Donald Fondren v. Adrienne Fondren

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 64
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-23-738

Opinion Delivered February 4, 2026
DONALD FONDREN
APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 58DR-22-71]
V.

HONORABLE GORDON W. “MACK”
ADRIENNE FONDREN MCCAIN, JR., JUDGE
APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AFFIRMED ON DIRECT APPEAL;
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN
PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART ON
CROSS-APPEAL

CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge

Appellant/cross-appellee Donald Fondren appeals the Pope County Circuit Court’s

divorce decree in which it awarded appellee/cross-appellant Adrienne Fondren physical and

legal custody of the couple’s one child, MC, born December 28, 2016, and awarded Donald

supervised visitation. Adrienne cross-appeals, arguing that the circuit court erred in ordering

that Donald’s visitation would become unsupervised upon his providing his counselor with

his psychological evaluation and completing twelve one-hour counseling sessions. Adrienne

also argues on cross-appeal that the circuit court erred in prohibiting either party from having

overnight guests with whom they are romantically involved when MC is present and in

ordering that MC shall remain in the Dover School District. We affirm on direct appeal

and affirm in part and reverse and remand in part on cross-appeal.
Adrienne filed a complaint for divorce on February 11, 2022, and alleged that she

was the proper parent to have sole legal and physical custody of MC. Donald filed a

counterclaim for divorce on February 17 seeking joint custody of MC. The case proceeded

to trial via Zoom on May 2, 2023.

Sherry Bowley, who had been MC’s counselor and play therapist since August 2022,

testified that MC was in counseling because he “had witnessed a lot of things happen in his

family” and was having some problems, such as anxiety and unusual fears. MC also was

experiencing sleep difficulties. Bowley initially diagnosed MC with posttraumatic stress

disorder but later changed that diagnosis to adjustment disorder and mixed disturbance of

emotions and conduct. According to Bowley, MC has a lot of anxiety associated with his

parents. He is a people pleaser and wants to make everyone happy. As a result, he has

become dysregulated. He has difficulty paying attention, especially when the conversation is

about his parents. MC also chews on the pads of his fingers.

Bowley testified that any time she mentioned “Mom, Dad, and anything that goes

with his relationship, anything that goes with visitation, especially visitation, whether or not

it’s supervised, he becomes very dysregulated.” At one time, MC told Bowley that he needed

to have supervised visits with his dad. MC did not mention any issues with his mother’s

household to Bowley. MC told Bowley that he is the only one in his family whom his father

likes. Donald tells MC that his mother’s family are liars; initially, MC responded that they

are not liars, but Donald got upset, so MC began responding yes to avoid making Donald

mad. MC told Bowley that his dad “talks bad” about his mom during visitation and during

2
telephone calls. MC also expressed to Bowley that his dad tells him to lie and say that his

visits are supervised even when they are not directly supervised. MC becomes visibly

distressed when discussing these issues with Bowley. In addition to emotional distress, MC

experiences physical symptoms, such as stomach aches, due to increases in his anxiety when

trying to avoid conflict.

Bowley testified about concerns she has with Donald’s parenting. She said that

Donald speaks negatively about Adrienne, which hurts MC; Donald tells MC to say the visits

are supervised even if they are not directly supervised; and Donald demands MC’s full

attention when he calls, even if MC is otherwise occupied. Hearing his father criticize his

family and his mother is damaging to MC, but Bowley did not think it amounted to

emotional abuse. Bowley continues to see MC on a weekly basis. Bowley did not think that

Donald is a danger to MC.

Adrienne’s mother, Vickie Hull, testified that Adrienne was a stay-at-home mom and

was MC’s caregiver, while Donald was frequently absent. Vickie described Adrienne’s

parenting as “just the best as could be” and testified that MC was happy and “just a good

child” when he was with his mother. Vickie had seen Donald being “very gruff” and “mean”

to Adrienne’s minor son from a previous relationship. Donald would humiliate and

“belittle” the child in front of other children, including MC. Vickie told of an instance

when Adrienne had called her crying and said she was afraid. When Vickie arrived at

Adrienne’s house, she saw a hole in the door, overturned plants, and broken items. The

children who were present, including MC, were “all upset.” After Adrienne’s and Donald’s

3
separation, Donald continued to return under the guise of retrieving his property after Vickie

thought he had all his property. Vickie and her husband were so concerned about Donald’s

aggressive behavior that they asked law enforcement to be present when Donald returned.

