Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 421 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-401 MICHAEL ENNS Opinion Delivered September 16, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NINTH V. DIVISION [NO. 60DR-21-3280] LINDSAY LIPKE APPELLEE HONORABLE ANDREW GILL, JUDGE AFFIRMED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Michael Enns appeals the December 26, 2024 order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court modifying custody of his daughter, Minor Girl (MG),1 from joint custody with him and appellee Lindsay Lipke to granting appellee primary physical and legal custody of MG subject to reasonable visitation with appellant.2 He argues that the circuit court erred in modifying custody because there was no significant evidence to support the modification. We affirm. 1 D.O.B. January 9, 2009. 2 The circuit court’s order also ruled on other issues, but those issues are not before us in this appeal. The parties were divorced by decree on August 12, 2022. At that time, they were awarded joint physical and legal custody of their three minor children. According to the decree, the parties were to communicate with each other regarding the children’s activities, schedule, and well-being; and communication was to be reasonable and for the purpose of fostering a solid relationship between the children and the parents. The parties were also to have full access to all information related to the children. They were required to confer with each other regarding important issues, with appellant having final decision-making authority over education issues and appellee having final decision-making authority over medical issues. Appellee filed a motion to modify custody on December 9, 2022. She asked to be the sole custodian of the parties’ children.3 Appellee filed another motion to modify custody on April 10, 2023. An attorney ad litem was appointed on April 17 to protect the children’s best interest. Appellee filed an ex parte emergency motion for custody on August 28. The motion referenced an incident between appellant and MG and alleged that appellant accidentally struck MG in the mouth with her cell phone during a struggle. She alleged that the children were experiencing emotional abuse at appellant’s home and that it had escalated to a physical altercation and continued police involvement. The circuit court granted appellee’s motion that same day and entered an emergency order of custody. An emergency hearing took place 3 Between this date and the final hearing in this case, the parties filed more than twenty motions. 2 on September 7. The circuit court entered an order on September 20 setting aside the emergency order of custody. Appellant filed a motion to modify custody on October 11. He alleged that appellee had been withholding visitation4 and attempting to sever his relationship with the children. He filed a motion for counseling on October 12 alleging that appellee had poisoned the children’s minds and alleging parental alienation. Appellant asked that the circuit court appoint Joe Heard as a reunification counselor to help reunify appellant with his children. An agreed order for counseling with Heard was filed on January 2, 2024. The ad litem filed a motion to seal and for protective order on May 10. She alleged that the children were accessing the files online via AOC Court Connect or were provided the items by either the parties or third parties. She opined that their access to the documents was against their best interest. She noted that Heard also believed the children’s access was detrimental to their well-being and to their relationship with their parents. An order to seal and protective order was entered on May 13. Appellant field two verified ex parte emergency motions for temporary custody or, in the alternative, emergency motion for expeditated relief on June 21. The circuit court entered an order on July 24 on appellant’s motions. The order stated that (1) MG shall enter intensive mental-health treatment, and both parents must participate in the treatment per the provider’s instructions; (2) the parties were both granted immediate and equal access to 4 Appellant alleged that he had not had visitation since September 8. 3 the minor children’s cell phones and had the ability to provide the children with appropriate parental safeguards, they were required to share the logon information and were prohibited from changing the logon without notifying the other parent immediately, and they were prohibited from allowing the children to change the logon information; (3) the parties were prohibited from turning off the children’s cell-phone locations or allowing the children to do so, and they were required to turn the location back on if they learned that a child had turned off his or her location; (4) neither party was allowed to let MG operate vehicles, including golf carts and other motorized vehicles; and (5) neither party could allow MG to consume alcohol or to attend events in which there was knowledge that alcohol would be available. A final hearing took place November 7–8. Allyson Shoptaw testified that she was the reunification therapist for the family. She stated that she was originally contacted by appellee to provide therapy between appellant and the two eldest children, MG and MB.5 She testified that appellant subsequently contacted her in August 2024 and that his intake took place on August 12. She said reunification between appellant and one of the children was set for August 24, but the child did not show up, so appellant received parent coaching on that day. She described appellant as “very coachable” and said that he seemed both open and honest about the family’s current situation. She stated that appellant showed her messages he had received from MG asking him not to contact her but that he seemed 5 MB was seventeen at the time and has since reached the age of majority. 