This memorandum addresses potential outcomes in a custody and contempt case between Mary Lowe and John Lowe. It discusses 6 key issues: 1) whether Mary is in contempt for moving to Denver without permission and interfering with John's relationship with their children; 2) whether custody should be modified to grant John primary custody due to Mary cohabiting with her boyfriend and endangering the children; 3) whether John is in contempt for alleged child support arrears and comments made to the children; 4) whether equitable defenses protect John from contempt allegations; 5) whether prior child support payments made by John can satisfy alleged arrears; and 6) whether John was in contempt for comments made to Mary upon learning of her move. The analysis examines

1. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
TO: Mr. Seth Bickett
FROM: Terry Evers
DATE: March 30, 2011
CASE: Mary Lowe, Plaintiff v. John Lowe, Defendant
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a memorandum on potential outcomes in this case for custody,modification,
and contempt.
ISSUES
ISSUE 1. Whetherplaintiff is in civil contempt for moving to Denver, Colorado without the permission of
the Court, and, is she interfering with and “robbing” defendant of contact with his children with
the intent to “alienate” defendant’s relationship with his children?
ISSUE 2. Whetherplaintiff should retain primary control, custody,and,care of the couple’s minor children,
or, whether court should order a custody modification whereby the defendant would be granted
primary control, custody,and,care of the couple’s minor children because ofplaintiff’s
cohabitation with her boyfriend with the couple’s minor children present, and endangering the
health of the parties’ children in Denver, Colorado, and, whether the court should grant plaintiff
visitation, and, order a visitation, and, child support payment schedule for the plaintiff?
ISSUE 3. Whetherdefendant is in civil contempt for allegedly being in arrears in the court ordered child
support payments,and, whether defendant is in civil contempt for making a single derogatory
statement about plaintiff in front of the couple’s minor children?
ISSUE 4. Whetheran equitable estoppeldefense is available for defendant to overcome plaintiff’s contempt,
and child support arreages allegations?
ISSUE 5. Whetherthe court can equitably ignore the couple’s prior private verbal agreements concerning
child support payments and apply advance child support payments defendant made prior to the
divorce decree child support starting date of September 1, 2014 to defendant’s child support
payments allegedly in arrears after the divorce decree child support beginning date?
ISSUE 6 Whetherdefendant John Lowe is in civil contempt while in a state of shockafter being told by
plaintiff she was moving to Denver, Colorado, going to cohabitate with her boyfriend and take the
couple’s children with her, and inadvertently called the plaintiff “a drug peddling bitch” in front
of the children?

2. FACTS
Mary Lowe, plaintiff and John Lowe, defendant were married May 1, 2005. They divorced February 20,
2014. The parties have two minor children: Sara, age 10 and Will, age 5. The plaintiff was granted primary control,
custody,and,care of the minor children. Defendant was granted standard visitation pursuant to the Benton County
Standard Visitation Schedule, and was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,000 per month beginning
September 1, 2014. Payments would be due on the first of the month thereafter. In exchange for plaintiff getting
custody,the parties entered into a Property Settlement Agreement whereby the parties agreed the parents would stay
in the Bentonville School District until the children graduated from high school. There is a no-habitation clause in
the decree and no derogatory comments were to be made about the parties.
On March 17, 2014 the defendant was charged with public intoxication. The children were not in his
custody at the time.
The following is the history of the defendant’s child support payments:
March 1, 2014 $1,000
April 1, 2014 $1,000
May15, 2015 $1,000
June 2014 $0.00
July 1, 2014 $1,000
August 7, 2014 $ 900
September 1, 2014 $ 100
October, 2014 $0.00
November, 2014 $0.00
December, 2014 $0.00
January, 2015 $0.00
February, 2015 $0.00
In June, 2014 defendant bought plaintiff new tires valued at $1,000. Plaintiff told defendant not to pay child
support that month in exchange for the new tires. Defendant paid $1,000 cash for October, November, and,
December, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that she never received those child support payments.
On September 15, 2014, plaintiff tells defendant she has met a guy on the internet dating site Tinder and is
in love and is moving to Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff’s parents also live in Denver, Colorado. Plaintiff says she will
find a job when she gets to Denver. Plaintiff moves to Denver and is now managing a Marijuana dispensary named

