Case Title: State v. Ross

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE of Arkansas, Office of Child Support
Enforcement v. Terrance D. ROSS

97-205                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 9, 1997


Appeal & error -- supreme court will not reverse on issue not 
     presented at trial -- argument could not be considered on
     appeal. -- The supreme court will not reverse on an issue not
     presented to the trial court, nor will it consider arguments
     raised for the first time on appeal or where a ruling from the
     trial court has not been obtained; here, counsel for the
     appellant made no argument in the trial court opposing the
     chancellor's decision to excuse the father from paying child
     support while he was without a driver's license; because the
     chancellor was not given the opportunity to consider these
     arguments, his decision was affirmed.  


     Appeal from Conway Chancery Court; William R. Bullock,
Chancellor; affirmed.
     Gordon, Caruth & Virden, by:  Bart Virden, for appellant.
     No response.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     In October 1992, the appellee, Terrance Ross, was ordered to
pay $100 per month in child support for his two minor children. 
Thereafter, Mr. Ross became consistently delinquent in satisfying
the obligation.  Consequently, in proceedings occurring from 1994
through 1996, the Office of Child Support Enforcement ("OCSE"), the
appellant, obtained judgments on the accrued arrearages, and Mr.
Ross was repeatedly held in contempt.  Ultimately, Mr. Ross's
driver's license was suspended, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann.
 9-14-239 (Supp. 1995), as the result of his child-support
delinquency.  
     In the most recent hearing with respect to the child-support
obligation, the Chancellor ordered the child-support obligation
suspended pending reinstatement of Mr. Ross's driver's license. 
OCSE appeals from that order.  We affirm because the arguments made
in favor of reversal were not made to the Chancellor. 
     During the hearing, Mr. Ross testified that he had lost his
job on account of the suspension of his driver's license.  He
indicated that he recently had found a different job but that he
was only working 20 hours per week.  At the conclusion of the
hearing, the following colloquy occurred between the Chancellor and
counsel for the OCSE:

     [CHANCELLOR]:  ... The court finds that Mr. Ross is not
                    willfully delinquent in support.  That as
                    a result of the suspension of his
                    driver's license his job was lost and the
                    child support is hereby suspended until
                    his driver's license is restored.
      [COUNSEL]:    Your Honor, I believe the driver's
                    license was suspended because of the    
                    child support if I'm not mistaken.
     [CHANCELLOR]:  That's right.
     [COUNSEL]:     Okay.  Is--is he under some affirmative
                    duty to--
     [CHANCELLOR]:  Sir?
     [COUNSEL]:     Will he be under some affirmative duty to
                    get [the] license back?
     [CHANCELLOR]:  Maybe the Child Support Division can get
                    [it] back for him.
     [COUNSEL]:     Okay.  I believe he's working 20 hours a week,
                    but we're still--
     [CHANCELLOR]:  Well, that's not enough to sustain him--
                    himself.
     [COUNSEL]:     I'll get an order prepared to that effect,   
                    Your Honor.
     [CHANCELLOR]:  All right.  Thank you, sir. . . . .

     According to Ark. Code Ann.  9-14-239(b)(1)(A)(i) (Supp.
1995), OCSE must notify the Department of Finance and
Administration ("DF&A") to suspend the driver's license of a
noncustodial parent if OCSE determines (1) that the parent "is
delinquent on a court-ordered child support payment or an
adjudicated arrearage in an amount equal to six (6) months'
obligation or more"; and (2) that the parent has failed to
"execute[] an installment agreement or make[] other necessary and
proper arrangements" for the payment of child support.  The DF&A
must "immediately suspend the license . . . of the noncustodial
parent" upon receipt of such notification,  9-14-239(d)(1), and
the suspension must remain in effect until the OCSE notifies the
DF&A to release the suspension.   9-14-239(d)(2).  See Survey of
Legislation, 1995 Arkansas General Assembly, 18 U.A.L.R. L.J. 279, 349
(1996). 
     OCSE argues that the Chancellor's ruling suspending Mr. Ross's
child-support obligation constitutes an erroneous decision "not to
enforce the statute" imposing the license-suspension penalty. 
According to OCSE, the Chancellor's ruling should be reversed
because it fails "to recognize and enforce [OCSE's] statutory
authority to suspend [Mr. Ross's] driver's license" and because it
"coerc[es] the state [not to] avail itself of its lawful right
granted by A.C.A. 9-14-239 to suspend driving privileges of an
individual who refuses to support [his] child in defiance of court
orders."       
     We decline to address the merits of these arguments because,
as the colloquy quoted above reveals, counsel for the OCSE did not
raise them before the Chancellor.  As we said in Arkansas Office of
Child Support Enforcement v. House, 320 Ark. 423, 424, 897 S.W.2d 565, 566 (1995),

     [t]he rule is well-established that this court will not
     reverse on an issue not presented to the trial court. 
     Hubbard v. Shores Group, Inc., 313 Ark. 498,