4 persistent with trying to have a relationship with her. She also said that appellant seemed accountable for the role he played in his relationship with the children. Shoptaw said that MG came to therapy on September 19, but she was late. When MG saw appellant, she went into the restroom and did not come out until she heard the door close when appellant left. Shoptaw stated that MG did not speak to appellant, although he spoke to her. MG told Shoptaw that she was not interested in pursuing a relationship with appellant at that time and that she had some unfinished business with appellant concerning a hardship license. She said that she recommended that appellant not force the children to participate in therapy at that time. She opined that neither family therapy nor reunification was beneficial and that it would cause damage. She recommended that everyone be in therapy. On cross-examination by appellant’s attorney, Shoptaw testified that children’s wishes are important, and when children are required to invest in a relationship that they are not ready to invest in, it becomes challenging to the parent to make decisions about what is best for the children. She stated that she could not say if appellee undermined appellant in a way that made the children unwilling to participate in therapy with him because appellee was not her client or a part of this process. She said that it was her understanding that reunification therapy was needed for appellant and MG because their relationship had “greatly deteriorated over the last couple of years.” She also said that appellant believed appellee played an active role in this deterioration. She stated that MG needs more individual therapy before reunification therapy should take place. She opined that reunification therapy for the family had failed. 5 While being cross-examined by the attorney ad litem, Shoptaw testified that it was not in MG’s best interest to be forced into reunification with appellant at this time because it could further damage their relationship. She said that she gave appellant a list of potential psychiatrists MG could go to at appellant’s request. On redirect, Shoptaw testified that relationship therapy is different from cognitive behavioral therapy because there are different personalities involved, and sometimes the power dynamic makes it challenging. She said that in this case, it would have been easier if MG was communicating with appellant. Shoptaw told the circuit court that she spent about an hour with MG on September 19. Margaret Lindley testified that she is a licensed clinical social worker and that she began treating MG in January 2024 after MG transitioned from a prior therapist. She stated that she diagnosed MG with posttraumatic stress disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. MG’s symptoms included intense anxiety, mood instability, nightmares, difficulty sleeping, poor grades, impulse-control issues, and hypervigilance. She stated that the divorce and ongoing custody battle were difficult to MG. She also identified an incident that took place between MG and appellant about two years prior when there was a physical struggle over MG’s phone; MG described it as traumatic and stated that it worsened their relationship. She described MG’s current relationship with appellant as estranged, unhealthy, and dysfunctional. She stated that MG experiences intense anxiety when appellant is mentioned or contacts her, leading MG to become guarded and emotionally dysregulated. She testified that MG no longer stays at appellant’s house and that she avoids contact with him. She 6 stated that earlier, MG had taken on a parentalized role, acting as appellant’s confidant, paying for meals, cleaning, and missing school due to appellant’s reliance on her. This role reversal led to conflict and deterioration of their relationship. According to Lindley, MG does not feel safe, secure, or understood around appellant. Lindley stated that MG has a healthy, supportive, and secure relationship with appellee. She said that during family sessions, communication was open and respectful. She testified that appellee appropriately addressed MG’s negative behaviors without enabling or condoning them. She said that she was not currently focusing on trauma therapy with MG because MG lacks the stability and safety required. She stated that her focus has been on anxiety management, impulse control, and decision making. She testified that MG showed improvement around late summer 2024, with —Lindley noting her first genuine smile and laugh in session. She stated that she met with appellant twice, and that he appeared anxious and brought binders containing notes, texts, and court documents, which Lindley thought was inappropriate. She said that it suggested that appellant was building a case rather than focusing on therapy. She