Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 454 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-24-641
CANDIS SHRABLE (NOW MORGAN) Opinion Delivered October 1, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JDR-18-730] BRETT SHRABLE APPELLEE HONORABLE SCOTT A. ELLINGTON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Candis Shrable appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s denial of her petition
to modify custody and the decision to suspend her visitation. We affirm.
I. Relevant Facts
Brett and Candis were married in 2008 and have two children, MC1 (born in 2012)
and MC2 (born in 2014). On October 18, 2018, Brett filed an amended complaint for
divorce, and Candis counterclaimed for divorce. On October 26, the court entered a
temporary order awarding Candis primary custody with standard visitation to Brett. The
temporary order set forth the parties’ duties regarding the children’s care during the pending
divorce and also provided how some of the parties’ personal property was to be divided. While the divorce was pending, Brett filed several motions for contempt based on
Candis’s refusal to allow him to take possession of his personal property, including the title
to his car; failure to pay his attorney’s fees as ordered; refusal to allow him to sell the property
that the court ordered to be sold; failure to take the children to their yearly physicals; and
failure to comply with the court order to verify her claim that she was pregnant.
On January 16, 2020, the circuit court entered the divorce decree awarding primary
custody to Brett. The court considered Brett’s ability to care for and nurture the children
and found that the best interest of the children “weighs heavily in favor of being placed in
the legal custody of [Brett].” The court found that Candis lacked credibility. Specifically, the
court cited her history of issues related to Brett’s personal property, her false allegations to
Brett’s friends and employer that he had engaged in misconduct, her lack of concern for his
career, and the harm her allegations caused others. The court set forth coparenting terms,
which included not disparaging each other, mistreating each other, or discussing the divorce
with the children; allowing the children access to telephone conversations with the
noncustodial parent; allowing the other parent the right of first refusal regarding babysitting;
cooperating with each other to give extra time with the children; refraining from disrupting
the other parent’s time with the children; and generally keeping the children out of the
decision-making process regarding visitation and custody. Candis was ordered to pay $267
in child support every two weeks, and Brett was to keep the children on his insurance. The
parents were ordered to equally divide any medical bills.
2 On March 3, 2020, Brett filed a motion for contempt. Brett accused Candis of
continuing to refuse to return his personal property, and he asserted that Candis had been
arrested for driving while intoxicated on February 23, at 2:30 a.m. Brett explained that
Candis was supposed to pick the children up the next morning but canceled because it was
raining and “another event interfered,” which he believed was her arrest. Brett contended
that Candis abused alcohol and drove without current tags, a license, or insurance; however,
despite her actions, she held him responsible for her arrest. Brett stated that Candis had
attempted to “poison the minds of the parties’ children” by telling the children that the
change of custody was temporary, and Brett “should be ashamed of himself for stealing
them.” Since then, she had refused to swap weekends to accommodate his work schedule,
had not offered him babysitting and instead left the children with family members, and had
baselessly requested a welfare check at the children’s grandparents’ home, which upset the
children. Brett requested that the court suspend overnight visitation until Candis submitted
to a psychological evaluation and restrain her from leaving Arkansas with the children. On
October 9, Brett filed an amended petition for contempt, termination or limitation of
visitation, and other relief. In addition to his original claims, Brett explained that Candis
had moved without providing an address and had changed jobs, cutting off his child support.
Candis was in arrears $1,176.64 and owed Brett $1,226.78 in medical expenses.
Candis responded, denying that she had interfered with the distribution of property
and denying that she had not been unable to pick up the children because of “any alleged
traffic violations.” She also explained that she was on medical leave from her job for a heart
3 condition and was not in willful contempt of the order to pay child support or medical bills
because she was unable to earn income.
After a hearing on November 9, the court entered an order finding Candis in
contempt regarding the property-distribution issues and for lack of payment of child support
and payment of half the medical expenses. Candis was ordered to make the appropriate
reimbursements and return Brett’s property.
