Louton v. Dulaney
2017 Ark. App. 222
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child KL (b. 11/26/2012). Paternity acknowledged in Jan. 2015; father Jacob Louton had temporary custody for ~8–9 months while mother Audra Dulaney was in rehab.
- Dulaney has prior substance-abuse history, bipolar diagnosis, major surgery, and recently testified to 14 months sobriety, NA/AA participation, stable housing, employment, and family support.
- Louton is self-employed (automotive/real-estate/vehicle dealings), provided an Affidavit of Financial Means showing monthly net pay $6,044.75 and claimed higher earnings in testimony; he lives in Colorado and admitted marijuana use (medical).
- Trial court awarded custody to Dulaney, ordered visitation for Louton, and set child support at $1,000/month (reduced by half while child is with father), finding and imputing annual income of $250,000 to Louton.
- Louton appealed, arguing the court failed to consider the favored status of joint custody and that the court erred by imputing income and calculating child support without proper application of the family-support guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Louton) | Defendant's Argument (Dulaney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by not applying the statutory "favored" joint-custody consideration | Joint custody is favored under Ark. Code §9-13-101 and should have been considered once paternity was established | Trial court could decline joint custody where impractical and child’s best interest favors sole custody | Court affirmed: joint custody not mandatory; based on credibility, family stability, siblings in Hot Springs, and ad litem recommendation, sole custody to Dulaney was not clearly erroneous |
| Whether trial court erred in imputing income and setting child support at $1,000/month | Imputation to $250,000 and resulting $1,000 award unsupported; court failed to use tax returns/required analysis under Admin. Order No. 10 | Dulaney relied on court’s factual findings from affidavit and testimony | Reversed and remanded: court erred in income imputation and did not show proper guideline analysis; remand required to calculate support under Administrative Order No. 10 |
Key Cases Cited
- Overstreet v. Overstreet, 430 S.W.3d 857 (Ark. Ct. App.) (deference to trial court credibility findings in custody matters)
- Starr v. Starr, 455 S.W.3d 372 (Ark. Ct. App.) (welfare and best interest as primary custody consideration)
- Fox v. Fox, 485 S.W.3d 18 (Ark. Ct. App.) (joint custody favored by statute but not mandatory)
- Ryan v. White, 471 S.W.3d 243 (Ark. Ct. App.) (discussion of joint-custody statute’s scope in paternity context)
- Colley v. Colley, 450 S.W.3d 274 (Ark. Ct. App.) (remand where trial court failed to perform required child-support analysis)
- Clark v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 493 S.W.3d 782 (Ark. Ct. App.) (party cannot complain about errors it induced)