Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 417
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CV-25-528
Opinion Delivered September 16, 2026
CHRISTOPHER SHELLEY
APPEAL FROM THE BAXTER
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 03DR-19-512]
V.
HONORABLE ANDREW S. BAILEY,
ARKANSAS OFFICE OF CHILD JUDGE
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND
MEGAN JOHNSON
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge
Appellant Christopher Shelley appeals from an order of the Baxter County Circuit
Court that denied his motion to change custody. On appeal, he argues that the trial court
clearly erred in finding that it was in the best interest of the parties’ son, MC, to remain in
the primary custody of appellee Megan Johnson. Christopher specifically argues that the
trial court erred in this regard because Megan had married a long-term drug addict who was
permitted to live in her house with MC after he had been released from drug rehabilitation
and was awaiting pending felony charges. We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Megan was unmarried when she gave birth to MC on August 15, 2019. An order was
entered on January 2, 2020, that established Christopher’s paternity of MC. The paternity order found Megan to be MC’s physical custodian and ordered Christopher to pay child
support.
In May 2020, September 2020, and December 2022, Christopher filed a motion and
amended motions for primary custody or, alternatively, joint custody of MC. After the trial
court ordered mediation on the issues of custody and visitation, the parties reached an
agreement. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, on July 10, 2023, the trial court entered an
order that vested primary custody of MC with Megan subject to Christopher’s visitation that
would gradually increase to every other weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening as
well as standard holiday visitation.
The current round of litigation was initiated on October 14, 2024, when Christopher
filed a motion for modification of custody. In that motion, Christopher alleged that there
had been a material change in circumstances because Megan had recently married Matthew
Sebree, who has multiple felony convictions and had relapsed, causing him to acquire new
criminal charges. Christopher alleged that Megan had filed for an order of protection against
Matthew but that she later dismissed her petition. According to Christopher’s motion,
Megan had told Christopher that Matthew was using methamphetamine again and was not
safe to be around her children. Megan had also stated that she was filing for divorce from
Matthew, but she later decided not to go through with the divorce. Christopher alleged
further that Megan had changed MC’s school without notifying him and that she had failed
to keep him apprised of MC’s medical information in contravention of a prior court order.
Finally, Christopher alleged that Megan fails to discipline MC and that MC has behavioral
2
issues that Megan is unable to control. As a result of these changed circumstances,
Christopher asked for a change in custody. He requested primary custody of MC or,
alternatively, joint custody.
On April 2, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on Christopher’s motion. At the
hearing, Christopher presented evidence that during 2024, Megan had filed a police report
against her husband, Matthew, and had also filed for an order of protection against him.
The police report on May 7, 2024, accused Matthew of criminal mischief and stated:
On 05/07/2024 at approximately 1243 hours I Officer H. Dearmore was dispatched
to 425 Kathleen St., regarding property damage. Upon arrival I spoke to a female
party identified as Megan Johnson (DOB 11/18/1989). Megan explained she is
married to a male party identified as Matthew Sebree (DOB 05/26/1989), and they
are getting a divorce. Megan explained Matthew didn’t live there anymore, but
Matthew shows up at the house in the middle of the night, on multiple occasions.
Megan explained Matthew showed up at approximately 0300 hours and kicked a door
causing damage and threw her phone causing the back to shatter. Megan stated the
approximate cost of damage to the door was $350.00 and the iPhone 14 was
$1200.00. Megan explained she had already returned the phone to get a new one.
Megan didn’t give an explanation as to why she didn’t call law enforcement when the
incident occurred.
On June 5, 2024, Megan filed for an order of protection against Matthew and alleged
in the petition:
I requested Matthew to leave the premises and that he could no longer live at my
home on Kathleen Street prior to filing a police report on May 7th with the Mountain
Home Police Department. He destroyed my carport door. I was not home. He
smashed my phone and continuously thinks it’s okay to stop by whenever he wants.
We are separated and have been since the end of April. Property damage has been
done and he can and could show other signs of violence, which is why I want to
protect my house, kids, and myself. Matthew was recently arrested for a gun charge
on 6-4-2024 and now has a court date for that. His behavior has changed. His text
messages are out of character. I’m currently filing for divorce without an attorney, so
the process takes longer. But I’d like this in place so when he shows up, it’s not just
3
brushed off because who knows what will happen with the state of mind he currently
is in. I have two children and it is my job as their mother to protect them. The
respondent has a record of causing unnecessary problems.
