Fit Natural Parent Presumption Trumps Nonrelative Custody: Oxley v. Lumpkins

Introduction

In Zachary M. Oxley v. Larry Ray Lumpkins (2025 Ark. 98), the Supreme Court of Arkansas addressed a novel custody dispute between a nonrelative custodian and a fit, natural parent. Zachary Oxley, the biological father of Minor Child 1 (“MC1”), moved to modify an existing custody order awarding primary custody to Larry Lumpkins, who had intervened in MC1’s home life under an in loco parentis theory. Oxley argued that, as a fit, natural parent, he was entitled to the presumption that custody should be awarded to him unless he was found unfit. The court agreed, reversed the circuit court’s modification decision, vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, and remanded with instructions to award Oxley sole primary custody of MC1.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and remanded the custody-modification decision. It held:

A fit, natural parent enjoys a presumption that they act in their child’s best interest and is entitled to primary custody over a nonrelative custodian unless there is an express finding of parental unfitness.
The circuit court erred by requiring Oxley to show a material change in circumstances before addressing that presumption.
Because Lumpkins never proved Oxley unfit, the natural‐parent presumption remained intact and required awarding custody to Oxley.
The case was remanded with instructions to award Oxley sole primary custody of MC1, while permitting the court to revisit MC2’s visitation to preserve sibling bonds.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Troxel v. Granville (530 U.S. 57, 2000): Established that a fit parent’s decision regarding custody is conclusive, grounded in a fundamental liberty interest.
In re Guardianship of W.L. (2015 Ark. 289): Recognized the presumption that a fit natural parent acts in the child’s best interest, derived from Troxel.
Morris v. Clark (2019 Ark. 130): Held that absent a finding of unfitness, a circuit court must terminate a guardianship rather than conduct a best-interest analysis.
Donley v. Donley (2016 Ark. 243) and Linder v. Linder (348 Ark. 322): Reinforced the parental presumption and the requirement of an express unfitness finding to rebut it.
Schuh v. Robertson (302 Ark. 305, 1990): Introduced an absolute parental presumption in juvenile dependency contexts, emphasizing that a third party must prove parental unfitness to supplant custody.
Lewellyn v. Lewellyn and Lloyd v. Butts: Articulated the two‐step custody‐modification test (material change followed by best‐interest analysis) typically applied in custody disputes.

Legal Reasoning

The court began by observing that existing Arkansas law did not directly address a fit natural parent challenging a nonrelative custodian. It then reconciled two lines of authority:

The traditional custody‐modification framework requires first a material change in circumstances and then a best‐interest analysis.
The guardianship line of cases imposes an irrebuttable presumption favoring a fit natural parent, requiring an express unfitness finding to award custody to a nonparent or nonrelative.

The court held that when a fit natural parent seeks custody from a nonrelative custodian, the parental presumption is dispositive. Requiring a material-change showing undermines the constitutional liberty interest recognized in Troxel and the presumption established in the guardianship cases. Here, Lumpkins never proved Oxley unfit, so the presumption in Oxley’s favor stood unrebutted, entitling him to custody without further best‐interest inquiry.

Impact

This decision clarifies Arkansas law in several ways:

It cements a strong parental presumption in custody modifications involving nonrelatives, limiting the circuit court’s ability to apply a free‐floating best‐interest test.
It emphasizes that fit natural parents are protected by a constitutional liberty interest that courts cannot override absent unfitness.
It may prompt nonrelative custodians to seek express unfitness findings in initial proceedings if they wish to retain custody against a natural parent.
It could accelerate custody modifications in similar factual settings by eliminating the material‐change hurdle for natural parents.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Fit Natural Parent Presumption: A legal rule that assumes a biological parent who is not proven unfit will act in the child’s best interest.
In Loco Parentis: A doctrine allowing nonparents who assume parental responsibilities to seek custody or visitation but without supplanting a fit natural parent.
Material Change in Circumstances: A significant alteration in life circumstances (e.g., relocation, neglect) that justifies re-opening a custody order.
Best‐Interest Analysis: A holistic test considering factors like stability, parent‐child bond, and health—used when parental presumption is rebutted or in disputes between two parents.

Conclusion

Oxley v. Lumpkins establishes a clear rule: when a fit natural parent seeks custody from a nonrelative custodian, the parental presumption prevails unless the court explicitly finds the parent unfit. This decision reinforces the constitutional liberty interest of parents in child‐rearing decisions, limits discretionary best‐interest inquiries in such disputes, and ensures that nonrelative custodians must carry the burden of proving unfitness to retain custody over a biological parent. The court’s remand instructions expedite MC1’s reunification with her father, emphasizing minimal disruption and the child’s developmental stability.