Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-105 (2026)
Petition for support — Definitions
- The circuit courts in the several counties in this state shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all civil cases and matters relating to the support of a minor child or support owed to a person eighteen (18) or older that accrued during that person's minority.
-
The following may file a petition to require the noncustodial parent or parents of a minor child to provide support for the minor child:
- Any parent having physical custody of a minor child;
- Any other person or agency to whom physical custody of a minor child has been given or relinquished;
- A minor child by and through his or her guardian or next friend; or
- The Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance and Administration when the parent or person to whom physical custody has been relinquished or awarded is receiving assistance in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Transitional Employment Assistance, Medicaid, Foster Care Program of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq., or has contracted with the Department of Finance and Administration for the collection of support.
- Any person eighteen (18) years of age or above to whom support was owed during his or her minority may file a petition for a judgment against the nonsupporting parent or parents. Upon hearing, a judgment may be entered upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence for the amount of support owed and unpaid.
-
As used in this subchapter:
- “Minor child” means a child less than eighteen (18) years of age; and
- “Noncustodial parent” means a parent who resides outside the household or institution in which the minor child resides.
- Any action filed pursuant to this subchapter may be brought at any time up to and including five (5) years from the date the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age.
- This section shall apply to all actions pending as of March 29, 1991, and filed thereafter and shall retroactively apply to all child support orders now existing.
History. Acts 1989, No. 383, § 1; 1991, No. 870, § 1; 1993, No. 1242, § 1; 1995, No. 1184, § 6; 2015, No. 565, § 1.
Amendments. The 2015 amendment inserted “Transitional Employment Assistance” in (b)(4).
Cross References. Assignment of right to child support to Office of Child Support Enforcement of the Revenue Division of the Department of Human Services by recipient of Medicaid assistance, § 20-77-109.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Survey — Family Law, 14 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 799.
Moore, Child Support Arrearages: What Statute of Limitations (If Any) Applies?, 19 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 487.
Case Notes
Death.
Because a minor child had died, a mother was unable to bring a child support action against a father under subsection (b) of this section since the mother no longer had physical custody of the child; moreover, the father's obligation to support the child terminated upon her death under § 9-14-237(a)(1). Hardy v. Wilbourne, 370 Ark. 359, 259 S.W.3d 405 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1183, 128 S. Ct. 1245, 170 L. Ed. 2d 65 (2008).
Jurisdiction.
If a chancery court has subject matter jurisdiction to decide a case under the Arkansas Constitution, the circuit court has no power to review that decision. Partlow v. Darling Store Fixtures, 314 Ark. 87, 858 S.W.2d 695 (1993).
The circuit court was without jurisdiction to review a collateral administrative order defining the manner of paying child support issued by the chancery court. Partlow v. Darling Store Fixtures, 314 Ark. 87, 858 S.W.2d 695 (1993).
The chancery court has exclusive jurisdiction of all cases involving matters of child support; neither the municipal nor circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction with chancery court to enforce an agreement for child support. Boren v. Boren, 318 Ark. 378, 885 S.W.2d 852 (1994).
Circuit court cannot decide a claim of breach of contract or otherwise enforce a child support agreement since under subsection (a) of this section it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction. Granquist v. Randolph, 326 Ark. 809, 934 S.W.2d 224 (1996).
Regardless of the context in which a support order is entered, whether divorce, paternity, abandonment, or any other situation, a trial court has the power to enter a child-support order; thus, where the father was held in contempt for failure to pay support and appealed, even though the trial court did not have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage because there was no corroboration of residence, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter contempt orders for the father's failure to pay support. Rogers v. Rogers, 80 Ark. App. 430, 97 S.W.3d 429 (2003).
Legal Custody.
Even though child custody and child support are separate and distinct issues, and this section only addresses child support, the chancery court did not abuse its discretion in requiring a father to seek legal custody of the parties' child before the court would award child support. Brown v. Cleveland, 328 Ark. 73, 940 S.W.2d 876 (1997).
Res Judicata.
Children's claim for unpaid child support, which they could not have brought until after they reached eighteen, was barred because it was not a different one from that which was barred when their mother failed to bring it within the then-applicable five-year limitation period. Chunn v. D'Agostino, 312 Ark. 141, 847 S.W.2d 699 (1993).
Retroactive Child Support.
This section provided the adult plaintiff with a cause of action to recover unpaid child support accrued during his minority. Fonken v. Fonken, 334 Ark. 637, 976 S.W.2d 952 (1998).
Standing.
Prior to 1989, there was no statutory authority for children to pursue a child support claim. Chunn v. D'Agostino, 312 Ark. 141, 847 S.W.2d 699 (1993).
This section does not purport to apply to the unusual situation in which a parent seeks support payable during a disabled child's adulthood. Guthrie v. Guthrie, 2015 Ark. App. 108, 455 S.W.3d 839 (2015).
Statute of Limitations.
This section contemplates one support obligation which may be pursued by different persons at different times; the limitation period is applicable to all of them. Chunn v. D'Agostino, 312 Ark. 141, 847 S.W.2d 699 (1993).
Cited: Johnson v. Lilly, 308 Ark. 201, 823 S.W.2d 883 (1992); State Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Harris, 87 Ark. App. 59, 185 S.W.3d 120 (2004).