Vickie testified that when MC returns from visits with Donald, he is “kinda agitated,”

and it takes a while “to get him to calm back down.” She described MC as being “real moody

for a while” and “just really grouchy for a long time and he doesn’t want anybody to really

talk to him.”

Vickie testified that “it’s obvious that [Donald] has some problems with his mental

health.” Vicki described the frequent texts that Donald sends Adrienne as “controlling and

obsessive and scary.” When Vickie and her husband and two of their grandchildren crossed

paths with Donald at Walmart, Donald exited the parking lot behind them, pulled up next

to their car, and pointed at them while mouthing something they could not understand.

Vickie testified that it scared them and the children.

Paul Hull, Vickie’s husband and Adrienne’s father, testified that Adrienne and MC

appear to have a good relationship. Paul testified that his biggest concern with Donald was

his anger and his temper. He stated, “I mean, he would blow up at times on them. But, I

mean when you’d see him do that you’d just see the fear that goes over everybody.” Paul

described Donald as very aggressive and that “he’s always having you believe that he is the

type of person that, uh, that he is very dangerous, that he, if you crossed him he would, he

would hurt you.” Paul testified that he knew Donald loves MC, but “he needs some help”

with controlling his anger. Paul had tried to prevent Donald from coming on his property

4
because Donald had torn up personal property at times, including pulling the wiring out of

Adrienne’s truck, and Paul wanted Adrienne to feel safe.

Donald testified that he voluntarily moved out of Adrienne’s house and left MC with

Adrienne. Donald owns a dump truck and works at Blackstone Construction. At the time

of the hearing, he was working nights but was planning on returning to the day shift in a

month. Donald testified that he was requesting joint custody and was hoping for a week on,

week off schedule. At the time of the hearing, Donald had supervised visitation once a week

and did not keep MC overnight. Donald agrees with the counselor that MC has adjustment

disorder and that stability and continuity are important for MC. Donald thought MC was

doing well in school, but he did not reach out to the school because he thought he was not

allowed to do so. Donald testified that he asks Adrienne about MC’s progress at school but

that Adrienne will not talk to him about it. When asked if Adrienne would not talk to him

because he had made threats, he answered, “On her? Not really.” Donald acknowledged that

Adrienne had texted him photos of MC’s school project and of MC riding a stick horse in a

little rodeo. Adrienne had also texted Donald after a storm to let him know MC was okay.

Donald also acknowledged that Adrienne would text him when MC was sick but stated that

she did not keep him informed consistently.

As to his mental health, Donald testified that he had not been officially diagnosed

but that one of his counselors thought that he might have PTSD, and his counselors also

had opined that he has anxiety and depression. Donald had undergone a psychological

evaluation, which contained a history of abuse by his father when Donald was approximately

5
sixteen or seventeen years old. Some of Donald’s siblings had accused their father of sexual

abuse. Donald had experimented with drugs when he was younger and was treated for

alcohol abuse. Donald testified, though, that he is not an alcoholic.

The psychological evaluation noted that Donald has a history of self-medication and

that there were multiple indications of chaotic interpersonal relationships and suicidal

comments. Donald initially denied that he made suicidal comments but eventually clarified

that he never actually made a plan to commit suicide. The “Impressions” section of the

evaluation stated that Donald

has a chronic history of chaotic, impulsive, aggressive, substance abuse filled
behaviors that have been reflected in multiple short termed marriages or
intimate relationships as well as multiple law violations. To his credit he has
demonstrated an attempt to manage these behaviors via mental health therapy
and discontinuing excessive alcohol usage.

The report also stated that there was “not presently an indication of him being a

danger to himself or others but the prognosis for increased emotional stability is guarded

and contingent on continued use of mental health resources and avoidance of alcohol

usage.” Donald’s diagnosis was “other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder,”

“alcohol use disorder – sustained remission,” and “other specified personality disorder –

with antisocial traits.” The recommendation stated:

It is strongly recommended that he continue in mental health treatment with
Lena Handcock, LPC at Chenal Family Therapy. The therapy should have an
emphasis on trauma and its effect on present functioning. The use of alcohol
should be monitored closely as a feature of the work with the therapist.

6
Donald testified that he still drinks beer occasionally and did not “see a thing wrong with

[his] drinking a couple of beers.” However, he went on to testify that if necessary for him to

gain back his child he would “never touch it again.”

When asked if he had informed his current counselor that he had undergone a

psychological evaluation, Donald testified that he had informed him before the evaluation

and then after he received the results. When asked, “Do you recall testifying in your

deposition you did not inform him you had taken a psychological evaluation?” Donald

answered, “It was either him or Family Chenal.” Donald testified that he did not recall

testifying in his deposition that he did not tell his counselor about the evaluation. When

asked whether he had informed his counselor that the doctor performing his evaluation said

he should avoid alcohol and that avoidance would be part of his therapy, Donald answered,

“Probably, yes. I mean, um, he asks me how much I’ve had to drink every time I go in there.

I can’t remember if I have told him what Doctor Adams had stated or anything.”

Donald’s current counseling notes did not reference alcohol usage. The notes did

reference suicidal ideations, noting suicidal ideation as an area of risk, but went on to state

that the level of risk was low and that Donald stated he would never do that to his children.

Under “Current Mental Status” the report stated “Judgment/Impulse Control: Poor.”

Donald admitted that he had been arrested for domestic abuse against the mother of

one of his older children approximately thirteen or fourteen years earlier and had pleaded

guilty. He also admitted that in approximately 2020 or 2021, he had been arrested for third-

degree battery against the father of Adrienne’s older son, pleaded guilty, and served time.

7
Donald admitted that as recently as thirty to sixty days before the hearing, he returned to

Adrienne’s parents’ farm where Adrienne lived even though Adrienne’s father had told him

not to return. Donald admitted cursing at Adrienne.

Adrienne testified that MC is “very emotionally dysregulated” when he comes back

from visitation with Donald. She described MC as “really stressed, really anxious” on those

occasions and that MC would exhibit “explosive, combative behavior” toward her.

Adrienne testified that she had “come to the realization that [her] husband’s mental

instability is, um, a little more severe that what I had originally thought.” He had talked

about taking his own life and even pulled a gun out and was screaming in a rage while he

was in bed with her. Adrienne believes that Donald is very dishonest with himself and others

as a result of his mental disorders. Adrienne described a time when Donald became enraged

and, in front of MC, pulled out a gun and began ejecting shells from the gun. During this

episode, MC pressed himself tightly against Adrienne and was sobbing and in complete

distress. After that episode, MC began wetting the bed and biting the pads of his fingers.

At least once, MC chewed on his fingers until blood was running down his hand.

At times Donald would tell Adrienne stories about men who had murdered their

wives. On one such occasion, Donald explained in detail how a man working on an oil rig

murdered and dismembered his wife and then folded her up and put her in the shaft of a

drilling rig. Donald went into great detail using his hands to demonstrate. When Adrienne

asked Donald why he was telling her this, he answered that he wanted to know whether she

thought the man should be in a mental institution for the rest of his life or in prison, if he

8
had borderline personality disorder like he had. Donald texted Adrienne various mental

disorders he thought he might have and, at one point, texted her about possibly being demon

possessed.

Adrienne testified that Donald never showed interest in MC’s well-being, never asked

how he was doing, and never asked about his schooling. Adrienne does not think it would

be good for MC for Donald to have unsupervised visitation or to have a fifty-fifty visitation

schedule. Adrienne testified that Donald is the angriest person she had ever met. She has

overheard Donald on the telephone with MC saying things such as “get away from them”

and “tell her to shut the fuck up.” At one point, Adrienne stopped MC’s visitation with

Donald because MC told her the visitation was not always supervised.

Shirley Sims testified on Donald’s behalf. She has known Donald since he was a

child. She was appointed to supervise his visits with MC a few months before the hearing.

Shirley testified that she does not allow Donald to be with MC unsupervised. Shirley

confirmed that Adrienne asked her whether Donald had said to MC that his relationship

with Adrienne was irreparable because Adrienne had a boyfriend. Shirley denied that

Donald had said that to MC but admitted that Donald asked MC whether Adrienne had a

boyfriend and whether Adrienne still wears her wedding ring. Shirley admitted that she let

Donald play basketball outside with MC while she stayed inside, but she had a camera system

so she could watch—but not hear—them from inside. Shirley had never seen Donald angry

or heard him discuss suicide. In her opinion, Donald and MC are crazy about each other.

Shirley was not aware that Donald had previously been arrested for domestic abuse against

9
his prior wife or that he had pled guilty to a battery charge in 2020 or 2021. She testified

that Donald did not discuss his personal married life with her.

Lisa Sims Fondren testified that she supervised Donald’s visitation with MC from

April 2022 until September 2022. She testified that she stopped being the supervisor

because Adrienne said Lisa was not communicating as well as she should. According to Lisa,

she never left Donald and MC unsupervised. Lisa never witnessed Donald exhibit suicidal

or bad behavior. She never saw anything that gave her concern about Donald being with

MC.

Donald’s nineteen-year-old son, Tristan Fondren, testified that he has a good

relationship with his father and with his half brother, MC. According to Tristan, Donald

was never abusive toward him and never went into angry rages. Tristan testified that Donald

never told him he had thoughts of killing anyone. Tristan stayed at Adrienne’s house

frequently while Donald and Adrienne were married and had a good relationship with

Adrienne, although he and Adrienne argued a lot. Tristan admitted being in the car with

his father in the spring of 2023 when Donald had an interaction with law enforcement that

caused Tristan to become scared and want to go home.

At the conclusion of the testimony, the court ruled from the bench:

The majority of the mother’s case rests on the child’s statements as related
through the child’s counselor. The counselor was very clear on two points
regarding the child: One: The child is a people pleaser, wants everyone to like
him. Two: The child changes his story on issues that are essential to the
mother’s assertion that the father is a danger to the child. Three: In addition
to those two factors the child during the time of counseling was six years old
and younger. I believe the counselor was truthful in her testimony, but as to

10
the child’s statements I find that they cannot be relied upon by this court and
are thus accorded no weight.

As to Donald, the court found that he was mostly credible but that he failed to disclose his

psychological-evaluation results to his current counselor, indicating he is not completely

candid with his counselor on all matters that are related to his treatment. The court found

that Donald was truthful about his misunderstanding of the meaning of “suicidal ideation,”

especially considering his admission that he had made comments about suicide. The court

went on to state that it was clear that Donald “has in fact exhibited suicidal ideations in the

past.” The court then addressed Donald’s anger issues:

It is also clear to me that although the father has had a history of anger which
sometimes has led to violence, I do not find he has in any way been violent
with the child and the evidence of physical violence toward the mother is at
best sparse and certainly not supportive of the findings requested by the
mother that the father is a danger to himself and others.

The mother wants this court to find that the mental and emotional
challenges of the father are worse than were found by the psychiatric
examination. This refusal to accept the doctor’s opinion is consistent with the
mother’s overall assessment of the father. She is desperate to paint the father
worse than he is. The mother’s credibility is damaged by the above noted
desire to disregard the diagnosis of the psychiatric report.

The court continued in its assessment of Adrienne:

In addition, the mother plays the victim and is quite good at it. She also plays
good at placing care for the father. She presents the basic caring, giving careful
presentation, wanting to nurture the relationship between the (quote) “child
and her husband.” Her actions evidence otherwise. Also an example of her
lack of veracity is the multiple times that she referred to the child’s “chewing
his fingers off” to emphasize the negative mental impact the father has on the
child. That was her intention. The description by the mother in her testimony
was vivid and convincing that the injuries to the child were severe. However,

11
asked on cross examination if she took the child to the hospital, her response
was a curt “for a Band Aid.”

The court found that Donald and Adrienne have “issues,” and while Donald was addressing

his, he still had a long way to go. Adrienne on the other hand had “made no effort to seek

assistance regarding same.”

The court concluded that given Donald’s issues with depression or anxiety and the

findings of the psychiatric evaluation, joint custody was not in MC’s best interest. It noted

that Donald needed to further address his issues with anger and self-control, but there was

no evidence he had ever been violent with MC. The court then “[set] forth a mechanism by

which the ultimate relationship will be equal time between the parents and the child.” It

ordered Donald to provide his current counselor and any future counselors with the report

of his psychiatric evaluation and continue with counseling at least once a month. The court

then stated:

After the psychiatric evaluation has been provided to the counselor the father
shall attend 12 counseling sessions. I don’t care if it’s every week, there’s going
to be 12 counseling sessions and my idea here is catching up and that
counselor being able to address the concerns that are set out in the psychiatric
evaluation and do so in a manner that actually is relevant to seeing that the
father complies with the recommendations.

....

Once he attends the 12 counseling sessions, once those 12 counseling
sessions have been completed, visitation will no longer be supervised. The
visitation will be modified to every other week or every other weekend. Until
then, just so we are clear, until then it will remain supervised. . . .

When the visitation becomes no longer supervised the holiday
visitation will be standard, but not the summer visitation. I am going to

12
continue to modify that. So standard holidays will apply, but no summer
visitation for the summer of 2023. As to the summer of 2024, assuming
everything continues on, all my prerequisites are met, then the father will have
two one-week periods of visitation during the summer of ’24. Summer ’25,
three one-week periods of visitation. Those are to be separated. . . . The
summer of 2026 will be equally divided between the parties. The summer of
’27 will again be equally divided between the parties and when school begins
in the fall of 2027 the parties shall share equal time, with the mother
remaining as the primary custodian. . . .

The child shall remain in the Dover Public School System.

The court stated it was also putting a “complete moratorium” on Donald’s consuming

alcohol. The court addressed Donald’s four motions to hold Adrienne in contempt, denying

three and granting one due to Adrienne’s failure to provide Donald visitation without

justification. For this infraction, the court sentenced Adrienne to fifteen days in the Pope

County Detention Center but suspended the sentence as long as Adrienne did not violate

any other court orders.

The court gave the parties a break to think about what it had ordered and to ask the

court for clarification on anything that was not clear. The court then clarified that when

Donald is nearing the goal of obtaining twelve hours of counseling, he should notify

Adrienne in writing of the anticipated date of his final counseling session, and then the

parties should work together to begin the unsupervised visitation on an agreed date certain.

Adrienne’s attorney asked the court to reconsider finding Adrienne in contempt and

imposing a suspended sentence of fifteen days’ incarceration, which the court denied.

13
The court’s bench ruling was memorialized in the divorce decree, which Adrienne’s

attorney drafted, and was filed June 12, 2023. Donald timely appealed, and Adrienne timely

cross-appeal followed.

I. Direct Appeal

Donald’s sole point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his request

for joint custody. His position is that the court, without any evidence, determined that

Donald had not provided his psychological evaluation to his counselor and that this

determination was the basis for the court’s decision.

We review child-custody cases de novo but will not reverse the circuit court’s findings

unless they are clearly erroneous. Inmon v. Davis, 2025 Ark. App. 494, 724 S.W.3d 657. A

finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, after reviewing

the entire evidence, the appellate court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been made. Id. We give due deference to the circuit court’s superior position

to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. Id.

Thus, a circuit court may disregard a witness’s testimony if it finds it not credible. See Oates

v. Oates, 2010 Ark. App. 345, 377 S.W.3d 294.

Joint custody is favored in Arkansas. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Supp.

2025); Tubbs v. Tubbs, 2025 Ark. App. 315, 716 S.W.3d 204. There is a rebuttable

presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child when deciding original

child custody in a divorce action. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(a); Tubbs, supra.

That presumption, however, can be overcome if the court finds by clear and convincing

14
evidence that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-

101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b); Tubbs, supra. The preference for joint custody “does not override the

ultimate guiding principle, which is to set custody that comports with the best interest of the

child.” Tubbs, 2025 Ark. App. 315, at 12, 716 S.W.3d at 212.

In the present case, the circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that

joint custody was not in MC’s best interest. The court specifically found that Donald has

depression and anxiety as well as anger and substance-abuse issues, all of which need to be

addressed in counseling. The court further determined that Donald did not provide the

results of his psychological evaluation to his current counselor. In making this

determination, the court did not find Donald credible when he was questioned about

providing his psychological evaluation results to his counselor. This determination was

within the court’s purview, and this court will not second-guess its judgment.

Because the circuit court’s determination that joint custody is not in MC’s best

interest is supported by the evidence and this court is not left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made, we affirm on direct appeal.

II. Cross Appeal

Adrienne raises three points on cross-appeal: (1) the circuit court erred in setting an

automatic future change to unsupervised visitation upon Donald’s completion of twelve

counseling sessions; (2) the circuit court erred in prohibiting either party from having

unmarried cohabitation with romantic partners in the presence of MC without first

considering whether such prohibition was in MC’s best interest; (3) the circuit court erred

15
in restricting her right to move by ordering that MC would remain in the Dover School

District.

A. Automatic Conversion of Donald’s Visitation

We agree with Adrienne that the circuit court erred when it ordered that Donald’s

visitation would automatically convert to being unsupervised upon his providing his

psychological evaluation to his therapist and completing twelve hours of counseling. The

court also erred in ordering that, assuming he met certain prerequisites, Donald’s parenting

time would increase over time so that in 2027 he would begin sharing equal parenting time

with Adrienne. These provisions run afoul of Arkansas law.

Bell v. Bell, 2022 Ark. App. 279, 646 S.W.3d 678, was an appeal from an order

modifying child custody but the same principles apply in the present case. In Bell, the court

included a springing joint-physical-custody provision in its modification order. The

provision provided that if the father moved within twenty miles of the children’s school,

custody would convert to fifty-fifty, joint-physical and legal custody with the parents

exchanging the children week-on and week-off. In reversing, this court stated:

Arkansas uses a present-based analysis when analyzing custody issues,
and trial courts must examine the changes and best interest of the children
presented as evidence to the court at the time of the final hearing, not changes
that may occur weeks, months, or years down the road… Because the final
order includes the springing provision that would automatically change
primary physical custody upon the happening of a prospective event after the
order of custody is entered, the provision is contrary to Arkansas law.

Id. at 17, 646 S.W.3d at 690 citations omitted. The court concluded on this point:

16
An automatic change of physical custody from Lyndsay to joint physical
custody simply if Zach moves within twenty miles of the children’s school
would remove the trial court from the determination of whether the change
in physical custody is in the children’s best interest at the time it occurs.
Because an automatic change-of-custody provision does not allow the trial
court to determine the children’s best interest at some point in the future
when the provision is triggered, we hold that it is unenforceable; accordingly,
we reverse on this point.

Id. at 18, 646 S.W.3d at 690.

In the present case, the circuit court found that Donald suffered from depression and

anxiety as well as anger and substance-abuse issues, all of which needed to be addressed in

counseling. The court also found that Donald had suicidal ideation. And the psychological

evaluation result reported an alcohol issue and the necessity of treating that as part of

Donald’s overall counseling plan, which the court acknowledged by placing a moratorium

on Donald’s consuming any alcohol.

In spite of these findings, which are supported by the record, the circuit court ordered

that Donald’s visitation with MC would automatically convert from supervised to

unsupervised upon the completion of twelve counseling sessions and then increase

incrementally over the course of a few years until Donald shared equal parenting time with

Adrienne. This action effectively removed the circuit court’s ability to determine whether

the change from supervised to unsupervised visitation and increasing parenting time would

be in MC’s best interest at the time the change occurs. Such a springing provision does not

provide the opportunity for the court to make a present-based analysis of MC’s best interest.

This is not in compliance with Arkansas’s present-based-analysis approach. As in Bell, the

17
circuit court must determine what is in the best interest of MC at the time of the hearing,

not make a determination based on a potential change that may take place weeks, months,

or years down the road.

We also note that the court’s determination that attending twelve one-hour

counseling sessions was sufficient for Donald to begin unsupervised visitation and eventually

achieve equal parenting time is not supported by the record. There was no testimony or

other evidence at the hearing to support the court’s determination that twelve one-hour

counseling sessions would alleviate the court’s concerns with Donald’s behavioral issues.

