Title: Pulaski County Child Support Enforcement Unit v. Norem

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

PULASKI COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT
v. Orville S. NOREM, Jr.

97-132                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 19, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- abstract must contain basic pleadings and
     judgment -- all relevant orders entered by trial judge should
     be abstracted. -- The basic pleadings and the judgment or
     decree appealed from are ordinarily essential constituents of
     the abstract; all relevant orders entered by the trial judge
     are to be abstracted.    

2.   Appeal & error -- abstract flagrantly deficient -- ruling of
     trial court affirmed. -- Where appellant's abstract failed to
     reflect that the legal arguments made on appeal were ever
     argued to or ruled on by the chancellor, nor did it contain
     the chancellor's order with findings, the trial court's order
     was affirmed.


     Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Vann Smith, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     Diane Sexton, for appellant.
     No response.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     The appellant Pulaski County Child Support Enforcement Unit
brings this appeal requesting us to interpret the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) and to enforce a North Dakota
trial court's judgment which increased appellee Orville S. Norem,
Jr.'s child-support payment.  In particular, appellant claims the
Arkansas chancery judge exceeded his authority under Ark. Code Ann.
 9-17-607(b) (Repl. 1993) by issuing an order which effectively
stayed a North Dakota child-support order and improperly
established child support in an amount different from that set out
in the North Dakota court's judgment.  In arguing the North Dakota
court's child-support order should be enforced as registered in
this state, appellant also urges on appeal that the Arkansas
chancellor was required to recognize the North Dakota court's
authority to impute "house-spouse income" against Norem based upon
his former occupation as a truck driver, since Norem claims he is
unemployed.
     Unfortunately, appellant presents us with a two-page abstract
that fails to reflect, as it must, that the legal arguments now
made on appeal were ever argued to or ruled on by the chancellor. 
See Dolphin v. Wilson, 328 Ark. 1, 939 S.W.2d 863 (1997).  In fact,
the chancellor's order with findings also has not been abstracted,
so that the members of this court might determine exactly how the
chancellor decided this case.  This court has frequently noted
that the basic pleadings and the judgment or decree appealed from
are ordinarily essential constituents of the abstract.  Davis v.
Wingfield, 297 Ark. 57, 759 S.W.2d 219 (1988).  In addition, this
court has stated that all relevant orders entered by the trial
judge are to be abstracted.  Id.  
     Because appellant failed to abstract the trial court's order
appealed from or show that it presented its legal arguments below,
we affirm.