(1) This case involves a custody dispute between divorced parents Hollandsworth and Knyzewski over Hollandsworth's desire to relocate their children to Tennessee with her new husband. (2) The trial court initially ruled in favor of Knyzewski but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that relocation alone is not enough to change custody and that there is a presumption in favor of allowing the custodial parent to relocate. (3) The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the noncustodial parent Knyzewski failed to rebut the presumption allowing relocation by showing how the move would detrimentally impact the children. The custodial parent Hollandsworth's desire to live with

1. Terry Evers
March 2, 2015
LEGL 1133-01
COMPREHENSIVE BRIEF
CITATION: Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 109 S.W. 3d 653, 353 Ark. 470 (2003)
PARTIES: Hollandsworth/mother/defendant below/appellant here
Knyzewski/father/plaintiff below/appellee here
OBJECTIVES: Knyzewski wants to prohibit children’s mother Hollandsworth from
moving the parties’ children out of state and for the trial court to award him
primary custody.
Hollandsworth wants modification of visitation and permission to move out
of state to reside with her new husband and take the parties children with
her.
CAUSE OF
ACTION: Knyzewski: Hollandsworth’s relocation and relocation of parties’ children
justifies changes in primary custody and visitation be granted to Knyzewski.
Hollandsworth’s and children’s relocation warrants a court order
prohibiting her relocation of parties’ minor children out of state.
DEFENSE: Hollandsworth: That material changes in her circumstances warrants a
modification in that:
(1) She has remarried since the divorce, (2) it would be in the best interests
of the parties’ children to live in a two parent home, (3) Would give the
parties’ children a chance to form a sibling relationship with their soon
– to – be half sibling.
PRIOR
PROCEEDINGS: (1) TRIAL. Knyzewski sued Hollandsworth to modify primary child
custody provisions of parties’ divorce decree to prohibit Hollandsworth
from moving the parties’ minor children to Clarkesville, Tennessee and to
award Knyzewski primary custody of their children.
Hollandsworth petitions for a modification of visitation and permission to
relocate parties’ children to Clarkesville, Tennessee to live with her and her
new husband.
Trial court modified in favor of appellee.

2. (2) APPEAL. Hollandsworth appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.
PRESENT
PROCEEDING: (3) APPEAL. Appellee petitioned Supreme Court of Arkansas for review.
FACTS: Appellee and appellant were married September 2, 1995. They lived
together as husband and wife and separated June 9, 2000. Parties produced
two minor children during the marriage.
Parties divorced in October, 2000, the divorce decree awarded primary
custody of the parties two children to the mother subject to the father’s
visitation.
The divorce decree further found each party was entitled to one-half of the
children’s free time, and;
Trial court set out a visitation schedule of weekends, holidays, and summer
vacations.
The parties later agreed to a more liberal visitation allowing appellee to be
with the children three and one-half days a week until the oldest child began
kindergarten.
On December 31, 2000 appellant married Mr. Brian Hollandsworth, a
soldier making his home in Clarkesville, Tennessee.
In January 2001 appellant informed appellee that she was moving to
Tennessee and taking the parties’ children with her.
On January 11, 2001 appellant found out she was pregnant.
On January 23, 2001 appellee petitioned trial court requesting modifications
asking;
 That the parties’ children would not be allowed to move to
Tennessee,
 The appellee be awarded primary custody.
Appellee argued that material and substantial changes in appellant’s
circumstances warranted a modification of primary custodianship to
appellee, that her move to Tennessee prevented appellee’s visitation, and
would result in the children’s separation of their attachments to both sets of
grandparents.

3. Appellant petitioned for modification of visitation and permission to
relocate parties’ children to Clarkesville, Tennessee.
Appellant argued material changes in her circumstances warranted her
requests (1) She has remarried, (2) It was in the children’s best interests to
live in a two – parent household, and (3) the children would be able to
develop a sibling relationship with their new sibling.
Appellant also proposed modification of visitation that the parties’ alternate
visitation every two weeks with a specific halfway transfer location until
the children enrolled in school and after that they would follow trial court’s
visitation for holidays with extended vacation visitation to offset the
original weekend visitations.
The trial court changed custody to appellee and set a visitation schedule
for the appellant, concluding that appellant failed to meet her burden of
proof required to prove a real advantage to herself and to the children to
relocate based upon criteria established by Staab v. Hurst, 44 Ark., App.
128, 868 S.W. 2d 517 (1994) and Hickman v. Hickman, 70 Ark. App 438,
19 S.W. 3d 624 (2000).
Appellant appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals which reversed the
trial court.
Appellee requests review by Arkansas Supreme Court.
ISSUE 1: Is relocation of custodial parent and children, by itself, a material change in
circumstance justifying a change in custody?
HOLDING: NO
REASONING: The court held that a stay at home mother in a two parent home is a distinct
advantage to the children and is in their best interests.
Appellant’s motives are pure.
Appellant would abide with any substitution visitation orders.
ISSUE 2: Does a presumption exist in favor of relocation for primary custodial
parent with custody, with burden being on the noncustodial parent to rebut
the relocation presumption and thus the custodial parent is not required to
prove a real advantage herself and to the children to relocate?
HOLDING: YES
REASONING: The custodial parent has the right to travel and to relocate, taking the
children with her to seek a better lifestyle for herself and the children as
long as realistic visitation is arranged that preserves the non-custodial
parent’s relationship with his children.

4. ISSUE 3: Does the noncustodial person have the burden to rebut the relocation
presumption?
HOLDING: YES
REASONING: There is no testimony provided by the noncustodial parent that the move
would be detrimental to the children thus the noncustodial parent failed to
meet the burden to rebut the relocation presumption as it is common and
normal for a wife to live with her husband and a benefit for the children to
have a relationship with their half-sibling.
The court also found that there would be no detrimental variance in the
children’s education, health and leisure opportunities in Tennessee.
Since appellee testified that he lives with his parents, works at night, sleeps
during the daytime, and, his mother would be the primary care giver the
court held that appellee “has simply failed to establish material change in
circumstance and has failed to meet his burden of rebutting a presumption
in favor of relocation.”