Alexakis Conner v. Darrian Conner

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 310
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-24-217

Opinion Delivered May 14, 2025

ALEXAKIS CONNER APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 26DR-20-1027]
V.
HONORABLE LYNN WILLIAMS,
DARRIAN CONNER JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Alexakis and Darrian Conner were married on July 20, 2015, separated December 4,

2020, and divorced by decree of the Garland County Circuit Court on February 8, 2024.

The parties have five children together, ages ranging from five to ten at the time of the

divorce. Custody of the children was placed with their father, Darrian, subject to Alexakis’s

visitation. On appeal, Alexakis argues that the circuit court erred in granting Darrian custody

of the children in light of the evidence presented to it that Darrian is violent, has a drinking

problem, interferes with her ability to see the children, and is dishonest. We affirm.

Alexakis filed her complaint for divorce on December 16, 2020. This was followed

six days later by an ex parte petition for custody and emergency use of the marital home. In

that petition, Alexakis alleged that Darrian is emotionally and physically abusive toward the

children, Darrian has a drinking problem, and she has concerns about his ability to care for
the children. The ex parte petition was granted, and a hearing was held on the motion the

following February.

At the February 4 hearing, the court heard testimony from Alexakis that Darrian has

a drinking problem and has been “physical” toward her. She introduced a two-year-old photo

of a bruise he allegedly left on her arm from grabbing her. She also introduced photos of

alcohol bottles and a trash bag of beer cans from Darrian’s house. She said he is not violent

toward the children. Before she filed the emergency petition, Alexakis had moved to

Jacksonville. Darrian alleged that she had been stealing from their company, and she had to

move away from Hot Springs to avoid people asking her about what happened. Darrian had

lived with and taken care of the children since Alexakis moved out, December 4, until the

court granted the emergency motion. She said that during that time, she did not go by the

house or check on the kids because of the pending fraud charges.

Darrian testified that he had never been abusive toward Alexakis or the children, he

does not have a drinking problem, the photos depict empty bottles and cans that had

accumulated from having family and friends over for barbeques or visits, and he might have

two or three beers occasionally in the evening after the kids go to bed. He stated that Alexakis

moved out of the home around Thanksgiving, but she chose to leave due to the no-contact

order between Alexakis and their taxi business. He clarified that it was the taxi business and

Regions Bank pursuing the charges against Alexakis, not him. Once she moved out, she

never called to check on the kids; he had been the sole caretaker of the five children while

she was gone.

2
The court also heard testimony from Darrian’s oldest daughter and Alexakis’s

stepdaughter, who was fourteen at the time. She testified that she’s never gone without food

or shelter, and she has never seen her dad be violent toward her, her siblings, or her

stepmother.

At the conclusion of the hearing. the court noted that it was interested in keeping the

sibling group together and decided that returning everyone to the “status quo” that existed

before the motion was filed was the best course of action. Darrian was awarded use of the

marital home and custody of the children. Alexakis was granted visitation every other

weekend. Both parties were ordered not to drink alcohol when the children were present.

A final divorce hearing was held on June 5, and August 8, 2023.

At the hearing, Alexakis testified that in July 2022, she moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma,

where she currently lives with her boyfriend. She testified that during the marriage, Darrian

was frequently drunk and violent toward her. She introduced some photos of bruises from

2020. She introduced some screenshots—taken while she FaceTimed the children—of the

home looking dirty in the background. She testified that when she gets the kids, they are

dirty. She testified that since being in their father’s care they are falling behind in school.

She said there were people living in the home with Darrian and the children.

On cross-examination, Alexakis explained that Darrian would not facilitate her

communication with the children, but she could reach them through the communication

feature on the PlayStation. She had not exercised her visitation with her children since

September 2022 because Darrian would not meet her in Fort Smith.

3
Darrian testified that he and the children had lived in the same house in Hot Springs

since 2014. He worked security at Magic Springs theme park. All the children attend school

in the Hot Springs School District. He takes them to school, helps them with their

homework, and takes them to doctor and dentist appointments. The kids do great in school.

They have friends and extracurricular activities. He has family in the area who help him with

the children, and they have a great relationship with his mother. He testified he does not

have a drinking problem, the photos of the beer cans and alcohol bottles predated the

temporary order, and he might have a beer “when the kids are gone, you know.”

Since moving to Oklahoma, Alexakis had not come to visit her children. She had not

sent any financial support to help with their care. She had not helped purchase any school

supplies or clothes. She had not sent birthday gifts or holiday cards. She had not come to get

them or see them for any holidays, including Christmas. Darrian testified that he had not

blocked her ability to visit or contact any of the children. In response to questions about

how often he communicates with Alexakis, he replied, “I have nothing to say to her.” When

asked why he did not just give Alexakis a date that she could have visitation, Darrian

responded, “Her dates is every weekend.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court instructed counsel to prepare competing

findings of facts and conclusions of law and submit them to the court. The court adopted

Darrian’s proposed findings, and a divorce decree was entered February 8, 2024. The

findings were extensive, but concerning custody and Alexakis’s arguments on appeal, the

court found that it was Alexakis’s decision to move to Oklahoma, she had not exercised her

4
visitation rights, and she had provided very little in the form of support for the children over

the last two years. The court further found that Darrian had been raising the five children

by himself and had done nothing to interfere with Alexakis’s ability to come to Arkansas to

visit or have any type of relationship with the children. The court found that the children

have friends, do well in school, have relationships with their extended family, and are

involved in activities.