stated that appellant was very focused on MG’s negative behaviors and on criticizing appellee rather than addressing MG’s emotional well-being. She also stated that appellant raised ideas of residential treatment or boot-camp programs for MG, which Lindley thought were not appropriate given MG’s condition. When questioned by appellant’s attorney, Lindley admitted that much of her testimony was based on information she received from MG, the family therapist, the attorney ad litem, appellee, and teachers. She stated that she recommended mental-health treatment 7 for appellant on the basis of her personal observations of him and how he presented, not due to a formal diagnosis. She clarified that recommending therapy did not amount to diagnosing a disorder. She stated her belief that everyone can benefit from counseling. She testified that appellant brought massive amounts of printed text messages and binders into sessions, which seemed intrusive and inappropriate in a therapeutic setting. She said that MG admitted taking appellee’s car several times and joyriding; disclosed alcohol use, which she stated began in her early teens; and acknowledged forging paperwork for a hardship driver’s license because of her anger and resentment toward appellant. She testified that there was an ongoing power struggle between MG and appellant. She stated that appellant sometimes called the police to enforce visitation, which was not typical and indicated serious resistance. She testified that parenting itself is not unhealthy, but the way in which appellant parents—becoming emotionally dysregulated and labile—contributes to unhealthy communication and attachment. She said that residential-treatment or boot-camp programs were not appropriate for MG at this time because she was not gravely disabled or a danger to herself or others. She testified that MG went to the hospital due to a fall, and MG told her that appellant focused more on details than MG’s well-being. She described MG as intelligent, curious, motivated, and a normal teenager seeking independence, though guarded. She stated that MG’s negative behaviors were not abnormal in the context of a high-conflict family. She testified that she had concerns with appellant’s inability to take ownership of problems in the relationship. She noted that appellee had taken responsibility 8 for some issues. She stated that MG does not want to go to appellant’s home and that their relationship is still strained. Lindley told the ad litem that MG reported to her that she felt responsible for her younger sister while at appellant’s house, including making sure that she had food and clean clothes. MG stated that this responsibility negatively affected MG, leading to missed school, declining grades, and reduced participation in gymnastics and social activities. MG also worked as a coach at her gym and valued her job. Lindley stated that MG had poor grades, but they had improved significantly in the current semester, and MG had fewer absences. She testified that MG’s behaviors were dangerous, but they were not out of control or abnormal compared to other teens in high-conflict families. She said that MG reported to her that appellant drank beer to excess, especially following the divorce. Lindley testified that MG did not need an additional psychological evaluation since her symptoms did not warrant it. She described MG’s maturity as slightly above average given her circumstances. MG described her relationship with appellee as good, close, and healthy, with no problems. However, MG said appellant’s unpredictability and mood swings cause her the most frustration, which increases her anxiety. MG told Lindley that appellant would berate her and tell her she was bad in response to her behaviors; however, she said that appellee would respond by grounding her, making her repay money for shopping, and having calm conversations about the risks and dangers of her actions. Lindley testified that she did not go through the binders and texts appellant brought with him because she did not think it was relevant to MG’s individual therapy. 9 Lindley testified on redirect that during her meeting with appellant, she noticed that he was paranoid, anxious, and extremely focused on appellee and that he often had to be redirected back to MG’s needs. She stated that his bringing binders containing text messages and notes suggested he was insecure and wished to build a case rather than engage in therapy. She said that appellee imposed consequences for MG’s negative behavior, but that she was unaware of any disciplinary actions appellant had taken besides refusing to sign for MG’s hardship license. She stated that MG told her appellant berated her instead of providing constructive discipline. She described appellant’s parenting style as ineffective. She said that appellant recorded MG’s phone conversation about drinking without MG’s knowledge, which she believed was intrusive and increased MG’s distrust. She also said that MG told her about an incident in which appellant showed up angry at a homecoming party MG was attending and that he raised his voice at her and embarrassed her. MG also said that appellant had shown up unannounced at other events, which made MG anxious and hypervigilant, fearing that he might show up again. Lindley stated that MG’s resistance to appellant was deeper than a simple preference