Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-401 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Legislation of the 1983 General Assembly, Family Law, 6 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 624.

Survey — Criminal Law, 12 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 183.

Case Notes

Continuing Crime.

Where defendant was convicted for failing to pay child support for six years, § 5-1-109(b)(2) did not bar the prosecution for the failure to pay support more than three years before defendant was charged because nonsupport was a continuing crime. Hampton v. State, 357 Ark. 473, 183 S.W.3d 148 (2004).

Trial court erred in denying a father's motion to dismiss a charge of failure to pay child support, a continuing offense, on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired because the date of the crime of nonsupport had to be determined based upon subdivision (b)(3) of this section, prior to its amendment in 1997; the one-year statute of limitations expired several weeks prior to the effective date of the amended version of the statute. Reeves v. State, 374 Ark. 415, 288 S.W.3d 577 (2008).

Divorce.

Procurement of a divorce did not relieve one of the legal responsibility for the support of his minor child. Guyot v. State, 222 Ark. 275, 258 S.W.2d 569 (1953) (decision under prior law).

Double Jeopardy.

Defendant's prior contempt proceedings did not present a double-jeopardy bar to the state's prosecution for criminal nonsupport under this section because each time defendant failed to pay his child support, he offended his ongoing duty to provide support; the state was not seeking to punish defendant for the acts of nonpayment for which he had already been punished, but rather, the state was attempting to penalize defendant for a violation of the statute for which he had not yet been punished. Halpaine v. State, 2011 Ark. 517, 385 S.W.3d 838 (2011).

Evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to show a violation of former section. Castle v. State, 229 Ark. 478, 316 S.W.2d 701 (1958) (decision under prior law).

Evidence held sufficient to support conviction. Nelke v. State, 19 Ark. App. 292, 720 S.W.2d 719 (1986).

While the state must prove every element of its criminal nonsupport case beyond a reasonable doubt, it may do so by circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence. Nelke v. State, 19 Ark. App. 292, 720 S.W.2d 719 (1986).

Evidence held insufficient to support conviction of failing to support dependent spouse. Woodberry v. State, 35 Ark. App. 129, 811 S.W.2d 339 (1991).

Trial court properly revoked defendant's suspended sentence for nonsupport, in violation of subdivision (a)(3) of this section, because defendant's purported lack of knowledge and understanding of the obligation was inconsistent with what defendant was told and what defendant admitted during the process of pleading guilty; substantial evidence supported the revocation order. Rhoades v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 730, 379 S.W.3d 659 (2010).

Failure to Provide.

In order to convict a husband it had to be shown that the husband willfully or negligently failed to provide adequately for his wife and children, but a mere failure on account of inability was insufficient. Dempsey v. State, 108 Ark. 76, 157 S.W. 734 (1913) (decision under prior law); Nelke v. State, 19 Ark. App. 292, 720 S.W.2d 719 (1986).

Where a husband had abandoned his wife and minor children, total provision made to them for three months held to be failure to provide for the wife and children. Dempsey v. State, 108 Ark. 76, 157 S.W. 734 (1913) (decision under prior law).

Uncontradicted testimony by a child support enforcement office employee that he believed defendant's child turned 17 did not meet the definition of hearsay because it was merely an opinion, and it was sufficient to establish the child's age for purposes of supporting defendant's conviction for nonsupport. Hampton v. State, 357 Ark. 473, 183 S.W.3d 148 (2004).

Indictment or Information.

Information held to sufficiently charge the offense. Castle v. State, 229 Ark. 478, 316 S.W.2d 701 (1958) (decision under prior law).

Instructions.

An instruction held properly refused where it was abstract, argumentative and misleading. Stephens v. State, 172 Ark. 398, 288 S.W. 926 (1926) (decision under prior law).

Jurisdiction.

Former similar section did not give the chancery court jurisdiction to compel support for illegitimate child. Higgs v. Higgs, 227 Ark. 572, 299 S.W.2d 837 (1957) (decision under prior law).

The fact that the divorce court had retained jurisdiction did not nullify a penal statute covering the same subject matter. Guyot v. State, 222 Ark. 275, 258 S.W.2d 569 (1953) (decision under prior law).

Although Ark. Const., Art. 7, § 28 vested jurisdiction in the county courts over all matters relating to paternity, such jurisdiction was civil in nature and did not bar criminal prosecution in the circuit court. Platt v. Ponder, 233 Ark. 682, 346 S.W.2d 687 (1961) (decision under prior law).

Just Cause.

The words “without good cause” meant such cause as was a sufficient ground for divorce and the severance of the marital relation under the law. Miller v. State, 123 Ark. 480, 185 S.W. 789 (1916) (decision under prior law).

Neglect, refusal or abandonment had to be without good cause. Dumbroski v. State, 192 Ark. 263, 90 S.W.2d 973 (1936) (decision under prior law).

Leaving the State.

It was necessary on the felony charge to prove that the husband had left the state as a part of his act of desertion. Dunham v. State, 169 Ark. 257, 275 S.W. 325 (1925); Green v. State, 230 Ark. 1007, 328 S.W.2d 89 (1959) (preceding decisions under prior law).

Instruction regarding defendant's leaving state held erroneous since it would permit jury to find defendant guilty whether or not his act of leaving the state was connected with his act of desertion. Green v. State, 230 Ark. 1007, 328 S.W.2d 89 (1959) (decision under prior law).

Preservation for Review.

For the first time on appeal, defendant specifically argued that the State failed to prove in his trial for nonsupport that he was $25,000 or more behind on his child support obligations. This challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appeal because the directed verdict motion made below did not specifically allege that the State's proof was insufficient as to the amount of unpaid child support. Turley v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 118 (2020).

Proof.

A marriage between the defendant and his alleged wife could be proved by a preponderance of the testimony, but whether he abandoned and refused to support his wife and child had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Linville v. State, 129 Ark. 36, 195 S.W. 382 (1917) (decision under prior law).

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion dismiss or motion for a directed verdict as felony nonsupport was a continuing offense and defendant was charged within three years of committing the offense. Morris v. State, 88 Ark. App. 251, 197 S.W.3d 41 (2004).

Trial court erred in revoking defendant's probation for failure to pay a child support arrearage following a conviction for felony nonsupport in violation of subsection (a) and subdivision (b)(2)(B) of this section where defendant asserted an inability to pay and offered a disability as a reasonable excuse for his nonpayment and where the state offered no evidence of defendant's other sources of income, his assets, or his expenses. The trial court should have applied § 5-4-309(d)'s general inexcusably failed to comply standard as refined by § 5-4-205(f)'s restitution-specific factors. Hanna v. Arkansas, 2009 Ark. App. 809, 372 S.W.3d 375 (2009).

Cited: Britt v. State, 261 Ark. 488, 549 S.W.2d 84 (1977); Pickens-Bond Constr. Co. v. Case, 266 Ark. 323, 584 S.W.2d 21 (1979); Madewell v. State, 290 Ark. 580, 720 S.W.2d 913 (1986); Smith v. State, 296 Ark. 451, 757 S.W.2d 554 (1988); Duhon v. State, 299 Ark. 503, 774 S.W.2d 830 (1989); Hagen v. State, 318 Ark. 139, 883 S.W.2d 832 (1994).