer, 2021 Ark. App. 85, at 9, 619 S.W.3d 43, 48.

13
Candis relies on the testimony that Brett engaged in alienating behavior by

monitoring and recording phone conversations, blocking her from the children’s phones,

disallowing contact with her at the children’s sporting events, blocking her from access to

the children’s school and medical records, and moving to Mountain Home.

It is true that failure of communication, increasing parental alienation by a custodial

parent, and inability to cooperate can all constitute a material change in circumstances

sufficient to warrant modification of custody. Montez v. Montez, 2017 Ark. App. 220, 518

S.W.3d 751. However, a finding of parental alienation does not require that the court change

custody to the nonalienating parent. As stated above, other factors may also be considered

by the court, such as a strained relationship between the parent and child, and the

preferences of the children. See McCoy, supra.

To support her argument, Candis cites Turner v. Benson, 59 Ark. App. 108, 953

S.W.2d 596 (1997), in which the circuit court found a material change of circumstances due

to parental alienation. In Turner, the minor child had begun using his stepfather’s surname,

the mother had interfered with the visitation schedule, and she had made derogatory

comments about the father to the children. An expert witness testified that the children had

rejected their father without any show of emotion. The court found that the mother’s years-

long history of alienating the father from his children constituted a material change of

circumstances warranting modification of custody and changed primary custody to the

father. In Turner, this court affirmed the circuit court’s decision because it was supported by

the evidence.

14
Candis’s comparison to Turner is misplaced, because here, as in Turner, the evidence

supports the circuit court’s decision. The court considered testimony from MC1’s therapist

that Candis physically and mentally abused MC1. Brett testified that MC1 did not want to

have visitation with her mother and that Candis refused to accept any responsibility for her

children’s emotional issues. Contrastingly, the court found that Brett had provided a stable

home in which the children had thrived and heard his testimony that he had tried to

facilitate visitation, but Candis declined his offers. Moreover, the court found Candis lacked

credibility by making false allegations against Brett and refusing to accept responsibility for

her part in MC1’s anxiety. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the circuit court,

which observed the witnesses firsthand. Wallis v. Holsing, 2023 Ark. App. 137, at 6, 661

S.W.3d 284, 288. Recognizing the superior position of the circuit court to evaluate the

witnesses and their testimony, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the

circuit court made a mistake in continuing Brett’s primary custody of the children, and as in

Turner, the evidence supports the court’s decision; on this point, we affirm.

2. The court’s coparenting and joint-custody findings

For her next point on appeal, Candis argues that the circuit court erred in

determining that sharing joint custody is inappropriate due to their inability to coparent.

Candis argues that she requested primary custody, and the court’s joint-custody ruling was an

extraneous ruling immaterial to her request such that the court’s finding constitutes

reversible error. We disagree.

15
Here, the circuit court’s findings regarding joint custody and the parents’ inability to

coparent in no way constitute clear error. While joint custody was not suggested by the

parties, the court’s findings regarding the parents’ ability to cooperate are material to the

court’s custody and visitation decision. Indeed, the court made explicit findings that the

children’s best interest would be served by better communication and cooperation from the

parents and couched these findings as coparenting issues. We find no error and affirm.

3. Brett’s emergency petition and the order continuing suspension of visitation

For her last point on appeal, Candis propounds several related arguments regarding

the initial suspension of her visitation and the continued suspension of her visitation. None

have merit.

First, Candis claims that the circuit court erroneously based the suspension of her

visitation on hearsay evidence—namely, the police report regarding her second DWI arrest.

Her argument is not preserved for appeal. Candis did not timely raise a hearsay objection to

the petition for suspension of visitation. An issue must be presented to the circuit court at

the earliest opportunity to preserve it for appeal. Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d

232 (2007). Candis’s first opportunity to object to the basis for the petition was before or

when she filed her first motion for a continuance. In her motion, she asked for more time

to hire a new attorney, but she failed to object to the basis of the petition. Candis requested

and was granted several more continuances over the next few years, never once objecting to

the basis of the original petition. For the first time, at the September 27, 2021 hearing, her

newly hired counsel stated that the petition was based on hearsay; however, the opportunity

16
to object had passed, and additionally, counsel did not obtain a ruling on the issue. When

an appellant fails to obtain a specific ruling below, we do not consider that point on appeal.

Eversole v. Eversole, 2015 Ark. App. 645, at 11, 476 S.W.3d 199, 205. Because Candis’s

argument regarding the basis of the petition is unpreserved, we cannot reach the merit of

this argument.

Candis also asserts that there was no hearing regarding the suspension of her

visitation until 2024, and because there was no hearing, the circuit court never made the

required finding that “parenting time between the parent and the child would seriously

endanger the physical, mental, or emotional health of the child[.]” See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-

13-101(b)(1)(A)(vii)(a) (Supp. 2023). She is wrong. In the initial February 25, 2021 order

suspending Candis’s visitation, the circuit court specifically found that “the minor children

of the parties could be irreparably harmed if the visitation with [Candis] is not suspended.”

We now address Candis’s arguments regarding the delay in setting a hearing date.

Candis asserts that pursuant to the language of the February 25 order, the circuit court was

required to find good cause for granting the first continuance extending the suspension, and

it did not do so. Her argument is not well taken.

The order suspending visitation was set to expire on March 11, the date the court set

for the hearing, “unless the Court, for good cause, extends it for a 14-day period, or [Candis]

consents to a longer extension.” In the first continuance order extending the suspension of

visitation until April 7, 2021, the court found that Candis requested a continuance to obtain

new counsel and granted the request for this reason, noting that the suspension would

17
remain in effect until a hearing took place. It is well settled under the doctrine of invited

error that an appellant may not complain on appeal that the circuit court erred if the

appellant induced, consented to, or acquiesced in that action. See Hopper v. Hopper, 2023

Ark. App. 504, at 7, 678 S.W.3d 602, 607. Because Candis requested this continuance, she

cannot argue on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting it.

Candis also contends that she “did not consent to a longer extension”; however, not

only did she fail to object to any continuance the court granted, but also, she requested all

the continuances in the record except the final continuance, which Brett requested to obtain

Delgado as a witness. Notably, by the end of that hearing, Candis agreed to that continuance

because she wanted to cross-examine Delgado. As we discussed above, her argument raises

the invited-error doctrine. In the order denying her petition to modify custody, the court

found that Candis had been the cause of the delays, and she could have asked for a hearing

on the matter at any time; thus, she cannot argue on appeal that the court’s decision to grant

her continuances constitutes error. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.

Dodd, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan, by: Catherine A. Ryan, for appellant.

Tim Cullen, for appellee.

18