On February 21, 2021, Brett filed a petition for emergency relief in which he
explained that on February 17, Candis was driving and struck another vehicle; however, she
continued driving, knocked down a mailbox, and drove home. The other driver followed
her and called the Jonesboro police, who arrested Candis at her house. She was charged with
careless and prohibited driving, leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage,
and DWI. Brett noted that this was her second arrest for DWI and asked the court to
suspend visitation until the issue was resolved. He attached the police reports of the most
recent incident and the officer’s report. He also included the “Driver Control Hearing
Summary” from her 2020 offense. The summary showed that Candis had violated Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-65-103,1 and as a result, she was ordered to attend alcohol education and pay a
$150 reinstatement fee; her license was suspended until September 24, 2020; and after that,
an interlock device would be installed on her vehicle.
1 Driving or boating while intoxicated.
4 On February 25, the court entered the order suspending Candis’s visitation, finding
that “the minor children of the parties could be irreparably harmed if the visitation with
[Candis] is not suspended.” The order was set to expire on March 11, the day of the hearing,
“unless the Court, for good cause, extends it for a 14-day period, or [Candis] consents to a
longer extension.” On March 25, the court granted Candis’s request for a continuance to
obtain counsel and set a new hearing date of April 7. The court found that Candis’s visitation
would remain suspended until the hearing took place.
On September 15, 2021, Brett filed a petition to extend suspension of visitation, for
the appointment of an attorney ad litem, and other relief. Brett explained that MC1
expressed to her therapist that she was anxious about visitation with her mother. MC1
reported that Candis had hit her, told her she wished she was not her child, called her bad
names, and accused her of stealing. MC1 claimed that Candis smelled like alcohol and yet
denied drinking, and Candis had men at the home that she was not comfortable around.
Candis responded, denying the allegations.
A hearing was held on September 27, at which the court addressed Brett’s petition to
extend the suspension of visitation, request for the appointment of an attorney ad litem,
motion to compel discovery, and motion for additional child support and medical-bill
arrearages. Candis had hired an attorney that morning and requested that the court stay all
motions except the petition to extend the suspension of her visitation. Brett objected,
explaining that after the court granted the last motion for a continuance, the court had told
Candis to inform the court when she obtained a new attorney, and a new hearing date would
5 be set. Brett explained that this was the first he had heard about Candis’s new attorney. He
explained that he brought MC1’s counselor’s report to court that morning but had not
scheduled the counselor to be there for the hearing. He stated that he would have done so
had he known that Candis had a new attorney and was ready to proceed. Candis refused to
allow the counselor’s report to come in because she wanted to cross-examine the counselor.
The court continued the case and determined that Candis could have supervised visitation
at Brett’s discretion.
The same day, after the hearing, Candis filed a motion responding to Brett’s petition
to suspend visitation, asking the court to dismiss the petition.
From October 2021 to September 2023, Candis’s visitation remained suspended. On
September 29, 2023, Candis filed a petition to modify custody and other relief in which
Candis alleged that a material change in circumstances had occurred. Namely, Brett had
moved with the children to Mountain Home, making visitation more difficult. Also, Candis
accused Brett of alienating the children from her by speaking negatively about her to the
children, and consequently, the children began reacting negatively to her, even hanging up
on her during phone conversations. Brett refused to allow significant contact with the
children and refused to respond to her texts requesting to speak with them. Brett refused to
send photos, and if he posted photos on Facebook, he prevented her from printing them by
adding a watermark bearing his and his new wife’s name. Candis accused Brett of having
been angry and rageful at games he coaches to the point that parents were complaining.
6 Candis contended that she lived in a stable home and was remarried with a new baby and
wanted MC1 and MC2 to know their sibling.
Brett responded, reserving the right to plead further after investigation of Candis’s
attempt to slander him. Specifically, Brett alleged that Candis had interfered with his
employment by contacting his employer and making false allegations about him.