for one parent’s home. She said that MG’s response was more physical and primal, indicating a lack of safety and healthy attachment. Lindley testified that MG had not reported any positive feedback from appellant in the past year. She said that MG had been able to maintain a job, have close friendships, improve her grades, and genuinely engage in school. Lindley testified during recross by appellant’s attorney that her focus is on the patient’s emotional well-being and perception, even if events are disputed. She clarified that 10 while objective truth can be important, therapy often centers on how the child experiences and interprets events. She stated that it was not the fact that appellant brought the documents to therapy that made him seem paranoid, it was that he seemed intent on proving himself right rather than focusing on MG’s therapeutic needs. Lindley admitted that MG sometimes lied to appellant and turned off her phone location but emphasized that trust is fundamental in a parent-child relationship. She agreed that MG had snuck out of appellant’s house, but she did not recall how many times this happened. Lindley reiterated that MG’s resistance to visitation reflected deeper emotional and relational issues, not just teenage defiance. She stated that her understanding concerning the phone incident was that there was a physical struggle over the phone during which MG felt physically intimidated. She stressed that even if appellant did not intentionally hit MG, MG’s perception of intimidation mattered therapeutically. She testified that according to her notes, MG described appellant’s moods as labile, erratic, and anxiety provoking, which affected her sleep, behavior, and relationships. She said she was shown a video of MG crying while appellant yelled at her with police present and stated this was unhealthy. She said both appellant and appellee could benefit from counseling during this conflict. She also testified that MG thought appellant’s filing multiple motions was bullying and felt excessive, which fueled her resentment toward appellant. During recross by the ad litem, Lindley testified that MG’s suicidal thoughts were vague and more about not wanting to wake up and face ongoing stress rather than an active plan to kill herself. She said that it seemed to be a desperate attempt for help, not a concrete 11 plan. She said that she was not aware that MG had any self-harming behaviors. She clarified that MG was not afraid of getting in trouble with her father, she was afraid of her father’s demeanor and reactions. She denied that MG showed her any concerning text messages between MG and appellant that MG had provided to her. On further redirect, Lindley stated that her therapy sessions did not focus on which parent’s version of events was factually accurate; her focus was on helping MG cope with her experiences, regulate her emotions, and develop healthy decision-making skills. She stated that the phone-struggle incident was significant because it marked a turning point in MG’s relationship with appellant. Lindley told the ad litem during further cross-examination that appellant’s actions made it more difficult for her to help MG progress toward stability and improved mental health. She testified further that appellant made her work more difficult because he was focused on being right and proving entitlement rather than prioritizing what was best for MG. As it related to MG visiting appellant and appellee’s role in MG’s decision, Lindley stated that a parent cannot physically force a child to attend visitation, and forcing a child to live in a home where the child feels unsafe is not healthy. She said MG should be entitled to some agency over where she lives and with whom she feels safe. She testified that MG’s core problem was her lack of emotional safety and trust with appellant, which could lead to long-term attachment issues if not addressed. Jenny Childress testified that she provides coparenting counseling for high-conflict divorce couples and that she saw appellant and appellee in that capacity as required by their 12 divorce decree. She stated that she met with each party individually twice before having a joint session in October or November 2022. She stated that the primary issue both parties brought to her was communication, which she described as poor. She held only one joint session because, by the end of it, she determined that continuing joint work was not therapeutically appropriate. She stated that she asked both parties to bring a list of issues they wished to address; however, only appellee brought a list. Her issues were discussed, but they were not resolved. She stated that the session was dominated by appellant’s focus on appellee’s leaving him and his belief that he did not have the same earning potential. She said that appellee brought a calendar to work through possible adjustments, but that appellant’s only response was that he would have to get it to his attorney. She testified that no progress was made on scheduling or any other topic. She stated that she felt like a “referee” because appellant was extremely angry—his focus was on the divorce and financial issues, particularly his belief that he lacked the earning power of appellee. The session ended abruptly when appellant became enraged. He gathered his things, stood up, and screamed in appellee’s face. Childress