2020 Ark. 131
Ark.2020Background:
- Arkansas Supreme Court (per curiam) adopted and implemented a revised Administrative Order No. 10 (Child Support Guidelines), Opinion delivered April 2, 2020; the new Chart may be used immediately and is required for support orders entered after June 30, 2020.
- The revised Family Support Chart adopts the Income Shares Model (National Center for State Courts), using national child‑rearing expenditure data adjusted for Arkansas price parity; it supersedes prior payor‑income‑based charts.
- The Administrative Order includes required forms (Worksheet, Affidavit of Financial Means, sample language) and prescribes a Worksheet‑based computation that adds health insurance, extraordinary medical, and work‑related childcare costs as add‑ons.
- The guidelines create a rebuttable presumption that the Worksheet amount is correct; deviations must be explained in writing and orders must recite both parents’ incomes and the Worksheet amount.
- Special provisions: self‑support reserve at $900/month, presumptive minimum $125/month (rebuttable), incarceration treated as involuntary unemployment for support purposes, mandatory income withholding unless good cause shown, and procedures for modification of existing orders when inconsistency with the Chart constitutes a material change (with statutory exceptions).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adoption & scope of Income Shares Model | Committee/State: Adopt Income Shares chart based on best economic data; supersede prior chart | Concern: Transition effects on existing orders; need clear transition rules | Adopted: Income Shares Model implemented; Chart supersedes prior payor‑income chart; effective for orders after 6/30/2020; transition rules addressed in Order II.1 |
| Presumption & deviations from guideline amount | Committee/State: Guideline amount is presumptive; deviations should be rare and justified in writing | Parties/courts: Need flexibility to account for children’s best interests and unique expenses | Held: Rebuttable presumption established; any deviation must include written findings explaining why Worksheet amount is unjust or inappropriate |
| Modification of existing orders (material change) | Committee/State: Statute—an inconsistency between existing award and Chart is a material change permitting modification | Opposing view: Exceptions where inconsistency is small, resulted from prior rebuttal, or solely from promulgation | Held: Adopted statutory rule (§9‑14‑107(c)(2)) and enumerated the three exceptions in the Order |
| Definition of income and imputation | Committee/State: Interpret “income” broadly (wages, bonuses, business income, perks, one‑time receipts as income, averaged variable income); permit imputation based on potential | Payor: Argue court must account for individual limitations (disability, childcare, market) before imputing income | Held: Income construed broadly for child’s benefit; court may impute income but must consider specific circumstances and may average or prorate variable/one‑time income |
| Self‑Support Reserve, minimum order, and incarceration | Committee/State: Protect payor subsistence (SSR $900), set presumptive minimum $125; treat incarceration as involuntary unemployment | Payor: May contest minimum based on incarceration, disability, SSI, parenting time, inability to work | Held: SSR and $125 minimum presumptions adopted (rebuttable by listed factors); incarceration treated as involuntary unemployment for support calculations |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Tillery, 361 Ark. 63, 204 S.W.3d 547 (Ark. 2005) (supports broad interpretation of income for child‑support purposes)
- Ford v. Ford, 347 Ark. 485, 65 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2002) (income definition and related precedent on support calculations)
- McWhorter v. McWhorter, 346 Ark. 475, 58 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. 2001) (authority endorsing broad income inclusion for child support)
- Davis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 341 Ark. 349, 20 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2000) (precedent on interpreting income broadly for benefit of children)