Kevin Hickey Law Blog

Out of the Mouths of Babes

<ADMINNICENAME> — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:25:51 +0000

If you think your actions and words are not being seen/heard by your child, take a look at this case.

Infidelity a Factor - But Not the Deciding Factor

<ADMINNICENAME> — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:23:39 +0000

In this case, the trial court goes to great lengths to express its’ disgust with the mother and her affairs. However, the best interest of the children is the overriding concern, and the court ultimately decided to leave the children with her. (This case had a 6-day hearing over a two month period!)

Here’s the link…
Valentine v. Valentine

Guidance on Calculating Support of Self Employed Payors

<ADMINNICENAME> — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:02:05 +0000

The Court of Appeal gave clear direction today on how to determine child support for a self employed payor. Here’s the Court’s finding:

“…we are of the opinion that in order to properly determine the
income of a self-employed child-support payor, a trial court must first consider the past two
years of tax returns, and quarterly estimates for the current year, allowing depreciation as a
deduction if it reflects the actual decrease in value of an asset. Then, if the trial court believes
that the tax returns are unreliable, the trial court must make specific findings to support that
determination. After doing so, the trial court can then proceed to determine a child-support
payor’s income by using a net worth method.”

Here’s the link…
Wright v. Wright

Note: I’m a little concerned about the word “unreliable” in this opinion. Almost sounds like you have to show that the tax return was somehow prepared improperly. I think what the court is intending to say is that if the court does not believe the tax returns are providing a true indication of the payor’s income then the court can look to other evidence.

Denying Visitation and Relocating Without Permission of the Court = Not a Good Idea

<ADMINNICENAME> — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:23:32 +0000

In a nutshell, if you consistently deny the noncustodial parent his/her visitation, and then you move halfway across the country with the children without permission of the court, don’t be surprised if you lose custody of your children.

Note: An interesting fact in earlier proceedings between these parties early in this opinion. Note that the trial judge in 2004 found the mother in contempt for failing to comply with court ordered visitation. The punishment? Community service! First time I’ve seen that one in a domestic case. Maybe not a bad idea.

Here’s the link…
Harris v. Harris

Better Job and Ailing Parents Enough to Allow Relocation

<ADMINNICENAME> — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 12:32:03 +0000

Custodial parent wants to move from Arkansas to South Dakota to take a job with better income and also to be closer to his ailing parents. Noncustodial parent objects and a hearing is held. The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals upheld, that the custodial parent had sufficient reasons for moving and allowed the move. One of the factors mentioned in addition to the two above is that the custodial parent had other family members in South Dakota that would be involved in the child’s life (boating and other leisure activities were cited).

A very good discussion of how trial courts review a relocation request and the factors involved under the seminal case (Hollandsworth):
Mathews v. Schumacher

Allowing Grandfather Less Visitation - Is that Harmful to the Child?

<ADMINNICENAME> — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:39:40 +0000

That was the central question in this case. Grandfather had been getting extensive visitation with his minor grandson. Mother decides to lessen the visitation. Grandfather files a motion with the court requesting that he continue to get extensive visitation with his grandson, and arguing that anything less would be harmful to their relationship. The trial court found that merely lessening the amount of visitation was not going to be harmful to the child. Had the visitation been stopped entirely then that would likely be harmful to the child. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Here’s the link…
Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth

Attorney Withdraws from Case 13 Days Before Trial

<ADMINNICENAME> — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:18:57 +0000

In this divorce case the attorney for the wife withdrew from representing her 13 days before the final hearing. On appeal, it was found that this was improper and the case was reversed and remanded.

This case provides a good discussion of the procedure that is to be followed when an attorney withdraws from a case. Also, the client’s rights in such a situation.

Here’s the link…
Duncan v. Duncan

What if Parents Agreed to Hold Child Back for a Year?

<ADMINNICENAME> — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:54:52 +0000

Parents agreed to hold child back in kindergarten. Child turns 18 during her junior year in high school. At the end of the child’s junior year, payor parent stops paying child support, holding the position that the child “should have” graduated that year. Under the Arkansas statute in effect at the time, a payor is liable for child support until the child turns 18 “or should have graduated from high school, whichever occurs later.”

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision that child support in this case should be paid until the child graduates. The reason being that the parties had agreed to hold the child back in kindergarten, so the child was going to graduate at the time that she should.

Had there been no such agreement then it appears the payor father may have had the winning argument.

Here’s the link…
Barker v. Barker Avery

Practice note: Here’s how A.C.A. 9-14-237(a)(1) now reads:

A.C.A. 9-14-237
(a)(1) Unless a court order for child support specifically extends child support after these circumstances, an obligor’s duty to pay child support for a child shall automatically terminate by operation of law:

(A)(i) When the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age unless the child is still attending high school.

(ii) If the child is still attending high school, upon the child’s high school graduation or the end of the school year after the child reaches nineteen (19) years of age, whichever is earlier;

(B) When the child:

(i) Is emancipated by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(ii) Marries; or

(iii) Dies;

(D) Upon the entry of a final decree of adoption or an interlocutory decree of adoption that has become final under § 9-9-201 et seq. and thereby relieves the obligor of all parental rights and responsibilities.

Not So Fast My Friend

<ADMINNICENAME> — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:18:01 +0000

We had previously posted that the Court of Appeals decided that a trial court had authority to place child support arrearage money into an account for a minor child. Well, today the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals. So it appears that a trial court does not have the authority to order child support arrearage funds to be placed into a separate account for the child, as opposed to paying the funds directly to the custodial parent.