Lashey Hopping (Formerly Almager) v. Timothy Scarborough, Jr.

── Lashey Hopping (Formerly Almager) v. Timothy Scarborough, Jr. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 303 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS II & III No. CV-25-111 Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON LASHEY HOPPING (FORMERLY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ALMAGER) [NO. 04DR-22-390] APPELLANT HONORABLE XOLLIE DUNCAN, V. JUDGE TIMOTHY SCARBOROUGH, JR. REVERSED AND REMANDED APPELLEE CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge LaShey Hopping (formerly Amager) appeals two Benton County Circuit Court orders: one directing her to pay the attorney’s fees of Timothy Scarborough, Jr., and one requiring her to pay an unequal amount of ad litem fees. She first challenges the award of attorney’s fees, asking us to overrule Tiner v. Tiner, 2012 Ark. App. 483, 422 S.W.3d 178, and require the circuit court to provide a reviewable basis for attorney’s-fee awards in domestic-relations cases. Alternatively, she also claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by requiring her to pay the entirety of Scarborough attorney’s fees and costs. Finally, she asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion by ordering her to pay a majority of the ad litem fees. We agree the court abused its discretion in its award of ad litem fees, and we agree that Tiner should be overruled; thus, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of these issues. I. Factual and Procedural Background This matter involves a child-custody dispute over Hopping’s and Scarborough’s eight- year-old son (MC). The two were not married at the time of MC’s birth in September 2016, but Scarborough did execute an acknowledgement of paternity shortly thereafter. The parties then lived together until MC was approximately four years old; thereafter, Hopping had sole custody of MC. In March 2022, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) filed a complaint for support against Scarborough. Scarborough answered the complaint and, shortly thereafter, filed a third-party complaint for paternity, custody, and visitation. In his third- party complaint, Scarborough claimed that an ex parte order of protection had been entered against him and that he had not had contact with MC in almost two years. He requested that the order of protection be modified and that he be awarded visitation. Hopping responded, noting that the order of protection was a final order entered after a hearing in which Scarborough was present and had an opportunity to be heard. She argued that she should retain primary custody of MC and asked that any visitation awarded to Scarborough be supervised. On October 7, Hopping and Scarborough entered into an agreed temporary order. The order established paternity in Scarborough and stated that Hopping would retain legal and physical custody of MC subject to Scarborough’s right to supervised visitation. The order 2 stated that this arrangement would stay in place until MC’s counsel or an attorney ad litem determines that Scarborough’s visits could occur unsupervised. On October 24, a temporary support order reflected that OCSE’s “Support Complaint” had been set for a hearing on October 6, 2022, but that Scarborough and OCSE had reached an agreement on the issue of temporary child support. Other issues relating to OCSE’s petition and the payment of child support, including retroactive support, were reserved for a final hearing on December 14, 2022. On November 22, Hopping moved for the appointment of an attorney ad litem (AAL), and one was appointed a week later. The order appointing the AAL reflected that