Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-107 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Family Law, 14 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 799.

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Family Law, Proof of Income, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 407.

Case Notes

Appellate Review.

Even though the dismissal of father's motion to decrease his child support obligation was without prejudice, his appeal from that order was from a final appealable order because of the significance of filing dates to child support motions; because retroactive child support may be awarded from the time a petition to modify is filed, the father would lose that benefit with any new motion filed. Cross v. Cross, 2020 Ark. App. 110, 596 S.W.3d 528 (2020).

Circuit court erred in dismissing a father's motion to decrease his child support obligation for lack of jurisdiction due to the pendency of a previous child support order before the court of appeals. The issues raised in the first appeal (which related to service of the motion, the correct retroactive date, and whether the father was entitled to a downward deviation from the chart amount) all related to the circumstances as they existed when the mother filed her motion for modification, and the issues raised in the father's subsequent motion related to the allegedly changed circumstances that existed when he filed his motion and was a matter supplemental to those on appeal. Cross v. Cross, 2020 Ark. App. 110, 596 S.W.3d 528 (2020).

The rule that a circuit court loses jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter once the record is lodged on appeal is not invariably applied in support cases; further, the rule applies only to matters necessarily or directly involved in the matter under review, and matters that are collateral or supplemental to those on appeal are left within the jurisdiction and control of the circuit court. Cross v. Cross, 2020 Ark. App. 110, 596 S.W.3d 528 (2020).

Change of Circumstances Found.

There was a statutory change of circumstances in the case under subsection (c) of this section, because when applying the family support chart to the mother's income the result was obviously something greater than zero, the father could not forever waive his children's right to child support, and there was no legal basis why the mother should not now be ordered to pay support for her children, who were in the father's primary custody; neither of the two exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section was applicable. Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Burroughs, 100 Ark. App. 128, 265 S.W.3d 132 (2007).

Finding a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in the husband's child support obligation was not clear error where the circuit court found the husband's testimony as to why he left his job and the amount he would have made had he stayed credible and constituted reasonable cause for the departure. Langston v. Brown, 2016 Ark. App. 535, 506 S.W.3d 261 (2016).

There is no rule that voluntarily leaving a job cannot be a basis for a material change of circumstances to support a reduction of one's child support obligation; such a determination is fact- and case-specific. Better stated, voluntarily leaving a job may be a basis for a finding of a material change in circumstances as long as there is a reasonable cause for the departure. Langston v. Brown, 2016 Ark. App. 535, 506 S.W.3d 261 (2016).

Trial court did not clearly err in finding that a material change in circumstances had occurred to modify child support; the divorce decree deviated from the child-support guidelines without any explanation and although the father had been ordered to pay childcare expenses in the decree, there were no childcare expenses with both children now in school. Morgan v. Morgan, 2018 Ark. App. 316, 552 S.W.3d 10 (2018).

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in using the Arkansas Family Support Chart to determine the correct amount of child support given the mother's testimony that the children had missed extracurricular opportunities and one child needed braces. Cross v. Cross, 2019 Ark. App. 100, 572 S.W.3d 407 (2019).

Circuit court did not err in modifying a father's child support because the inconsistency between the chart amount of the mother's child support and the agreed order without supporting reasons constituted a material change in circumstances sufficient to petition for modification of child support under this section. Higdon v. Roberts, 2020 Ark. App. 59, 595 S.W.3d 19 (2020).

Change of Circumstances Not Found.

Self-employed father proved no material change in circumstances warranting a child support reduction because (1) the court could not find if the father's income had changed since a certain year, as no direct evidence of that income was ever before the court, and a prior agreed order was not circumstantial evidence of that income, and (2) income calculations did not properly account for the retained earnings of the father's subchapter S corporation or for other available income. Troutman v. Troutman, 2017 Ark. 139, 516 S.W.3d 733 (2017).

Deviation from Chart.

Where the original support order was $40 per week, but the family-support chart called for $138 per week, father's support was properly increased to the higher amount under subsection (c) of this section even though his income had not increased, as he did not prove that the original support order's deviation from the chart was based on his agreement with the mother not to seek visitation. Tucker v. Tucker, 74 Ark. App. 316, 49 S.W.3d 145 (2001).

