 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chambers v. Chambers6/21/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
David Chambers has appealed the decision by the Chancery Court of Bradley County, Arkansas, that dismissed his petition for visitation of his daughter, Alexee Chambers, upon a finding that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of change of circumstances. Appellant argues on appeal that he established change of circumstances through evidence of "parental alienation syndrome" which, in the opinion of his expert witness, justified entry of an order compelling Alexee to have visitation with appellant. Appellant also challenges the chancellor's denial of his request to terminate child support in view of the decision to deny forced visitation. We affirm the chancellor's decision in both respects.
Appellant is a medical doctor who was married to appellee until they were divorced on April 18, 1994. Both parties have since remarried. The parties are parents to five children, but this appeal pertains only to their youngest daughter, Alexee. The chancery court initially ordered the parties and their minor children to undergo therapy before the divorce decree was entered, and Dr. Patrick Stern was designated to provide therapy to the family in March 1994. Dr. Stern eventually concluded that the relationship between appellant and his children had deteriorated to such an extent that visitation with the minor children posed the risk of emotional harm to the children. After appellant sued Dr. Stern alleging medical malpractice arising from Dr. Stern's therapy and opinions, Dr. Stern withdrew from providing further therapy to the family and the chancellor ruled on November 20, 1995, that a new therapist be appointed. Accordingly, Dr. William Peel of El Dorado was appointed to provide therapy to the parties, and began doing so on January 26, 1996. Dr. Peel issued a report to the chancellor (the Honorable Jerry Mazzanti) on March 11, 1996, recommending that the court not force the minor children to visit appellant due to Dr. Peel's concern about the children's emotional state. Judge Mazzanti denied appellant's petition for visitation on December 4, 1996, based on Dr. Peel's opinion and report. He then recused on December 11, 1996, and Judge Robert Garrett was assigned to the case on January 13, 1997.
Appellant filed another petition for visitation on August 27, 1998. Appellee responded by filing a motion to dismiss and an answer in which she alleged that appellant had not alleged any material change of circumstances warranting modification of the previous visitation order. Judge Garrett held a hearing on the petition for visitation on January 29, 1999. After appellant rested his case, appellee moved for a directed verdict and argued that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a material change of circumstances had occurred to warrant changing the previous visitation order. Appellee also argued that it was not in the best interest of Alexee Chambers for the chancellor to order "forced visitation" with appellant. Judge Garrett granted the motion for directed verdict. Appellant then moved for termination of his obligation to pay child support . Judge Garrett denied his motion, and this appeal followed.
Chancery cases are tried de novo on appeal. Hollinger v. Hollinger, 65 Ark. App. 110, 986 S.W.2d 105 (1999). The findings by a chancellor will not be disturbed unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Stone v. Steed, 54 Ark. App. 11, 923 S.W.2d 282 (1996). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Fonken v. Fonken, 334 Ark. 637, 976 S.W.2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|