Family Law 2026

Last Updated February 26, 2026

USA – Arkansas

Law and Practice

Authors



Bundy is a regional law firm covering Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with a primary focus on family law matters in trial and appellate courts. Its attorneys are adept at handling fast-paced, complex cases ranging from jurisdictional contests to business valuation disputes. Known for their expertise and track record of success in high-value divorces and contentious child custody cases, the attorneys excel in negotiation and advocacy work for high net worth and ultra high net worth individuals. Bundy has a firm culture that promotes consistent, clear communication and responsiveness with clients and co-counsel, and it has implemented a powerful, sophisticated software infrastructure to support its high-touch service model.

In Arkansas, there are multiple grounds for divorce under Section 9-12-301 of the Arkansas Code Annotated. These grounds can include, but are not limited to:

  • a felony conviction for either party;
  • living separate and apart for 18 continuous months without the benefit of cohabitation;
  • habitual drunkenness for one year or more; and
  • committing indignities against the other party so as to make their life in the marriage intolerable.

At the time of writing (January 2026), there are no separate dissolution procedures in the Arkansas Code Annotated for same-sex spouses.

Arkansas does not have a period of separation requirement unless the parties intend to file under the 18-month separation section of Section 9-12-301(b)(5). There is a mandatory 30-day waiting period before a divorce can be finalised after the date the complaint for divorce is filed. Even if all parties are in agreement as to the split of their assets, custody arrangement, and any other considerations, a judge will not grant a final divorce until after the 30-day waiting period has expired (Section 9-12-307(a)(1)(B) of the Arkansas Code Annotated).

Service of divorce actions in Arkansas is governed by Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. A summons must be issued to the defendant and be “styled in the name of the court and issued under its seal, dated and signed by the clerk or a deputy clerk, and directed from the State of Arkansas to the defendant to be served”. The summons must also direct the defendant on the parties involved in the lawsuit, the timeline of response, the name and address of the plaintiff’s attorney (if applicable – if not applicable, then the name and address of the plaintiff), and notice that failure to respond within the time could result in a judgment by default.

Following the issuance of a summons, the summons and a file-marked copy of the complaint must be served upon the defendant. This service can be by the sheriff of the county where the service is to be performed, a professional process server, other personal service pursuant to Administrative Order No 20, or by alternative delivery of certified mail, first-class mail, or delivery service in particular circumstances (Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure). There is a strong preference for personal service.

Annulments in Arkansas are available in limited circumstances, as laid out in Section 9-12-201 of the Arkansas Code Annotated. These circumstances include:

  • one or both of the parties being below the age of legal marriage (18 years of age without parental consent);
  • one or both of the parties being unable to comprehend the marriage owing to mental incapacity or other incapacity;
  • one or both of the parties being unable to physically consummate the marriage; or
  • one or both of the parties being forced into the marriage or convinced to agree by fraud or other deception.

The jurisdiction of divorce proceedings in Arkansas falls under Section 9-12-303 et seq of the Arkansas Code Annotated. A divorce may be filed in the county in which the plaintiff resides. If the plaintiff is not a resident of the State of Arkansas, and the defendant is, the plaintiff may file the matter in the county in which the defendant resides. To meet the residency requirements for divorce in Arkansas, either the plaintiff or the defendant must be a resident of the state for at least 60 days preceding the filing of the action and continue living in the state for 30 days after the filing of the action, for a total of 90 days of residency before the final divorce can be granted. At the time of writing (January 2026), there are no separate jurisdictional requirements in the Arkansas Code Annotated for same-sex spouses.

In Arkansas, domicile and residence are distinct concepts (Rule 2.26-51-102(9) of the Arkansas Administrative Code). Based on Arkansas tax regulations, there is a three-prong test, and satisfaction of any one prong is sufficient to establish a party’s residency in Arkansas.

