Court Opinion

ID: 9777134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:00:14.43363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:49.358939
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. From a reading of the majority opinion one could conclude that appellant is a hardhearted and mercenary father that is more interested in his bank roll than he is the livelihood of his disabled son. However, the undisputed evidence shows that the son is not disabled. In fact he is capable of and does run ten miles cross-country in a day. The son, himself, testified that he was in good physical condition, and that he could do any kind of job requiring hard or light physical labor. The root of the problem between this father and his son is the son’s bellicose attitude. The record shows that while the son visited for two days in Fort Smith where his father lived, the son did not bother to visit with the father who was still in bed recovering from an operation. Acts 1975, No. 892, (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 57-103) provides: “All persons of the age of eighteen (18) years shall be considered to have reached the age of majority and be of full age for all purposes, and until the age of eighteen (18) is attained, they shall be considered minors. . . Consequently, the son is now an adult for all purposes except for the attitude of this Court that everybody ought to have a college education. I do not agree with that philosophy. While I agree that college is good for some people, between an adult son and a father, the issue of whether a son goes to college should be left to the father and son without any interference by the courts. One of the old adages of the hills where I grew up was the saying that “there’s no fool like an educated fool.” The insinuation in the majority opinion that appellant’s present wife has made some support payments from her own funds because she disagrees with her husband’s position is not supported by the record which only shows that the payments were made by her from her funds during the process of writing checks for the monthly bills while the husband was off work due to illness or as an accommodation to Mark’s mother in making an early payment. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.