Warner v. Warner, 2019 Ark. App. 60

Parties divorced in 2012; mother (Melissa) has custody of daughter S.W., who turned 18 in Feb. 2017.
S.W. was diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope as a minor; condition causes frequent fainting, dizziness, cannot drive, cannot work, and requires dependency on a caregiver.
After S.W. missed significant school and could not complete normal coursework, Melissa filed (Aug. 21, 2017) to modify/extend child support past majority and to compel income disclosure.
At hearing, nurse practitioner testimony described S.W.’s condition as severe, debilitating, and ongoing; S.W. remained in home-schooling and had not graduated.
Russell (father/appellant) presented no evidence disputing that S.W. was disabled at 18 or that she remained disabled at the time of the hearing.
The circuit court found S.W. was disabled at majority, continued to be disabled, needed continued support, and ordered child support to continue past majority; father appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Melissa)	Defendant's Argument (Russell)	Held
Whether child support may continue past 18 when child is disabled at majority	Continued support appropriate because S.W. was disabled at age 18 and remains dependent	Duty terminated at majority; father relies on Towery to argue support cannot be reimposed once terminated	Court held support may continue because S.W. was disabled at majority and needed continued support; affirmed

Ward v. Doss, 361 Ark. 153, 205 S.W.3d 767 (2005) (standard of review for child-support appeals)
Petty v. Petty, 252 Ark. 1032, 482 S.W.2d 119 (1972) (parental duty to support disabled adult child)
Elkins v. Elkins, 262 Ark. 63, 553 S.W.2d 34 (1977) (recognizing continuing support duty for disabled child)
Towery v. Towery, 285 Ark. 113, 685 S.W.2d 155 (1985) (duty cannot be revived if child becomes disabled after majority; distinguishes cases where disability exists at majority)