In Hamilton v. Barrett, 337 Ark. 460, 989 S.W.2d 520 (1999), the appellant argued, in reliance on Jones, that a noncustodial parent's remarriage could not properly be considered a material change in circumstances. The court stated, however, that the appellant's reading of Jones v. Jones was too narrow and that the holding in Jones v. Jones was not intended to prohibit a chancellor from ever considering a noncustodial parent's remarriage as a change in circumstances affecting the best interest of the child. The court said that its decision in Jones v. Jones was based on evidence that the marriage was contemplated at the time the custody agreement was made. The court also observed that the reversal in Jones was influenced by the noncustodial parent's repeated procurement of ex parte orders and by the chancellor's improper shifting of the burden of proof.