Keith Markey v. Amber Markey

── Keith Markey v. Amber Markey ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 289 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-25-455 KEITH MARKEY Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 26DR-24-459] AMBER MARKEY HONORABLE LYNN WILLIAMS, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Keith Markey appeals the Garland County Circuit Court’s divorce decree in which it awarded appellee Amber Markey primary custody of the couple’s son, MC, born on March 8, 2015, and awarded appellant visitation with MC every other weekend. The circuit court ordered appellant to pay $548.61 a month in child support.1 Appellant argues that the divorce decree should be reversed. We affirm. Amber filed a complaint for divorce on June 5, 2024, based on eighteen months’ separation. Appellant filed a pro se response on July 3 asking for a divorce and for primary custody of MC. Appellant filed an amended response and counterclaim for divorce on July 26 after obtaining legal counsel. He alleged that he should be granted a divorce based on 1 This amount was set during a temporary hearing, and the circuit court found that no evidence had been presented to change the amount. appellee’s infidelity, and he asked the circuit court for full custody of MC with appellee having only supervised visitation. He also made several allegations against appellee. On July 28, appellant filed a motion asking that appellee have only supervised visitation with MC. On August 6, appellee filed a response to appellant’s counterclaim for divorce denying the material allegations of the complaint as well as a response to appellant’s motion for supervised visitation denying the allegations. Appellant filed an emergency motion for temporary custody and visitation on August 20 alleging that appellee had gotten MC from school and had refused to let MC participate in football practice. Appellant admitted that this action alone did not rise to the level of an emergency but reiterated prior allegations he had made about appellee and asked the circuit court to grant him temporary custody with appellee having only supervised visitation with MC. Appellant filed an emergency repeated motion on August 21 setting out the contents of a text message he had received from appellee informing him that he was not going to get MC back and threatening to homeschool MC. A third motion was filed on August 22 whereby appellant stated that appellee had not allowed him to speak with MC over the phone the day before the motion was filed and also included other text messages from appellee. Appellee filed responses on August 28 denying the material allegations in appellant’s emergency motions. Appellee moved for temporary custody, supervised visitation, contempt, and child support on August 28. Appellee alleged that due to actions by the appellant, she should be granted custody of MC, appellant should have supervised visitation, appellant should be found in contempt for his actions, and she should be granted all necessary fees, including 2 attorney’s fees. Appellee included an exhibit of injuries she claimed to have suffered at the hands of appellant. She also included a letter from the principal of Jessieville Elementary School outlining her contact with the parties concerning MC’s education. She stated that most of her contact had been with appellee, and while appellant never contacted her regarding MC’s education, she had spoken to appellant in the last fe