  • Any person domiciled in the State of Arkansas – domicile comprises an act coupled with an intent. A domicile is acquired by physical presence at a place coinciding with the state of mind (ie, intent) of regarding the place as a permanent home. A domicile arises instantaneously when these two facts occur. Every person must have one domicile but can have no more than one domicile, regardless of how many residences a person may have at any given time. A domicile, once established, continues until a new domicile of choice is legally established. An established domicile does not end by lack of physical presence alone nor by mental intent alone. The old domicile must be abandoned with the intention not to return to it. If one moves to a new location but intends to stay there only for a limited period of time (no matter how long), the domicile does not become the new location but rather remains unchanged.
  • Any person who maintains a permanent place of abode within Arkansas and spends in the aggregate more than six months of the year within Arkansas – place of abode means a place where a person has established a permanent home, even though such person may be absent therefrom for a long period of time. A temporary home or residence would not be considered a place of abode, as there must be at least some degree of permanence. In addition, a person must actually spend more than six months of the tax year in Arkansas to fall within the scope of this provision. Place of abode and residence are considered to mean roughly the same thing. However, domicile and residence are not considered to be synonymous. Residence denotes only an act (the act of residing), whereas domicile denotes an act (the act of residing) coupled with the intent that the residence be a permanent home. The distinction between domicile and place of abode is that, while a person can have several homes (or places of abode) at one time, only one of those homes can be the person’s domicile. The home that the person intends or considers to be their permanent home (as in home base) would be the domicile.
  • In situations where it is not clear if the requirements either of domicile or place of abode have been met, a residency determination can only be made after thoroughly reviewing the facts on a case-by-case basis.

If a party believes jurisdiction does not lie within the county in which the case was filed, that party is free to contest jurisdiction under Section 9-12-303 of the Arkansas Code Annotated.

A party to a matter involving child custody may request a stay in certain circumstances. A trial court’s decision on a motion to stay is within the court’s sound discretion.

Jurisdiction for actions for alimony or spousal support in Arkansas is governed under Section 9-12-303 of the Arkansas Code Annotated, just as in divorce actions. If a party believes jurisdiction does not lie within the county in which the case was filed, that party is free to contest jurisdiction under Section 9-12-303 of the Arkansas Code Annotated.

A financial support proceeding under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act may be stayed if there is a simultaneous proceeding in another court upon the timely, proper challenge of jurisdiction in Arkansas.

Arkansas courts may hear financial claims after a foreign divorce if the foreign divorce court did not have personal jurisdiction over the requesting spouse.

Service and process in financial proceedings are the same as those outlined for divorce actions in 1.1 Grounds, Timeline, Service and Process.

Property division in the event of divorce is governed by a statute – namely, Section 9-12-315 of the Arkansas Code Annotated. It provides that all marital property should be divided in half between the parties unless a 50/50 division would be inequitable. Factors for making an unequal division of property include:

  • length of the marriage;
  • age, health and station in life of the parties;
  • occupation of the parties;
  • amount and sources of income;
  • vocational skills;
  • employability;
  • estate, liabilities and needs of each party and opportunity of each for further acquisition of capital assets and income;
  • contribution of each party in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation of marital property, including services as a homemaker; and
  • the federal income tax consequences of the court’s division of property.

When marital property is divided in a way that is not 50/50, the court must state the reasons for not dividing the marital property equally between the parties. Assets are generally valued as of the date of trial.

The statute concerning property division excludes certain property from division, including the increase in value of property acquired prior to marriage. Historically, Arkansas trial courts used a judicially created analysis to assess the value of in-marriage appreciation of premarital property when the increase in value was due to the efforts of one of the spouses. However, in 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the analysis conflicted with the plain language of the statute and overturned decades of precedent.

Spousal maintenance is a need-based concept in Arkansas. The party requesting support needs to provide evidence that support is required to sustain their needs. Judges can also consider many factors in awarding alimony or support to either spouse, including (but not limited to):

  • one spouse’s needs versus the other spouse’s ability to pay;
  • length of the marriage;
  • each spouse’s contribution to the marriage, both financial and otherwise; and
  • marital and individual debts.

