# Drewry v. Drewry

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · October 21, 1981 · 3 Ark. App. 97

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684570

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda DREWRY v. Benny DREWRY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 21, 1981
- **Citations:** 3 Ark. App. 97; 622 S.W.2d 206; 1981 Ark. App. LEXIS 775
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cooper
- **Judges:** Glaze, Mayfield, Cracraft, Cooper
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684570

## Opinion text

James R. Cooper, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully disagree with the result reached by the majority in this case for two reasons. First, split custody of children between divorced parents has not been favored by our Courts. Childers v. O’Neal, 251 Ark. 1097 , 476 S.W. 2d 799 (1972). Secondly, the evidence in this case is certainly sufficient to support a finding that it would be in the best interest of the child for custody to be placed with either parent as the trial court found both parents to be highly moral and fit persons. My problem with the result reached here and the result reached by the trial court is that I believe the trial court should have gone one step farther and addressed the issue of whether the split custody was actually in the best interest of the child. The fact that both parents may be equally qualified to raise the child does not necessarily result in a finding that the child’s interest would be best served by living six months out of each year with each parent. The record includes a report from a doctor who had been treating the child in question during a period in which custody was divided equally on a weekly basis and that report indicated that such a custodial arrangement was believed by the doctor to be very harmful to the child. I find nothing in the record which indicates such a finding would not be equally true as to division on a six month basis. A report apparently was filed with the trial court by the social services department which the court referred to. The court indicated that the report “found there was no social reason that a divided custody of this minor child would be contrary to his best benefit and welfare,, but the report is not a part of this record, and we have no idea of the qualifications of the person who filed that report nor of the factors considered by the person making the report. Although the parties are certainly free to petition the court for a change in custody and submit evidence as to the effect this divided custody has had on the child, I am of the opinion that such evidence should have been presented to the trial court prior to a decision splitting custody. For these reasons I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9684570. Public record. Not legal advice.