Opinion ID: 2364367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Child support amount

Text: Barnes argues the Chancellor erred in setting the support amount at $51 per week. The Chancellor was presented with evidence that Barnes earned $300 per week, and that he was required by court order to pay $88 in child support for his two children born during his marriage to Hicks. The Chancellor subtracted the $88 support amount from income to arrive at a weekly take home pay of $212. She then applied the child support chart amount for one dependent and awarded $51 in support for Jordan. Barnes argues that instead of applying the chart amount required for one dependent, the Chancellor should have set support based on three dependents. By applying the chart in this manner, Barnes would only be required to pay $110 per week in support, whereas he is now required to pay $139 per week. The child support chart should be applied to the child who is before the court. The result of applying the chart as Barnes suggests would be that the amount of support for the one child before the court is diluted. The chart is structured so that the amount of support per child decreases in proportion to the number of added dependents. See Waldon v. Waldon, 34 Ark.App. 118, 806 S.W.2d 387 (1991). In adopting the chart, we specifically provided that weekly pay would be determined after deduction for Presently paid support for other dependents by Court order. In re: Child Support Enforcement Guidelines, 301 Ark. 627, 784 S.W.2d 589 (1990). We find no abuse of discretion.