Perkins v. Perkins, CA
Decision Date | 22 May 1985 |
Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
Citation | 690 S.W.2d 356,15 Ark.App. 82 |
Parties | William Donald PERKINS, Appellant, v. Deborah Ann PERKINS (Novotny), Appellee. 84-324. |
Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Wallace & Hamner, Little Rock, for appellant.
Richard N. Moore, Jr., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant contends in this appeal that the order of the chancellor directing appellee to pay only $500 per year for the support of two minor children in appellant's custody constituted an abuse of discretion. Appellant argues that the figure is inadequate, as it represents less than one-fourth of the usual minimum amount required. We agree that the chancellor erred in setting the figure at such a relatively low level, and we reverse his decision and remand with instructions to the chancellor to establish an appropriate amount of support payments.
Appellant and appellee were divorced in June, 1975, and by agreement appellee was granted custody of the couple's two minor children. In November, 1978, following hearings, appellant was awarded custody of the children. Appellee, who in the meantime had remarried and moved to the state of Idaho, filed a motion in March, 1984, requesting that she be allowed visitation rights for five weeks during the summer at her home. In his response and cross motion, appellant prayed for an order directing appellee to pay a reasonable weekly sum for child support. In April, 1984, the court entered an order permitting a one-month summer visitation in Idaho with air transportation expenses to be paid by appellee. After entertaining another motion by appellant seeking child support, the court issued an order in May, 1984, requiring appellee to pay appellant $500 per year in equal installments of $250, due each January 10 and September 5. From that order appellant brings this appeal.
The amount of child support to be awarded, if any, rests in the discretion of the court granting the divorce and is to be determined from the circumstances and the situation of the parties. Cantrell v. Cantrell, 10 Ark.App. 357, 664 S.W.2d 493 (1984). Among the factors to be considered in fixing an amount to be contributed for child support are the needs of the children and the assets, earning capacity, income, and indebtedness of each parent. Guffin v. Guffin, 5 Ark.App. 83, 632 S.W.2d 446 (1982); see also Barnhard v. Barnhard, 252 Ark. 167, 477 S.W.2d 845 (1972). The chancellor's finding will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2 Ark.App. 75, 616 S.W.2d 753 (1981).
In the present case, appellant employed the Family Support Chart in an attempt to establish a standard for determining the amount of child support owed by appellee. The mathematical formula set forth in the chart is, of course, only a guide for the trial court and is not intended to be binding. Mitchell v. Mitchell, supra. Still, it remains a valuable tool for the court's use as the various factors mentioned above are weighed. That the chancellor failed to consider the level of support recommended by the chart is clear when the following comparisons, based upon appellee's take-home salary, are made:
Yearly Amount Per Yearly Amount Per Yearly Amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grady v. Grady, 88-4
...aid the court in reaching a just and equitable result. Barnhard v. Barnhard, 252 Ark. 167, 477 S.W.2d 845 (1972); Perkins v. Perkins, 15 Ark.App. 82, 690 S.W.2d 356 (1985); Guffin v. Guffin, 5 Ark.App. 83, 632 S.W.2d 446 We have not dealt with this issue directly, but elsewhere it has been ......
-
Borden v. Borden, CA
...of Pulaski County raises three points for reversal. First, appellant contends that the trial court declared that Perkins v. Perkins, 15 Ark.App. 82, 690 S.W.2d 356 (1985) holds that the use of the Family Support Chart is mandatory in all circumstances unless there is evidence of disability ......
-
Reese v. Reese, 15568
...(1988); 2 Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States, § 18.1, pp. 363- 364 (2d ed. 1987). See also Perkins v. Perkins, 15 Ark.App. 82, 690 S.W.2d 356, 358 (1985) (family support chart a guide, not intended to be Nevertheless, we believe that the Missouri Child Support Guideli......
- Glover v. Glover, CA