the circuit court erred in holding that Karen stood in loco parentis to Austin. In this case, Karen was the only mother Austin had ever known, and Austin did not know she was not his birth mother until first grade. She had served as Austin’s mother for six years. Karen described herself as Austin’s mother; Austin called her Mommy. The fact that she told Gerald one of the reasons she left was because she was a nanny, rather than a wife or mother, appears from her testimony to have had more to do with her impression of her relationship with Gerald than with Austin. After a de novo review, we hold that the circuit court’s finding that Karen stood in loco parentis to Austin was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. Glaze, J., dissents. 1 Stamps v. Rawlins, 297 Ark. 370, 761 S.W.2d 933 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Golden v. Golden, 57 Ark. App. 143, 942
recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party holding custody and guardianship of child whose natural parent is adjudicated unfit mandatorily vests with social services holding that a stepparent may be awarded custody of a minor child although the law recognizes a preference for a fit natural parent holding that although husband and wife were both fit and proper persons to have custody of the child custody in a dissolution action should have been awarded to wife the biological parent in light of blood test showing that husband was not the childs biological father holding that the domicile of the child follows that of the parent with lawful custody