Arkansas

No enumeration framework; factor structure: n/a. A change in the law alone is not a material change in circumstances for custody modification.

Authority

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101

Source framework

No enumeration

Factor structure

n/a

Operative language

may

Catch-all language

n/a

Presumptions in the original survey

In an original child-custody determination in a divorce or paternity matter, joint custody is rebuttably presumed to be in the child's best interest. Rebuttal routes are: clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the child's best interest; agreement on all custody issues; one party not requesting sole, primary, or joint custody; or a subsection (c) or (d) presumption established by the evidence. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv).

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

18 continuous months living separate and apart without cohabitation, regardless of fault. Covenant marriages have a separate statutory list.

Authority

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-12-301(b)

Grounds without a misconduct showing

18 continuous months living separate and apart without cohabitation, regardless of fault. Covenant marriages have a separate statutory list.

Other grounds and proof conditions

8: impotence, felony or infamous crime, habitual drunkenness 1 yr, cruel and barbarous treatment, indignities, adultery, incurable insanity with 3 yrs apart and commitment, willful non-support

Separation

18 months for ordinary no-fault divorce. Oxford v. Oxford, 237 Ark. 384, 373 S.W.2d 707, 708 (1963), rejected a separation claim where the spouses remained in the same home in separate rooms. The case involved the former three-year period, not the present 18 months.

Timing

30 days after filing under § 9-12-307(a)(1)(B), as shown in a 2025 code reproduction. An exception appearing in a 1993 enactment is absent from that reproduction. Later operative text and amendments have not been confirmed.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, divorce "from bed and board," § 9-12-301(b)

Covenant marriage: separate rules

Arkansas, § 9-11-808: after authorized counseling, a covenant-marriage divorce requires an enumerated ground: adultery; commission of a felony or other infamous crime; specified physical or sexual abuse; two continuous years apart without reconciliation; or the prescribed period apart after a signed judgment of judicial separation. The post-judicial-separation period is two years, or two years and six months where there is a minor child; if abuse of a child of the marriage or either spouse was the basis for the judicial-separation judgment, the spouses must instead have lived apart continuously without reconciliation for one year after that judgment was signed, as specified in (a)(5)(B)(ii). Subsection (b) separately lists the grounds for judicial separation. [4]

Compare divorce grounds nationally

The presumption requires both a primary-custodian designation and significantly more parenting time. The designation alone is insufficient.

Authority

Case law (Hollandsworth, Singletary, Cooper)

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

presumption for the move

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

none defined by statute or rule

Effect of silence

not addressed (no objection procedure in statute or rule)

What the court weighs

The Hollandsworth presumption favors relocation by a custodial parent with sole or primary custody. Since Cooper (2017) it applies only where the relocating parent is both the designated primary custodian and spends significantly more time with the child than the other parent. In true joint custody there is no presumption (Singletary, 2013): the court asks whether a material change in circumstances occurred and then what is in the child's best interest. The polestar throughout is the child's best interest. In Davis v. Vondran, 2025 Ark. App. 142, the Court of Appeals affirmed use of Singletary and Cooper despite the mother’s primary-custodian label. It considered the father’s approximately 156 visitation days a year together with shared decision-making responsibility and his meaningful involvement in the child’s life; it did not adopt a day-count cutoff. The appellate court found no Hollandsworth analysis necessary, although the circuit court had made an alternative presumption-rebuttal finding.

Who carries the burden

Under the presumption, the noncustodial parent must rebut it with proof that the move is not in the child's best interest. Under the joint-custody path, the party seeking modification must show a material change and best interest.

Notice and safety exceptions

No generally applicable statutory relocation-notice requirement was found. Individual custody orders may require notice: Beverly v. Murphy, 2022 Ark. App. 4, p. 2, reproduces the parties’ order requiring at least ninety days’ advance notice of the specified residential move. That was an order-specific term, not a statewide notice period.

Which moves trigger the rule

Judge-made, with no mileage line: a custodial parent's request to relocate with the child. Which test applies depends on the custody arrangement (a primary custodian who spends significantly more time, versus joint custody).

Objections and the effect of silence

None statutory. The custodial parent petitions the circuit court for permission, or the other parent petitions to modify custody. There is no objection deadline, and silence creates no authority.

The modification threshold

No by itself: relocation by a custodial parent is not, alone, a material change in circumstances justifying a change of custody (Hollandsworth, as restated in Cooper). In joint-custody cases the ordinary material-change-then-best-interest test governs (Singletary). In Hildreth v. Hildreth, 2026 Ark. App. 193, the court affirmed a modification where relocation was considered together with other circumstances, rather than in isolation.

Other qualifications

Arkansas still applies a judge-made presumption favoring relocation by the custodial parent, but only when that parent is primary and spends significantly more time with the child. The Supreme Court has narrowed it twice (2013, 2017).

Important qualification

The presumption requires both a primary-custodian designation and significantly more parenting time. The designation alone is insufficient.

Burden summary

Presumption for a designated primary custodian with significantly more time. No presumption for joint custody.

Notice summary

No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required

Trigger summary

No statutory or rule trigger

Compare parental relocation nationally