3. “Mary Jane’s” with the boyfriend she met on the internet dating site. Plaintiff’s annual income is $100,000.
Defendant calls plaintiff a “drug-pedaling bitch” in front of the minor children. The children hang out in the back of
Mary Jane’s after schoolfor a few hours each week. Defendant now sues for custody and contempt, and plaintiff
counterclaims for contempt and back child support.
ANALYSIS
ISSUE 1
The facts showthat plaintiff would be unemployed and had no prospect of employment upon arriving in Denver,
Colorado illustrating plaintiff’s motive was to interfere with defendant’s visitation and alienate the children from
defendant and the facts further show defendant has effectively rebutted the presumption in favor of plaintiff’s
relocation by showing the relocation was not in the children’s best interests as the relocation would expose plaintiff
and children at least at the outset of the relocation to a net loss of a part of their annual income, and, the facts show,
the children’s health would be endangered by hanging out in the back of a cannabis dispensary,and, apparently,
despite the possibility there may be more wholesome and healthier alternatives for after schoolactivities for the
children in Denver that plaintiff could and would employ; rather she has the children “hang out in the back” of the
cannabis dispensing facility she manages. Who is caring for the children while Plaintiff works?
Sill v. Sill,94 Ark.App.211, 228 S.W. 3d 538 (2006)
“Custodial parent’s motive to relocate was an effort to interfere with non – custodial parent’s visitation and to
alienate the children from the non – custodialparent.”
Defendant Lowe would satisfy his burden of proof to prove the plaintiff’s relocation is not in the best interests of the
couple’s two minor children since plaintiff’s moving herself and the parties’ children to Denver, Colorado alters the
visitation provisions of the couple’s court ordered divorce decree due to the increased distance of more than 500
miles, 761.19 miles to be exact, between Bentonville, Arkansas and Denver, Colorado, compared to just a few miles
apart in Bentonville.
Plaintiff would counterthat defendant John has not met his burden of proof because the facts show that her current
annual income is $100,000 dollars and plaintiff’s relocation and relocation of the children…
“is not, by itself, a material change in circumstance” and “A presumption exists in favor of relocation of parents
with primary custody and defendant bears the burden of proof to rebut the presumption” thus she will say she is not
required to prove anything of advantage to herself and the children by relocating.
Stillsv. Stills,2010 Ark. 132, 361 S.W. 3d 823 (2010)
“Relocation of a custodialparent and children is not,by itself, a material change in circumstance…”
Stillsv. Stills,2010 Ark. 132, 361 S.W. 3d 823 (2010), abrogating Staab v. Hurst, 44 Ark, App.128, 868 S.W. 2d
517, et al.”

4. “A presumption exists in favor of relocation of custodial parents with primary custody,with burden being on the
non-custodialparent to rebut the relocation presumption and thus custodialparent is not required to prove a real
advantage to herself and to the children in relocating;”
ISSUE 2
The facts showthe divorce decree has a “no – cohabitation” clause. Plaintiff co-habitated with her boyfriend in
Denver and should be held in civil contempt for violating the court ordered divorce decree No - cohabitation clause
and the children were most likely present during the co-habitation and thus modification of custody is in the best
interests of the children to remove them from this illegal and immoral situation.
The facts showthe defendant was charged with public intoxication and the facts also showthe children were not in
his custody at the time. Plaintiff most likely will argue that modification of custody would not be in the best interests
of the children because their father is a public drunk.
Plaintiff will defend that she did not co-habitate with her boyfriend; that she and the children lived with her parents
in Denver. The facts only show that her parents also lived in Denver but that does not corroborate plaintiff’s defense.
Defendant will defend that the facts show that he was merely charged with public intoxication and there are no facts
showing that he was convicted and punished or even that the case against him is pending.The facts also showthe
children were not in father’s custody and there are facts the children were not present when defendant was charged
with public intoxication. There is no factual basis to support a claim that defendant is a public drunk.
ISSUE 3
The court can determine from the facts of the case and assess that the defendant’s interests should be given the most
weight.
The court should not condone exposing the children to the harmful effects of second hand marijuana smoke or
chance potential health problems or possible addiction to cannabis by exposing them to the bad addiction of
plaintiff’s customer’s or the bad habits of the plaintiff and her boyfriend.
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)
“It is crucial that courts look to the facts of each case to assess which interests should be given the most weight.”
It would be detrimental to the children’s interests to spend severalhours in the back of a marijuana dispensary where
customers sample the various selections of cannabis by smoking then buying thus subjecting the children to
unhealthy second hand smoke or even worse the children would observe the customers smoking cannabis and will
be influenced to experiment with the drug themselves, become addicted to cannabis,and, even worse; contract
cancer and possibly even death resulting from smoking pot.
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)

