Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Levon Dale

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION I

OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT

ENFORCEMENT

APPELLANT

V.

LEVON DALE

APPELLEE

CA 04-328

January 19, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE DESHA

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[DR-2003-174-2]

HON. JO CAROL JONES GILL,

SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE

REVERSED AND REMANDED

David M. Glover, Judge

Appellant, Office of Child Support Enforcement, filed a complaint for support against appellee, Levon Dale, with respect to two of his minor children, Treyvonte and Chenel Dale. Appellee did not answer the complaint, and a hearing was subsequently held to determine the appropriate amount of child support for him to pay. Following the hearing, the trial court acknowledged that appellee owed a continuing duty of support to the two children involved in this matter, but denied appellant's complaint for support.

Appellant raises two points of appeal: (1) the lower court "erred in failing to award child support based upon the income evidence presented," (2) the lower court "erred in determining that an award of a dependency allowance by the Social Security Administration based upon the Defendant's disability is sufficient to offset the Defendant's obligation to support his dependent children." Appellant's arguments can best be combined and simply summarized as follows: that the trial court erred in failing to comply with the requirements of Administrative Order Number 10 - Child Support Guidelines. We agree and therefore reverse and remand.

Administrative Order Number 10 - Child Support Guidelines provides in pertinent part:

It is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the most recent revision of the Family Support Chart is the amount of child support to be awarded in any judicial proceeding for divorce, separation, paternity, or child support. The court may grant less or more support if the evidence shows that the needs of the dependents require a different level of support.

All orders granting or modifying child support (including agreed orders) shall contain the court's determination of the payor's income, recite the amount of support required under the guidelines, and recite whether the court deviated from the Family Support Chart. If the order varies from the guidelines, it shall include a justification of why the order varies as may be permitted under Section V hereinafter. It shall be sufficient in a particular case to rebut the presumption that the amount of child support calculated pursuant to the Family Support Chart is correct, if the court enters in the case a specific written finding within the Order that the amount so calculated, after consideration of all relevant factors, including the best interests of the child, is unjust or inappropriate.

(Emphasis added.) Section V of the guidelines lists several relevant factors to be considered by the court in determining appropriate amounts of child support: food, shelter and utilities, clothing, medical expenses, educational expenses, dental expenses, child care, accustomed standard of living, recreation, insurance, transportation expenses, and other income or assets available to support the child from whatever source. Moreover, the guidelines list eight additional factors that may warrant adjustments to the child support obligations. Of those eight, one is pertinent to the instant case: "7. The support required and given by a payor for dependent children, even in the absence of a court order[.]"

There was testimony at the hearing that appellee receives $804 a month in disability income; that the chart amount for two children based on that level of income is $278; that the children each receive $81 a month directly from the disability amount that appellee receives,

totaling $162; and that the difference between the $162 a month that the children receive directly from disability and the $278 a month chart amount is $116 a month. Appellee testified, with no contradiction, that in addition to the two children involved in the instant case, he has two other children, each of whom also directly receives $81 a month from his disability.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated: "Based on the testimony that I've heard today, the Court is not going to grant the petition to increase the child support. I'm going to leave it according to what the children get from social security." The order denying the complaint for support provided in pertinent part:

3. That Defendant owes a continuing duty of support to the aforementioned child(ren). However, the Court finds that the Defendant is disabled and receives Social Security disability benefits in the amount of $804.00 per week [sic]. The minor children herein receive $81.00 per month each off of the Defendant's record. The Court finds that requiring the Defendant to pay support over the amount the children receive directly would cause an undue financial hardship on the Defendant. The Plaintiff's Complaint for support is denied.

(Emphasis added.)

Here, the order denying the complaint for support did not comply with the requirements set forth in the child-support guidelines. The trial court did not refer to the support chart nor cite any reason for deviating from the chart amount other than that it would "cause an undue financial hardship on the Defendant," which is not one of the specific factors listed in the guidelines. Neither was any mention made of the two additional children who also received direct payments from appellee's monthly disability payment. It may well be that the trial court's decision was justifiable in this case, particularly in light of the two additional children, but the appropriate steps were not taken to demonstrate the rationale for the decision in the order. Consequently, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order that complies with the guideline requirements. See Roland v. Roland, 43 Ark. App. 60, 859 S.W.2d 654 (1993).

Reversed and remanded.

Pittman, C.J., and Baker, J., agree.