At the hearing on March 28, 2024, the court heard evidence and testimony regarding
the previous motion and petitions, including Candis’s motion to modify custody and Brett’s
request for continued suspension of visitation. Brett testified that since the suspension of
Candis’s visitation three years earlier, she had come to eat a meal with the children twice,
and she attended one of MC2’s football games, three of MC1’s volleyball games, and three
of MC1’s basketball games. He explained that he had offered Candis visitation during the
holidays and other times, but most of the time she did not take him up on his offer. Brett
testified that MC1 had been in counseling since 2021, which had helped with her anxiety
regarding her mother, but she still “gets some pretty bad peak anxiety whenever she thinks
things are gonna change.” Brett testified that Candis chose to communicate on Friday nights,
when she knew he was coaching a football game. She left voicemails demanding to talk to
the children at that moment, knowing that he was unavailable. The children communicated
through his cell phone because he blocked Candis from their phones after an incident in
October 2021 during which Candis “badgered” MC1 by calling her names until she broke
down and cried. Consequently, MC1 did not want Candis to have access to her by phone.
Brett explained that MC1 is Candis’s “blame person,” and Candis will not take responsibility
7 for her own mistakes and situation. Brett stated that Candis gets to talk to the kids on his
phone eight times out of ten, and if she calls at a bad time, he has them call her back. Most
of the time, he has to force them to talk to her, and when they are on the phone, Candis
disparages him and his new wife, Kendra. Sometimes the kids hang up on her, and Brett
explained, “I guess you can only tell someone bye so many times before you eventually hang
the phone up.” Brett testified that since the blocking incident, he recorded their
conversations despite the divorce decree order that no phone calls be recorded. Brett claimed
he was not aware of that provision. He testified that the children had been enrolled in
Mountain Home School District for almost four years, since June 2020, and were getting
straight As. He took Candis’s name off the children’s school paperwork when her visitation
was suspended. Brett testified that sometimes he gave Candis the children’s sports schedules,
and sometimes he did not. Additionally, Brett testified that Candis had made allegations to
the Mountain Home School District administration attempting to destroy his career, and he
was interviewed by the school district regarding those allegations. The school district did not
make any true findings against him.
MC1’s therapist, Lynn Delgado, testified that when she first started seeing MC1 in
July 2021, she “presented extremely anxious with low self-esteem and had difficulty
expressing fears regarding visitation with her mother.” MC1 attended therapy on an on-and-
off basis until January 2023 because she was anxious about Candis coming to her school
events and being “really persistent and asking questions from the people that she was
engaging with; her friends, taking pictures of them.” MC1’s friends were uncomfortable
8 around Candis, and Delgado considered Candis’s picture-taking and asking for information
from friends to be a form of stalking. MC1 told Delgado that her mother had hit her, called
her bad names, told her that she wished she was not her daughter, and blamed her for things
that were not her responsibility. Candis had pointed a gun at her own head and told MC1
that she would harm herself and blame MC1 for it. Candis disparaged her new clothes and
did not like that she was bonding with her stepmother by cooking, shopping, and using make
up. MC1 believed Candis was using the new baby to try to manipulate her to visit. Delgado
testified that in therapy, MC1 had developed healthy boundaries and confidence and had
begun to smile. Delgado did not think it was in MC1’s best interest to resume visitation and
stated that MC1 did not want to live with her mother.
