Kline v. Kline
| Decision Date | 01 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 76--113,76--113,2 |
| Citation | 542 S.W.2d 499,260 Ark. 550 |
| Parties | Janice Faye KLINE, Appellant, v. Roy Lee KLINE, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Michael L. Ellig, Regional Atty., Arkansas Social Services, Fort Smith, for appellant.
William M. Stocks, Fort Smith, for appellee.
This appeal is from a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34--2401, et seq. (Supp.1975) in which appellant sought enforcement of a child support order which was rendered in a Tennessee divorce action between herself and appellee. Here, by the provisions of the Act, Tennessee is the initiating state and Arkansas the responding state. Upon trial of the cause, the Arkansas chancellor considered that a change in circumstances had affected appellee's ability to pay. Therefore, the court reduced his payment from $400 a month to $25 a week for the support and maintenance of his two minor children. The payments, however, were made contingent upon the appellant making their children available to appellee for visitation both in Tennessee and at appellee's home in Fort Smith, Arkansas. From that portion of the order making the support payments contingent on visitation rights, appellant brings this appeal. Appellant contends that the Arkansas trial court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the visitation rights of the parties in a proceeding under the URESA and, therefore, it was error to make the child support payments contingent upon visitation rights. We must agree.
§ 34--2401, the first section of the Act, states: 'The purposes of this Act are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support.' § 34--2423 provides:
If the action is based on a support order issued by another court, a certified copy of the order shall be received as evidence of the duty to support, subject only to any defenses available to an obligor (appellee) with respect to paternity as provided in Section 27 hereof or to a defendant in an action or a proceeding to enforce a foreign money judgment.
Further, § 34--2432 states: 'Participation in any proceeding under this Act does not confer jurisdiction upon any court over any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.' Obviously, the Act is intended to facilitate enforcement of support orders rendered in our sister states by way of an ex parte proceeding whereby a duly rendered valid support decree is prima facie evidence of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Damico, In re
...v. State ex rel. State of Va. (Ala.Civ.App.1990) 558 So.2d 948; Ibach v. Ibach (1979) 123 Ariz. 507, 600 P.2d 1370; Kline v. Kline (1976) 260 Ark. 550, 542 S.W.2d 499; People ex rel. Van Meveren v. District Court in and for Larimer County (Colo.1982) 638 P.2d 1371; County of Clearwater, Min......
-
Hoyle v. Wilson
...should suspend or forgive the support obligation when also acting as a responding State court in URESA proceedings. In Kline v. Kline, 260 Ark. 550, 542 S.W.2d 499 (1976), the Arkansas Supreme Court, finding that visitation was controlled by the law of the rendering State and Arkansas was a......
-
State of La. ex rel. Eaton v. Leis, 83-1815
...by a non-custodial parent is not without a remedy. Section 946.715, Stats., makes "child stealing" a felony.1 See e.g., Kline v. Kline, 260 Ark. 550, 542 S.W.2d 499 (1976); Vecellio v. Vecellio, 313 So.2d 61 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975); Brown v. Turnbloom, 89 Mich.App. 162, 280 N.W.2d 473 (1979)......
-
Marriage of Ryall, In re
...payments. [Citations.] To hold otherwise would be to punish the child for the misconduct of the custodial parent."); Kline v. Kline (1976) 260 Ark. 550, 542 S.W.2d 499, 500; Watson v. Dreadin (D.C.App.1973) 309 A.2d 493, 496 cert. den. 415 U.S. 959, 94 S.Ct. 1488, 39 L.Ed.2d 574 (District o......