{
  "id": 1724155,
  "name": "Tyler v. Tyler",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tyler v. Tyler",
  "decision_date": "1966-09-26",
  "docket_number": "5-3950",
  "first_page": "98",
  "last_page": "100",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 Ark. 98"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "406 S.W.2d 333"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1737888
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 Ark. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1475796
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/209/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 S. W. 2d 817",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 Ark. 937",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1425467
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/189/0937-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 369,
    "char_count": 4840,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6007483447876691
    },
    "sha256": "9a71b6a4b7d0acf9dc47c8832a37ddc28f53f701837688e3d809996964ec5e72",
    "simhash": "1:4bdbe2b6278592a1",
    "word_count": 784
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Tyler v. Tyler"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cuy Amsler, Justice.\nThis litigation involves the custody of a six year old boy, (Craig) who is now attending public school in Paragould, Arkansas, where the hoy\u2019s father resides with his fourth wife and the child.\nThe learned chancery judge decreed that custody of the child should remain in the father, appellee Leroy J. Tyler. Appellant (Mabel), the mother and former wife of appellee pursues this appeal.\nAttorneys for appellant correctly state that the cardinal question is where does a preponderance of the evidence lie or as they say \u201cfrom another point of view, the decision of the Chancellor is not compatible with the best interests of the minor child.\u201d A brief resume of the proof in the case will readily demonstrate the soundness of the Chancellor\u2019s conclusions.\nAppellant testified that her married life with appellee, from 1957 until their divorce in 1963, was a stormy one; that when she became pregnant in 19'59 she was unhappy about it and when she suggested having an abortion (which she did not do), appellee did not object; that appellee changed jobs frequently and they moved constantly; that she also worked throughout the marriage, because appellee did not consistently contribute to household expenses; that when she decided to take further training to increase her earning capacity, appellee reluctantly agreed to keep Craig during her 1% years of schooling and agreed that there would be no decision made about Craig\u2019s custody until that time. A doctor\u2019s wife, who had gone through nurse\u2019s training with appellant, testified that appellant was a good mother, affectionate with her son, and that during appellant\u2019s advanced schooling in Michigan, appellant drove or flew down to see Craig every three months regardless of the weather. Two women, themselves mothers, who had baby-sat for appellant in the past, testified by deposition that appellant had maintained a nice home, was a good mother, affectionate, and a proper person to have Craig\u2019s custody. Appellant\u2019s former landlord testified that she had a suitable (rented) home (in Illinois) for a child, near schools.\nAppellee\u2019s witnesses, besides himself and his present wife Dorothy, testified: their minister, \u201cdelightful family relationship, a lovely home with a proper spiritual atmosphere\u201d; two neighbors, \u201cnice home, fondness and affection not only between Craig and appellee but also between Craig and Dorothy Tyler\u201d; Craig\u2019s kindergarten teacher, \u2018 \u2018 neat, clean, healthy, happy and normal boy\u201d; the wife of a co-worker of appellee, \u201cwholesome atmosphere and relationship in appellee\u2019s home; happy, normal well-adjusted child\u201d; a former co-worker, \u201ca home that just seems orderly, and there\u2019s harmony there, there\u2019s love, and it\u2019s just a beautiful home in which to raise a young lad\u201d; appellee\u2019s former employer and his wife who came from Independence, Missouri, to testify (the only witnesses for appellee who know appellant), \u201cappellant inclined to be rather aloof and retiring, except when she was working; appellant seemed detached and withdrawn\u201d; and the minister of Dorothy\u2019s mother, with whom Craig frequently stayed for a few hours after kindergarten, \u201cgood clean home, healthy woman and well able to look after Craig, nothing about her home that would have an adverse effect on Craig.\u201d\nThe only real demerit against appellee is his numerous unsuccessful marriages and yet the one with his present wife appears to have been most fortunate. According to Mr. Heath, the funeral director by whom Leroy has been employed as an embalmer and director for over two years, \u201cLeroy is one of the best in his line of work. . . there is nothing about appellee or his home that would be harmful to Craig . . . his marriage to Dorothy Tyler had seemed to have a stabilizing influence on him\u201d (appellee), and he felt that their marriage was very fortunate for both of them.\nThe chancellor having heard the witnesses first hand with an opportunity to observe their demeanor, sincerity and their means of obtaining* information which they imparted to the court was in a much better position than are we to evaluate their testimony. We think the evidence clearly supports appellee\u2019s position and that the trial court has correctly determined that the child\u2019s welfare will best be served by remaining with his father. Kirby v. Kirby, 189 Ark. 937, 75 S. W. 2d 817; Blake v. Smith, 209 Ark. 304, 190 S. W. 2d 455; Stephenson v. Stephenson, 237 Ark. 724, 375 S. W. 2d 659.\nUnder the final decree in this ease appellant is to have custody of the little boy sixty days each summer and one weekend during the remaining months. Appellee does not contest this arrangement. Accordingly the decree is in all respects affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cuy Amsler, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ward & Mooney, for appellant.",
      "Kirsch, Cathey & Brown, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tyler v. Tyler\n5-3950\n406 S. W. 2d 333\nOpinion delivered September 26, 1966\nWard & Mooney, for appellant.\nKirsch, Cathey & Brown, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0098-01",
  "first_page_order": 120,
  "last_page_order": 122
}