This is not true for two basic reasons. First, the required disclosure only begins to tell the story of income and expenses. 58 Ark. App. Second, the fact remains that some parties will simply not tell the truth in the required forms, and further discovery may be necessary to check the accuracy of the other party's financial statement. The family law practitioners must therefore learn to go beyond the 1040, take additional discovery, and think of income that will not be reflected on tax records or even financial disclosure forms.
Relevance is thus the fundamental limitation on discovery.
Further, evidence can be relevant and inadmissible if it is prejudicial, misleading, or confusing. One particular issue regarding discovery has arisen on which the reported case law is split. The issue concerns how much discovery regarding a person's assets and income is permissible where the person is very wealthy and admits he can pay any reasonable child support order. Rather, the only issue before the court is the reasonable needs of the child. There, the court held that without knowing what the parent's financial status is, it is impossible for the court to determine what the reasonable needs of the child are.