The circuit court noted that the main difference between the instant case and Robinson was that in the latter, the parties were married but Arkansas law does not allow for same-sex marriage. This court granted a petition for review in Robinson, and affirmed the circuit court's order finding that the stepmother stood in loco parentis and was thus entitled to visitation with her stepson. Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005). The majority's decision continues the erosion of parental rights recently seen in Fletcher v. Scorza, 2010 Ark. 64, 359 S.W.3d 413, wherein we held that " in guardianship matters, the natural-parent preference is but one consideration, which is subservient to the principle that the child's best interest is the paramount consideration."
This court has held that a circuit court may award visitation to a stepparent who stands in loco parentis to a minor child of a natural parent when it determines that preservation of the relationship is in the best interest of the child. Robinson v. Ford–Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005). In Robinson, this court affirmed a grant of visitation to a stepmother who had raised a child as her own for seven years, beginning when the child was eighteen months old.
This court has held that a circuit court may award visitation to a stepparent who stands in loco parentis to a minor child of a natural parent when it determines that preservation of the relationship is in the best interest of the child. Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005). In Robinson, this court affirmed a grant of visitation to a stepmother who had raised a child as her own for seven years, beginning when the child was eighteen months old.
We review domestic-relations cases de novo on the record, and we will not reverse the trial court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005). A trial court's finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire record is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
We turn to the law governing an award of visitation to a person who is not the child's legal parent. In Robinson v. Ford–Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005), the supreme court made it clear that a court may award visitation to a stepparent who stands in loco parentis to a child over the natural parent's objection if the court determines that it is in the best interest of the child. The court also stated that the natural-parent presumption, which governs in stepparent-custody cases, was not applicable in cases awarding visitation only. Robinson, 362 Ark. at 239, 208 S.W.3d at 143.
We note that since the Troxel decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined additional opportunities to define the scope of a parent's due process right in the nonparent visitation context, which may mean that state courts are expected to adjudicate the matter on a case-by-case basis. See, Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005), cert. denied 546 U.S. 936, 126 S. Ct. 424, 163 L. Ed. 2d 323; Galjour v. Harris, 795 So. 2d 350 (La. App. 2001), cert. denied 534 U.S. 1020, 122 S. Ct. 545, 151 L. Ed. 2d 422; Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S. Ct. 1259, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (2003); Moriarty v. Bradt, 111 N.J. 84, 827 A.2d 203 (2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1177, 124 S. Ct. 1408, 158 L. Ed. 2d 78 (2004); Harrold v. Collier, 107 Ohio St. 3d 44, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (2005), cert. denied 547 U.S. 1004, 126 S. Ct. 1474, 164 L. Ed. 2d 248 (2006). The lack of a precise standard in Troxel has been criticized by some authorities.
We hold that a court may award visitation to a stepparent who stands in loco parentis to a minor child when it determines that it is in the best interest of the child.Bethany v. Jones, 2011 Ark. 67, at 10, 378 S.W.3d 731, 737 (quoting Robinson v. Ford-Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 239-40, 208 S.W.3d 140, 144 (2005)). Shane argues on appeal that the trial court violated his constitutional right to direct the control and upbringing of his child when it refused to terminate Theresa's visitation rights.
We review domestic-relations cases de novo on the record, but will not reverse a trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Robinson v. Ford–Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2004). A finding of fact by a circuit court is clearly erroneous when, despite supporting evidence in the record, the appellate court viewing all of the evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9–13–103 (Repl. 2009) (grandparent visitation); Ark. Code Ann. § 9–13–102 (sibling visitation); Robinson v. Ford–Robinson, 362 Ark. 232, 208 S.W.3d 140 (2005) (stepparent visitation). But in guardianships, the decision is generally between a natural parent and a non-natural parent.