Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-106 (2020)

Research References

ALR.

Right to credit on child support arrearages for time parties resided together after separation or divorce. 104 A.L.R.5th 605.

Right to credit against child support arrearages for time child spent in custody of noncustodial parent, other than for visitation or under court order, without custodial parent's approval. 108 A.L.R.5th 359.

Right to credit against child support arrearages for time child lived in custody of noncustodial parent, other than for visitation, where custodial parent's approval was not in issue or was disputed by parties. 112 A.L.R.5th 185.

Right to credit on child support for health insurance, medical, dental, and orthodontic expenses paid for child's benefit while child is not living with obligor parent. 1 A.L.R.6th 493.

Right to credit on child support for contributions to educational expenses of child while child is not living with obligor parent. 2 A.L.R.6th 439.

Right to credit on child support for contributions to travel expenses of child while child is not living with obligor parent. 3 A.L.R.6th 641.

Right to credit on child support for continued payments to custodial parent for child who has reached majority or otherwise become emancipated. 4 A.L.R.6th 531.

Retirement of husband as change of circumstances warranting modification of divorce decree – Conventional retirement at 65 years of age or older. 11 A.L.R.6th 125.

Laches or Acquiescence as Defense, So as to Bar Recovery of Arrearages of Permanent Alimony or Child Support. 22 A.L.R.7th Art. 1 (2018).

Case Notes

In General.

Ex-husband's claim that his ex-wife was barred by the compulsory-counterclaim provision of Ark. R. Civ. P. 13(a) from recovering the education expenses because she did not raise the issue during a 2002 contempt action ex-husband initiated was rejected as ex-husband was not filing a pleading and asserting a claim under Ark. R. Civ. P. 7 at that time but, rather, he was filing a motion asking the trial court to enforce a previous order; Ark. R. Civ. P. 13(a) did not apply and, when his ex-wife filed a counter-petition in May 2004 to enforce the decree and recover tuition and education expenses, she was not barred by the compulsory-counterclaim rule because she did not raise the education-expense issue in response to the ex-husband's first petition filed in 2002. Morsy v. Deloney, 92 Ark. App. 383, 214 S.W.3d 285 (2005).

Trial court properly dismissed client's malpractice action even though the attorney committed malpractice by failing to perfect client's appeal of the trial court's child-support award as the client would not have prevailed on appeal because the trial court properly adhered to guidelines of Arkansas Family Support Chart when it deviated from presumptive amount; although the trial court was required to consider the guidelines, the court did not have to use the chart amount where the circumstances of the parties indicated another amount would be more appropriate. Davis v. Bland, 367 Ark. 210, 238 S.W.3d 924 (2006).

Even though children injured in an explosion had a trust worth about 1 million dollars that met their needs, the father was still ordered to pay child support because this was not a substitute for his income; the father had a legal and moral duty to support his children, even though they had the property to do so themselves. Lee v. Lee, 95 Ark. App. 69, 233 S.W.3d 698 (2006).

Circuit court did not err in determining that the father was not entitled to receive a credit for years of overpayment to the child-support registry against four months of non-payment; the circuit court did not err in its finding of contempt for failure to pay child support, as well as its assessment of child-support arrearages. Guffey v. Counts, 2009 Ark. 410 (2009).

While most parents willingly assist their adult children in obtaining a higher education which to many appears to be increasingly necessary in today's fast-changing world, any duty to do so is a moral rather than a legal one, and parents who remain married while their children attend college may continue supporting their children for a period of years past the age of majority, but such support may be conditional or may be withdrawn at anytime, and no one may bring an action to enforce continued payments; it would be fundamentally unfair for courts to enforce these moral obligations of support only against divorced parents while other parents may do as they choose. Mainerich v. Wilson, 2010 Ark. App. 325, 373 S.W.3d 923 (2010).

Agreements.

Where a mother and the Office of Child Support Enforcement entered into a proposed agreement regarding child support arrearages, it was not error to refuse to follow the agreement, because the trial court was not bound by an independent agreement concerning child support and the trial court retained jurisdiction over child support. Roark v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 101 Ark. App. 382, 278 S.W.3d 114 (2008).

Contempt Power.

Although the parties had agreed to each pay one-half the college expenses of any child that chose to attend college, where the mother later declined to pay her half, the trial judge clearly erred in holding the mother in contempt because she demonstrated by more than a preponderance of the evidence that her failure to reimburse the father for college expenses was not due to “willful obstinacy” but financial inability coupled with ill health; also relevant and material were the mother's assertions that their adult daughter's illness required her to take care of their granddaughter and assume some of those financial responsibilities, and the trial judge's exclusion of the latter evidence unfairly interfered with the mother's defense and constituted an abuse of discretion. Aswell v. Aswell, 88 Ark. App. 115, 195 S.W.3d 365 (2004).

Determination of Income.

A noncustodial father was not entitled to a reduction of his child support obligation since he failed to meet his burden to show a change in circumstances where he did not supply sufficient information to enable the chancellor to determine his income. Woodson v. Johnson, 63 Ark. App. 192, 975 S.W.2d 880 (1998).

Trial court did not err by refusing to require a former husband to pay a certain amount of net income for child support because there was no meeting of the minds regarding the definition of the term “net income” when the agreement was made; moreover, such an independent agreement was not binding on the trial court. Adametz v. Adametz, 85 Ark. App. 401, 155 S.W.3d 695 (2004).

Equitable Estoppel.