Candis testified that she did not remember much about the allegations she made
against Brett regarding misconduct related to his job. She denied trying to get him fired or
hurt his reputation and claimed that she went to the school district only to discuss “things
that I was made aware of for the concern of my children as well as others.” She agreed with
the court’s decision finding her allegations to be unfounded and outrageous, but “the whole
situation, I guess, is different. What was kind of discussed that day is different than the
situation that was going on currently.” Candis agreed that she had not paid child support as
ordered, explaining that she had not been employed due to a heart condition, and she had
chosen to stay home with her new baby. Candis explained that she tried to attend the
children’s sporting events, but Brett had not consistently given her the schedules. Eventually
she joined an online group that listed the football schedule. Candis testified, “I think ever
9 since custody has changed they’ve had to seek counseling, their relationships have went
downhill. We went from co-parenting to no co-parenting.” She did not believe she was
responsible for her estrangement from her children: “I feel like actions that I have taken in
the past is the reason I’m not—they’re not present with me. But their behavior, I don’t feel
like is my fault.” The driver control hearing summary from Candis’s second uncontested
DWI was admitted into evidence and showed that her license was suspended for two years,
from March 2021 to March 2023, and after the suspension, an interlock device would be
put in place. Candis testified that she did not believe the DWIs should have had any effect
on her visitation. Candis denied ever putting a gun to her head and accused Brett of
drunkenly putting a gun to his head in front of the children a few months before they
separated. Regarding phone contact, she stated that the kids hang up on her, and it had been
hard to contact MC1 since she had been blocked. She denied knowing that Brett coaches
on Friday nights. She testified that when she talked with the kids, she could hear Brett yelling
in the background during phone calls, calling her an idiot and worthless, and making
remarks about child support. She testified that she believed Brett was trying to make his new
wife their children’s mother. She accused Brett of being emotionally abusive, encouraging
the kids to be bullies on the playing field, and commenting on MC1’s weight and eating.
She recalled a time at a volleyball game when Brett told her to stop talking to MC2 and that
he would come see her later, and she had noticed that the children looked to him before
they answered her questions.
10 On May 31, 2024, the court entered the order denying Candis’s petition to modify
custody, determining that it was not in the children’s best interest to order joint custody
because she and Brett could not coparent. The court found that the children were thriving
in their father’s custody, and his home was stable. The court found that both parents were
at fault for their inability to coparent, but Candis “bears the much larger share” and refused
to accept any responsibility for the problems she has caused. Brett was ordered to work on
“fulfilling his custodial duty to facilitate a meaningful relationship” between the kids and
Candis, and the court found that the children needed to have a relationship with both
parents. The court determined that the emergency order and the continued suspension of
visitation were justified by the evidence, and Candis was primarily responsible for the delays.
Specifically, the court found that Candis “has been represented by four different good
lawyers during the period of delay, and that she could have obtained a hearing for relief
during that period of delay.” Both parties were ordered to attend six individual counseling
sessions to address coparenting issues, and the court ordered that the suspension of Candis’s
visitation would remain in effect until she had finished individual counseling. The court
determined that after the parties completed individual counseling, family counseling would
begin. The court included “good conduct” provisions in the order regarding telephone
communications; extra time; sharing medical, school, and counseling records; prohibiting
inappropriate conduct; diligent communication regarding scheduling changes; refraining
from involving the children in parenting decisions; and cooperating in fluid parenting
situations.
11 Candis timely filed her notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.2
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing child-custody cases, we consider the evidence de novo but will not reverse
a circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the
preponderance of the evidence. Hewett v. Hewett, 2018 Ark. App. 235, 547 S.W.3d 138. We
give due deference to the superior position of the circuit court to view and judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Id. This deference is even greater in cases involving child custody,
and a heavier burden is placed on the circuit court to utilize to the fullest extent its powers
of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interest of the
children. Id.
B. Points on Appeal
1. Candis’s petition to modify custody
For her first point on appeal, Candis argues that the circuit court clearly erred when,
in denying her petition to modify custody, it failed to make any findings regarding the best
interest of the children or whether a material change of circumstance occurred. Her
argument is not well taken.
To modify a custody decree, the circuit court must apply a two-step process: first, the
court must determine whether a material change in circumstances has occurred since the
2 After the notice of appeal was filed, Brett filed a petition to delay Candis’s visitation, which the court did not address and is not relevant to this appeal.
12 divorce decree was entered; second, if the court finds that there has been a material change
in circumstances, the court must determine whether a change of custody is in the child’s best
interest. Shell v. Twitty, 2020 Ark. App. 459, 608 S.W.3d 926. Candis’s argument fails,
because in denying her petition to modify custody, the court made best interest findings
supporting the decision, including that the children were thriving in Brett’s custody, his
home was stable, and Candis refused to accept responsibility for MC1’s anxiety.
