Dale McMahon v. Kali Craft

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 297 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-446

DALE MCMAHON Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63DR-22-398]

KALI CRAFT HONORABLE BRENT DILLON APPELLEE HOUSTON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Appellant Dale McMahon appeals the Saline County Circuit Court’s order denying

his petition to modify custody and request to award him equal parenting time with the

appellee Kali Craft. Dale argues on appeal that the circuit court erred by denying his request

for equal parenting time based on a material-change-in-circumstances analysis. Dale also

contends that the circuit court’s allocation of parenting time is clearly erroneous. We affirm.

I. Background Facts

Dale and Kali were divorced on September 10, 2018, in the Craighead County

Circuit Court. The parties’ divorce decree and property settlement agreement (PSA) were

executed on August 6, 2018. At the time of the divorce, Kali lived in Jonesboro, Arkansas,

and Dale was residing in Canada under a one-year work permit. There were two children

born of the marriage. In the PSA, the parties agreed to share joint legal custody of the children and to make major decisions for the children “jointly.” The parties further agreed

that Kali would have primary physical custody of the children while Dale resided in Canada.

The agreement stated that the parties “anticipated that Dale will either be living in Canada

or the United Kingdom” and that if Dale moved to a location closer to the children, he

could “file a petition to modify the visitation schedule to seek more visitation time with the

children.”

From the time the divorce decree and PSA were entered until September 2024, the

court entered two subsequent orders regarding child support, but no custody or visitation

issues were addressed. In January 2021, Dale’s obligation to pay child support increased from

$300.00 a month to $1,202.00 a month, and a child-support arrearage of $3,567.38 was

established by the court. At the time of the 2021 child-support hearing, Dale was earning

variable income as a truck driver in the United Kingdom. On March 3, 2022, Dale requested

that his child-support obligation be reduced due to a material change in circumstance

because his income had been reduced by 20 percent or more. The matter was transferred to

the Saline County Circuit Court, and the court entered an order on April 4, 2023, finding

that Dale had not proved a material change in circumstances.

On September 23, 2024, Dale filed a petition to modify custody based on his

relocation to Arkansas. In his petition, Dale alleged that since the entry of the PSA, there

had been a material change in circumstances to warrant modification of the current custody

arrangement. Dale further asserted that it was in the best interest of the children to award

2 the parties joint physical custody. On November 22, 2024, the circuit court denied Dale’s

motion for appointment of an attorney ad litem.

A final hearing was held before the circuit court on December 3, 2024. At the

hearing, the circuit court stated that based on its reading of the motion, “we’re here for a

visitation schedule.” However, during Kali’s testimony, the court paused to clarify—after

rereading Dale’s “petition to modify custody”—that Dale was indeed alleging it was in the

best interest of the children to award joint physical custody due to a material change in

circumstances. Dale’s counsel responded, “Yes, Judge.”

Kali testified that Dale notified her in fall 2023 that he was moving to Arkansas, and

they agreed that Dale would have the children on alternating weekends until he was able to

provide Kali with a schedule or some type of reassurance that he would be available when

the children were in his care. Kali raised some concerns with lack of communication from

Dale, specifically with regard to who was caring for the children while Dale claimed to be

working seventy hours a week. Kali also testified that she noticed changes in the children’s

personalities when she and Dale alternated weekends in the summer. She stated that after

returning from Dale’s house, one of her children often showed a disregard for authority and

was more secretive.

Dale testified that he moved from Canada back to Great Britain in 2019, and then

moved from Great Britain to California in late 2022. In November 2023, Dale moved into

his wife’s home in Little Rock to begin working while he looked for a house closer to his

children. He testified that when he moved to Arkansas, he was originally employed with

3 Western Express and would be gone for two weeks and home every other weekend. In May

2024, Dale began working with Performance Food Group (PFG) driving locally during the

week. In early 2024, Dale moved to a residence in Benton. Thereafter, Dale’s visitation

consisted of every other weekend from after school on Friday until 5:00 p.m. on Monday

during the school year and alternating weeks during the summer.

Dale testified that his new employment at PFG is almost exclusively limited to Central

Arkansas and does not require overnight travel or working on the weekends. Dale testified

that he would like to move into a managerial position—preferably at PFG—to avoid the

physical demands of his current position. Dale’s wife, Morgan McMahon, was questioned

regarding Dale’s plans to remain at PFG. She testified that Dale had talked about wanting

to make more money, and “if a job came up then I don’t see why he wouldn’t.” She

referenced that she and Dale had discussed jobs that “come up on emails and things like

that.”

After Dale rested his case, Kali moved for a directed verdict, arguing that there had

been no material change of circumstances pled or proved for a change of custody. In

response, Dale’s counsel argued:

[T]he material change would be, at the time the last order was entered, [Dale] was not a resident of this state and so therefore, the Court specifically put in [the custody agreement] that, if he was to move back closer, that he would be able to petition for more time. I do not believe that there’s a cap or a bar that states that he could never get 50/50 custody, which is what he’s alleging. He did not live in the state at the time that this Court or the previous Court entered the order. So therefore, 50/50 custody was not even feasible due to the difference in location of the parties. So he has moved back, and since moving back he is alleging that that material change in itself is enough

4 for the Court to re-look at custody and modify custody on a material change on a joint custody basis, seeing that that is what the standard is.

