{ "id": 50363, "name": "Christine M. JONES v. Jerry A. JONES", "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. Jones", "decision_date": "1997-05-27", "docket_number": "97-212", "first_page": "684", "last_page": "687", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "328 Ark. 684" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "944 S.W.2d 121" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "761 S.W.2d 933", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1891457, 1891349 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0370-01", "/ark/297/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ark. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891457 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 Ark. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720825 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 Ark. 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 50271 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/328/0097-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 Ark. 195", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 922857 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/327/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "923 S.W.2d 810", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Jones II" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 Ark. 828", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 12025148 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Jones II" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/326/0828-01" ] }, { "cite": "326 Ark. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 12023229 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Jones I" }, { "parenthetical": "Jones I" }, { "page": "772" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/326/0481-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 396, "char_count": 6325, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.83947533245285e-07, "percentile": 0.7218584944527654 }, "sha256": "77fd279702c3ae6d4b1a55e8d19b7b330dd3ed131aebe39df78d7907ec2e2d07", "simhash": "1:0faebfe42c92930a", "word_count": 1032 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:26:32.867281+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Christine M. JONES v. Jerry A. JONES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe parties\u2019 actions in this continuing custody battle have become repetitive and frivolous. Jones v. Jones, 326 Ark. 481, 931 S.W.2d 767 (1996) (Jones I); Jones v. Jones, 326 Ark. 828, 923 S.W.2d 810 (1996) (Jones II); Jones v. Jones, 327 Ark. 195, 938 S.W.2d 228 (1997) Jones III); Jones v. Jones, 328 Ark. 97, 940 S.W.2d 881 (1997) Jones IV). Although Ms. Jones requested sanctions against Dr. Jones in Jones III, we denied granting them, but did award her $8,000.00 in attorneys\u2019 fees. Considering Dr. Jones\u2019s and his counsel\u2019s most recent actions, we are of the opinion that Dr. Jones and his counsel should be ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on them.\nIn Jones IV, Ms. Jones filed a petition for writ of prohibition, stating Dr. Jones was attempting to retry the same custody issue previously decided in Jones I. Because the chancellor indicated he might permit Dr. Jones to do so, Ms. Jones asked this court to declare that the chancery court was without jurisdiction to proceed in such a retrial. We denied Ms. Jones\u2019s request, but in doing so, we handed down a per curiam opinion that clearly emphasized the parties\u2019 custody dispute had been decided in Jones I, and instructed the chancellor that he should only consider facts indicating a material change in circumstances, arising since the last custody order. In the Jones IV opinion, we made it clear that, while we were holding that the chancery court did have jurisdiction of the parties\u2019 case, we were not countenancing relitigation of the custody issue decided in Jones I. Some examples of this court\u2019s instructions and admonitions to the parties and counsel in Jones IV are noteworthy and read as follows:\nWhile we deny Ms. Jones\u2019s petition, we are obliged to underscore certain matters contained in this court\u2019s previous decision handed down on November 6, 1996, especially since this court had to take the extraordinary step to enforce its mandate by a subsequent per curiam. That per curiam was necessary because, for whatever reason, the chancery court failed to reinstate the parties\u2019 original custody order. Because we believed that this court\u2019s opinion and instructions were perfectly clear, we issued a simple \u201cforthwith\u201d order directing the chancery court\u2019s compliance. The chancery court then complied.\nBecause of the continuing controversies involving this matter, we reiterate the well-established rule that when this court remands a case to chancery court with directions, the chancery court has no power to enter any decree except that directed, and it has no power to change or extend this court\u2019s mandate. See Ferguson v. Green, 266 Ark. 556, 587 S.W.2d 18 (1979). In this same vein, we remind the parties that, in the appeal decided November 4, 1996, this court conducted a de novo review of the chancellor\u2019s custody decision, and in doing so, the court specifically stated that child custody is determined by what is in the \u201cbest interests\u201d of the child, and it is not altered absent a material change in circumstances. In deciding the child custody issue, this court reviewed in lengthy detail the evidence offered at trial, including Ms. Jones\u2019s move to Little Rock, Dr. Jones\u2019s remarriage, and the child\u2019s emotional needs. In considering the child\u2019s emotional needs, the opinion related the competing views and opinions of four expert witnesses, concerning Ms. Jones\u2019s mental and emotional stability. After a full discussion of the parties\u2019 respective evidence, this court concluded [in Jones I\\ as follows:\nIn sum, when viewing together the repeated entry of ex parte orders, the erroneous shift of the burden to Christine Jones to prove her emotional stability, and the chancellor\u2019s faulty reliance on her move to Little Rock and Dr. Jones\u2019s remarriage as material changes in circumstances, we must conclude that the chancellor\u2019s decision to change custody to Dr. Jones was clearly erroneous.\nSimply put, this court [in Jones I\u00a1 held the chancellor was clearly wrong in ruling Dr. Jones had proven that a material change of circumstances existed, and a transfer in custody was warranted.\nHaving given the foregoing salutary statements, we remain of the opinion that evidence regarding Dr. Jones\u2019s petition for modification must first be appropriately addressed below. In deciding the modification question, we emphasize that the chancellor should only consider Jacts arising since the last custody order, or evidence that has not been previously presented to the chancellor. See Jones, 326 Ark. at 491; Stamps v. Rowlins, 297 Ark. 370, 761 S.W.2d 933 (1988). We deny Ms. Jones\u2019s petition. (Emphasis added.)\nDespite this court\u2019s patience and best efforts to explain that Dr. Jones and counsel cannot retry the custody issue decided in Jones I, Jones\u2019s counsel continue their argument that this court has never decided the substantive issue of custody, and this court in Jones IV was wrong in declaring that it had. Considering this court\u2019s clear decision in Jones IV, it is this last argument offered by counsel that appears frivolous and without legal basis.\nThis court has allowed Dr. Jones and his counsel considerable latitude in presenting and arguing their case, but counsel\u2019s past actions and especially the present argument set out in Dr. Jones\u2019s petition exhibit a clear reluctance to comply with this court\u2019s decisions and mandates, and instead offer what appear to be frivolous and argumentative assertions. Accordingly, we feel obliged to invoke Rule 11 of our Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure \u2014 Civil and in doing so, order Dr. Jones and his counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against them. Dr. Jones\u2019s and counsels\u2019 written response(s) shall be filed with the clerk of this court within ten days of this per curiam.\nWe note that, while the concurring opinion suggests this court did not consider the parties\u2019 child\u2019s emotional needs, the court thoroughly dealt with this 'issue in its original opinion under the caption \"Cameron\u2019s emotional needs.\u201d See Jones, 326 Ark. at 491, 931 S.W.2d at 772. (Emphasis added.)", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "McNutt Law Firm, by: Mona J. McNutt, for petitioner.", "Lueken Law Firm, by: Patty Lueken and Helen Rice Grinder, for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Christine M. JONES v. Jerry A. JONES\n97-212\n944 S.W.2d 121\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 27, 1997\nMcNutt Law Firm, by: Mona J. McNutt, for petitioner.\nLueken Law Firm, by: Patty Lueken and Helen Rice Grinder, for respondent." }, "file_name": "0684-01", "first_page_order": 710, "last_page_order": 713 }