Supreme Court Of Arkansas Page 11
ADVERTISEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14Cite as 2009 Ark. 599
represent contributions made by the worker throughout the course of employment.
Furthermore, our state’s policy of defining “income,” so as to encompass as many sources as
possible is similar to that of New Hampshire. See In the Matter of Angley-Cook, supra.
One final point is the role that equity plays in determining the amount of child
support. Our court recently refused to credit a lump-sum disability payment made to an adult
child against a child-support arrearage. Grays v. Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement,
375 Ark. 38, 289 S.W.3d 12 (2008). However, we stated that our determination in the Grays
case should not be construed as a bright-line rule; rather, such determinations should always
include the consideration of equitable factors. Id. We note that the circuit court in the instant
case declined to consider Social Security disability benefits paid to the Appellee’s children as
income. In view of that ruling, the court summarily denied Appellee’s request for a deviation
from the child-support chart. For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the circuit court’s
order that erroneously excluded the SSD dependent benefits from “income.” The case is
remanded in order for the court to (a) determine Appellee’s income in accordance with the
holding herein, and (b) set the appropriate amount of child support. We reiterate that while
a trial court must reference the child-support chart, and presume that the amount specified
in the chart is reasonable, that presumption is rebuttable. Evans v. Tillery, 361 Ark. 63, 204
S.W.3d 547 (2005). The presumption that the chart is correct may be overcome “if the trial
court provides specific written findings that the chart amount is unjust or inappropriate.” Id.
at 70, 204 S.W.3d at 552.
Reversed and remanded.
-11-
09-135
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Legal