IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, ARKANSAS

DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISIOIN

SHARON (ARNOLD) BILES-HARNETT             - PLAINTIFF

vs.

DOUGLAS ARNOLD, JR.                         - DEFENDANT

ORDER 

On this 4^th day of September, 2001 hearing before the court. The plaintiff, Sharon (Arnold) Biles-Harnett, appears in person and by and through her attorney, King Benson, and the defendant, Douglas Arnold, Jr., appears in person and by and through this attorney, Grant DeProw. After considering the testimony of the parties and their witnesses, statements of counsel, and other matters and evidence presented to the court, the court finds as follows:

1. The parties to this action were divorced in Texas in 1998. The plaintiff has custody of the parties, two minor children, Austin William Arnold, d/o/b January 11th , 1993; and Triton Thomas Arnold, d/o/b September 19th, 1995, with the defendant being awarded visitation. The parties now live in Arkansas and it has previously been determined that the State of Arkansas has jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA.

2. On June 19, 2001, the parties appeared in court on a complaint by the plaintiff that the defendant was neglecting Triton's medical condition and placing Triton in danger.  Following the hearing, this court entered an order which specifically enjoined and restrained the defendant from administering any type of corporal punishment on Triton Arnold.

3.  Triton has been diagnosed with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which is a life-threatening situation unless treated correctly, and stress plays a terribly important role in its treatment as indicated by the medical evidence introduced before the court.

4.  On August 18, 2001, Triton was riding a go-cart and had driven it beyond the limits prescribed by the defendant. Upon doing so, the defendant yelled and ran after Triton, made Triton get out of the cart, and the defendant began forcefully talking to Triton.  At this point, Triton turned and walked away from the defendant and the defendant then spun Triton around, causing Triton to hit his head on defendant's cap leaving a bruise and/or red mark on Triton's forehead.

5.  This is the second time this matter has been before the court and it is not clear that the defendant has grasped the reality of the situation.  Defendant appears to resent boundaries set for his visitation with his two sons.

6.  Perhaps it is true that plaintiff is overly protective but, on the other hand,            the medical evidenced produced before the court indicates that Triton has a terribly severe medical condition that could escalate into a life-threatening condition.

7.  This court is bound by one rule only and that is to do what it considers to be in the best interest of the child.

8. It is not in Triton's best interest to permit the defendant to continue to exercise unrestrained visitation with Triton as the defendant disregards clear medical advice in trying to deal with Triton.

WHEREFORE, the court finds and concludes as follows:

1. Defendant will be entitled to continue visitation with Austin as before;

2. Defendant's visitation with Triton will cease until defendant can select some agency or person suitable to plaintiff who can supervise defendant's visitation with Triton;

3. Defendant's supervised visitation with Triton shall be during the daytime and will include those days when defendant visits with Austin. Defendant may pick up Triton in the morning and return him by 6:00 p.m. on each visitation day.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Graham Partlow, Chancellor