Clinton Greenwood v. Kathryn Greenwood

── Clinton Greenwood v. Kathryn Greenwood ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 290 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-460 CLINTON GREENWOOD Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63DR-24-146] HONORABLE BRENT DILLON KATHRYN GREENWOOD HOUSTON, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge Appellant Clinton “Drew” Greenwood appeals the circuit court’s 2025 divorce decree awarding appellee Kathryn “Katie” Greenwood primary custody of their son, MC, and granting him supervised visitation. Drew contends that the circuit court clearly erred by rejecting the presumption in favor of joint custody, by giving Katie custody, and by requiring that his visitation be supervised. We affirm. The parties married in 2020, and MC was born in March 2023. The parties separated in December 2023. In January 2024, Katie obtained a temporary order of protection against Drew. In February, Katie filed for divorce and requested custody of MC. Drew responded by filing a counterclaim for divorce and also requested custody of MC. Drew remained in the marital home.  In March, the circuit court entered a three-year order of protection (March 2024 through March 2027) preventing Drew from contacting Katie and MC. Pending divorce, Katie had primary custody, and Drew was allowed visitation, to be supervised by his parents, who came to Arkansas from Texas every other weekend. Communication about MC was to go between Katie’s and Drew’s parents. The parties went to mediation in an effort to settle their issues but were unsuccessful. In October 2024, Katie filed a motion for contempt in the order-of-protection case. Drew was subsequently held in contempt of that order in the same circuit court.1 The divorce trial was heard in April 2025. Drew admitted that since they separated, he had taken cell-phone pictures of what Katie had in her Spotify account (descriptions of books in her queue) and had contacted one of her friends through Facebook. He denied any untoward intentions and explained how and why that happened. He said the Spotify account was on the television in their home, and there was nothing improper in asking her friend how Katie was doing. Drew testified about the incident that occurred in December 2023 that led to the order of protection. He said that on that night, he was driving; Katie’s behavior was chaotic; and he threw or “tossed” a bag containing a bottle in her direction, and it hit her in the face, 1 The order-of-protection case, 63DR-24-17, is the subject of a separate appeal, CV-25- 459. The initial three-year order of protection was in effect when Katie accused Drew of harassing, monitoring, and stalking her. This led to an order extending the order of protection through March 2030. That order is also on appeal and decided this day. See Greenwood v. Greenwood, 2026 Ark. App. 306, ___ S.W.3d ___ (CV-25-459). 2 giving her a bloody and blackened eye. He agreed “[t]here is zero justification for that whatsoever.” He did not appeal the three-year order of protection. Drew said that the order of protection made him miss his son’s first birthday party, so he and his parents had a separate party for him. Drew explained how much he adores MC. He spent a lot of time with MC and took care of MC before he and Katie separated. Drew described MC as a happy boy who loves being with him and his parents and playing with his toys. He presented multiple photographs to show the fun times with MC, both before and after he and