Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 497 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-530 DAWOOD SAYYED Opinion Delivered October 21, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 58DR-25-74] V. CHIRAZ S. AMRINE HONORABLE JAMES DUNHAM, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge This is an appeal from a Pope County Circuit Court order entered on May 22, 2025, granting the appellee, Chiraz Amrine, an order of protection against the appellant, Dawood Sayyed. On appeal, Sayyed challenges (1) the court’s questioning of the parties; (2) the validity of the protection order; and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. On February 25, 2025, Amrine filed a petition for a domestic order of protection against her husband, Sayyed. In the accompanying affidavit, Amrine stated under penalty of perjury that she and the parties’ three minor children had been subjected to “ongoing and escalating domestic violence and child abuse at the hands of” Sayyed. She detailed incidents of physical violence such as Sayyed’s punching her head with a boxing glove, throwing her against a wall, and choking her. She stated that she called 911 for assistance and was transported to the emergency room following the abuse. Amrine stated that Sayyed has access to multiple firearms in the home and threatened to kill her and flee “to India to escape the consequences.” Amrine also recounted incidents of abuse toward the parties’ two-year-old son, stating that Sayyed treated him in an “inhumane way” by dragging him, hitting him with a wooden spatula, holding his hand near hot surfaces, and placing his finger in hot tea as a disciplinary measure. Amrine alleged that the abuse had worsened and that she feared for her safety and the well-being of her children. A one-year ex parte order of protection was entered on February 26; Amrine was also awarded temporary custody of the minor children. Both parties appeared with counsel at the hearing that was held on May 20. Following the parties’ testimony and introduction of evidence, the circuit court entered a ten-year final order of protection on behalf of Amrine and the three minor children. Sayyed now appeals the order of protection, raising three arguments for reversal. The standard of review after an order of protection is granted is whether the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous.1 A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.2 Disputed facts and determinations of the credibility of the witnesses are within the province of the fact-finder.3 For his first point on appeal, Sayyed argues that the circuit court erred in “conducting an in- depth questioning of the witnesses prior to questioning by the attorneys and by solicitation of inadmissible evidence.” He contends that the court acted improperly by usurping the role of counsel and raised a question of the circuit court’s impartiality. Sayyed makes this argument for the first time 1 Parsons v. Parsons, 2022 Ark. App. 493, 656 S.W.3d 188. 2 Id. 3 Id. 2 on appeal; thus, it is not preserved for appellate review.4 In order to preserve an argument for appeal, the issue must be made and developed before the circuit court. 5 For his second point, Sayyed argues that the circuit court erred in issuing a final order of protection that does not fix a definite duration of time. He asserts that without a specified time period, the final order of protection is invalid and should be set aside. Sayyed’s argument on this point wholly fails. The final order of protection entered by the court on May 22, 2025, clearly states, “This Order is Effective Until: 05/21/2035.” Hence, despite Sayyed’s claim to the contrary, the protection order is for a fixed ten-year period. For his last point, Sayyed argues that there was insufficient evidence to support issuance of the order of protection. When a petition for a protective order is filed under the Domestic Abuse Act, the circuit court may provide relief to the petitioner upon a finding of domestic abuse. 6 Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-15-103(3)(A),7 domestic abuse is defined as physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members. At the hearing, Amrine testified that she is in fear for her life and the safety of her children because of Sayyed’s physical, verbal, and emotional abuse. She stated that the violence has become more severe and that Sayyed has threatened to kill her many times. 4 See Buzbee v. Blann Transp., Inc., 2025 Ark. App. 206, 712 S.W.3d 362. 5 Whorton v. Dixon, 363 Ark. 330, 214 S.W.3d 225 (2005). 6 Ark. Code Ann. § 9-15-205(a) (Repl. 2020). 7 (Supp. 2025). 3 Amrine testified that she and Sayyed married in 2021. Verbal and emotional abuse began a few months later; physical abuse began in April 2024 when Sayyed punched her in the head with boxing gloves to “punish” her. Amrine was holding their toddler in her lap when Sayyed hit her. The blow to the left side of her head, just above her ear, left her dizzy, lightheaded, and shivering for hours. After Sayyed left the home following the incident, Amrine “put things behind the door” to prevent him from opening it because she felt unsafe. However, she let him in on the premise that he only wanted to retrieve a few toiletries and clothing items. Once inside, Sayyed did not gather his things and leave again; instead, he stayed. Amrine testified that on February 24, 2025, Sayyed grabbed her, threw her against the wall, and choked her when she attempted to use her phone to record him disciplining their toddler in an unsafe way. She stated that Sayyed hit her hand, causing her to drop the phone on the floor; pushed her to the floor; and then pushed her to the wall and choked her with his hands. After he pushed her to the floor a second time, Amrine grabbed her phone and ran to the bathroom, locked the door, and called 911. She had red marks on her neck and it was tender. Amrine stated that she had difficulty breathing while Sayyed was choking her. She stated that Sayyed was arrested and that she was transported to the hospital for treatment. She filed the petition for the order of protection the next day. Amrine further testified that she is frightened of Sayyed because he has guns at home and keeps one “on his belt” at all times. Sayyed has also been physically abusive to their toddler. Amrine said that after she gave birth to twins, the parties’ toddler was excited to see his brothers. This angered Sayyed, and he threw the toddler on the floor. He threw him down a second time when he stood back up and was crying. Sayyed then threw the child out of the room and slammed the door in his face while he has crying. 4 Amrine stated that Sayyed also punished the toddler by hitting him with a wooden spatula and touching his hand to hot surfaces. The court found that Sayyed committed domestic violence against both Amrine and the parties’ toddler and that he created a reasonable fear of domestic violence against the other two children. Amrine’s testimony established that Sayyed physically harmed their toddler; and he punched, choked, and threatened her and made her fearful for her safety and the safety of the children. The circuit court found Amrine a credible witness. Sayyed asks this court to reweigh the evidence insofar as Amrine’s claims were not corroborated by medical reports, police reports, or photographs; however, her testimony need not be corroborated.8 It is within the sole province of the fact-finder to make credibility determinations and resolve disputed facts.9 Sayyed, in a one-sentence statement, also argues that the circuit court erred in extending the protection order to cover the parties’ newborn twins on the basis of allegations of abuse against the oldest child. However, he cites no authority to support that proposition. We will not consider arguments not supported by convincing argument or citation to legal authority. 10 Affirmed. HARRISON and BARRETT, JJ., agree. Worsham Law Firm, P.A., by: Richard E. Worsham, for appellant. 8 See Lewis v. Lewis, 2018 Ark. App. 148. 9 Id. 10 Sanders v. JLP, LLC, 2024 Ark. App. 65, 683 S.W.3d 607. 5 Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., by: Tory H. Lewis, Andrew M. Taylor, and Tasha C. Taylor, for appellee. 6