Candis also argues that the circuit court erred by failing to find that Brett’s alienating
behavior constitutes a material change in circumstances warranting a change of custody, and
the court erred in denying her petition for primary custody of MC1 and MC2. We disagree.
Generally, courts impose more stringent standards for modifications in custody than
they do for initial determinations of custody. Alphin v. Alphin, 364 Ark. 332, 219 S.W.3d
160 (2005). The party seeking modification has the burden of showing a material change in
circumstances. Id. Factors that are appropriate to consider when determining whether there
has been a material change of circumstances include, but are not limited to, one parent’s
relocation, the passage of time, the remarriage of one or both parents, a strained relationship
between the parent and child, and the preferences of the children. McCoy v. Kincade, 2015
Ark. 389, 473 S.W.3d 8. A change in the circumstances of the noncustodial parent alone is
not sufficient to justify a change of custody. See Fudge v. Dorman, 2017 Ark. App. 181, 516
S.W.3d 306. The crux of these cases is that a child-custody determination is fact specific, and
each case ultimately must rest on its own facts. Redman v. Redman, 2024 Ark. App. 562, at
11, 701 S.W.3d 40, 46; Self v. Dittmer, 2021 Ark. App. 85, at 9, 619 S.W.3d 43, 48.
13 Candis relies on the testimony that Brett engaged in alienating behavior by
monitoring and recording phone conversations, blocking her from the children’s phones,
disallowing contact with her at the children’s sporting events, blocking her from access to
the children’s school and medical records, and moving to Mountain Home.
It is true that failure of communication, increasing parental alienation by a custodial
parent, and inability to cooperate can all constitute a material change in circumstances
sufficient to warrant modification of custody. Montez v. Montez, 2017 Ark. App. 220, 518
S.W.3d 751. However, a finding of parental alienation does not require that the court change
custody to the nonalienating parent. As stated above, other factors may also be considered
by the court, such as a strained relationship between the parent and child, and the
preferences of the children. See McCoy, supra.
To support her argument, Candis cites Turner v. Benson, 59 Ark. App. 108, 953
S.W.2d 596 (1997), in which the circuit court found a material change of circumstances due
to parental alienation. In Turner, the minor child had begun using his stepfather’s surname,
the mother had interfered with the visitation schedule, and she had made derogatory
comments about the father to the children. An expert witness testified that the children had
rejected their father without any show of emotion. The court found that the mother’s years-
long history of alienating the father from his children constituted a material change of
circumstances warranting modification of custody and changed primary custody to the
father. In Turner, this court affirmed the circuit court’s decision because it was supported by
the evidence.
14 Candis’s comparison to Turner is misplaced, because here, as in Turner, the evidence
supports the circuit court’s decision. The court considered testimony from MC1’s therapist
that Candis physically and mentally abused MC1. Brett testified that MC1 did not want to
have visitation with her mother and that Candis refused to accept any responsibility for her
children’s emotional issues. Contrastingly, the court found that Brett had provided a stable
home in which the children had thrived and heard his testimony that he had tried to
facilitate visitation, but Candis declined his offers. Moreover, the court found Candis lacked
credibility by making false allegations against Brett and refusing to accept responsibility for
her part in MC1’s anxiety. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the circuit court,
which observed the witnesses firsthand. Wallis v. Holsing, 2023 Ark. App. 137, at 6, 661
S.W.3d 284, 288. Recognizing the superior position of the circuit court to evaluate the
witnesses and their testimony, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the
circuit court made a mistake in continuing Brett’s primary custody of the children, and as in
Turner, the evidence supports the court’s decision; on this point, we affirm.
2. The court’s coparenting and joint-custody findings
For her next point on appeal, Candis argues that the circuit court erred in
determining that sharing joint custody is inappropriate due to their inability to coparent.
Candis argues that she requested primary custody, and the court’s joint-custody ruling was an
extraneous ruling immaterial to her request such that the court’s finding constitutes
reversible error. We disagree.
