Ware v. Office of Child Support Enforcement
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 838
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA10-1
Opinion Delivered
December 15, 2010
SANDY WARE
APPELLANT
V.
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT AND RICHARD
SCHLOSSER
APPELLEES
APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT
[NO. DR-2005-431]
HONORABLE GRAHAM
PARTLOW, JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
In this case, the Office of Child Support Enforcement asked for a reduction in the noncustodial parent’s child-support obligation on the ground that the self-employed payor’s
income had been reduced. The trial court granted the reduction, and the custodial parent
appeals.
The order in this case must be reversed because it fails to comply with the directives
of Administrative Order Number 10, which 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
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 838
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.)
Although this case presents an unusual scenario, it is nevertheless a “judicial proceeding
for . . . child support” to which the rule is applicable. Here, the trial court not only failed to
make the requisite finding of the payor’s income—that line is left blank on the form order
used by the trial court—but we cannot be certain that this is actually the court’s determination
in light of the judge’s statement in the incorporated letter opinion that “[i]t would be rather
presumptuous of me to attempt to override [Child Support Enforcement’s] investigation and
determination. The petition will therefore be granted.” In light of these defects, we reverse
and remand for the trial court to enter an order complying with the mandates of
Administrative Order Number 10. See Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 2009 Ark. App. 685.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
G RUBER and G LOVER, JJ., agree.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