stated that appellant got close enough to appellee that she feared for appellee’s safety. She described the interaction as hostile and stated that she stood up in case she needed to intervene. She testified that such safety concerns are rare in her twelve years of practice. This was when she determined that it was not appropriate to continue joint sessions. She stated she already had concerns about the parties’ ability to coparent in light of her individual meetings with them; in the joint meeting, they were unable to really discuss any coparenting issues. She described appellant as distraught, angry, and obsessively anxious 13 about the divorce and finances in the individual sessions; however, she did not have similar mental-health concerns about appellee. Childress testified that appellant believes appellee does what she wants to do and that the children listen to her, but he did not identify any concerns about his own parenting ability. She opined that coparenting was not appropriate for the parties and that parallel parenting—using structured communication apps like OurFamilyWizard—would be more suitable. She stated that she would have to think carefully before agreeing to work with them again. On cross-examination, Childress testified that she could not remember whether there were two joint sessions with the parties. She stated that during the joint session she remembers, appellant mentioned appellee owed him a large sum of money, while appellee alleged that appellant owed her money for expenses like gymnastics, braces, or medical bills. She said that while the parties discussed their financial disputes, they did not reach parenting issues. She denied that she recorded the joint session and said that she would be surprised if a video of appellant’s behavior during the joint session surfaced. Appellee testified that she and appellant were divorced by decree on August 12, 2022. She said they agreed to joint custody of their three children. She stated that the decree ordered appellant to cover the children’s health insurance, but she pays for it herself. She said that the decree also required equal division of medical, dental, orthodontic, counseling, and extracurricular expenses; however, she said that appellant had not paid any of his share of the costs even though she documented them in OurFamilyWizard. She also said that the decree ordered appellant to satisfy certain obligations, and he had failed to comply. She 14 asked the circuit court to order appellant to pay his share of the children’s expenses and to hold him in contempt for failing to comply with his other obligations. On cross-examination by appellant’s attorney, appellee stated that she had made her payments as ordered in the divorce decree. Kennth Joe Heard was called by appellant and testified that he was appointed by court order to provide solution-focused family counseling for the parties. He began counseling in December 2023, and it included individual sessions, joint sessions, and sessions with the children. He stated that there were thirty-six sessions over a five-month period. His goal was to improve coparenting, support reunification between appellant and MG, and provide guidance on appropriate parenting practices. One significant issue was whether MG could obtain a hardship driver’s license. Appellee supported it, but appellant opposed it after MG took appellee’s car without permission and went on a joyride. MG later falsified paperwork to obtain the license by signing appellant’s name, which escalated tensions between appellant and MG. Appellant also complained that appellee withheld information about the children’s activities and appointment. Appellee complained about appellant’s anger and yelling. Heard stated that by May 2024, things fell apart between appellant and MG because MG became increasingly resistant to seeing appellant. MG sent text messages threatening to harm herself if she were forced to visit him, which undermined therapy. MG also accused Heard of taking money from appellant to be on his side. Heard said that appellee requested a neutral therapist, indicating that she did not believe he was neutral. He stated that he withdrew because he felt as though trust had been broken, making continuation unethical. 15 He testified that both parents disapproved of MG’s behavior (alcohol use, joyriding, and unauthorized credit-card use). On cross-examination by appellee’s attorney, Heard testified that he discharged the family a day after MG sent him the text message. He admitted that while he was providing services to the family, he recommended that MG not stay with appellant on a weekly basis because she complained of sleep problems while at appellant’s. He acknowledged that MG’s grades were suffering when he started seeing the family. He stated that between January and May 2024, MG was seeing appellant only on the weekends. He said that the problems between MG and appellant started with the hardship-license dispute. He stated that by the time of his May 9 report, all three children were estranged from appellant due to his anger and communication issues. He agreed that MG and appellant have a very estranged relationship. He agreed that his attempts to reunify the family were unsuccessful. He said that MG continued to experience significant distress around appellant throughout treatment, which became worse over time. He