The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld a custody and visitation order in the case of Jade Ashley Center (now Tankersley) v. Kendra Renea Center, affirming the rights of Jade as the primary custodian of their minor child. This decision, delivered on May 20, 2026, impacts not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for future custody disputes among same-sex couples in Arkansas.

The court's ruling comes after Jade Tankersley appealed a decision from the Ouachita County Circuit Court concerning the custody arrangement for their child, born during her marriage to Kendra Center. The court found that the initial custody agreement, which designated Jade as the primary physical custodian, remained in effect, and no material change in circumstances warranted a modification of that arrangement.

This case is significant as it addresses the complexities of custody arrangements in same-sex marriages, particularly in light of the evolving legal landscape surrounding parental rights. The ruling affirms the importance of recognizing both parents in the context of custody, even when the biological father’s rights are in question.

Background

The parties involved in this case, Jade Tankersley and Kendra Center, were married in October 2019. Their daughter, referred to as Minor Child (MC), was conceived through artificial insemination and born on July 27, 2021. Both parents are listed on MC’s birth certificate, which complicates the custody arrangement due to the involvement of a biological father whose rights were not terminated.

In January 2023, Jade filed for divorce, citing an existing marital settlement agreement that included provisions for custody and visitation. This agreement, however, was later contested, leading to a series of legal disputes between the two parents regarding the custody arrangement. The couple had previously agreed on a joint custody arrangement, with Jade as the primary physical custodian, but disagreements arose about visitation rights and the enforcement of that agreement.

After Jade filed a motion to modify the custody agreement in March 2025, claiming that Kendra had disrupted her custodial rights, the case was brought before the Ouachita County Circuit Court. The hearing revealed that both parties had been practicing a joint custody arrangement, although the written agreement indicated otherwise. This discrepancy led to further complications as the court sought to establish a clear visitation schedule.

The Ruling

The Arkansas Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the July 21, 2025, order of the Ouachita County Circuit Court, which found that no material change in circumstances had occurred that would warrant a change in custody. The court noted that “the current custody orders shall remain in effect wherein the parties share joint [legal] custody of the minor child with [Jade] being the primary physical custodian.”

Judge Wendy Scholten Wood, who delivered the opinion, emphasized that both parents were fit to care for MC and that the court's role was to ensure the best interests of the child were met. The court recognized the challenges both parents faced in adhering to the original custody agreement but maintained that the established order should remain in effect.

The court also addressed Jade's claims regarding the visitation schedule, stating that the arrangement should reflect the realities of the parents' current living situation and the child's best interests. The court found that the alternating weeks of custody had been practiced for a year, which justified the continuation of that arrangement until MC begins kindergarten.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for same-sex couples navigating custody disputes in Arkansas. It reinforces the importance of adhering to established custody agreements, even in the face of changing circumstances. The court's decision also highlights the need for clear communication and documentation regarding custody and visitation arrangements, particularly when multiple parental figures are involved.

Furthermore, the ruling sets a precedent for future custody cases involving same-sex couples, affirming that both parents' rights must be respected, even when biological relationships are in question. This case illustrates the evolving understanding of family structures in the legal system and the importance of protecting children's best interests in custody disputes.

What's Next

The case may not be over, as Jade has the option to appeal the decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Additionally, the biological father, Julian Cheatham, has filed a motion for intervention, seeking recognition of his parental rights, which could further complicate the custody arrangement. The outcome of this case may influence similar custody disputes involving same-sex couples in the future.