Miller v. Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement
2015 Ark. App. 188
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Appellant Miller appeals a February 18, 2014 circuit court order modifying his child-support obligation for his adult child C.M. due to C.M.’s special-needs disability and ongoing dependence.
- Original May 12, 1998 divorce decree awarded Miller $300 bi-weekly, with custody to Eva Miller and a silent disability provision for C.M.
- In 1999, Miller’s support was reduced to $230 bi-weekly after a job loss; Miller continued payments for fourteen years.
- C.M. reached age eighteen in 2010 (twins in 2012); it is undisputed C.M. had a disability at the decree and thereafter.
- OCSE intervened in 2013, seeking continued support; the circuit court granted continued support after hearings in 2013–2014, and ordered retroactive arrearage through January 24, 2014.
- Miller timely appealed; the court affirmed, addressing preservation, statutory authority, and equitable defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether automatic termination of support occurs for a disabled child at majority. | Miller argues termination is automatic at majority if the child is disabled, citing 9-14-237. | Miller contends the disability exception allows continued support after majority. | No automatic termination; continued duty may apply when disability exists at majority. |
| Whether the initial decree should have addressed continued support when C.M. was disabled. | Miller asserts Bagley required addressing continued support at decree. | OCSE and court rely on later statutory and case-law authority to permit continuation. | Initial decree need not have expressly addressed it; continued duty supports modification. |
| Whether OCSE’s relief for continued support had to be pled in a counterclaim. | Miller argues OCSE should have counterclaimed to seek continued support. | OCSE amended reply within pleadings; Rule 15(b) permits treating issues as raised. | Rule 15(b) waiver; no reversible error for not filing a counterclaim. |
| Whether the equities of laches or estoppel bar reinstating support. | Miller claims undue delay and reliance on OCSE notices create estoppel or laches. | OCSE showed no such prejudice and delay; court found defenses inapplicable. | Equitable defenses did not apply to reinstate support. |
| Whether Miller preserved and proved material change in circumstances for modification. | Miller contends no proper preservation and no proof of material change. | Record shows disability at majority; modification arises from continued need. | Miller failed to preserve and prove material change; issue not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagley v. Williamson, 101 Ark. App. 1, 269 S.W.3d 837 (2007) (continued support for disabled child remains post-majority)
- Guthrie v. Guthrie, 2015 Ark. App. 108 (2015) (upholds continued support when child disabled at majority)
- Petty v. Petty, 252 Ark. 1032, 482 S.W.2d 119 (1972) (common-law duty to support disabled child recognized)
- Elkins v. Elkins, 262 Ark. 63, 553 S.W.2d 34 (1977) (disabled child may require support beyond majority)
- Dickson v. Fletcher, 361 Ark. 244, 206 S.W.3d 229 (2005) (circuits retain jurisdiction over support/alimony issues)