639 S.W.3d 865
Ark.2022Background
- Child born in 2004; father Jermey Parnell later became an NFL player. Case concerns modification of child support after his retirement.
- At hearing the circuit court found Parnell’s gross monthly income $36,849 and Butler’s $1,733.60 (combined $38,582.60). These figures are not disputed.
- Revised Administrative Order No. 10 (2020) caps the family-support chart at $30,000/month; for combined income above that, the chart’s highest amount is used as the baseline, and the court may exercise discretion to set an amount above it.
- Using the $30,000 chart amount ($1,952 joint obligation), Parnell’s pro rata presumptive share was $1,864.36/month. The circuit court instead adopted a worksheet, added 15% of the income above the chart (a method from the prior guideline), and ultimately ordered $6,500/month.
- The circuit court justified deviation citing (1) Butler’s needs, (2) the child’s age (16), and (3) Parnell’s having set aside funds to cover support through age 18.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court held the circuit court erred: the 15% add-on method is not authorized under the revised Order and the specific deviation rationales relied on were improper; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Parnell's Argument | Butler / Circuit Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to calculate support when parental income exceeds $30,000/month | Revised Admin. Order No. 10 does not permit simply adding 15% of the excess to Parnell’s obligation; use chart top amount and pro rata shares | Court relied on precedent under prior guidelines and added 15% of excess income to set obligation | Adding 15% of one parent’s excess income is not authorized by the revised Order; that was error of law |
| Validity of deviation factors used to increase support above chart amount | Deviation must focus on the child’s needs; Butler’s personal needs, child’s age alone, and Parnell’s savings are not proper bases without specific findings | Court treated custodial-parent needs as tied to child, cited increased needs for a 16‑year‑old, and cited Parnell’s savings as ability to pay | Court abused discretion: (1) custodial parent’s needs are not a standalone basis; (2) child’s age alone insufficient without showing increased expenses; (3) payer’s savings is not a proper justification to upwardly deviate here |
| Remedy on appeal — remand for findings vs. directive to adopt chart amount | Parnell sought reversal and recalculation consistent with Order; argued record did not support upward deviation | Butler sought to uphold $6,500 award; concurring justice urged directing a specific chart-based amount; dissent would affirm | Majority reverses and remands for further proceedings consistent with opinion; concurrence would have remanded with instruction to set the chart amount; dissent would have affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Implementation of Revised Admin. Ord. No. 10, 2020 Ark. 131 (per curiam) (adoption of income‑shares chart, $30,000/month cap, and deviation framework)
- Cochran v. Cochran, 309 Ark. 604 (1992) (court may remand with instructions where record compels chart amount)
- Smith v. Smith, 341 Ark. 590 (2000) (child’s age alone is not a basis for deviation)
- Symanietz v. Symanietz, 2021 Ark. 75 (2021) (standard of review for child‑support orders: de novo review of record; fact findings reversed only if clearly erroneous)
- Davis v. Bland, 367 Ark. 210 (2006) (child‑support payments should not permit wealth accumulation by custodial parent)