Linaia Ledoux-Syrock v. Gerard Ledoux

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 533
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-23-757

LINAIA LEDOUX-SYROCK Opinion Delivered October 30, 2024

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. GREENWOOD DISTRICT
[NO. 66GDR-17-272]
GERARD LEDOUX
APPELLEE HONORABLE SHANNON L. BLATT,
JUDGE

AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge
Appellant Linaia Ledoux-Syrock appeals from the Sebastian County Circuit Court’s

order modifying custody and visitation from joint custody to primary custody in appellee

Gerard Ledoux. Linaia argues that the court erred in finding that a material change in

circumstances had occurred since the entry of the parties’ previous custody order and that it

was in the child’s best interest to modify custody. We affirm.

Linaia and Gerard were divorced by decree on October 25, 2018, which granted them

joint legal and physical custody of their minor child (M.C.) (DOB 07/07/15). An agreed

order was entered on January 27, 2021, wherein Gerard was named primary legal custodian

of M.C. because Linaia acknowledged a material change in circumstances warranted a

modification. The parties continued to share joint physical custody. On October 17, 2022,
Gerard filed a petition for temporary and permanent modification of custody and an ex parte

order for emergency custody based on allegations that there had been a material change in

circumstances affecting M.C.’s best interest, including the fact that Linaia had been suffering

from serious mental-health issues that rendered her unstable and incapable of caring for

M.C. In support of the petition, he referenced two suicide attempts by Linaia that were

witnessed by M.C. Linaia acknowledged that the allegations contained in the petition were

true, and a November 30, 2022 temporary order granted primary custody to Gerard and

supervised visits to Linaia.

A final hearing was held on June 29, 2023. At the final hearing, Linaia testified that

since her divorce from Gerard, she had gotten married, moved, had a baby, and experienced

postpartum depression. She shares a two-year-old with her current husband from whom she

is currently separated. Linaia testified that she is working as a delivery driver and grocery

shopper and that she earns on average around $550 a month total gross income. She testified

that she cannot work in a typical work environment due to her “complex PTSD

complications” and other health issues. She believed that she had a heart attack in July 2022,

but she did not go to the emergency room for fear of not being taken seriously. Linaia

testified that she has a tendency to pass out and get lightheaded when she experiences stress.

Linaia stated her bills were being paid by her estranged husband until she can become more

financially stable.

Linaia acknowledged and recalled her two suicide attempts. On September 23, 2022,

Linaia had a disagreement with her husband, and she overdosed on more than twenty-six

2
prescription pills. Linaia was taken to the hospital by ambulance and was admitted for

approximately three days. Linaia had both M.C. and her younger child with her at the time

of the attempt. The following October, Linaia got into another argument with her husband

while riding in the car with him and both of her children. During the argument, Linaia

unbuckled her seatbelt, unlatched the door, and attempted to exit the moving car while

saying she no longer wanted to live. When the car stopped, she got out and crossed a field

into a wooded area where she disappeared for several hours. M.C. saw all of this. Linaia

voluntarily entered the Crisis Stabilization Unit after this incident.

A psychological evaluation was introduced from June 7, 2023. It provided that Linaia

meets the clinical criteria for the diagnosis borderline personality disorder. Linaia denied the

need for additional treatment, and she has not implemented additional support since this

diagnosis or her suicide attempts. Linaia testified that she stopped taking her medicine and

has not experienced thoughts of harm.

Linaia acknowledged that her parenting may be considered “a little bit

unconventional”—she occasionally breastfed M.C. up until he was seven years old and she

had adult conversations with M.C. during her supervised visits. Linaia also regularly

discussed her medical diagnoses and health issues with M.C.

Gerard testified that he had remained married, working at the same job and living in

the same home since the entry of the last order. Gerard testified that he has a stable income

that is sufficient to provide for M.C. Gerard filed the petition seeking a modification of

custody and visitation because he feels Linaia is mentally unstable and emotionally abusive.

3
Gerard testified that visitation exchanges have been upsetting for M.C. and that M.C.

regularly has to console Linaia, who will cry and become emotionally unstable at exchanges.

