Zachery Alexander Rushton v. Aileen Somchine Rushton

── Zachery Alexander Rushton v. Aileen Somchine Rushton ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 283 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-25-321 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 ZACHERY ALEXANDER RUSHTON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. 66FDR-23-51] AILEEN SOMCHINE RUSHTON HONORABLE SHANNON L. BLATT, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge Zachery Rushton appeals the Sebastian County Circuit Court’s order denying his petition to change custody of the two minor children he shares with Aileen Rushton. Zachery argues that the circuit court committed reversible error by failing to find a material change in circumstances since the date of the divorce decree. We affirm. The parties married on January 26, 2020, and were divorced by decree dated February 28, 2023. The parties were awarded joint custody of their two minor children and were to exchange the children each Sunday. On May 24, 2024, Zachery filed a motion to modify the decree requesting that he receive sole custody, that the court set visitation for Aileen, and that Aileen be ordered to pay him child support. In the motion to modify, Zachery alleged that there had been a material change in circumstances since the decree was entered and pled the following specifically: (1) Aileen is unstable and had multiple romantic partners in her home, including her husband “Britt Ozeroglu,” a known drug user who has supervised visitation with one of his minor children; (2) Aileen has a history of excessive alcohol abuse and has been arrested at least twice for DUI; (3) Aileen is consistently late in dropping off the children at school and often fails to take them to their extracurricular activities; and (4) Aileen resigned from her job due to accusations of embezzlement. On June 23, Aileen filed an answer and counterclaim to Zachery’s petition denying all allegations and seeking a modification of child support. On August 9, Zachery filed a motion for immediate custody alleging that Aileen is habitually drunk in the presence of the children. He also alleged she had concealed an arrest and the disposition of charges against her. Zachery pled that the children were in imminent danger of physical harm unless the court intervened and requested that the court order her to undergo “extended alcohol testing.” On that same date, Zachery filed a motion asking to remove the minor children from the state and that he be allowed to relocate the children to Oklahoma—where he resided— for school purposes. Aileen filed responses to both petitions and also requested an expedited hearing to refute the allegations that the children were in imminent danger of physical harm. She attached the results of an alcohol assessment she agreed to undergo following an incident between her and Britt that led to her arrest. She denied that Zachery should be allowed to relocate the children and enroll them in a school in Oklahoma. 2  In response, Zachery filed a motion for alcohol testing. The court entered an order on August 16 directing that within twenty-four hours, Aileen was to report to Applicant Information for an alcohol hair-follicle drug test that would test for alcohol use during the past ninety days. Aileen submitted to the testing, and the results were filed with the court on August 26. Aileen tested “[p]ositive: low to moderate consumption” of alcohol. Aileen and Zachery entered an agreed order on October 2 canceling the temporary hearing on Zachery’s motions to remove the children from the state and for immediate custody. The case was s