Adams v. Adams

2014 Ark. App. 67

432 S.W.3d 49

Danielle Kira ADAMS, Appellant

v.Rebecca Roseanne ADAMS, Appellee.

No. CV–13–275.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas.

Jan. 22, 2014.

Pro se appellant.

Yoakley Law Firm, by: Deric Yoakley, Springdale, for appellee.

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge.

Appellant appeals from the circuit court's denial of her motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and its subsequent entry of a divorce decree addressing custody, visitation, and division of property. On appeal, appellant argues, generally, that (1) the State of Arkansas did not have jurisdiction over the divorce of appellee from appellant at the commencement of divorce proceedings on April, 10, 2012; (2) the State of Arkansas did not have jurisdiction over the minor children at the commencement of divorce proceedings on April 10, 2012; and (3) the circuit court ruled inequitably against appellant following the non-jury trial on October 24, 2012. We affirm.

On October 7, 2011, appellee moved from Arizona to Arkansas with the parties' two minor children, A.A., born December 6, 2005, and C.A., born March 11, 2011. Appellee and the children moved into her mother's home in Harrison, Arkansas. Appellee asserted that she moved to Arkansas for employment. As part of that employment, she was required to obtain counseling at a place of her employer's choosing. Her employer chose to send her to a counseling center in Minnesota for which she left around November 18, 2011. She took the minor children with her. Appellee returned to Arkansas for two weeks around Christmas 2011, but returned to Minnesota thereafter. She completed the required counseling and returned to Arkansas on March 10, 2012.

On April 10, 2012, appellee filed for divorce from appellant in Arkansas. In the complaint for divorce, appellee asserted, among other things, that although married in Arkansas on June 20, 1998, she and appellant had been living separate and apart since October 7, 2011; that the two minor children had resided in Arkansas for more than the six months immediately prior to commencement of the action; that Arkansas was the home state of the children; that she should have primary custody of the children; and that there was marital property to be divided by the court.

Appellant filed for divorce from appellee in Arizona on April 25, 2012. On May 18, 2012, appellant filed a motion to dismiss appellee's Arkansas complaint for divorce for lack of jurisdiction in Arkansas. In her brief in support of her motion to dismiss, appellant asserted that the parties separated on October 8, 2011, after appellant had been twice diagnosed with gender identity disorder and had acknowledged her gender identity issues.¹ She further asserted that appellee said she was taking the children to “visit” her mother, but stayed in Arkansas until she took them to Minnesota. Appellant was served with appellee's complaint for divorce on June 3, 2012.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on July 11, 2012. The court denied appellant's motion to dismiss on July 23, 2012, without written order. Appellee requested entry of an order denying appellant's motion to dismiss and an order for mediation. On July 31, 2012, appellant filed a motion for Rule 54(b) certification of the requested order denying appellant's motion to dismiss and order for mediation so that an immediate appeal could be undertaken. On August 17, 2012, the court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and ordering mediation. On the same date, the court entered an order denying appellant's motion for Rule 54(b) certification.

On August 27, 2012, appellant filed an answer to appellee's complaint for divorce. As ordered, the parties completed mediation, without agreement, on October 22, 2012. Following a trial on October 23–24, 2012, the court entered a decree on November 29, 2012, granting appellee an absolute divorce from appellant. In the decree, the court found the following:

1. That the Plaintiff is a resident of Washington County, Arkansas, and has been a resident of Arkansas for more than sixty (60) days prior to the commencement of this action.

2. That venue and jurisdiction are proper in this Court.

....

5. The minor children of the parties hereto resided within the State of Arkansas for more than the six (6) months immediately prior to the commencement of this action.

6. The State of Arkansas is the “home state” of the minor children and no other proceeding involving the custody of said children is pending before the Court of any other jurisdiction.

7. This Court has and may properly exercise jurisdiction of and over issues regarding the custody of and visitation with the above named minor children by and between these parties.

8. That the Court finds that the allegations contained in the Complaint are sustained by the proof, and that the plaintiff is entitled to an absolute decree of divorce from the defendant.