5. “The court of appeals has set a presumption that relocation … of the child is detrimental to the interests of the
child.”
The relocation is and will continuously be detrimental to the interests of the children from being exposed to
marijuana smoke and illegal drug use “in the back of Mary Jane’s (marijuana dispensary) after schoolfor a few
hours each week.” (Emphasis added).
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)
“… all indications are that there would be no detrimental variance in the … health … for the children.”
“The children would benefit from a two parent home where the applicant would be a full – time mother.”
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)
The mother, working full time or more in the business as manager would not be able to be a full time mother.
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)
“Appellant testified she would be willing to abide by such visitation schedule.”
The plaintiff has not shown that she would abide by any visitation for the defendant,in fact she is not even willing to
abide by the court’s original visitation ordered in the court’s divorce decree in this matter; she moved without
petitioning the court for permission to relocate, and, has not proposed anothervisitation schedule for the ex-husband.
Plaintiff’s motive to move was to “rob” defendant of his visitation with his children, and, “alienate” defendant’s
relationship with the children. This shows to the court that her motives in relocating were impure. Furthermore the
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)
Court should not put itself in the position of endorsing plaintiff’s illegal profession.
Hollandsworth v. Knyzewski, 353 Ark. 370, 109 S.W. 3d 653 (2003)
“We give due deference to the superior position of the chancellor to view and judge the credibility of the witnesses.”
“Where the custodial parent relocates does not matter so long as nothing arising from the move constitutes a
material change in circumstance justifies a change in custody order based on the best interest of the child.”
Controlled SubstancesAct, Title II, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (1970)
“Manufacture, importation, possession,use and distribution of certain substances (including cannabis)are illegal…”
(Emphasis added)
The court should view and judge that John is a more credible witness than Mary and give the most weight to John’s
request for civil contempt and modification of custody.

6. ISSUES 4 AND 5
The facts showthat defendant paid $1,000 dollars cash for October, November and December 2014. Plaintiff’s
claim that she did not receive these payments is unsubstantiated by the facts.In addition defendant bought $1,000
dollars’ worth of tires in June 2014 for the plaintiff and the facts show that plaintiff told defendant not to pay $1,000
dollars child support in June 2014 in return for the new tires, and, by her own words she agreed and the facts show
that this would be a child support payment. There are no facts to indicate defendant’s intent was to have arreages in
his child support payments otherthan the incorrectly stated history provided by the plaintiff.
The divorce decree beginning date for defendant to pay child support is September 1, 2014, however defendant
began paying child support 6 months prior to the divorce decree beginning date,and continued every month
thereafter until December 1, 2014 that he was not required to pay in a series of private agreements with plaintiff.
It should be apparent to the court that Defendant intended these payments as advance child support payments to be
applied beginning with the September 1, 2014, required divorce decree child support beginning date.
Ark. Code Ann., 9-12-314 and 9-14-234
“The court cannot recognize private agreements (for child support) made after July 20, 1987.” (Emphasis added for
clarity)
State Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Burger, 80 Ark. App.119, S.W. 3d 64 (2002)
“… but equitably can apply those payments if requested to do so.”(Emphasis added)
Shroyer v. Kaufman, 75 Ark. App.267, 58 S.W. 3d 861 (2001)
“The Court of Appeals has affirmed the use of equitable defenses to enforcement of child support orders, including
arrearages.” (Emphasis added)
ISSUE 6
Coatsv. Dish Network, LLC, 2010 Colo. Lexis 4 (2014)
“… Marijuana remains against federal law”…
Controlled SubstancesAct, Title II, Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act (1970)
Even though Colorado may have “legalized” the use and sale of cannabis for medicinal and recreational use it is still
feloniously illegal elsewhere in the United States according to federal and Arkansas law.
The court should take in consideration that the defendant was reacting with shockand dismay when Plaintiff
informed him she was moving and taking the children with her to cohabitate with her boyfriend in Colorado with no
employment upon arrival and no apparent prospects foremployment at all to help support the children. Defendant,
like anyone else who reads The ArkansasDemocrat Gazette or watches media news reports is aware that Colorado

