Riddick v. Harris
2016 Ark. App. 426
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced in 2009; mother (Emily Harris) awarded custody of son K.R. (b. 2007); father Michael Riddick retained visitation and child-support obligations.
- Riddick filed petitions in April 2014 seeking emergency custody, modification of custody and visitation, and contempt; Harris filed to modify child support.
- Hearing occurred January 21–22, 2015; trial court (June 26, 2015) denied Riddick’s custody modification, increased his visitation, increased his child-support obligation (effective Jan. 2015), found Harris in contempt for violating the summer-visitation schedule, awarded Riddick $500 in attorney fees for contempt, and otherwise denied fee awards.
- Trial court found a material change in circumstances existed but that changing custody was not in K.R.’s best interest; emphasized child’s adjustment, school performance, and bond with his younger brother.
- Trial court calculated Riddick’s net monthly income at $8,735.36 (wages + farm income; found no rental income) and set child support at $1,251.36/month; Harris disputed omitted bonus/benefit items and rental depreciation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Riddick/Harris) | Defendant's Argument (opposing) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether custody should be modified (Riddick) | Riddick: mother’s past instability, relationship history, and parental alienation justify awarding him custody | Harris: child is happy, well-adjusted with mother and brother; mother’s behavior stabilized after remarriage | Court: Affirmed trial court — material change existed but custody change not in child’s best interest; trial court findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in modifying child support (Riddick) | Riddick: trial court should have considered deviation from support chart (standard of living, time spent with father, farm depreciation) | Harris: court properly applied chart and set amount based on found income | Court: Affirmed — Riddick never requested deviation below; issue not preserved for appeal |
| Whether trial court miscalculated Riddick’s income for support (Harris cross-appeal) | Harris: trial court should have included SIP (bonuses) and Other Benefits (employer 401(k) contributions, etc.) and thus support should be higher | Riddick: court excluded those items when computing income | Court: Reversed and remanded — trial court abused discretion by not including or explaining exclusion of bonuses/other benefits (income definition is broad) |
| Whether Harris was in contempt for violating summer-visitation schedule (Harris cross-appeal) | Harris: schedule ambiguous; her interpretation reasonable and based on counsel; schedule not part of decree | Riddick: Harris willfully curtailed agreed visitation and ignored proper notice | Court: Affirmed contempt finding — schedule plain, Harris’s interpretation unreasonable, evidence showed willful violation; contempt not clearly against preponderance of evidence |
| Whether trial court erred by increasing Riddick’s visitation (Harris cross-appeal) | Harris: Riddick did not request increased visitation; increase was punitive | Riddick: petition sufficiently raised modification issue; change supported by best-interest evidence | Court: Affirmed — increase was requested in pleadings, supported by material change and best-interest findings |
| Whether increased child support should be retroactive to filing date (Harris cross-appeal) | Harris: statute mandates retroactivity to filing date when change is based on payor’s income | Riddick: trial court has discretion to limit retroactivity; here child was not harmed during interim | Court: Affirmed trial court’s discretion — court expressly declined retroactivity and gave reasons based on child’s support during interim |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Harris’s request for attorney’s fees (Harris cross-appeal) | Harris: disparity of resources justifies fee award; she prevailed on some issues | Riddick: trial court discretion; parties each litigated multiple issues | Court: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; fee award discretionary and trial court best placed to evaluate |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. Warren, 258 S.W.3d 788 (Ark. App.) (siblings’ custody considerations)
- McWhorter v. McWhorter, 58 S.W.3d 840 (Ark.) (broad definition of income for child-support purposes)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 19 S.W.3d 1 (Ark.) (bonus income counts for support)
- Ford v. Ford, 65 S.W.3d 432 (Ark.) (one-time payments can be income for support)
- Ceola v. Burnham, 139 S.W.3d 150 (Ark. App.) (presumption of chart amount; deviation requires findings)
- Scudder v. Ramsey, 426 S.W.3d 427 (Ark.) (standards for civil contempt)
- Baber v. Baber, 378 S.W.3d 699 (Ark.) (standards for modifying visitation)