Courts may grant temporary alimony during the pendency of an action if requested by either party, but it is not required. The court will typically decide the amount and length of temporary support, taking into account more pressing matters such as living costs and court costs.

Arkansas also recognises rehabilitative alimony, which is a time-barred award of alimony to assist one spouse for a certain period of time following the divorce. This is in contrast with traditional or permanent alimony, which is more open-ended and typically only ends upon the death of either party or remarriage of the party receiving support.

The Arkansas Premarital Agreement Act is codified at Sections 9-11-401 to 9-11-413 of the Arkansas Code Annotated. Premarital agreements are enforceable by the courts, except if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:

  • the party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; or
  • the agreement was unconscionable and – before executing the agreement – the party seeking to avoid enforcement:
    1. was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;
    2. did not voluntarily and expressly waive after consulting with legal counsel, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and
    3. did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.

For premarital agreements to be considered valid, it must be a written agreement, signed and acknowledged by both parties. The parties must also acknowledge that they have consulted with their respective attorneys, have read and understood the agreement, and are freely entering the agreement without coercion or undue influence.

Family law courts in Arkansas treat unmarried individuals as separate individuals. The division of assets – in particular, with regard to real property – can depend on whether or not the real property was purchased as joint tenants, tenants-in-common, or whether only one person’s name was attached to the property. Arkansas does not recognise common law marriage – no matter the length of time a couple has cohabited or held themselves out as married.

If a party fails to comply with a valid court order, including a financial order, the party seeking enforcement can petition for the court to hold the offending party in contempt. A finding of contempt and subsequent punishment can include payment of the full terms of the financial order, an award of attorney’s fees and court fees the moving party incurred in enforcement, or jail time. In extreme cases, a finding of contempt can impact custody.

In general, Arkansas courts are open to the public. Court records are also available for public access, except in limited circumstances. This flows from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act of 1967. Judges can restrict public access to court proceedings, particularly when there are juveniles involved (either in delinquency or family law proceedings). Parties can file a request with the court to have records sealed if they involve sensitive information regarding the parties or their minor children.

Arkansas courts tend to look favourably upon the mediation process in divorce and financial disputes. Under Section 16-7-201 of the Arkansas Code Annotated, the General Assembly encourages the use of ADR in all types of cases and controversies across the state. Although ADR is not mandated across the state, some local policies and judges request attempts at mediation prior to trial, and Section 16-7-202(b) of the Arkansas Code Annotated authorises the circuit and appellate courts to order any domestic relations case to mediation. Arkansas has created the Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission, which is the governing body for the certification and professional discipline of certified mediators and is designed to encourage and support ADR across the state with various resources.

Arkansas has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Under the UCCJEA, a child’s home state is given exclusive jurisdiction over child custody cases. The home state is the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six months before the custody case began or wherever the child was born if the child is less than six months old. Like a divorce action, a child custody proceeding can be brought in the county where the child lives. If no home state exists for the child, the UCCJEA will then consider where the child has significant connections – ie, the state in which substantial evidence of the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships exists.

Arkansas is a presumed joint-custody state and joint custody is favoured in Arkansas (Act 906 of 2019). If the parents do not agree on the particular split of time and contact, either can apply to the court for a hearing to present their respective plans for time and contact, along with their assessment and evidence towards the child’s best interest. Additionally, if there is a compelling best interest reason to deviate from the presumption of joint custody, either parent is able to bring such evidence to the court upon application.

Per Section 9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the Arkansas Code Annotated, the presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child may be rebutted if:

  • the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child;
  • the parties have reached an agreement on all issues related to custody of the child;
  • one of the parties does not request sole, primary or joint custody; or
  • a rebuttable presumption described in Section 9-13-101(c) or Section 9-13-101(d) of the Arkansas Code Annotated is established by the evidence.