Trial court erred in reducing appellee mother's child support obligation to $24 per week without considering estimates of her income for the first quarter of 2003, as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10; the evidence showed that appellee had from $7,167.32 to $8,441.32 per month in income during the first quarter of 2003 and, at that level, child support should have been set at $250.02 weekly. Huey v. Huey, 90 Ark. App. 98, 204 S.W.3d 92 (2005).

Trial court's ruling that a mother had waived her adult daughter's child support arrearages was reversed and remanded because on the record, the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the trial court made the required judicial investigation into the compromise agreement between the mother and father prior to its acceptance, and the trial court's failure to make that inquiry would void the judgment as to the compromise; on the record, the Court of Appeals could not determine two facts essential to the disposition of the issue regarding child support arrearage: (1) whether the requisite judicial inquiry had been undertaken to independently evaluate the compromise and its benefits to the minor, and (2) whether the inquiry had led to the judicial determination that the compromise regarding support was in fact in the minor's best interest. Mainerich v. Wilson, 2010 Ark. App. 325, 373 S.W.3d 923 (2010).

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).

While there was no evidence that a father willfully failed to follow the trial court's child support orders, the record contained no specific written findings about the presumptive amount under the guidelines based upon the father's income or why the presumptive amount was unjust or inappropriate under subsection (c) of this section. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 2011 Ark. App. 552 (2011).

Disability.

Where parent was unemployed when her child support obligation was first set, her becoming unable to work did not represent a significant change warranting termination of support; in fact, if parent had become unemployable rather than merely unemployed, there exists the possibility she may be entitled to monetary benefits that would not previously been available to her. Schwarz v. Moody, 55 Ark. App. 6, 928 S.W.2d 800 (1996).

Employment Status.

Where parent was unemployed when her child support obligation was first set, her becoming unable to work did not represent a significant change warranting termination of support; in fact, if parent had become unemployable rather than merely unemployed, there exists the possibility she may be entitled to monetary benefits that would not previously been available to her. Schwarz v. Moody, 55 Ark. App. 6, 928 S.W.2d 800 (1996).

Findings Necessary.

When it ruled that any loss in income was due to the father's own actions, the trial court did not make a clear finding regarding whether a material change occurred warranting a modification of child support; thus, remand was required. Williams v. Lofton, 2018 Ark. App. 606, 569 S.W.3d 872 (2018).

Preservation for Review.

Evidence that was presented in the lower court raised, developed, and preserved the issue of the application of subdivision (c)(2) of this section to the case; although the father did not specifically raise subdivision (c)(2) to support his motion for modification of child support, the issue in the case—whether there was a material change of circumstances supporting the father's motion—was presented to the lower court and the evidence required to support the application of subdivision (c)(2) was developed at the hearing below and was undisputed. Higdon v. Roberts, 2020 Ark. App. 59, 595 S.W.3d 19 (2020).

Prospective Award.

Trial court is not required to make findings if a child support award is made prospective, pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Cowell v. Long, 2013 Ark. App. 311 (2013).

In a child support modification case, a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to award an increase retroactively; the trial court was not required to make findings if the award was prospective, and the trial court was permitted to “otherwise order” the support to be paid prospectively. Cowell v. Long, 2013 Ark. App. 311 (2013).

Remand.

Evidence presented to the circuit court showed that the children were older and involved in more activities, and their needs and expenses were greater; it was not apparent from the record whether the circuit court found a material change of circumstances, and thus remand was required. Johnson v. Young, 2017 Ark. App. 132, 515 S.W.3d 159 (2017).

Retroactive Award.

Where custody petition was filed in 1992, the hearing was held in 1994, and the chancellor made a finding of the father's income as of January 1, 1993, there was no abuse of discretion in the chancellor's ordering support payments retroactive to January 1993. Heflin v. Bell, 52 Ark. App. 201, 916 S.W.2d 769 (1996).

Where father's tax returns were unreliable due to discrepancies in his testimony, a trial court did not err by using the net-worth method to determine his obligation since such was authorized under Ark. Sup. Ct. Admin. Order No. 10, § III.c; however, the order should have been made retroactive to when the petition was filed. Tucker v. Tucker, 96 Ark. App. 194, 239 S.W.3d 532 (2006), aff'd, Tucker v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 368 Ark. 481, 247 S.W.3d 485 (2007).