stated that both parents participated appropriately during the sessions and that both shared concerns about MG’s behavior. He said that appellee did not condone or encourage MG’s behavior. On cross-examination by the ad litem, Heard stated that appellant and appellee have different parenting styles: appellee has a gentle, loving approach while appellant is a little stricter than appellee. He said that MG felt like appellant got angry easily and would yell at her. He described the family as a high-conflict family. He stated that he did not feel that 16 coparenting should stop, but he felt that it had become ineffective. He testified that the parents should stop arguing and start problem solving. On redirect, Heard stated that MG is smart enough to manipulate this situation the way she wants it to go. He said that appellant had an issue with MG’s sneaking out when she was at his house and his not knowing where she was. On recross by appellee’s attorney, Heard said that no one expressed any concern to him that appellee was trying to take appellant’s parenting time away. He agreed that MG’s relationship with her father was further affected after she read online filings about her and appellee. Appellee testified that appellant last had visitation with MG in July 2024. She denied failing to coparent or deliberately preventing visitations, stating she has encouraged MG to spend time with appellant, but MG refused. She explained that MG checks with her before making decisions and that she provides MG with money and a phone but does not restrict them. She stated that MG admitted she drank alcohol during appellant’s custodial time in April and that he recorded her admission but did not discipline MG. She said that she later grounded MG, had stern conversations with her, and worked with MG’s therapist on truth telling. She admitted that she initially believed MG’s denial before learning the truth. She acknowledged that MG had taken her vehicle about three times but said that it had not happened in over a year. She also admitted that MG had sneaked out of appellant’s house to attend parties. She stated that appellant often demanded visitation without regard for MG’s schedule and that she told him to coordinate visits directly with MG because of MG’s 17 job and activities. She said that she always knows where MG is because she communicates with MG, but she admitted that appellant complained about not knowing MG’s location. She denied pitting MG against appellant and said that MG trusts her because she does not use fear-based parenting. She testified that at a Catholic High School event, appellant approached her aggressively, spilled wine on her, and grabbed her arm. A shoving match ensued between appellant and appellee’s now husband, Byron Wilkes, and appellant fell backward onto a table. She was shown a video of the event and stated that appellant was the aggressor. She said that she discussed the incident with the children to reassure them but denied disparaging appellant. Appellee was presented with text messages between her and the parties’ son, MB, wherein she told him to delete the messages. She said that she told him to delete the messages because she wanted to avoid further litigation. The message concerned a golf camp MB wanted to attend, which appellant refused to allow. In the message, she told MB to stand up for himself. When questioned by her attorney on cross-examination, appellee stated that, lately, appellant has not picked MG up from school for visitation as required by the divorce decree. She said that she has never kept MG away from appellant and that she has encouraged MG to visit appellant. She acknowledged that in January 2024, Heard recommended changing MG’s schedule to every other weekend with appellant. She said that later, the attorney ad litem recommended that MG stay with appellee due to tension with appellant and the burden on her gymnastics coach. She stated that she followed this recommendation and informed appellant. Appellee testified that she tried extensively to arrange family therapy 18 for appellant and MG after the sessions with Heard ended in May, but she was unsuccessful. She said that she finally reached out to Shoptaw and then asked appellant to follow up, but he did not do so until August. She stated that appellant and MG’s relationship deteriorated further between June and August. She admitted that she does not punish MG for refusing visitation with appellant because she believes that would be fear-based parenting. She said that MG was following professional recommendations, so punishing her for that would be inappropriate. However, she said that she does discipline MG for other behaviors. She stated that her communication with appellant is very nonproductive. She introduced text messages wherein appellant was cursing her. She said that this type of communication has been frequent and has hindered their ability to coparent. She testified that she moved to reopen the case because appellant did not pay his court-ordered obligations and refused to discuss his financial obligations during coparenting sessions; she was concerned about his physical aggression toward her (shoving, spraying her with a hose, and throwing her out of the garage); she also had concerns about his anger, yelling, blaming, and shaming behaviors toward the children. She asked the circuit court to end the litigation, focus on the children’s emotional well-being, and allow therapeutic efforts to rebuild relationship. When questioned by the ad litem, appellee testified that she has called the police at least once on appellant, but most of the time, appellant calls the police when the children refuse visitation. She stated that appellant records the children without their knowledge, which she believes is unhealthy, is an invasion of privacy, and creates mistrust. 