## Facts

- James R. Baber (father) and Pamela P. Baber (mother) divorced under a decree incorporating a settlement agreement providing joint legal custody, primary physical custody to the mother, visitation to the father, and child-support obligations.
- After the decree, the mother moved to modify visitation, alleging the father tested positive for THC, consumed alcohol during visitation contrary to the parties’ agreement, and had a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
- The mother suspended visitation based on these concerns.
- The father opposed visitation modification, denied endangerment, and stated he intended to continue drinking alcohol.
- The father separately moved to reduce child support, asserting changed financial circumstances.
- The circuit court found a material change in circumstances, restricted the father’s visitation, denied the request to reduce child support, and awarded the mother attorney’s fees.
- The father appealed the visitation restriction, the denial of child-support modification, and the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in finding a material change in circumstances and restricting the father’s visitation based on the children’s best interests.
2. Whether the circuit court erred in denying the father’s motion to reduce child support for failure to prove a material change in financial circumstances.
3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding the mother attorney’s fees in post-decree domestic-relations litigation.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the order in full.
- The court upheld the finding of a material change in circumstances and concluded the visitation restrictions were within the circuit court’s discretion.
- The court affirmed denial of the requested child-support reduction because the father did not carry his burden to prove a material financial change.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award as a proper exercise of the circuit court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Visitation may be modified only upon a showing of a material change in circumstances since the prior order, with the controlling consideration being the child’s best interests.
- Whether sufficient changed circumstances exist to modify visitation is a fact question; appellate review is de novo, but factual findings are not reversed unless clearly erroneous, with special deference to the circuit court’s credibility determinations.
- The party seeking modification of child support bears the burden to prove a material change in financial circumstances; the circuit court has discretion to weigh financial evidence and credibility, reviewed for clear error.
- In domestic-relations cases, attorney’s fees awards are committed to the circuit court’s sound discretion and are reversed only for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that evidence of a positive THC test, alcohol use during visitation contrary to the parties’ agreement, and the father’s stated intent to continue drinking supported a factual finding of material change justifying visitation restrictions, and it also upheld the circuit court’s denial of a child-support reduction and award of attorney’s fees.


Baber v. Baber, 378 S.W.3d 699 (Ark. 2011)