15 Here, the circuit court’s findings regarding joint custody and the parents’ inability to
coparent in no way constitute clear error. While joint custody was not suggested by the
parties, the court’s findings regarding the parents’ ability to cooperate are material to the
court’s custody and visitation decision. Indeed, the court made explicit findings that the
children’s best interest would be served by better communication and cooperation from the
parents and couched these findings as coparenting issues. We find no error and affirm.
3. Brett’s emergency petition and the order continuing suspension of visitation
For her last point on appeal, Candis propounds several related arguments regarding
the initial suspension of her visitation and the continued suspension of her visitation. None
have merit.
First, Candis claims that the circuit court erroneously based the suspension of her
visitation on hearsay evidence—namely, the police report regarding her second DWI arrest.
Her argument is not preserved for appeal. Candis did not timely raise a hearsay objection to
the petition for suspension of visitation. An issue must be presented to the circuit court at
the earliest opportunity to preserve it for appeal. Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d
232 (2007). Candis’s first opportunity to object to the basis for the petition was before or
when she filed her first motion for a continuance. In her motion, she asked for more time
to hire a new attorney, but she failed to object to the basis of the petition. Candis requested
and was granted several more continuances over the next few years, never once objecting to
the basis of the original petition. For the first time, at the September 27, 2021 hearing, her
newly hired counsel stated that the petition was based on hearsay; however, the opportunity
16 to object had passed, and additionally, counsel did not obtain a ruling on the issue. When
an appellant fails to obtain a specific ruling below, we do not consider that point on appeal.
Eversole v. Eversole, 2015 Ark. App. 645, at 11, 476 S.W.3d 199, 205. Because Candis’s
argument regarding the basis of the petition is unpreserved, we cannot reach the merit of
this argument.
Candis also asserts that there was no hearing regarding the suspension of her
visitation until 2024, and because there was no hearing, the circuit court never made the
required finding that “parenting time between the parent and the child would seriously
endanger the physical, mental, or emotional health of the child[.]” See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-
13-101(b)(1)(A)(vii)(a) (Supp. 2023). She is wrong. In the initial February 25, 2021 order
suspending Candis’s visitation, the circuit court specifically found that “the minor children
of the parties could be irreparably harmed if the visitation with [Candis] is not suspended.”
We now address Candis’s arguments regarding the delay in setting a hearing date.
Candis asserts that pursuant to the language of the February 25 order, the circuit court was
required to find good cause for granting the first continuance extending the suspension, and
it did not do so. Her argument is not well taken.
The order suspending visitation was set to expire on March 11, the date the court set
for the hearing, “unless the Court, for good cause, extends it for a 14-day period, or [Candis]
consents to a longer extension.” In the first continuance order extending the suspension of
visitation until April 7, 2021, the court found that Candis requested a continuance to obtain
new counsel and granted the request for this reason, noting that the suspension would
17 remain in effect until a hearing took place. It is well settled under the doctrine of invited
error that an appellant may not complain on appeal that the circuit court erred if the
appellant induced, consented to, or acquiesced in that action. See Hopper v. Hopper, 2023
Ark. App. 504, at 7, 678 S.W.3d 602, 607. Because Candis requested this continuance, she
cannot argue on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting it.
Candis also contends that she “did not consent to a longer extension”; however, not
only did she fail to object to any continuance the court granted, but also, she requested all
the continuances in the record except the final continuance, which Brett requested to obtain
Delgado as a witness. Notably, by the end of that hearing, Candis agreed to that continuance
because she wanted to cross-examine Delgado. As we discussed above, her argument raises
the invited-error doctrine. In the order denying her petition to modify custody, the court
found that Candis had been the cause of the delays, and she could have asked for a hearing
on the matter at any time; thus, she cannot argue on appeal that the court’s decision to grant
her continuances constitutes error. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and WOOD, J., agree.
Dodd, Kidd, Ryan & Rowan, by: Catherine A. Ryan, for appellant.
Tim Cullen, for appellee.