NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER

DIVISION III

RHONDA GAY HENLEY

APPELLANT

V.

ALAN WADE HENLEY

APPELLEE

CA00-1434

OCTOBER 3, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT

[NO. E1999-2009-4]

HONORABLE MARY ANN GUNN,

CHANCELLOR

AFFIRMED

In this divorce and custody case, the trial judge granted a divorce to appellee based upon general indignities, awarded custody of the parties' minor children to appellant, set visitation for appellee and ordered him to pay child support. On appeal, appellant asserts three errors: (1) that the trial court erred by rejecting her affirmative defense of recrimination in granting appellee a divorce; (2) that the trial court erred by awarding appellee visitation every spring-break holiday; and (3) that the trial court erred in failing to grant sufficient child support and alimony. We find no error and affirm.

The parties were married July 1, 1989, and separated on or about July 1, 1999. At the time of separation, the parties had three minor children ranging in ages from one through seven. Appellee, Dr. Henley, filed the complaint for divorce on November 18, 1999, and requested primary custody of the children. Appellant filed a counterclaim for separate maintenance and primary custody of the children. In her answer to Dr. Henley's complaint, appellant denied that appellee was entitled to a

divorce, pleading the affirmative defenses of recrimination, comparative rectitude, condonation,estoppel, and laches. Appellee answered the counterclaim admitting he left appellant but stating that appellant was not without fault in the separation. On April 3, 2000, appellee filed an amended complaint for divorce setting forth an additional allegation that subsequent to the filing of the original complaint, that appellant with wilful and malicious intent attempted to and did inflict property damage on appellee's vehicle by "ramming" it several times on the public highways and intended to inflict bodily harm on appellee. Appellant's answers denied appellee's entitlement to relief, again alleged the affirmative defenses previously pleaded and added the defense of unclean hands.

At trial, the court granted appellee a divorce on the grounds of general indignities, awarded custody of the minor children to appellant pursuant to an agreement between the parties, specified visitation for appellee, which included every spring break with the children, and set child support in the amount of $2,819.41 per month and alimony for a period of eight years in the amount of $563.88 per month.

To prevail on appeal, appellant must demonstrate that the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous. A 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. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 72 Ark. App. 15, 32 S.W.3d 41 (2000).

For her first point on appeal, appellant asserts that the trial judge erred in granting appellee a divorce based upon the affirmative defense of recrimination. The judge found that both parties were at fault and, therefore, she was required to examine in detail the fault of each party. When both parties are at fault, it is appropriate that relief be granted against the greater and first offender. See Weber v. Weber, 256 Ark. 549, 508 S.W.2d 725 (1974); Longinotti v. Longinotti, 169 Ark. 1001, 277 S.W. 41 (1925).

In its analysis, the trial court found ample evidence of what, for lack of a better term, was a car chase by appellant of appellee and his passenger and further found that appellant endangered the lives of appellee, his passenger, and other motorists on the roadway. The court noted that this particular incident was a critical factor in determining the relative fault of the parties and found that appellee had met his burden of proving that he was entitled to relief. In reviewing the entire record, we cannot say that a mistake has been committed and accordingly affirm on this point.

Appellant's second point asserts that the trial court erred in awarding the appellee visitation every spring-break holiday. Her argument is apparently based on the observation that the trial court gave no reason as to why the holiday was not equally divided between the parties. Appellant further argues that it is not in the children's best interest never to be able to enjoy the family holiday of spring break with their mother.

The trial court awarded this time to appellee after finding that he was an excellent father and that he had worked his professional life around his family. All other holidays were divided evenly between the parties. The court denied appellee's request of visitation to coincide with his days off determining that it was in the best interests of the children to stay in the same location on school nights to promote continuity and stability in their lives during the school year. We find no error in the court's reasoning.

Appellant cites no convincing argument or authority for her third point, that the trial court erred in failing to grant sufficient child support and alimony. She appears to argue only that the trial court offered no explanation as to why both the child support and alimony figures were reduced and that appellee clearly had sufficient funds and resources available to him to maintain the same level of support as he was voluntarily paying prior to the divorce. Assignment of error unsupported by convincing argument or authority will not be considered on appeal unless it is apparent withoutfurther research that the assignment of error is well taken. Menard v. City of Carlisle, 309 Ark. 522, 529, 834 S.W.2d 632 (1992); Smith v. Smith, 41 Ark.App. 29, 32, 848 S.W.2d 428 (1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

Robbins and Roaf, JJ., agree.