Baker v. Office of Child Support Enf't
2017 Ark. App. 173
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lee Baker, the obligor, sought reduction/abatement of child-support arrearages and monthly support, citing long-term incarceration and financial inability to pay.
- Baker filed an August 2014 petition (denied December 2015), a January 2016 motion to reconsider (denied), and a March 2016 "Request for Review and Adjustment" (denied May 12, 2016). He timely appealed only the May 2016 order.
- Baker asserted incarceration since November 2013 (earlier filings gave July 2014), ineligibility for work-release because of sex-offender status, and that one child had reached majority and graduated high school.
- OCSE opposed relief, argued Baker had unclean hands (his criminal conduct caused inability to pay), and that no changed circumstances had occurred since the December 2015 denial.
- The trial court denied Baker’s March 2016 request; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo on the record and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incarceration and loss of income justify reducing or abating child support and arrears | Baker: incarceration and inability to work warrant modification/abatement of current support and arrears | OCSE: no new changed circumstances since December 2015; Baker’s incarceration resulted from his own fault (unclean hands), so relief improper | Denied — no clear error; modification not required where obligor’s fault caused inability to pay and no new change occurred since prior final order |
| Whether the March 2016 request was barred by Baker’s failure to timely appeal the December 2015 order | Baker: sought review based on changed circumstances (including child turning 18) | OCSE: December 2015 order was final; Baker failed to timely appeal, so reasserting same claim is improper | Denied — prior December 2015 order was final and Baker cannot relitigate same request three months later |
| Whether incarceration automatically abates child-support obligations | Baker: cites Allen to argue incarceration can reduce support to minimum unemployed amount | OCSE: reliance on established precedent that incarceration alone does not automatically abate obligations, especially when fault-based | Denied — incarceration does not automatically abate obligations; court may refuse relief when obligor’s own conduct caused incarceration |
| Whether Baker’s child’s majority/graduation required termination or adjustment of support | Baker: mentioned child turned 18 and graduated | OCSE: argued no timely, properly presented argument | Not addressed on merits — Baker failed to brief this issue in opening brief; argument raised only in reply, so court declined to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Reid v. Reid, 57 Ark. App. 289, 944 S.W.2d 559 (1997) (incarceration caused by obligor’s criminal conduct does not warrant abatement; clean-hands doctrine applies)
- Wilson v. Brown, 320 Ark. 240, 897 S.W.2d 546 (1995) (equity will not aid a party with unclean hands)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 227 Ark. 582, 300 S.W.2d 933 (1957) (clean-hands principle protects public interest and court integrity)
- Grable v. Grable, 307 Ark. 410, 821 S.W.2d 16 (1991) (trial court has discretion to apply clean-hands doctrine in equitable matters)
- Allen v. Allen, 82 Ark. App. 42, 110 S.W.3d 772 (2003) (incarceration does not automatically abate support but may justify reduction to statutory minimum in some circumstances)