GRAHAM PARTLOW

CIRCUIT AND CHANCERY JUDGE

COUNTY COURTHOUSE

BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315

September 6, 2001

Re:       Biles-Harnett vs. Arnold

Gentlemen: 

This matter was presented to the undersigned in Paragould on September 4, 2001. These parties were divorced in Texas in 1998 and custody of two boys was awarded to the mother, with the father being afforded visitation. They have since moved to Arkansas and the matter has been heard at least once in Arkansas after the move. On June 19, 2001) they appeared before the undersigned on a complaint by the mother that the father was neglecting one of the children's medical condition and placing him in danger. As a result of that hearing, the Court entered an order which specifically enjoined and restrained the defendant-father from administering any type of corporal punishment on Triton Arnold.

For the purpose of this Opinion, the Court sees little need to -o into all of the background involving Triton, but suffice to say, he 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. An exhibit admitted into evidence and which has been admitted in a prior hearing is a statement signed by a medical professional who states that Triton needs to maintain a low stress level. On August 18, 2001, defendant was visiting- with his children and his stepchildren in the park in Paragould. According to defendant's own version of events, Triton was riding a go-cart and had driven it beyond the limits prescribed by defendant. Upon doing so, defendant yelled and ran after him, made him get out of the cart, and started forcefully talking to him. At this point, the boy turned and walked away from him and defendant then spun him around and, at that point, the boy hit his head on defendant's cap leaving a bruise and/or red mark on Triton's forehead. Pictures were taken which show the mark in question.

Defendant appears to resent boundaries set for his visitation with his two sons. Perhaps it is true that plaintiff is overly protective but, on the other hand, the medical evidence produced before the Court indicates that this child has a terribly severe medical condition that could easily escalate into a life-threatening condition. Triton testified and it was readily observable to the Court that he is certainly a "handful." He is rambunctious, moves around a lot, easily distracted, unresponsive at times when questioned, and, on the whole, is quite harder to deal with than the average youngster his age.

This is the second time this matter has been before the Court and it just isn't clear whether defendant has grasped the reality of this situation. This Court is bound by one rule only and that is to do what it considers to be in the best interests of the child. To permit someone to continue to exercise unrestrained visitation with a child and who disregards clear medical advice in trying to deal with that child is certainly not in the best interests of the child.

This Court, therefore, finds and concludes that defendant will be entitled to continue visitation with Austin as before; however, his visitation with Triton will cease until he can select some agency or person suitable to plaintiff who can supervise his visitation with Triton on a daily basis only. That daily basis would include those days when he has Austin with him, but he would have to pick up Triton in the mornings and return him by 6:00 p.m. each evening.

Mr. Benson can prepare the precedent for approval by Mr. DeProw and submit it to the undersigned.

Yours very truly,

Graham Partlow