a “dramatic change” in Tory’s demeanor since she began living with him. He testified that Tory was happy and content living with him, and it is undisputed that they share common interests, such as the love of outdoor pursuits. It is implicit in the chancellor’s original order awarding custody to appellant that Tory had a good relationship with her father but was happy and content in appellant’s care. Appellee presented no evidence that this has changed. Rather, the evidence shows that Tory continues to enjoy a good relationship with both parents. Appellee did not seek custody on the ground that appellant was an unfit mother. He simply maintained that he was close to Tory and that she was happy and content with him. See Barnes v. Newton, 69 Ark. App. 115, 10 S.W.3d 472 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, while the evidence demonstrates
holding in part that there were no material changes in circumstances to justify changing jointcustody order to award custody to the mother where there was no allegation that either parent was unfit holding that a mother and her two children failed to establish a  1983 claim where there was no evidence that threats made to the mother were directly aimed at the relationship between parent and child holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time the motion to terminate stated that dss was given legal custody of the minor children and the record included a copy of an order in effect when the motion was filed that awarded dss custody of the children holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order