USA – ARKANSAS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Aaron Bundy and Hannah Lange, Bundy Law
for whom a parent has a legal duty to support, shared-parenting time, parents with limited abil - ity to pay due to poverty income, variable health - care costs, and other factors.” The new guidelines received some early criti - cism, as consideration of the income of the cus - todial parent often resulted in reduction of the payor’s monthly obligation from what it would have been under the old rule. A year after imple - mentation of the income shares model, Arkansas established a shared-parenting presumption. This statutory presumption for equal time often further impacts child support, as child support may be reduced for parents in a joint custodial relationship. The new child support guidelines resulted in the Family Support Chart and a child support worksheet, which takes into account each par - ent’s gross monthly income and the number of children requiring support and then produces a number that one parent will owe to the other on a monthly basis. The worksheet will also deter - mine each parent’s share of the total combined income for assistance in calculating the share of medical expenses not covered by insurance or other child-related expenses. The worksheet allows parents to make adjust - ments and deductions in their child support obligation if they are the parent who pays for insurance for the children or if they have to pay for childcare while they are working. If one party also pays child support for children who are not part of the present case, they are allowed to report those payments on the worksheet as a small deduction in their support obligation in the present case. Parents may reach private agreements regarding the amount of child support to be paid, but they
must still provide a copy of the child support worksheet to the court for review. The court does not have to accept the parties’ agreement as written and has the discretion to enter an order that both rejects the agreement and awards a different amount of child support based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the court’s assessment of the children’s best inter - ests. Role of conduct in determining child support A recurring question from custodial parents is whether conduct is a factor for determining child support. Child support is established accord - ing to the Family Support Chart and child sup - port worksheet, and is not designed to punish either parent for their behaviour or for ending their relationship. Child support is not based on the behaviour or wishes of either parent, but rather on each parent’s respective gross monthly income and the custody arrangement of the par - ties. Conduct is not a factor in determining child support. Conduct is only indirectly material to child support, as a parent’s conduct may be one of several best interest factors assessed when establishing custody and parenting time. Although child support is primarily income- based, conduct may ultimately impact a child support payor’s obligation if the conduct results in something less than shared parenting time, eliminating the payor’s ability to seek a reduced child support amount based on joint custody. Arrears If one parent has not been involved with the sup - port of the child up until the time of the case, or has had minimal involvement, the other par - ent who has been supporting the child may ask for retroactive or backdated child support. This support can be backdated by up to three
355 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook