The opinion
Josephine Linker Hart, Judge, dissenting. I agree with J Judge Baker that this case should be reversed; however, my disagreement is not based on the change-of-circumstances issue. Here, the appellant has introduced another adult into her home, and, whether by benefit of clergy or not, that should always be a consideration in the determination of whether a material change of circumstances has occurred since the entry of the prior order. Where I see the problem in this case is that the trial court apparendy ignored the fact that under Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 470 , 109 S.W.3d 653 (2003), the supreme court announced a presumption in favor of relocation for custodial parents with primary custody.
Here, there were no findings that the non-custodial father had overcome the presumption in favor of moving, and I submit that no such findings could issue from this record. The order instead only criticizes appellant’s lifestyle (cohabitation) and “instability.” As far as cohabitation is concerned, I cannot see that either party has staked a claim to the moral high ground — the record reflects that the appellee arranged to marry his paramour when she was three months’ pregnant. Regarding appellant’s so-called “instability,” appellant’s recent marriage cannot possibly be characterized as anything other than an effort to make her life more stable.
No doubt the trial judge was personally offended by appellant’s conduct. We should not similarly indulge ourselves. Here the trial judge blatantly circumvented our supreme court’s clear direction in Hollandsworth, and we let that decision stand.
I respectfully dissent.