7. routinely allows the public use of cannabis and in his view exposure of his children to such use would be detrimental
to their health and co-habitation being prohibited by the divorce decree concluded and by the situation and
inadvertently, and, made the only alleged “derogatory” remarks he ever uttered about the plaintiff.
Plaintiff will dispute and claim that Defendant routinely makes derogatory remarks about her. She could have the
children testify to that to corroborate in an examination of the children’s competence to testify by the court.
CONCLUSION
The court should find plaintiff in civil contempt because her relocation without court permission is due to an
improper motive to “thwart” and “alienate” defendant John Lowe’s relationship with his children and chang ed the
terms of the visitation schedule of the parties’ divorce decree without prior permission of the court, and, the
relocation of the children is not in the best interests of the children to expose the plaintiff and the children to the risk
of substantialloss in annual income by being unemployed during and upon relocation to Denver, Colo rado, and,
plaintiff is not willing to explore possibilities for more wholesome and healthier after schoolactivities for the
children; instead she chooses to have the children “hang out” in the back of the marijuana dispensing facility that
she manages, and, plaintiff should be sanctioned by the court and order plaintiff to move the children back to
Bentonville at her own expense into the control, custody,and,care of their father, defendant John Lowe, and,
plaintiff to have supervised visitation in defendant’s home and, pay child support both to be determined by the court,
and, plaintiff should go to jail, the length or suspension ofthe sentence to be left to the discretion of the court.
Defendant John would prevail by preponderance of evidence that plaintiff Mary Lowe violated the divorce decree
prohibition prohibiting co-habitation by the parties and that most likely the children were present in the illicit home
at the time and court should order modification. Court should disregard the allegation of defendant being a public
drunk because he was only charged and plaintiff provides no factual evidence that defendant has been convicted of
public intoxication. The charge of public intoxication is not in this court of equity’s jurisdiction. Addition ally
Plaintiff’s relocation of the children would be detrimental to the health of the children. The court should find this
situation alone would so alarm the court that the relocation imperils the best interests of the children to the extent the
court would modify custody and find the plaintiff in contempt.
The court should recognize that there are private agreements between the parties that caused the defendant,to pay
nearly 6 months of child support in advance and apparently defendant intended and should request that these
advance child support payments be correctly applied to his history as follows:
The August 7, 2014 $900 dollar payment be applied by the court to the $100 September 1, 2014 payment to correct
the record to $1000 dollars child support payment beginning September 1, 2014. The facts show that defendant paid
$1,000 cash in each of the months October, November and December 2014.
The defendant should request the court to disregard the private agreements of the parties and correctly apply March
1, April 1, May 1, June, and July 1, 2014 payments as child support payments for January, February, March, April,
and May, 2015 and should pray the court would grant defendant equitable relief by dismissing with prejudice

8. plaintiff’s counterclaim for back child support and order the defendant’s child support corrected as requested by
defendant and declare defendant is not delinquent or in arrears as alleged by plaintiff.
Defendant possibly could be found in civil contempt due to making the prohibited derogatory single remark but not
likely as it should be obvious to the court that defendant’s motives are pure and plaintiffs’ are not and defendant was
reacting to the situation plaintiff confronted him with as any otherhonorable and normal father would in like
circumstances supported by facts he has been contributing regularly to the children’s support all along, and, in fact,
is actually ahead on his child support ordered in the court’s divorce decree child support schedule.
I have shown my opinion that there are very strong reasons why the court should find in favor of defendant John
Lowe but as you know it is impossible to predict what the court will do in this case on the issues.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some additional investigation should be done. I would like to quiz John about the advance payments and what his
understanding with Mary was about them? Was there an agreement these payments would be applied to the schedule
before September 1, 2014? If so what did Mary say or do that would motivate defendant John to agree to that? Also
I would like to know if John has withdrawal slips and bank statements showing cash withdrawals around the dates
he paid the cash child support to Mary in the 3 months she claims she did not receive payments. Also I would like to
talk to the folks who prepared the payment schedule showing John was in arrears. Were they entered erroneously? I
would have to know from whom Plaintiff Mary’s attorney received the purported payment history. I also would like
to explore the possibility of showing a news video report to the court of the “Colorado mass cannabis smoke out
rally” organized and held in Colorado in celebration of the legalization of recreational use of cannabis, and I will
have to verify the status ofDefendant’s charge of public intoxication. Is it pending,dismissed, did defendant plead
guilty of the charge, is there a plea agreement, etc.?