Arkansas law states that the primary consideration in child custody determinations is the welfare and best interests of each minor child involved in the case. Arkansas appellate courts have said: “There is no exhaustive list of factors a circuit court must consider when analysing the best interest of the child.” However, the law provides that courts should consider:

  • the psychological relationship between the parent and the child;
  • the need for stability and continuity in the child’s relationship with the parents and siblings;
  • the past conduct of the parents towards the child; and
  • the reasonable preference of the child.

Promiscuous conduct or lifestyle in the presence of a child may be a factor against a parent receiving custody.

Child support is awarded pursuant to Administrative Order No 10. Each party is required to submit proof of their income and their gross monthly income will be used to calculate support. The support can be awarded on a joint or a non-joint basis, depending on the custody arrangement. Parties can agree to deviate up or down from the presumed child support award, provided the court approves the deviation and agrees that it is in the child’s best interest. The court may order that a deviation is improper based on their review of the case and the child’s best interests and it can subsequently order support in alignment with the presumed calculation. The amount of child support ordered lies within the discretion of the trial court.

Arkansas recognises the fundamental interest of parents to have and raise children. Fit parents are given the presumption that they are acting in their children’s best interests. Family courts have broad discretion and deference to determine a child’s best interests. Family courts have permitted evidence related to parental alienation, including expert testimony, and their decisions have been upheld on appeal.

Children may give evidence in divorce and child custody cases and their preferences are allowed to be considered in awarding custody if the presiding judge determines such children are of sufficient age and maturity to express a preference (Section 9-13-101 of the Arkansas Annotated Code). If a judge interviews a minor child in camera, the judge is required to make a complete record of the interview.

If a child will be testifying in open court, the child’s competency to testify should be determined by the trial judge as a preliminary matter (Rule 104(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence). Courts have rejected a precise age at which a child would become competent to testify (Hoggard v State, 277 Ark 117, 122 (1982)). The court must also make findings on the record that the child is able to understand the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, that they have observed relevant events, and that they can accurately recall relevant events. There are safeguards in place to protect any child who testifies in an open court, such as the presence of a support person or even the presence of a certified facility dog to provide comfort and reassurance to the child (Section 16-42-102 and Section 16-43-1002 of the Arkansas Annotated Code).

See 2.9 ADR in Financial Matters.

See 2.8 Media Access and Transparency in Financial Proceedings.

Bundy

240 South Main Street
Suite 280
Bentonville
AR 72712
USA

+1 479 579 2121

+1 918 512 4998

info@bundy.law www.bundylawoffice.com
Author Business Card

Trends and Developments


Authors



Bundy is a regional law firm covering Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with a primary focus on family law matters in trial and appellate courts. Its attorneys are adept at handling fast-paced, complex cases ranging from jurisdictional contests to business valuation disputes. Known for their expertise and track record of success in high-value divorces and contentious child custody cases, the attorneys excel in negotiation and advocacy work for high net worth and ultra high net worth individuals. Bundy has a firm culture that promotes consistent, clear communication and responsiveness with clients and co-counsel, and it has implemented a powerful, sophisticated software infrastructure to support its high-touch service model.

Introduction

In Arkansas, the landscape for family law litigation has shifted away from generalised equitable principles towards a more rigorous adherence to statutory and evidentiary standards. While the emotional aspects of divorce often garner attention, appellate courts have quietly but firmly continued to raise the bar for financial advocacy. The casual presentation of assets, reliance on “rule of thumb” valuations, and the assumption that fairness will cure procedural defects are no longer viable strategies (if they ever were) in marital dissolutions.

Current trends underscore this reality: precision is paramount. Recent appellate decisions have sharpened the boundaries of business valuation, particularly regarding the classification of goodwill; expanded the definition of marital property to include “privileges” previously thought to be personal; and issued stark warnings regarding the intersection of estate planning and marital rights.