Gerard testified that since M.C. witnessed Linaia’s suicide attempts, he is concerned M.C.

will not be able to tell Linaia how he feels for fear of upsetting her. Gerard is also concerned

that Linaia has less support now and more stressors in her life and that she will not be able

to handle the stress of her children. Gerard testified that he has concerns that Linaia doesn’t

acknowledge her mental diagnoses and fails to seek treatment options. Gerard requested that

he be awarded primary custody and that Linaia have monitored, graduated visitation until

she proves her stability and commitment to mental-health treatment before progressing into

the court’s standard order of visitation.

Linaia’s licensed professional counselor testified that she has been treating her weekly

since 2021, although that had recently changed to twice a week. The counselor testified that

changes to the treatment plan were made after Linaia’s suicide attempts in 2022, including

creating safety plans.

The ad litem recommended—and testified that it would be in M.C.’s best interest—

that Gerard have primary custody and that Linaia have visits somewhere other than the

supervised facility where visits have taken place before phasing into unsupervised visits to

confirm all is going well. The ad litem reported that he had reviewed the supervised-visitation

reports and that Linaia had engaged in conversations with M.C. that were better suited for

discussing with an adult. The ad litem stated that his recommendations were contingent on

Linaia maintaining her mental-health treatment and following the recommendations of her

4
counselors and physicians. Finally, the ad litem recommended that Linaia no longer

breastfeed M.C.

The court entered an order continuing primary custody with Gerard and

implemented a graduated visitation schedule for Linaia. Linaia now appeals.

This court performs a de novo review of child-custody matters, but we will not reverse

a circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Pace v. Pace, 2020 Ark. 108, at 9,

595 S.W.3d 347, 352. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to

support it, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been made. Smith v. Parker, 67 Ark. App. 221, 224, 998 S.W.2d 1, 3 (1999).

To modify a custody decree, the circuit court must apply a two-step process. First, it

must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances since issuance

of the last order of custody—in this case, the January 2021 agreed order. Second, if the court

finds that there has been a material change in circumstances, the court must determine

whether a change of custody is in the child’s best interest. Snider v. Snider, 2024 Ark. App.

317. The best interest of the child is the polestar in every child-custody case; all other

considerations are secondary. Id. We give special deference to the superior position of the

circuit court to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s best interest. Bray v.

Bray, 2020 Ark. App. 111, 595 S.W.3d 72.

Linaia argues there was no evidence presented of a material change. She contends she

is not currently a potential harm to M.C. and that there was no evidence presented that

M.C. has been affected by her actions. Her argument has no merit.

5
Since the entry of the last custody order in January 2021, Linaia has experienced

multiple negative material changes in her life affecting her fitness and stability as a parent.

Most importantly, Linaia acknowledged there had been a material change in circumstances

in the agreed temporary order, and she did not present convincing evidence at the final

hearing of how her situation was any different. Linaia attempted suicide twice in the presence

of her children, she is financially dependent on her estranged husband, she admittedly still

has stressors that exacerbate her mental-health struggles, and she received a diagnosis of

borderline personality disorder. While Linaia testified that her instability is no longer an

issue, the court clearly did not believe her testimony. Moreover, there is no requirement that

the circuit court wait until a child is actually harmed before finding that a material change

in circumstances warrants a change in custody. Sisson v. Sisson, 2012 Ark. App. 385, 421

S.W.3d 312. Accordingly, the court’s finding of a material change of circumstances was not

clearly erroneous.

Next, Linaia argues that, even if the circuit court properly found that there had been

a material change in circumstances, there was not sufficient evidence to show that it was in

M.C.’s best interest to modify custody.

Since the entry of the last custody order, Linaia conceded that M.C. was at imminent

risk of harm should he continue to be in her care. Further, the record supports the court’s

finding that Gerard was the parent with the most appropriate behavior and stability. Again,

Linaia alleges that there was no evidence presented of actual harm to M.C. She claims M.C.

is thriving, has friends, and is doing well in school. Not only is this a request to reweigh the

6
evidence but also, it is a request to determine whether M.C. was negatively affected by her

conduct. This is not the standard against which we conduct our review. See Cameron v.

Cameron, 2023 Ark. App. 278. M.C.’s best interest is supported by the custody modification.

For these reasons, we do not believe with definite and firm conviction that a mistake

has been made.

Affirmed.

GRUBER and BARRETT, JJ., agree.

Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.

Bryant Law Partners, LLC, by: Veronica L. Bryant, for appellee.

7