# Davis v. Office of Child Support Enforcement

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 18, 2000 · 341 Ark. 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9611799

## Case

- **Full name:** Martha S. DAVIS v. OFFICE of CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 18, 2000
- **Citations:** 341 Ark. 349; 20 S.W.3d 273; 2000 Ark. LEXIS 246
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Arnold
- **Judges:** Lavenski R. Smith
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9611799

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting “[t]hirty-eight states exempt SSI benefits from inclusion in a calculation of gross income for child support purposes”

## Opinion text

W.H. “Dub” Arnold, Chief Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority in holding that SSI payments are not income for purposes of child support under the Supreme Court’s Administrative Order No. 10. Section 2 of the order defines income as follows: “Income means any form of payment, periodic or otherwise, due to an individual, regardless of source, including wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, Workers Compensation, disability, payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program, and interest less proper reductions . . . .” [Emphasis added.]
The facts in this case support that the appellant receives $494.00 per month in SSI benefits. I acknowledge that this is a meager sum of money that the appellant is receiving. However, this does not excuse her from her obligation to support her two children. She gave birth to these children, and she has a duty to love, nurture, and support them. The trial judge recognized this duty of support and took into consideration the limited funds in setting the proper amount of child support. Based upon the child support charts, one receiving $490.00 per month should pay $130.00 per month for support of two children. The trial judge reduced support to $70.00 per month. The facts are undisputed that the appellant smokes approximately one pack of cigarettes per day. The cost of her smoking habit alone would provide the support set by the trial judge. Is this too much to ask?
The majority has carved out an exception in defining income; SSI benefits are exempt. With this decision, the appellant has food, clothing, shelter, and continues the pleasure of smoking a pack of cigarettes each day, while her two children receive nothing — zero — not even a penny. Who will support them? If this court felt that $70.00 per month was too much for her to pay, why not seventy cents, at the very least? A mother and father should pay something.
The majority holds that SSI benefits are exempt from use as child support and, in doing so, reasons that' it is following the majority of the states that have addressed this issue; they then cite thirty-eight states that exempt SSI benefits. This does not impress me. Why shouldn’t Arkansas follow the other eleven states that are rightly requiring mothers and fathers to support their children, regardless of the source of their income?
My conscience would never allow me to say that a parent who has income from any source should not support their children. This is wrong, and no excuse is acceptable under any circumstance. I would, therefore, affirm the trial judge and the Court of Appeals. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9611799. Public record. Not legal advice.