Business Valuation and the “Saleability” Test

The valuation of closely held business interests is one of the most financially significant issues in high net worth divorces. Arkansas uses the “fair market value” standard, yet the application of this standard has been inconsistent in trial courts at times, particularly when distinguishing between the personal reputation of the owner and the value of the enterprise. The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently addressed this nuance in Gillum v Gillum.

Arkansas law has long recognised a distinction between “enterprise goodwill”, which is a divisible marital asset, and “personal goodwill”, which is tied to the individual owner and non-divisible. Historically, this distinction was litigated primarily in the context of professional practices, such as law firms, medical clinics or accounting partnerships. The rationale was that a professional’s clients are attached to the individual, not the firm.

However, Gillum expanded this analysis to commercial ventures, clarifying that the “key person” defence is not limited to licensed professionals. In Gillum, the court addressed the valuation of a healthcare administrative business. The husband sought a division of the business’s value, arguing that because the business generated substantial income, it must possess divisible value. The wife, conversely, argued that the business had “negative” value due to significant debts and that any positive cash flow was attributable solely to her personal relationships and reputation.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding of zero divisible value, establishing a rigorous “saleability” test for enterprise goodwill. The decision clarified that to prove enterprise goodwill exists, the claiming spouse must provide evidence that the goodwill could be sold or marketed to a third party as a business asset, for a price exceeding its tangible assets without a non-compete agreement from the owner.

Gillum serves as a cautionary tale for the non-owner spouse (the “out spouse”) in a high-asset divorce. It rejects the assumption that income equates to value. A business may provide a substantial lifestyle for the family, funding homes, travel and investments, yet still be worthless for the purposes of property division in divorce if that income stream is dependent on the owner’s active participation.

Divisibility of Intangible Assets, Including Transferable Rights and Licences

While Gillum restricted the value of certain business interests, other recent decisions have expanded the definition of marital property in unique ways. An example is found in Waldrip v Waldrip, which addressed an asset of particular cultural and financial importance in Arkansas: University of Arkansas Razorback Foundation priority points.

In Waldrip, the husband argued that his priority points, which determine eligibility for purchasing prime seating and luxury suites at sporting events, were a personal privilege rather than a divisible asset. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Citing the fact that the parties had contributed over USD650,000 in marital funds to accumulate these points, the court held that the points were marital property subject to division.

This ruling is significant for high net worth individuals who often hold intangible assets or “privileges” such as country club memberships, season ticket licences or exclusive rights of access. Waldrip signals that if marital funds were used to secure a privilege that holds transferability or distinct value, Arkansas courts will likely classify it as marital property. The decision also rejected the trial court’s attempt to force the parties to share the luxury suites or bid against one another, reiterating the statutory mandate to disentangle the parties’ financial affairs completely upon divorce.

Enforceability of Trust Forfeiture Clauses Against Spousal Rights

A recent appellate decision in Lasiter v Newland highlights a cautionary scenario for surviving spouses and underscores the need for co-ordination between prenuptial agreements and estate planning documents.

In Lasiter, the court enforced a “no-contest” (or in terrorem) clause in a trust against a surviving spouse. The widow, Caroline Lasiter, challenged the administration of her late husband’s trust, believing the trustee was mismanaging assets. The trust contained a provision stating that any beneficiary who challenged the validity or administration of the trust would forfeit their entire interest. Despite the existence of a prenuptial agreement that seemingly guaranteed her certain benefits, the court held that her lawsuit constituted a “contest” of the trust. Consequently, she was disinherited entirely.

This ruling is a reminder that a trust is a separate legal entity governed by its own terms. A prenuptial agreement creates a contractual obligation between spouses, but if the assets are poured into a trust, the trust instrument’s administrative rules, including forfeiture clauses, may take precedence in the practical administration of the estate.