There was no guidance on what the court expected Donald to accomplish from those

sessions. When Donald’s counsel asked for clarification on Donald’s required twelve sessions

of counseling, the court stated:

It can be 12 sessions day after day. It makes no difference to me. I do
not want to arbitrarily - - I had to come up with an amount of time that I felt
would be sufficient for his counselor, assuming one hour meetings. And I’m
assuming that that’s what they were. But to be able to address the concerns.
He will also be able to address why he didn’t make that available to him. I
think there are several issues here that are important for the counselor to
address and so that’s why I came up with the twelve. But as far as when those
can be done, he can make 12 consecutive appointments, in other words, 12
hours, I think maybe that should be the way I would term that. I want him
spending 12 hours with his counselor after his counselor is advised of that
psychiatric exam so the counselor can assist him in preparing better for where
we are going in the next step.
While the court expressed its desire to not act arbitrarily, that is exactly what it did.

The circuit court’s decision to require Donald simply to attend twelve one-hour counseling

sessions before automatically changing to unsupervised visitation and a graduated increase

18
in parenting time does not provide the court with the opportunity to determine whether the

therapy was effective in alleviating whatever concerns the court had.

The circuit court erred in including a springing provision in its child-custody order

and in its determination that twelve one-hour sessions would be sufficient to enable Donald

to have unsupervised visitation and eventually equal parenting time without further

evaluation of MC’s best interest. Hence, we reverse on this point and remand this case for

the circuit court to act in accordance with this opinion.

B. Prohibition of Overnight Guests

Adrienne asserts that the circuit court erred in ordering that neither party could have

overnight guests to whom they were not married but with whom they were romantically

involved in the presence of MC without considering MC’s best interest. We decline to reach

the merits of this argument.

Adrienne’s attorney drafted the divorce decree, which included by reference and

attached as an exhibit the “Proposed Guidelines for the Fifth Judicial District Child

Visitation and Related Matters” (the Guidelines). The Guidelines contain a provision

prohibiting overnight guests with whom the parent is romantically involved when the minor

child is present. Adrienne’s drafting the decree and including the Guidelines is tantamount

to invited error, and it is well settled under the invited-error doctrine that an appellant may

not complain on appeal that the circuit court erred if the appellant induced, consented to,

or acquiesced in the court’s action. Hamaker v. Hamaker, 2025 Ark. App. 156, 708 S.W.3d

839; Shrable v. Shrable, 2025 Ark. App. 454, 724 S.W.3d 605. “An appellant may not

19
complain on appeal that the court erred if he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in the

court’s position.” Rothwell v. Rothwell, 2025 Ark. App. 613, 25, __ S.W.3d __.

C. Requiring Adrienne to Keep MC in the Dover School District

Adrienne contends that the circuit court erred in ordering her to keep MC in the

Dover School District. We agree.

Arkansas recognizes a presumption in favor of relocation for custodial parents with

primary custody. Shell v. Twitty, 2020 Ark. App. 459, 608 S.W.3d 926; Ingle v. Dacus, 2020

Ark. App. 490, 611 S.W.3d 714. Further, “it is a matter within the custodial parent’s right

to send or to continue to send his child to any particular school.” Hyden v. Hyden, 85 Ark.

App. 132, 141–42, 148 S.W.3d 748, 754 (2004).

Since it is the custodial parent’s right to choose the school for the minor child, and

we have recognized a presumption in favor of the ability to relocate, the circuit court erred

in issuing a blanket order that MC would remain in the Dover School District. Therefore,

we must reverse on this point.

We reverse and remand the decree for proceedings consistent with this opinion as it

pertains to Donald’s visitation and parenting time. Likewise, we reverse and remand the

court’s decree for proceedings consistent with this opinion as it pertains to the order

requiring MC to remain in the Dover School District. We affirm the decree as it pertains

to the provision that the parents will not have overnight guests with whom they are

romantically involved while MC is present.

20
Affirmed on direct appeal; reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part on

cross-appeal.

HARRISON and THYER, JJ., agree.

Lisa Norris, for appellant.

Weimar Law Office, by: DeeAnna Weimar, for appellee.

21