....

9. The evidence before the court, and uncontroverted by credible testimony, was that the plaintiff relocated to Fayetteville Arkansas, with the agreement of the defendant.

10. The parties attended a Bible college which was administered by the Assemblies of God, and they both worked as missionaries for the Assemblies of God church during the majority of their marriage.

11. The uncontroverted evidence is that the parties moved to Arizona so that Danielle Adams could pursue two PhD's that would further her career either in world mission work in the church, or in education as a teacher or professor.

12. The uncontroverted evidence is that since the children's births, Ms. Rebecca Adams has been their primary caregiver, by virtue of Ms. Danielle Adams being the primary bread winner. Danielle Adams was the lead missionary as between the parties during their employment, All paychecks were in the name of William Benjamin Adams (Danielle Adams' former name). Danielle was considered to be the person who was employed full-time.

....

14. Further uncontroverted evidence is that in approximately January 2011, Mrs. Danielle Adams determined that she, as she had suspected for some time, had gender identity disorder.

15. According to the credible evidence before the Court, it was jointly decided by the parties that Ms. Danielle Adams would go to Oregon for intensive counseling.

16. After that counseling, it was determined by Danielle Adams that she would continue living as a female full-time. At that time, it became obvious that the marriage could not continue, as Ms. Rebecca Adams did not wish to be married to a woman.

....

21. The parties have agreed, absent an Order of this Court, before the date of this trial, that the parties' children would not yet be privy to information about the divorce, or about the transition of Danielle Adams.

....

26. Until the child is introduced to the transition of Danielle Adams, pursuant to the expert the parties agree upon, video chats shall be conducted by Danielle Adams in an appearance that does not indicate to the minor child that Danielle is a woman.

....

49. ...[T]he Court finds that there is no personal property to divide as the parties have already decided on an equitable division, except as to the following items:

a. Rebecca Adams drives a 2002 Honda CRV that does not have any debt against it. It is, based on the evidence before the court, worth anywhere between $3,500 and $4,700, depending on the condition. The court awards the CRV to Rebecca Adams as her sole and separate property. She is responsible for all costs associated with the vehicle, including but not limited to, past, current, and future personal property taxes. The court determines that an unequal division of property in this circumstance is fair and equitable based on the fact that Miss Rebecca Adams has primary custody of the children, and has since the parties' separation, and has not received any support for the children from Danielle Adams during that time. Further, Rebecca Adams, based on the evidence before the court, does not have the means to acquire another vehicle at the time of this order.

b. Danielle Adams is in possession of a 2011 Nissan Juke. It will be the sole and separate property of Danielle Adams, as well as all debt associated with said vehicle, including but not limited to, past, current, and future personal property taxes.

....

53. The defendant has a retirement account through her employment with World Missions in the Assemblies of God church. The account is a MBA 403(b) Select Retirement Account with a balance of approximately $33,327.29. The entirety of that account was obtained during the marriage of the parties, and the Court finds that it is marital property. It shall be divided 50/50 with a division date of October 23, 2012.

....

54. The plaintiff has an investment account, all of which was accrued subsequent to the separation of the parties. The Court awards those to the plaintiff, based on when the investments were accrued.

55. The plaintiff has a savings account with approximately $3,600 in it. That sum has been set aside for taxes that will be owed exclusively by the plaintiff. Therefore, that account is awarded as the sole and separate property of the plaintiff, for the purpose of allowing the plaintiff to satisfy tax responsibilities.

56. Danielle Adams inherited a sum of money at some point prior to the marriage of the parties. At some point during the marriage, Danielle Adams added the name of Becky Adams to the account, resulting in the need for both parties to sign off on dispersals from said account. The Court finds that act was a gift to the marriage, and all funds remaining in said account are therefore marital in nature. The evidence shows that the money was placed in the joint account of the parties, and that money from that account was used regularly for the benefit of the family and was regularly applied to joint marital expenses. The court finds that whatever balance is in said account as of October 23, 2012 shall [sic] divided evenly between the...