Refusal to make modification of child support retroactive to the date of the filing of the petition for modification was reversed and remanded with instructions to so as the reviewing court found that the circuit court clearly erred in finding that there was no evidence that enabled it to calculate father's income for the two-year period prior to the filing of the petition for modification. Tucker v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 368 Ark. 481, 247 S.W.3d 485 (2007).

Trial court erred in ordered that a child support arrearage be placed into an interest-bearing account controlled by a father because there was no authority that would allow a court to order that a retroactive amount resulting from an increase in child support be placed in an interest-bearing account. Gilbow v. Travis, 2010 Ark. 9, 372 S.W.3d 319 (2010).

Because the trial court lacked authority to modify child support based on the April 2009 petition, the amount of payments made and owed had to be recalculated, and the modification could be retroactive only to the father's May 2, 2013 motion; the credit was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions to apply the modification as of that date and determine any arrearage or overpayment. Browning v. Browning, 2015 Ark. App. 104, 455 S.W.3d 863 (2015).

Circuit court erred in awarding back child support for the full month in which the petition for modification was filed as the first motion was filed on the 16th of that month. As a result, the order was modified to have retroactive support begin on the 16th of the month the petition was filed. Cross v. Cross, 2019 Ark. App. 100, 572 S.W.3d 407 (2019).

Child support award was modified to begin when the father's motion to modify was filed because the circuit court abused its discretion when it awarded retroactive child support beyond the filing date of the father's motion to modify. Higdon v. Roberts, 2020 Ark. App. 59, 595 S.W.3d 19 (2020).

—Not Retroactive.

Because the trial court specifically ordered that the support increase not be retroactive, and gave reasons for doing so, it did not abuse its discretion under subsection (d) of this section. Riddick v. Harris, 2016 Ark. App. 426, 501 S.W.3d 859 (2016).

Sufficient Change.

Although it does not compel a determination of changed circumstances, under subsection (a) of this section a change of ten percent (now twenty percent) in the payor's income can be sufficient to support such a finding. Roland v. Roland, 43 Ark. App. 60, 859 S.W.2d 654 (1993).

Under a prior version of this chapter, a change in the payor's income of ten percent (10%) was sufficient to support a determination of changed circumstances and an increase in child support pursuant to the chart; now, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the specified change in the payor's income does not necessarily support the determination but merely constitutes a material change of circumstances sufficient to allow the petition to the court for its review and adjustment of child support. Heflin v. Bell, 52 Ark. App. 201, 916 S.W.2d 769 (1996); Moreland v. Hortman, 72 Ark. App. 363, 39 S.W.3d 23 (2001).

Where the court had before it evidence that appellee mother had experienced negative income for two years, the amount of child support she had been previously ordered to pay was inconsistent with her current negative income, pursuant to the Family Support Chart; this constituted a material change of circumstances justifying a reduction in the mother's child support obligation. Huey v. Huey, 90 Ark. App. 98, 204 S.W.3d 92 (2005).

Where father's unemployment benefits expired in March 2004, his petition to reduce his child support obligation in May 2004, in which his income was shown to have decreased from $1000 per month to $0 per month, showed a material change in circumstances; although father had unemployment benefits for a short time, the income situation changed materially in the ensuing months. McKinney v. McKinney, 94 Ark. App. 100, 226 S.W.3d 37 (2006).

Father failed to show that the expenses he sought to modify were not “in addition to” and independent of his child support obligation or that there had been a sufficient change in circumstances as he failed to provide the required financial documentation to support his claims of a decreased income level; further, father also failed to object to the trial court's imputation of his income at $25,000 per year and the related increase in his child support obligation. Martin v. Scharbor, 95 Ark. App. 52, 233 S.W.3d 689 (2006).

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in leaving the husband's support obligations the same where it carefully considered the needs of the wife and the parties' daughter and the husband's decreased ability to pay. Bishop v. Bishop, 98 Ark. App. 111, 250 S.W.3d 570 (2007).

Tax Record.

In a child support modification case, a trial court did not err by relying on a father's tax record in determining his monthly income when it determined that there was a material change of circumstances to support the modification under subdivision (a)(1) of this section; there was no need to consider the net-worth approach. Cowell v. Long, 2013 Ark. App. 311 (2013).

Cited: Weir v. Phillips, 75 Ark. App. 208, 55 S.W.3d 804 (2001).