19 On redirect, appellee stated that MG was prescribed psychiatric medication while previously under the care of Dr. Aldea. She admitted that she told MG to stop taking the medication temporarily because MG said it was making her sick. She said that even though she disagreed that MG should take the medication, she did not disagree with the diagnosis. She testified that MG had expressed suicidal thoughts in November 2023 in an attempt to avoid going to appellant’s house. She was presented with a May 4, 2024 message wherein MG stated, “Call the mental health hospital and come get me. I want to go there. I’m at my breaking point.” She acknowledged the message. When asked about a message she sent appellant telling him that she was “not obligated to have [the children] ready for [him] at a certain time and location,” she explained that she sent it because appellant gave her only fifteen minutes’ notice before arriving and without checking to ensure that the children were home. She stated that the decree provides that appellant is to pick the children up from school or activities, not from her house. Appellant testified that he last exercised visitation with MG on July 8. He said that since then, he has seen her only at two or three medical appointments. He stated that appellee makes it difficult for him to exercise his visitation by not answering his texts, not telling him where MG is, not telling him where to pick up MG, and helping MG avoid visitation. He said that they were court ordered to use their best efforts to ensure that MG is sharing her location via her cell phone; however, he stated that MG’s location is usually turned off. He said that on one occasion, MG’s location showed that she was home, but she was at a football game. He testified that MG lies, sneaks out, uses alcohol, spends time alone 20 with boys, and participates in other risky behavior. He said that he is especially concerned about MG’s mental health and medical care, including medication management. He had a problem with appellee modifying MG’s psychiatric medication without proper medical authority. He admitted that he showed up at a homecoming party during his custodial period late one night but denied that he did anything inappropriate—he just wanted to enforce MG’s curfew. He said the delay in appellee’s paying him as ordered by the divorce decree affected his ability to pay expenses for the children. He admitted that he suffers from depression and ADHD for which he takes Lexapro. He stated that he has been under mental-health care for about twenty years. He denied that his mental-health issues impair his parenting ability. He asked that he be granted final say in parenting decision, especially medical decisions. He acknowledged the incident with him and MG concerning her phone. He said he grabbed her phone, which caused it to hit MG’s mouth. He stated that he did not physically harm MG and that MG hit herself in the mouth. He testified that this was the triggering event that escalated litigation. He asked the circuit court to order reunification therapy that does not allow MG to control participation. He expressed concerns that her therapist’s approach undermines progress. On cross-examination by appellee’s attorney, appellant stated that in addition to the listed diagnosis, he also has anxiety and sleep apnea and is prescribed Lexapro, Adderall, Ambien, lorazepam (taken as needed), and blood-pressure medications. He last saw his psychiatrist on September 18. He admitted that he was not in therapy at the time of his deposition in August because he had had his last therapy session in April 2023. However, 21 he stated that he began therapy in August 2024. He said that his past therapy sessions dealt with anger, obsessive thoughts, and disproportionate reactions to triggering events. He admitted that he had not paid his court-ordered expenses and that he owes about $20,000. He also acknowledged other court orders he had not followed. He admitted that he sprayed appellee with a hose during an altercation. He testified that Heard recommended a graduated visitation schedule for MG in early 2024, starting with weekends and gradually increasing. He also agreed that the ad litem recommended that MG not be forced to stay at his house due to stress and self-harm concerns. He said that MG asked him to agree to the recommendation. He stated that appellee attempted at least once to facilitate visitation by dropping MG off but that MG immediately left. He testified that his relationship with all three children is strained. He admitted that he has yelled at appellee in front of the children, they have seen him physically push appellee, and he has spoken negatively to them about appellee and Wilkes. He was asked about texts from MG in which she indicated she did not want to have anything to do with him and was stressed and anxious about coming to his house, among other things. He testified that al