Josie Hostetler v. Kenyon Hostetler

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 376 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV

No. CV-25-230

JOSIE HOSTETLER Opinion Delivered September 2, 2026 APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL

V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT

KENYON HOSTETLER [NO. 08EDR-23-101]

APPELLEE HONORABLE SCOTT JACKSON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge This is a custody and visitation dispute. Appellant, Josie Hostetler, appeals the January 2025 divorce decree asserting that the circuit court clearly erred by not granting her any visitation with the parties’ son and by not awarding her primary custody of their daughters. We affirm.

Josie and appellee, Kenyon Hostetler, have three children: a young teenage son, MC1, and two preteen daughters, MC2 and MC3. The children were adopted from the Arkansas Department of Human Services.1 The parties owned a farm operation. Kenyon and his brother were the primary managers of the farm. Josie homeschooled the children and took care of their everyday needs.

1 MC1 was about eight months old when he was adopted. MC2 and MC3, twin girls, were about two years old when they were adopted.

The divorce filings started after Josie acquired an ex parte order of protection against Kenyon in June 2023. In a fit of anger, Kenyon had hit Josie in the face and held her down. Josie left the next day and took their daughters; Josie never returned to her husband. Kenyon’s felony domestic-battery charges remained unresolved at the time of divorce.

The two-day divorce hearing was conducted in November 2024. The property and debt issues were resolved by settlement. Custody and visitation were the focus of the litigation.

The circuit court entered a three-year order of protection prohibiting Kenyon from contacting Josie. The circuit court made an exception for the sole purpose of permitting Kenyon and Josie to “engage in limited, appropriate, safe, child-focused communication and contact.”

In its order, the court stated its “unique position to personally observe” all of the witnesses as they testified, including listening to the parties’ testimony and observing their demeanor throughout the proceedings. The court stated that its credibility findings were based “in significant part” on the court’s personal observations. The circuit court found that both parties shared some of the blame in their conduct as parents.

The circuit court found “ample, credible testimony and evidence as to the physically abusive conduct by the Mother against [MC1].” The court referenced Josie’s “candid admission” that she hit MC1 approximately seven times in one day when he was four years old. Josie admittedly struggled to manage MC1. She wanted supervised visitation with MC1 to keep open the possibility of future contact with him.

3

MC1 did not want to visit his mother; he said that she was physically abusive and did not like him. MC1 was hurt by what he believed was his mother’s opinion that he was a danger to his younger sisters. He described being beaten for no reason at all.

The court found that the evidence credibly established that Josie was harsh in her physical discipline of MC1 “for many years.” The court found that the mother-son bond was “broken” despite family therapy and that there was “virtually no progress” in repairing their relationship. Josie was encouraged to write letters, send cards, and give appropriate gifts to her son.

Kenyon was ordered to ensure that MC1 read any correspondence from his mother, open any gifts sent by her, and write his mother thank you notes. MC1 was encouraged, but not required, to write to his mother. Kenyon was ordered to keep their son’s therapists aware of any such communications and gifts. Should MC1 express a desire to speak to or visit with his mother, Kenyon was ordered to communicate that to Josie immediately and cooperate in making that happen as soon as possible.

The court acknowledged the statutory rebuttable presumption against joint custody in cases of domestic abuse, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101(c) (Supp. 2025). The circuit court specifically pointed to the June 2023 incident. The court found that the twins were in the building when the June 2023 incident occurred, though it was unclear what the girls heard or saw that day.

The court noted, however, that the parties had been able to exchange the girls for visitations since August 2023 and had managed joint custody of the girls since July 2024.

4

The court found that Kenyon’s alleged domestic abuse toward Josie was insufficient to support a finding that Kenyon had engaged or was likely to engage in a pattern of domestic violence. The court recited its “unique ability” to personally observe the parties and to make credibility findings. The court awarded the parents joint custody of the girls using a week- on, week-off pattern.

The parents were awarded joint legal custody of MC1, with Kenyon having primary physical custody and decision-making authority. Josie retained unfettered access to MC1’s medical and educational information; she had the right to speak to any professionals related thereto. Kenyon was ordered to keep Josie apprised of relevant events in MC1’s life.

The court considered the importance of sibling bonds and that the children had been adopted from the Arkansas Department of Human Services. Noting that the children had been enrolled in different schools, the court ordered the children to be enrolled in the same school in the 2025 spring term. The court did not order “any visitation” between Josie and MC1 “at this time.” Nonetheless, both parents were allowed to attend all the children’s school and extracurricular activities, counseling-related meetings, and any meetings for the purpose of resolving child-related issues.