There was also evidence that Matthew was serving six years’ probation arising from a
2021 theft-by-receiving conviction. On June 10, 2024, a petition to revoke Matthew’s
probation was filed based on his alleged possession of a gun on June 4, 2024, which was
referenced above in Megan’s petition for a protective order. On September 13, 2024,
Matthew was also charged with the underlying felony-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge, which
was based on evidence that he was riding as a passenger in a car stopped by the police, and
he had a .38-caliber round in his shirt pocket that matched a .38-caliber pistol found between
the driver’s seat and the center console.
Megan testified about the May 7, 2024 incident when Matthew came to her house,
kicked her door, and damaged her phone. She stated that Matthew did not wrestle the
phone from her but that “it was laying out.” Megan stated that at the time they were married
but had separated. Megan stated that when this incident occurred, her daughter (whom she
has with Matthew) was present, but MC was not. Megan also stated that sometime in June
2024, Matthew was arrested for public intoxication. Megan stated that when she filed for
the order of protection against Matthew on June 5, 2024, she was considering filing for
divorce, but she never did. Megan stated that she dismissed the order of protection later
that month after Matthew began treatment for his drug addiction. Matthew sought this
treatment after being arrested for the alleged probation violation.
4
Megan stated that beginning in late June 2024, Matthew was in a drug rehabilitation
facility called John 3:16 and that he remained there for about five months. After he was
asked to leave that facility, Matthew checked himself into another program, Changes
Recovery, where he remained for two and a half months. After that, Matthew’s probation
officer told Matthew he could leave Changes Recovery and go home, and he returned to
Megan’s house to live with her. Megan testified that she allowed Matthew back in her home
because he completed a rehabilitation program, he attends AA meetings, he is sober, and he
regularly meets with his sponsor and his probation officer.
Megan maintained that Matthew had never hit her, kicked her, or put his hands on
her in a violent manner, and she thought he posed no danger to her. Megan stated that
Matthew has been in MC’s life for the past few years and that he treats MC as if he were his
own son. She also stated that MC loves Matthew. Megan did not think that Matthew has
had any negative effect on MC, nor did he pose any danger to MC. Megan stated that if she
thought Matthew was a danger to MC, she would still be separated from him.
Megan stated that MC has a short attention span and that he has shown signs of
ADHD and autism. To address these issues, Megan took MC out of school in Mountain
Home and enrolled him in school in Cotter where there are smaller classrooms, and he gets
more one-on-one attention.
Megan testified that MC has his own room and a routine at her house and that it is
difficult for him to adjust to new settings and circumstances. Megan thought that custody
and visitation should remain as it is.
5
Matthew testified that he has spent twenty years being a drug addict but that he has
been sober for almost a year. He stated that his prior drug problems had been with
methamphetamine and prescription drugs. Matthew also acknowledged a criminal history
mostly consisting of buying stolen property and that he had been to prison four times.
Matthew stated that there was a time when Megan felt like the only way to get him into
rehabilitation was to get him arrested and that he had recently spent several months in
rehabilitation programs. According to Matthew, this was the first time he had gone to
treatment. Matthew stated that he is doing what it takes not to relapse, which includes going
to AA meetings three times a week and meeting with his sponsor once a week. He also
attends church on Wednesdays and Sundays. Matthew acknowledged his pending charges
for possession of a firearm but maintained that the gun seized by the police belonged to the
driver of the car and not him.
Matthew testified that he had never been charged with a violent crime and that he is
not a danger to anyone. Matthew stated that he has been in MC’s life since MC was two
years old and that he has had a positive influence on MC. According to Matthew, MC has
called him “Dad,” and he has had to admonish MC to call him “Matt-Matt” instead.
Matthew’s probation officer, Charles Slater, also testified. Mr. Slater stated that he
had been assigned to supervise Matthew for the past seven or eight years. Mr. Slater testified
that after Matthew was arrested in June 2024 on the possession-of-a-firearm charge, he visited
Matthew in jail, and Matthew admitted using methamphetamine and tested positive for
methamphetamine. After that, Matthew went to drug rehabilitation, and from what Mr.
6
Slater was told, Matthew was dismissed from the John 3:16 program because he did not tell
on one of his roommates for having a cell phone. Mr. Slater stated, “I don’t necessarily agree
with something like that because I don’t see what that has to do with their sobriety.”
Matthew then checked himself into the Changes Recovery inpatient rehabilitation program.
A couple months later, Matthew returned to full-time employment. Mr. Slater stated that,
for the past ten months since Matthew’s arrest for possessing a firearm, Matthew has reported
to probation every week or every other week as directed and is drug tested each time. Mr.
Slater stated that during that time frame, Matthew had not failed any drug test, and that,
other than the arrest, Matthew was in complete compliance with his probation supervision.