The Lasiter decision reveals a drafting deficit in many high net worth estate plans. Standard no-contest clauses are designed to prevent frivolous litigation by disgruntled heirs. However, when applied to a spouse with a prenuptial right to assets, they can act as a poison pill, preventing the spouse from enforcing the very contract intended to protect them.

Lasiter mandates a review of all inter-spousal trusts and estate documents during the divorce or prenuptial negotiation phase. Prenuptial agreements should include specific safe harbour language overriding future testamentary no-contest clauses, stating that the surviving spouse has the right to sue to enforce the prenuptial agreement or challenge the trustee’s conduct without triggering a forfeiture. Without this specific protection, a surviving spouse may be held hostage by a hostile trustee, possibly a child from a prior marriage or a corporate fiduciary, unable to sue for their rightful share without risking total disinheritance.

A Convergence of Global Commerce and Local Wealth

Arkansas is a financial powerhouse where global corporate interests intersect with premier land stewardship. The state is an economic jurisdiction of significant depth where marital estates frequently hold portfolios that rival the diversity of an institutional fund. Practitioners navigate an environment where Fortune 500 executive compensation sits alongside significant private equity holdings and industrial-scale agribusiness. The result is a practice area that demands a high degree of financial literacy and a localised understanding of value.

The Northwest Arkansas corridor serves as a primary hub for corporate management and the massive vendor ecosystem that surrounds it. This concentration of commerce creates marital estates heavy in modern financial instruments. Executives and business owners in this region frequently hold assets that go far beyond standard stock options. A marital estate may include carried interest in private equity funds, phantom stock in vendor firms, and capital commitments that act as both asset and liability.

The valuation of a private equity stake here involves distinguishing between capital accounts and future distributions. Governing documents for these interests often restrict transferability or disguise the true economic benefit to the holder. Consequently, counsel often encounters compensation packages structured to retain talent through “golden handcuffs”, creating assets that are significant in value but difficult to monetise for the purpose of a divorce settlement.

Parallel to this corporate economy is an agricultural sector with global influence. Arkansas is a top-tier producer of rice, poultry, cotton and soybeans. These operations are active businesses driven by commodities markets rather than passive land holdings. A divorce involving a farming family requires a granular understanding of crop yields, government subsidies and the depreciation schedules of heavy machinery.

In many cases, these agricultural interests are multi-generational. This can introduce questions regarding non-marital tracing and the commingling of assets over decades of operation. The valuation process may require segregating the value of the land from the value of the business operations and the equipment, each of which moves according to different market forces.

Significant wealth is also preserved in high-value leisure assets. The region supports a recreation economy that is capital-intensive and exclusive. Waterfowl hunting is a prime example where ownership interests in flooded timber duck clubs are six- and seven-figure assets. These may be structured as shares of stock in a non-profit entity or as proprietary memberships in a limited liability company. They are challenging to value because sales are rare and often occur through private networks rather than open listings. This high-end leisure portfolio frequently extends to boating and golf. On major lakes and waterways, private boat docks and luxury houseboats trade for prices that rival single-family homes. Similarly, equity memberships in exclusive country clubs or golf societies often carry refundable deposits or transfer values that are substantial enough to warrant separate appraisal. More than recreational, these assets serve as significant stores of capital that require precise identification and valuation.

The variety of assets in an Arkansas estate means that a single financial professional is rarely sufficient to address the entire portfolio. The best practice in this jurisdiction involves assembling a team of niche experts to ensure accuracy. A forensic expert skilled in executive compensation is best for corporate holdings, while a qualified agricultural appraiser is necessary for farming operations, and a specialised broker may be best for leisure assets. This segmented approach ensures that the marital estate is valued with the precision these diverse assets require.