The court found that this evidence supports the finding that Darrian had rebutted

the presumption in favor of joint custody. Alexakis was granted visitation every other

weekend and certain holidays. The decree provided for scheduled telephone visitation every

evening at 6:00 p.m. and that the parties would exchange custody at the sheriff’s office in

Garland County. Child support was ordered.

From this decree, Alexakis appeals. On appeal, she argues that the circuit court failed

to properly consider and weigh the evidence she presented that Darrian is violent, has a

drinking problem, is uncooperative, and is dishonest.

Again, the circuit court found that Darrian had rebutted the presumption that joint

custody is favored. Alexakis does not argue that the circuit court should have awarded joint

custody; instead, she argues that the circuit court erred in awarding primary custody to

Darrian instead of her.

We perform a de novo review of child-custody matters, but we will not reverse the

circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Hamerlinck v. Hamerlinck, 2022 Ark.

App. 89, 641 S.W.3d 659. We recognize and give special deference to the superior position

5
of the circuit court to evaluate the witnesses, their testimony, and the child’s best interest.

Id.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iii) (Supp. 2023) provides that

joint custody is favored in Arkansas.

In an action concerning an original custody determination, there is a rebuttable

presumption that joint custody is in the child’s best interest, but this presumption may be

rebutted if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the

child’s best interest. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv)(a) & (b)(1). Clear and convincing

evidence is that degree of proof that will produce in the fact-finder a firm conviction as to

the allegation sought to be established. Zihala v. Staley, 2024 Ark. App. 269, 689 S.W.3d 82.

While there is a statutory preference for joint custody, this preference does not

override the ultimate guiding principle, which is to set custody that comports with the best

interest of the child. Hanson v. Hanson, 2023 Ark. App. 363, 676 S.W.3d 8. Here, the court’s

best-interest finding is supported by the fact that during the pendency of this action, Alexakis

moved to Tulsa and quit exercising her right to visitation with the children. She essentially

left Darrian to raise five children on his own.

Alexakis first argues that the evidence she presented that Darrian had battered her in

the presence of the children was “unrebutted.” However, Darrian testified that he never put

a bruise or a mark on Alexakis. At the temporary hearing, Alexakis’s stepdaughter testified

she had never been abused or witnessed abuse.

6
Alexakis next argues that Darrian was never sober, and she directs our attention to

the photos she introduced of beer cans and alcohol bottles. These were the same photos

introduced at the temporary hearing. At the divorce hearing, Darrian testified that he would

not drink unless the children were gone, which is consistent with the circuit court’s order at

the temporary hearing that the parties not drink when the children were present.

Alexakis alleges that Darrian obstructed her efforts to communicate with, visit, and

support her children. She claims he did not answer her calls and rarely responded to her

texts. However, testimony and text-message screenshots show that Alexakis expected Darrian

to meet her in Fort Smith or “just meet him halfway” with the children, offering to pay for

his gas. The temporary order was issued before Alexakis relocated to Tulsa and did not

specify a meeting location. However, it was Alexakis’s decision to move to Tulsa, and it was

not unreasonable for Darrian to be unwilling to make a six-hour round trip every other

weekend—absent a court order—due to Alexakis’s relocation.

Some of the evidence also appeared to show that Alexakis was seeking some

“summer” visitation, but the temporary order did not contemplate extended visitation. She

was awarded every other weekend, and she did not make the effort to go see her children.

She explains that she could not just show up at the house. She argues that there was a “no

contact order” that precluded her from getting her children. However, all mentions of the

no-contact order on this record were from the temporary hearing and pertained to the fraud

charges, which had been dropped. Moreover, when Alexakis was asked at the divorce hearing

to elaborate about this “order” that prevented her from picking up her children, she clarified

7
that it was not actually a court order, “[i]t was more of an aggressor meaning any time that

me and Mr. Conner had any kind of contact, it was very aggressive.”

Regarding communication, Darrian testified that he has not interfered or blocked

Alexakis’s ability to have visits or contact the kids, and she can call his phone, “but she failed

to call.” He also testified that the kids are allowed to use his phone to call her anytime.

Alexakis’s last point is that Darrian was dishonest with the circuit court. She does not

point to any testimony in particular and incorrectly states that “[t]he trial court’s temporary

order specifically forbade Darrian from drinking or having alcohol in the home in visitation.”

That order actually provided that “no party shall consume or possess alcohol in the home

when the minor children are present.” She makes no real argument regarding this subpoint

other than to imply that Darrian lacked candor concerning his alcohol consumption.

In sum, for every allegation Alexakis makes on appeal concerning why Darrian should

not have custody, there is evidence in this record to the contrary. Given this, it is clear that

Alexakis’s appeal is one asking us to reweigh the evidence and evaluate it differently than the

circuit court. This is something we will not do. Hamerlinck, 2022 Ark. App. 89, at 15, 641

S.W.3d at 667. Each child-custody determination ultimately must rest on its own facts. Id.

Here, the court had ample evidence before it to support the award of custody in Darrian’s

favor: the children were doing well in school, had good relationships with friends and family

in the area, and were involved in extracurricular activities. On the other hand, Alexakis

moved out of state and never saw them in person again. The court asked for competing

findings of fact and conclusions of law and had the opportunity to consider both. Had the

8
court ruled in Alexakis’s favor, that decision could arguably have also been in the children’s

best interest. The facts and arguments presented in this appeal are a classic example of why

this court defers to the superior position of the circuit court to evaluate the witnesses, their

testimony, and the children’s best interest.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and ABRAMSON, J., agree.

Robert S. Tschiemer, for appellant.

One brief only.

9