In response, Kali’s counsel argued that Dale could not create his own material change and

that relocation in and of itself does not constitute a material change in circumstances. The

circuit court granted Kali’s directed-verdict motion, finding that there had been no material

change in circumstances and, furthermore, that a change in custody was not in the children’s

best interest.

Additionally, the circuit court considered whether Dale should have a new visitation

schedule—pursuant to the PSA—due to his relocation closer to the children. The circuit court

held that it was not in the children’s best interest for Dale to have equal parenting time;

however, the court adopted the visitation schedule that the parties had been exercising since

Dale’s relocation to Arkansas. Accordingly, Dale was awarded alternating weekend visitation

from Friday after school until Monday at 5:00 p.m., and the court expanded the parties’

holiday visitation schedule and modified summer visitation to reflect an alternating-week

schedule.

The court entered its final order on February 21, 2025. Dale filed a timely motion for

reconsideration and/or a new trial; however, the court did not rule on the motion.

Thereafter, Dale filed a timely notice of appeal; this appeal followed.

II. Standard of Review

In reviewing domestic-relations cases, appellate courts consider the evidence de novo.

Baber v. Baber, 2011 Ark. 40, 378 S.W.3d 699. This court will not reverse the circuit court’s

5 findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. A finding is clearly erroneous when the

reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been made. Stehle v. Zimmerebner, 375 Ark. 446, 291 S.W.3d 573 (2009). When

the question of whether the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous turns largely on the

credibility of the witnesses, we give special deference to the superior position of the circuit

court to evaluate the witnesses and their testimony. Baber, supra.

III. Points on Appeal

Dale argues on appeal that (1) the circuit court erred by denying his request for equal

parenting time based on a material-change-in-circumstances analysis and (2) the circuit

court’s allocation of parenting time was clearly erroneous.

IV. Discussion

A. Material Change in Circumstances

First, Dale contends that the circuit court erred in granting Kali’s directed-verdict

motion that was based on his alleged failure to prove a material change in circumstances.

Specifically, Dale argues that he was not required to prove a material change in circumstances

because his request was for an adjustment of parenting time—not an actual change in custody.

Kali maintains that Dale cannot make this argument for the first time on appeal; therefore,

his appeal should be dismissed.

We acknowledge the distinction between a change-of-custody request and a request

for equal parenting time in the context of joint custody and relocation—specifically, that the

former requires proof of a material change in circumstances, and the latter does not—as our

6 supreme court held in Nalley v. Adams, 2021 Ark. 191, 632 S.W.3d 297. However, contrary

to Dale’s argument on appeal, the circuit court did not refuse to address his request for equal

parenting time. The circuit court did find that there had been no material change in

circumstances to warrant modification of custody—presumably due to the fact that Dale

focused his arguments below entirely on proving that a material change had occurred.

Nonetheless, the circuit court’s denial of equal parenting time was not based on an improper

material-change-in-circumstances analysis, as Dale contends. Rather, the circuit court held

that it was not in the best interest of the minor children for Dale to have equal parenting

time. Specifically, the court held as follows:

The Court finds it is not in the best interests of the minor children for [Dale] to have equal time with the children. Since the entry of the Decree in 2018, [Dale] has lived in Canada, then moved to England, then moved to California and now lives in Arkansas. Since he has lived in Arkansas for the past year, he has lived in two different counties, Pulaski County and Saline County. He has had two different jobs while in Arkansas and testified he is looking a third new job. There was a discrepancy in the testimony between [Dale] and his wife. He testified he was looking for a promotion within his current company. Her testimony was that he may be looking for outside opportunities. The Court finds [Dale]’s situation is unstable and has zero confidence that will change. The Court finds that [Kali] provides stability for the children and is the only stability they have known. [Dale] testified that [Kali] was a good parent, he had no complaints about her parenting and did not disagree with any decisions she had made on behalf of the children.

Whether a circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous turns in large part on the

credibility of the witnesses, and special deference is given to the circuit court’s superior

position to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s best interest. Cunningham

v. Cunningham, 2019 Ark. App. 416, 588 S.W.3d 38. There are no cases in which the circuit

court’s superior position, ability, and opportunity to observe the parties carry as great a

7 weight as those involving minor children. Id. Under Arkansas law, the best interest of the

child is the primary consideration in all matters concerning child welfare, with all other

considerations being secondary. See, e.g., id.; Bell v. Bell, 2022 Ark. App. 279, 646 S.W.3d

678; Everly v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 528, 589 S.W.3d 425.

Because the circuit court’s determination that equal parenting time was not in the

children’s best interest is supported by the record, we are not left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s order.

B. Allocation of Parenting Time

Next, Dale argues that the circuit court’s allocation of parenting time was clearly

erroneous. Specifically, Dale contends that the evidence does not establish instability on his

part and that none of the circumstances the circuit court considered “unstable” have a

negative impact on the children. Rather, Dale asserts that the issues the circuit court viewed

as instability were in fact “commendable efforts to improve his situation and increase his

presence in his children’s lives.”

We conclude that Dale’s argument is nothing more than a request that we reweigh

the evidence and evaluate it differently than did the circuit court. This is something we will

not do. See, e.g., Faulkner v. McCain, 2020 Ark. App. 541, 613 S.W.3d 746. Given our

standard of review and the special deference we give circuit courts in evaluating the children’s

best interest, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and HIXSON, J., agree.

8 Kemps & Griffis PLLC, by: Adrienne M. Griffis, for appellant.

LaCerra, Dickson, Hoover & Rogers, PLLC, by: Lauren White Hoover, for appellee.