Mr. Slater stated that Matthew has shown in the past that he is capable of maintaining
sobriety while working full time, and he thought that Matthew was doing what he needed to
do to continue on the right path. Mr. Slater stated that he was not aware of any charges
concerning violence against Matthew during his supervision of him and that he did not think
Matthew was a danger to anyone.
Christopher was the last witness to testify. Christopher stated that he married
Jennifer Williams three or four years ago and that they have two boys together who are both
older than MC. Christopher stated that he provides a good home environment for MC and
that MC gets along well with his older brothers. Christopher is a subcontractor and works
from 8:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, while Jennifer is a stay-at-home mom.
Christopher also stated that he has extended family who visit them.
7
Christopher stated that Megan changed MC’s schools without notifying him and that
he would have preferred that MC remain in school in Mountain Home, where his other two
children attend school. Christopher stated further that Megan does not keep him informed
about MC’s doctor visits and other important information affecting MC’s welfare.
Christopher stated that Megan informed him she had filed for an order of protection
against Matthew and of her intention to divorce him but that Megan later dismissed the
petition and stayed married to Matthew. Christopher stated that he had concerns about MC
being around Matthew given Matthew’s long criminal history and methamphetamine use
and Matthew’s more recent episodes in which he caused damage to Megan’s property and
was arrested on a gun charge. Christopher stated that he wanted to be awarded primary
custody or, at a minimum, joint custody of MC.
On cross-examination, Christopher acknowledged that in May 2017, he was in a
domestic dispute with Jennifer regarding their oldest child. In that litigation, Christopher
filed a petition for ex parte custody where he alleged the following:
It is in the best interest of the child that the Plaintiff be awarded ex-parte custody to
prevent the child from suffering imminent danger. Specifically, the Defendant
routinely leaves the child with the Plaintiff from 9:00 a.m. until 4:00 a.m., she stays
at the bar all night, does not come home, spends no time with the child, drinks
alcohol heavily, is bi-polar and takes Vyvanse medication while drinking, and is
otherwise unable to provide any basic care and supervision for the child.
Christopher also acknowledged that several years ago, he and Jennifer were arrested on
domestic-violence charges that occurred at Christopher’s home and resulted in a brief nocontact order. However, according to Christopher, neither of them were convicted.
8
At the conclusion of the hearing on Christopher’s motion to change custody, the trial
court declined to change custody and announced the following ruling from the bench:
The Court is required to find a material change in circumstances to change child
custody arrangements. . . . The Court is definitely concerned about [Matthew’s] past
and what has happened in the home since we were last here. And I do find that based
on that, based on the fact that [Megan] has married [Matthew] now and that the
parties have, their situations in life have changed, there has been a material change
in circumstances. But the second part of that is for me to look at what is in [MC’s]
best interests and what has been going on since the start of this case is that
[Christopher] has progressively gotten more time with him and from both accounts,
hearing from both of y’all, he’s doing pretty well. . . . So, I don’t know that at this
juncture changing custody to even a joint situation is in his best interest. But I do
think that [Christopher] is very interested in being a father to him and that we need
to expand his time with him. . . . So, we are going to modify the visitation
arrangement from what it is now, which is pretty limited based on [Christopher’s]
involvement and his desire to be more involved. We are going to expand that. He
will pick [MC] up from school every other weekend at 5:00 and then he will take him
back to school on Monday mornings. So that will expand the weekend a little bit
there but then he is also going to have him every Wednesday night of every week. . .
. But I do think that both of you all care a great deal about [MC] and I also think
that [Megan] has shown that if something is going to happen to her at home, she is
going to protect her kid. This is on [Matthew’s] word that he is going to act right
from here on out and if he doesn’t this could go very differently in the future. I have
no reason to think that he is going to be violent towards your child or otherwise this
would have been a very different result. But methamphetamine is a dangerous drug
and if he relapses again and causes [MC] any sort of consternation this could end up
very differently.
On May 6, 2025, the trial court entered an order consistent with its findings from
the bench. In the order, the trial court found that there had been a substantial change in
circumstances, and although it declined to grant Christopher a change in custody, it did
expand his visitation. The trial court increased Christopher’s visitation to include every
Wednesday night and it increased his every-other-weekend visitation such that he would have
MC until Monday morning instead of Sunday evening.
9
Christipher timely appealed form the trial court’s order, and he argues on appeal that
the trial court erred in leaving MC in the primary custody of Megan instead of awarding him
primary custody or at least joint custody.
II. Standard of Review
We perform a de novo review of child-custody matters, but we will not reverse the
trial court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Wauchope v. Moore, 2026 Ark. App.