Josie appeals, arguing that the court erred by (1) denying her any visitation with MC1 and (2) denying her primary custody of MC2 and MC3. In domestic-relations cases, we review the evidence de novo and will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Morris v. Morris, 2026 Ark. App. 52, 730 S.W.3d 527. We also give special

5

deference to the circuit court’s superior position in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s best interest. Id. Josie fails to establish reversible error.

Important factors for the court to consider in determining reasonable visitation are the wishes of the child, the capacity of the party desiring visitation to supervise and care for the child, problems of transportation and prior conduct in abusing visitation, the work schedule or stability of the parties, and relationships with siblings and other relatives. Morris, supra. Fixing visitation rights is a matter that lies within the sound discretion of the circuit court. Id.

By statute, Arkansas lawmakers have determined the threshold necessary for denying a biological parent the right to visit his or her own child: a finding by the circuit court that visitation between the parent and child “would seriously endanger the physical, mental, or emotional health of the child.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(b)(1)(A)(vii)(a); see also Bassett v. Emery, 2022 Ark. App. 470. Josie contends that the circuit court erroneously considered the overriding “best interest” umbrella instead of the appropriate statutory standard. Thus, she argues, the no-visitation order with MC1 must be reversed and remanded.

In the absence of a statute or rule requiring specific findings of fact or a timely request for specific findings under Ark. R. Civ. P. 52, we will ordinarily presume that the circuit court made the findings necessary to support its judgment. Mathis v. Hickman, 2024 Ark. App. 172, 687 S.W.3d 119. On de novo review, it is abundantly clear that the circuit court considered that MC1 did not want to visit his mother, Josie had physically abused MC1, family therapy failed to remedy the situation, and “at this time” it was not in MC’s best

6

interest to have in-person visitation with his mother. Josie was encouraged to send letters, cards and gifts. Josie could attend any school functions and any meetings that affected MC1. The circuit court’s order recites that if MC1 wants to see his mother, Kenyon is required to inform Josie and cooperate to schedule an “in-person visit as soon as possible.” This order complies with section 9-13-101(b)(1)(A)(vii)(a). There is no clear error in the circuit court’s finding on visitation.

Josie next argues that she rebutted the presumption in favor of joint custody regarding the twins and that the circuit court erred in its analysis. We disagree.

Josie asserts that the circuit court was “fixated” on keeping the siblings in contact with each other and placed improper emphasis on the fact that all three children had been adopted. Josie notes that she had been the children’s primary caretaker, and Kenyon was the primary breadwinner. Josie contends that the circuit court ignored her evidence of Kenyon’s “pattern” of domestic abuse dating back several years. Again, Josie fails to establish reversible error.

There is a statutory presumption that joint custody should be awarded to the parents, but a circuit court is not required to award joint custody. Joint custody may be rejected if a party desiring primary custody proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that joint custody should not be awarded, considering the facts of each individual case. Ark. Code Ann. § 9- 13-101(b)(1)(A)(vii)(b)(1).

There is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of a child to be placed in the custody of an abusive parent when there is a finding, by a preponderance of

7

the evidence, that the parent has engaged “in a pattern of domestic abuse.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(c)(2). The court must consider the effect of such domestic violence on the best interests of the child. In deciding custody of a child, the circuit court “may enter an order to reduce areas of conflict in a manner determined appropriate by the court.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(c).

Josie contends that her evidence showed that joint custody of the girls was not in their best interest. Viewing this appeal under the proper standard of review, Josie does not convince us that the circuit court’s order is clearly erroneous. The presumption in favor of joint custody would stand unless the circuit court found it was not in their best interest for their parents to have joint custody. Here, the circuit court made clear it was considering the twins’ best interest and the valuable sibling relationships. The court crafted an order that would reduce opportunities for conflict between the parents. Joint custody would ensure meaningful continued contact between the girls and their father, and it would enhance their time with their brother. Josie’s argument asks that we reweigh the evidence, which is not the function of the appellate court. Wallace v. Pyle, 2024 Ark. App. 496. There are no cases in which the circuit court’s superior position, ability, and opportunity to observe the parties carry as great a weight as those involving minor children. Center v. Center, 2026 Ark. App. 340, ___ S.W.3d ___.

On de novo review of this record, we are convinced that the circuit followed the law and made ample findings to support its custody order.

Affirmed.

8

MURPHY and HARRISON, JJ., agree.

Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., by: Tory H. Lewis, Andrew M. Taylor, and Tasha C.

Taylor, for appellant.

Taylor Law Partners, LLP, by: W.H. Taylor and Nick Mote, for appellee.