Ark. Code Ann. § 9-10-102 (2026)
Actions governed by Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure — Limitations periods — Venue — Summons — Transfer between local jurisdictions
- An action to establish the paternity of a child or children shall be commenced and proceed under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in circuit court, as amended from time to time by the Supreme Court.
- Actions brought in the State of Arkansas to establish paternity may be brought at any time. Any action brought prior to August 1, 1985, but dismissed because of a statute of limitations in effect prior to that date, may be brought for any person for whom paternity has not yet been established.
- Venue of paternity actions shall be in the county in which the plaintiff resides or, in cases involving a juvenile, in the county in which the juvenile resides.
- Summons may be issued in any county of this state in which the defendant may be found.
-
- Upon a default by the defendant, the court shall grant a finding of paternity and shall establish a child support order based on an application in accordance with the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and the family support chart.
- The court's granting of a default paternity judgment shall be based on the presumed mother's affidavit of facts in which the presumed mother names the defendant as the father of her child and states the defendant's access during the probable period of conception.
-
-
- The court where the final decree of paternity is rendered shall retain jurisdiction of all matters following the entry of the decree.
-
- If more than six (6) months subsequent to the final adjudication, however, each of the parties to the action has established a residence in a county of another judicial district within the state, one (1) or both of the parties may petition the court that entered the final adjudication to request that the case be transferred to another county.
- The case shall not be transferred absent a showing that the best interest of the parties justifies the transfer.
- If a justification for transfer of the case has been made, there shall be an initial presumption for transfer of the case to the county of residence of the physical custodian of the child.
- If the court that entered the final adjudication agrees to transfer the case to another judicial district, upon proper motion and affidavit and notice and payment of a refiling fee, the court shall enter an order transferring the case and the refiling fee and charging the clerk of the court to transmit forthwith certified copies of all records pertaining to the case to the clerk of the court in the county where the case is being transferred.
- An affidavit shall accompany the motion to transfer and recite that the parent or parents, the physical custodian, and the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance and Administration, as appropriate, have been notified in writing that a request has been made to transfer the case.
- Notification pursuant to this section must inform each recipient that any objection must be filed within twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of the affidavit and motion for transfer.
- The clerk receiving a transferred case shall within fourteen (14) days of receipt set up a case file, docket the case, and afford the case full faith and credit as if the case had originated in that judicial district.
-
History. Acts 1875 (Adj. Sess.), No. 24, § 2, p. 25; 1879, No. 72, § 1, p. 95; C. & M. Dig., § 773; Pope's Dig., § 929; Acts 1955, No. 127, § 2; 1983, No. 595, § 1; 1985, No. 988, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 34-702, 34-705.2; Acts 1989, No. 725, § 1; 1995, No. 1184, § 42; 1997, No. 1296, § 3; 1999, No. 539, § 2; 2003, No. 1185, § 10.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Legislative Survey, Family Law, 4 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 595.
Survey — Family Law, 11 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 215.
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Note: Family Law—Putative Fathers and the Presumption of Legitimacy—Adams and the Forbidden Fruit: Clashes Between the Presumption of Legitimacy and the Rights of Putative Fathers in Arkansas, 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 369.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
This section is constitutional. Dobson v. State, 69 Ark. 376, 63 S.W. 796 (1901).
Purpose.
Indemnity and protection of the counties against the burden of supporting the illegitimate child, and not the punishment of the father, are the objects contemplated by the statute. Chambers v. State, 45 Ark. 56 (1885).
Child Support.
By common law the mother and not the father of an illegitimate child is bound to support him, but this section confers on the mother of the child the right to compel the father to contribute to its support; and a promise on the father's part to contribute to the child's support is a valid legal liability and is enforceable against him or, after his death, against his estate. Davis' Estate v. Herrington, 53 Ark. 5, 13 S.W. 215 (1890).
In an action to enforce an unwritten promise to support and for annual payments, the recovery is limited to the last three years. Davis' Estate v. Herrington, 53 Ark. 5, 13 S.W. 215 (1890) (decision prior to 1985 amendment).
The mother may enforce an implied obligation of father to support illegitimate child. Scott v. State, 173 Ark. 625, 292 S.W. 979 (1927).
Dismissal.
Because a dismissal with prejudice is void in a paternity action, such a ruling does not bar future proceedings. State Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Flowers, 57 Ark. App. 223, 944 S.W.2d 558 (1997).
Jury Trial.
Since a paternity proceeding was essentially an action at law for the recovery of money, the appellant was entitled to a jury trial on the issues of fact. Waddell v. State, 235 Ark. 293, 357 S.W.2d 651 (1962).
Nature of Action.
Although a paternity proceeding is in the name of the state, it is of a civil nature. Chambers v. State, 45 Ark. 56 (1885); Pearce v. State, 55 Ark. 387, 18 S.W. 380 (1892); Wimberly v. State, 90 Ark. 514, 119 S.W. 668 (1909); Belford v. State, 96 Ark. 274, 131 S.W. 953 (1910); State ex rel. Woolems v. Davis, 178 Ark. 692, 11 S.W.2d 479 (1928); Swaim v. State, 184 Ark. 1107, 44 S.W.2d 1098 (1932).
Res Judicata.
Decision in an annulment proceeding brought on the ground of false representation as to paternity of child is not res judicata in either a paternity or heirship action, as child is not a party privy to the annulment proceeding. Shatford v. Shatford, 214 Ark. 612, 217 S.W.2d 917 (1949).
Venue.
In a proceeding to determine the custody of a child after his mother died, venue was not proper in the county in which the father resided; instead, venue was proper in the county in which the child had resided with his mother and in which he was cared for after her death by his grandparents. Overton v. Jones, 74 Ark. App. 122, 45 S.W.3d 427 (2001).
Trial court erred in granting mother's motion to transfer a custody action because there was evidence that the father never established a residence outside of the first county, as contemplated by subdivision (f)(1)(B)(i) of this section. Stephens v. Miller, 91 Ark. App. 253, 209 S.W.3d 452 (2005).
Cited: George v. George, 247 Ark. 17, 444 S.W.2d 62 (1969); Roque v. Frederick, 272 Ark. 392, 614 S.W.2d 667 (1981); Fuller v. Robinson, 279 Ark. 252, 650 S.W.2d 585 (1983); Chandler v. Baker, 16 Ark. App. 253, 700 S.W.2d 378 (1985); State Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Harnage, 322 Ark. 461, 910 S.W.2d 207 (1995).