Nicole Wauchope v. Khristopher Moore

── Nicole Wauchope v. Khristopher Moore ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 202 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-438 Opinion Delivered April 1, 2026 NICOLE WAUCHOPE APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72DR-16-733] V. KHRISTOPHER MOORE HONORABLE JOHN C. THREET, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Nicole Wauchope appeals the circuit court order that found no material change in circumstances sufficient to modify custody and ruled that Khristopher Moore would retain primary physical and legal custody of the parties’ child, MC. She argues that the circuit court erred in not finding a material change in circumstances and in not finding that it was in MC’s best interest for Wauchope to have primary custody. We affirm the circuit court’s order. The parties married in October 2010 and have one child born in November 2011. However, the parties separated in July 2015, and in May 2016, Moore filed for divorce. The divorce complaint stated that MC lived with Moore and that “the parties realize that it would be in the child’s best interest to remain with [Moore].” The parties entered into a child-custody, support, and property settlement agreement in which the parties agreed that 1 Moore would be granted custody of MC, and Wauchope, a full-time student, would pay $127 a month in child support. The court granted the divorce decree, which incorporated the settlement agreement, on 8 June 2016. On 26 March 2024, Wauchope petitioned for a modification of custody. She alleged that there had been a substantial and material change in circumstances warranting a modification of custody, including (1) MC is now twelve years old and wishes to live with her and her husband in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; (2) Moore has failed to keep her apprised of issues with MC’s health and welfare and with his schooling; and (3) Moore is now an over-the-road truck driver and is gone for several days at a time, and his spouse works nights. Wauchope declared that it is in MC’s best interest to live with her and her spouse because they own their own home, her parents live nearby, they live in one of the best school districts in the state, and they have adequate financial resources to take care of MC. She also asserted that she works from home full time and “would be able to fully devote herself to the care and support” of MC. Moore responded by filing a motion to dismiss, citing paragraph 21 of the parties’ settlement agreement, which states that if either party wishes to petition the court to modify custody, they shall first submit to mediation. Moore asserted that Wauchope had petitioned for custody modification without first requesting mediation in violation of the parties’ agreement and the court’s order and that the only appropriate remedy was a contempt citation or dismissal of the petition for modification. Wauchope admitted that she had filed the modification petition before submitting to mediation but explained that “she made substantive efforts to resolve this matter with 2 [Moore] and was rebuffed.” She also asserted that the issues raised in her petition involved “health and safety concerns for [MC]’s well-being and should be heard and addressed as soon as possible.” Wauchope denied the petition should be dismissed and expressed willingness to submit to mediation if ordered by the court. The court appointed an attorney ad litem to represent MC and, after a temporary hearing on May 31, entered an a