National and Global Jurisdictional Considerations Continue to Grow

The economic transformation of Northwest Arkansas has created jurisdictional complexity that increasingly defines family law practice in the region. This shift reflects the demographics of a region that has experienced rapid growth driven by corporate expansion, vendor concentration and an influx of international business interests. The corporate economy in Northwest Arkansas has attracted executives and business owners from across the United States and from countries around the world. Walmart’s global vendor base, Tyson Foods’ international operations, and J.B. Hunt’s nationwide logistics network have created a population with deep international ties. Divorce and custody matters in this demographic often involve parties who maintain significant connections to foreign countries or who hold assets in jurisdictions outside the United States. The concentration of corporate employment in Benton and Washington Counties means that many families maintain employment in Arkansas while residing across state lines. This creates immediate jurisdictional questions when a divorce is initiated or when a custody dispute arises.

The globalisation of Northwest Arkansas has also increased the frequency of prenuptial agreements executed in foreign countries. When a couple married abroad enters into a prenuptial agreement under the laws of that country, Arkansas courts must determine whether the agreement is valid and enforceable under Arkansas law. Conflicts arise when the foreign agreement does not meet Arkansas statutory requirements, such as full financial disclosure or the opportunity for independent legal counsel. Arkansas courts have discretion to refuse enforcement of a foreign prenuptial agreement that is unconscionable or procured through fraud or duress, even if the agreement would be valid in the country where it was executed.

The cross-border nature of family law in Arkansas requires practitioners to think beyond the boundaries of state and federal law. Jurisdictional disputes may be won or lost based on the timing of the initial filing. In interstate custody cases, establishing home state jurisdiction early can prevent a competing action in another state. In international matters, filing first in Arkansas may secure jurisdiction before the other party initiates proceedings in a foreign country that applies less favourable law.

Forum shopping is a reality in multi-jurisdictional family law, though ethical boundaries must be observed. When a party has connections to multiple states or countries, counsel must evaluate which forum offers the most favourable law and the most practical enforcement mechanisms. This analysis extends to questions of which state’s law will apply to property division, whether a foreign prenuptial agreement will be enforced, and how a custody order will be recognised and enforced if one party relocates abroad.

Arkansas family law practice, particularly in the Northwest region, has become a multi-jurisdictional endeavour. Practitioners must navigate not only the statutory and case law of Arkansas, but also the family law frameworks of neighbouring states and, increasingly, the legal regimes of foreign countries. The convergence of interstate employment, international business interests and mobile family structures means that jurisdictional analysis is no longer an occasional issue but a regular component of case strategy. Understanding the interplay of the UCCJEA, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the Hague Convention and principles of international comity is necessary for effective representation in this evolving landscape.

Bundy

240 South Main Street
Suite 280
Bentonville
AR 72712
USA

+1 479 579 2121

+1 918 512 4998

info@bundy.law www.bundylawoffice.com
Author Business Card

Law and Practice

Authors



Bundy is a regional law firm covering Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with a primary focus on family law matters in trial and appellate courts. Its attorneys are adept at handling fast-paced, complex cases ranging from jurisdictional contests to business valuation disputes. Known for their expertise and track record of success in high-value divorces and contentious child custody cases, the attorneys excel in negotiation and advocacy work for high net worth and ultra high net worth individuals. Bundy has a firm culture that promotes consistent, clear communication and responsiveness with clients and co-counsel, and it has implemented a powerful, sophisticated software infrastructure to support its high-touch service model.

Trends and Developments

Authors



Bundy is a regional law firm covering Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with a primary focus on family law matters in trial and appellate courts. Its attorneys are adept at handling fast-paced, complex cases ranging from jurisdictional contests to business valuation disputes. Known for their expertise and track record of success in high-value divorces and contentious child custody cases, the attorneys excel in negotiation and advocacy work for high net worth and ultra high net worth individuals. Bundy has a firm culture that promotes consistent, clear communication and responsiveness with clients and co-counsel, and it has implemented a powerful, sophisticated software infrastructure to support its high-touch service model.

Compare law and practice by selecting locations and topic(s)

{{searchBoxHeader}}

Select Topic(s)

loading ...
{{topic.title}}

Please select at least one chapter and one topic to use the compare functionality.