## Facts

- John Moix (father) and Libby Moix (mother) divorced in 2004; the decree incorporated an agreement giving joint custody of three sons, with the mother as primary custodian and the father receiving reasonable visitation.
- The agreement included an overnight-guest restriction stating that neither party would have overnight guests of the opposite sex.
- In 2005, after the mother sought modification based on concerns about the father’s relationship with a male companion and alleged volatility, the parties entered an agreed modification: the mother received custody of the youngest child, R.M., and the father’s visitation was limited and did not include overnight visitation.
- In 2010, when R.M. was twelve, the father moved to modify visitation to add expanded and overnight visitation.
- The circuit court found a material change in circumstances and found it was in R.M.’s best interest to have more time with his father.
- The circuit court expanded visitation but imposed a non-cohabitation/overnight-guest restriction barring the father’s long-term same-sex partner from being present during any overnight visitation with R.M.
- The record contained no evidence that the partner had harmed R.M. or that the partner’s overnight presence would be detrimental to the child.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erred by imposing a blanket non-cohabitation/overnight-guest restriction during the father’s overnight visitation without specific findings that the restriction served the child’s best interest.
2. Whether, in the absence of evidence of harm tied to the partner’s presence, a non-cohabitation restriction may be imposed as an automatic condition of visitation.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the visitation order.
- The court held the circuit court erred by imposing the non-cohabitation restriction without making a specific finding that the restriction itself was in the child’s best interest.
- The court emphasized that the restriction lacked evidentiary support showing harm or detriment to R.M. from the partner’s overnight presence.
- The court declined to announce a categorical rule invalidating all non-cohabitation provisions and resolved the case on best-interest grounds rather than reaching broad constitutional rulings.
- On remand, the circuit court was directed to reconsider whether any such restriction is justified by case-specific evidence and findings tied to R.M.’s welfare.

## Legal Principles

- In custody and visitation disputes, the controlling consideration is the child’s best interest.
- Visitation conditions that affect a parent’s living arrangements must be supported by individualized, evidence-based findings that the condition serves the child’s best interest.
- Non-cohabitation or overnight-guest restrictions are not automatic rules; they require a case-specific justification rather than reliance on generalized assumptions or moral disapproval.
- Appellate review may resolve disputes on best-interest and evidentiary grounds without deciding broader constitutional claims when unnecessary to the disposition.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court required that any non-cohabitation restriction imposed on overnight visitation be justified by specific, child-focused best-interest findings supported by the record, and it reversed a restriction imposed without such findings where no evidence showed harm from the parent’s partner’s presence.


Moix v. Moix, 430 S.W.3d 680 (Ark. 2013)