{
  "id": 8720494,
  "name": "Bill NEEDHAM v. Marilyn NEEDHAM",
  "name_abbreviation": "Needham v. Needham",
  "decision_date": "1970-11-09",
  "docket_number": "5-5363",
  "first_page": "411",
  "last_page": "413",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 Ark. 411"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "459 S.W.2d 417"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "231 Ark. 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1697055
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/231/0745-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 2954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.815,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2085192997738478
    },
    "sha256": "f4766a3312b3b6178dd417abb6065e42cea2ff258506466e37ab3aed55243aba",
    "simhash": "1:a4c4974f2612f8a0",
    "word_count": 501
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:50:24.525274+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bill NEEDHAM v. Marilyn NEEDHAM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nThe trial court in this divorce case awarded the custody of Marshall Wayne Needham, age 3, to the mother of appellee, Marilyn Needham. In so doing it gave appellee reasonable visitation rights at any and all times but limited the appellant, Bill Need-ham to every other week-end and on Wednesday from 4:00 to 10:00 P. M. Appellant here contends that the custody should have been awarded to him.\nThe record shows that the parties were married in 1965 and lived together until July 22, 1969. To this marriage was born Marshall Wayne Needham.\nThe unfitness of the appellee to have custody is not seriously in dispute. The record is replete with indiscretions involving other men and in particular one boy, age fifteen, to such an extent that the boy\u2019s mother complained to appellee. Further appellee at one time was on dope until her mother had her committed to an institution.\nThe record shows that appellant, the father of the child, is steadily employed and that if awarded custody he would keep the child at his mother\u2019s and father\u2019s home. The only testimony touching upon appellant\u2019s character was that on one or two occasions he slapped or hit the appellee and that early one morning he attempted to kick a front door down when he found ap-pellee and another man in their jointly purchased house under circumstances from which one could surmise that the man had spent the night.\nAppellant\u2019s mother testified that her home consisted of two bedrooms upstairs, two bedrooms downstairs and a living room and kitchen. Living at her home were her husband, her son Charles and his three children and appellant. When Marshall Wayne spent the night with her, he slept with appellant. Her son Charles was divorced from his wife and she was helping him with his children.\nIt was pointed out in Rayburn v. Rayburn, 231 Ark. 745, 332 S. W. 2d 230 (1960), that a natural parent\u2019s right to custody of a child is paramount to all others unless the parent is proved to be incompetent or unfit. Here, we can find, nothing in the record to show that the father is either incompetent or unfit. On the contrary the record demonstrates the appellant to be a steadily employed man who has attempted on numerous occasions and under some rather trying circumstances to maintain a home for himself and the child.\nThe appellee, to sustain the award of custody to her mother, argues that the appellant\u2019s proposed arrangements for keeping the child at his mother\u2019s home were inadequate because of the number of people living there. Appellee\u2019s assertion in this respect is not supported by the record.\nFor the reasons stated, the award of custody is reversed with directions to award custody to the appellant, . subject to the appellee\u2019s reasonable visitation rights.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sexton, Wiggins ir Christian, for appellant.",
      "Garner \u00e9r Parker, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bill NEEDHAM v. Marilyn NEEDHAM\n5-5363\n459 S. W. 2d 417\nOpinion delivered November 9, 1970\nSexton, Wiggins ir Christian, for appellant.\nGarner \u00e9r Parker, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0411-01",
  "first_page_order": 433,
  "last_page_order": 435
}