202, 732 S.W.3d 819. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to
support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made. Id. Deference to the trial court is even greater in cases involving child custody
because a heavier burden is placed on the trial court to utilize to the fullest extent its powers
of perception in evaluating the witnesses, their testimony, and the best interest of the
children. Fudge v. Dorman, 2017 Ark. App. 181, 516 S.W.3d 306.
For custody-modification cases, courts impose more stringent standards than they do
for initial determinations of custody in order to promote stability and continuity in the life
of the child and to discourage the repeated litigation of the same issues. Geren Williams v.
Geren, 2015 Ark. App. 197, 458 S.W.3d 759. Modification of custody is a two-step process:
first, the trial court must determine whether a material change in circumstances has occurred
since the last custody order; and second, if the court finds that there has been a material
change in circumstances, the court must determine whether a change of custody is in the
child’s best interest. Wallis v. Holsing, 2023 Ark. App. 137, 661 S.W.3d 284. A child-custody
10
determination is fact specific, and each case ultimately must rest on its own facts. Graf v.
Graf, 2024 Ark. App. 212, 686 S.W.3d 912.
III. Best Interest
The trial court found that there had been a material change in circumstances since
the last custody order, but it found that a change in custody was not in MC’s best interest. 1
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, Christopher argues that the trial court’s bestinterest finding was clearly erroneous.
Christopher’s primary contention is that a change of custody should have been
awarded because Megan’s husband, Matthew, presents a serious threat of danger to MC.
Christopher asserts that by Matthew’s own admission, he has been addicted to
methamphetamine for twenty years. Matthew also has a considerable criminal history that
includes acquiring a recent felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge that occurred when
Matthew was under the influence of methamphetamine that remained pending at the time
of the custody hearing. Christopher asserts further that Matthew violently entered Megan’s
house and destroyed Megan’s phone in the presence of one of Megan’s children, which
prompted Megan to file for an order of protection against Matthew for the protection of her
children, only to later dismiss the petition. Although Matthew had attended inpatient
rehabilitation before has was allowed back into Megan’s home, Christopher states there was
no evidence that Matthew had actually completed any rehabilitation program. Christopher
1
Neither party appeals the finding of a material change of circumstances.
11
states further that there is no assurance that Matthew will not relapse into illegal drug use as
he has done in the past. Christopher also states that, in addition to the foregoing, there was
testimony that Megan had taken multiple steps to keep him from being informed about
important events in MC’s life and had changed MC’s school without telling him.
Christopher argues that the trial court’s decision to take an admitted twenty-year
methamphetamine addict with a history of unpredictable relapse “on his word that he is
going to act right from here on out” places MC at direct risk. Because of that direct risk,
Christopher contends that it was erroneous to deny him a custody modification and that he
should have been awarded primary custody or at least joint custody of MC.
Although Megan’s husband, Matthew, has a long history of methamphetamine
addiction and a criminal history for which he remains on probation, under the particular
facts presented, we conclude that the trial court’s decision to not change custody was not
clearly erroneous. Matthew was on probation for theft by receiving, and there was no
evidence that he had been convicted of any violent criminal offense. Megan testified that
Matthew had never touched her in a violent manner, and she thought that Matthew posed
no danger to her or to MC. There was testimony that Matthew and MC are bonded and
that Matthew treats MC as if he were his own son.
Matthew testified that had recently been to two rehabilitation programs, that he
regularly attends AA meetings, and that he has a sponsor. Matthew’s probation officer, Mr.
Slater, confirmed that Matthew had not tested positive for drugs over the past ten months
despite being regularly tested and that Matthew was complying with the terms of his
12
probation. Mr. Slater thought Matthew was capable of maintaining sobriety and thought he
was “on the right path.” Mr. Slater stated further that during his many years of supervising
Matthew, he was not aware of any violent charges against him and did not think Matthew
was a danger to anyone.
Despite Matthew’s criminal issues and history of methamphetamine addiction, there
was an absence of evidence that Matthew had ever physically harmed MC or anyone else.
On the contrary, there was testimony that MC loves Matthew and that they have a positive
relationship. The trial court considered the testimony and found that it had no reason to
think that Matthew would be violent toward MC and found that it was in MC’s best interest
to remain in Megan’s primary custody. Having reviewed the record, we are not left with the
definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in this regard.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the trial court’s finding that a change in
custody was not in MC’s best interest was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
TUCKER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
Jeremy D. Lowrey, for appellant.
Turner & Rasch, by: Presley Turner and Brooke Augusta Ware, for separate appellee
Megan Johnson.
13