In a child support arrearages case, the defense of equitable estoppel applied because the mother initiated a conversation regarding father's relinquishment of his parental rights in exchange for waiving child support, the father relied on the mother's conduct to his detriment, and he was unaware that his obligation was still accruing. Chitwood v. Chitwood, 92 Ark. App. 129, 211 S.W.3d 547 (2005).

Mother was not estopped from seeking child support because (1) the father could not rely on the mother's promise not to seek child support in exchange for his promise not to challenge paternity as the father's duty of child support could not be bartered away permanently to the detriment of the child; and (2) the trial court always retained jurisdiction and authority over child support as a matter of public policy and, no matter what an independent contract stated, either party had the right to request modification of a child-support award. McGee v. McGee, 100 Ark. App. 1, 262 S.W.3d 622 (2007).

Order relieving a mother of her past-due child support obligation was upheld where the trial court found the existence of an agreement that the father would forego child support in exchange for the maternal grandparents' help with the children's expenses; the father only attempted to repudiate the arrangement after the maternal grandparents had fully performed. Wilhelms v. Sexton, 102 Ark. App. 46, 280 S.W.3d 565 (2008).

Failure to Exercise Extended Visitation.

When a noncustodial parent failed to exercise extended visitation under the provisions of a per curiam order, the custodial parent was not entitled to be compensated accordingly. Carlton v. Carlton, 316 Ark. 618, 873 S.W.2d 801 (1994).

Trial court did not err in holding that a husband was responsible for $9,140 in child support arrearages because although it was clear that the husband did not receive his visitation on a regular basis, he did not return to the trial court to attempt to terminate his child support obligation. Both the husband's former wife and one of his children testified that he made no effort to contact the child for visitation, a fact that he partly admitted. Lyons v. McInvale, 98 Ark. App. 433, 256 S.W.3d 512 (2007).

Judgment Interpretation.

In a dispute involving a child support order, a trial court's interpretation of its own decree was clearly erroneous because the decree did not provide that a father was subject to automatic increases of child support payments every year past 2000. Brandt v. Brandt, 103 Ark. App. 66, 286 S.W.3d 202 (2008).

Modification.

Where evidence showed that the parties' oldest child had graduated from high school, had reached the age of majority, and was no longer living under the same roof as the mother, the father made a prima facie showing of a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of child support. Harris v. Harris, 82 Ark. App. 321, 107 S.W.3d 897 (2003).

In entering an order to modify child support, the trial court properly considered that the mother, who was also a physician and a farm owner, had a negative income during a certain time; however, the trial court erroneously failed to consider in its support calculations that beginning the following year, the mother's income was positive. Huey v. Huey, 96 Ark. App. 188, 239 S.W.3d 547 (2006).

Where the evidence showed that the father made about $67,000 per year, but was unable to work full time due to child care obligations, a child support increase in the amount of $173 per week, plus arrearages, was proper because the child-support chart was referenced, testimony regarding the father's weekly income was heard, and documentary evidence was considered. Uttley v. Bobo, 97 Ark. App. 15, 242 S.W.3d 638 (2006).

Alleged errors relating to the calculation of the income of former spouses in modifying child support were not reversible because the wife invited the trial court to rely on and use certain documents, she failed to challenge an alternative basis for a trial court's decision not to include a distribution in her former husband's income, and she failed to offer a developed argument or citation to authority, except in a general nature. Parker v. Parker, 97 Ark. App. 298, 248 S.W.3d 523 (2007).

Trial court erred in modifying a divorce decree by ordering the payment of child support from the proceeds of a settlement that the wife was to receive as part of a class-action lawsuit where the amount of money the wife would receive as a result of the settlement, and when she would receive it, were unknown; the issue was not yet ripe. Stuart v. Stuart, 99 Ark. App. 358, 260 S.W.3d 740 (2007).

Over 12 years had passed since the divorce decree awarding no child support was entered; in that time, the mother testified that the children had gotten older, played ball, had medical expenses, and quickly outgrew clothing and shoes. There were sufficient changed circumstances to warrant an increase in child support; thus, the trial court did not err in modifying the father's child-support obligation. McGee v. McGee, 100 Ark. App. 1, 262 S.W.3d 622 (2007).

Where a temporary order of child support was issued while divorce proceedings were pending, the father's child support obligation was lowered when the final divorce decree was entered, the payroll coordinator for the father's employer continued to withhold the higher amount to satisfy the father's support obligation, and the father did not notice that more was being withheld than he was required to pay for two years, which resulted in an overpayment exceeding $15,000, the circuit court did not err in denying the father's motion to modify his support obligation and to compel reimbursement of the overpayment and in concluding that the father's payment was voluntary because the father was aware of the terms of his divorce decree and was in a superior position to know how much child support was being withheld from his check, because the execution of the wage assignment was within his control, and because it was the father's responsibility to verify that he was making child support payments in the correct amount. White v. White, 2009 Ark. App. 790 (2009).

Trial court erred in considering a father's financial assistance to his adult daughter and in its method of calculating support because it was error to consider funds the father expended to support the daughter while she was obtaining a higher education as a factor to deviate from the presumptive amount of child support without evidence that the daughter was legally dependent; the trial court erred by merely taking the child support due for two children under the family support chart and dividing the amount by two because no evidence supported the finding that the daughter was dependent, and thus, the presumptively correct chart amount was the amount for one child. Mainerich v. Wilson, 2010 Ark. App. 325, 373 S.W.3d 923 (2010).

Cited: Valentine v. Valentine, 2010 Ark. App. 259, 377 S.W.3d 387 (2010).