Case Name: In the Matter of the Marriage of William Edward O'CONNOR, Petitioner, and Betty Jo O'CONNOR, nka Aplet, Respondent. STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ex rel William Edward O'CONNOR, Respondent, v. Betty Jo O'CONNOR, nka Aplet, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1995-09-06
Citations: 136 Or. App. 538
Docket Number: 123,384; CA A87007
Parties: In the Matter of the Marriage of William Edward O’CONNOR, Petitioner, and Betty Jo O’CONNOR, nka Aplet, Respondent. STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ex rel William Edward O’CONNOR, Respondent, v. Betty Jo O’CONNOR, nka Aplet, Appellant.
Judges: Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 136
Pages: 538–539

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 21,
reversed and remanded with instructions September 6, 1995
In the Matter of the Marriage of William Edward O’CONNOR, Petitioner, and Betty Jo O’CONNOR, nka Aplet, Respondent. STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ex rel William Edward O’CONNOR, Respondent, v. Betty Jo O’CONNOR, nka Aplet, Appellant.
(123,384; CA A87007)
902 P2d 114
Ellen Gradison, Oregon Legal Services Corporation, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent Department of Human Resources.
William E. O’Connor waived appearance pro se.
Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Mother appeals from a judgment denying the suspension of her child support obligation. An extensive discussion of the facts of this case would not benefit bench or bar. Suffice it to say, there is nothing in the record to rebut the statutory presumption that mother, who is eligible for receipt of Supplemental Security Income payments, is unable to pay the child support obligation. ORS 25.245. Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment suspending mother's child support obligation.
We do not read mother's assignment of error as challenging the previously accrued arrearages. Those amounts are the result of final judgments and we have no power to set aside, alter or modify them. ORS 107.135(5); Eagan and Eagan, 292 Or 492, 640 P2d 1019 (1982); Pedroza and Pedroza, 128 Or App 102, 106, 875 P2d 478 (1994).