ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION II

SANDRA ANN FORD (CARNEY)

APPELLANT

V.

WILLIAM RIALTO FORD

APPELLEE

CA 00-1196

MAY 2, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

[NO. E 95-505-1]

HONORABLE FLOYD G. ROGERS,

CHANCERY JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

This appeal arose out of the Crawford County Chancery Court's decision not to change custody of the parties' two minor children from joint custody to the appellant, Sandra Ford. The trial court refused to order the appellee, William Ford, to provide child support, but directed appellee to make payments to catch up on his share of the children's expenses. The parties were divorced by decree in August 1996. The parties agreed to joint custody of the two minor children, and that each party would be responsible for one-half of the support of the children. No child support was ordered. Although it is in dispute as to the amount of time the children lived with each of the parties the first two years after the agreement, it is not disputed that at the time of trial the children lived with appellant.

Appellant filed a motion to change custody, to have appellee pay child support, and

to recover expenses from appellee incurred while the children have been living with her. The court ordered that the children remain in the joint custody of both appellant and appellee, but designated appellant as the "primary custodian" of the children. The trial court found that there had not been a material change of circumstances, and thus appellant was not entitled to modify the divorce decree and receive child support. The chancellor found that appellee was still responsible under the divorce decree for one-half of the reasonable amount of the children's expenses. Appellant appeals this decision arguing that the chancellor erred in not finding a material change in circumstances and refusing to order appellee to pay child support. We reverse and remand.

In chancery cases we review the case de novo, but we do not reverse the findings of the chancellor unless it is shown that they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Presley v. Presley, 66 Ark. App. 316, 989 S.W.2d 938 (1999). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite conviction that a mistake was committed. Turner v. Benson, 59 Ark. App. 108, 953 S.W.2d 596 (1997). In child-custody cases we give special deference to the chancellor's position to evaluate what is in the best interests of the child. Thompson v. Thompson, 63 Ark. App. 89, 974 S.W.2d 494 (1998).

Appellant contends that the chancellor erred in not finding a material change in circumstances. A material change of circumstances affecting the best interests of the child must be shown before a court can modify an order regarding child custody, and the burden is on the party seeking modification to prove such a material change in circumstances. See id. Joint custody of minor children is not favored in Arkansas unless circumstances warrantsuch action. Thompson, supra. The mutual ability of the parties to cooperate in reaching shared decisions in matters affecting the child's welfare is a crucial factor bearing on the propriety of an award of joint custody, and such an award is improper where cooperation between parents is lacking. Id. (citing 24 Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation § 990 (1983)). We have reversed awards of joint custody where it was clear that the parties were not working in concert to raise the child. Hansen v. Hansen, 11 Ark. App. 104, 666 S.W.2d 726 (1984).

In the case at bar, the chancellor found that appellant was the primary custodian. We hold that this finding along with the fact that the children have been living primarily with appellant for the last two years, and the fact that appellant is remarried, is sufficient to hold that the chancellor erred in not finding a material change of circumstances. We remand this case to the trial court for a determination as to whether a change of custody is in the best interest of the children, and if so to set child support in accordance with the child-support guidelines.

Reversed and remanded.

Robbins and Vaught, JJ., agree.