Court Opinion

ID: 9948061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 15:02:10.85791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:02.094691
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 172
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                        DIVISION I
                                       No. CV-22-432

                                              Opinion Delivered March 6, 2024

JESSICA MATHIS                                APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
                             APPELLANT        COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
                                              SEVENTEENTH DIVISION
V.                                            [NO. 60DR-08-2009]

                                              HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE,
GLEN ALAN HICKMAN, JR.                        JUDGE
                               APPELLEE
                                              AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN
                                              PART

                              KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

       Appellant Jessica Mathis (Jessica) appeals after the Pulaski County Circuit Court

entered several orders in favor of appellee Glen1 Alan Hickman, Jr. (Alan). On appeal, Jessica

contends that (1) the circuit court erred in denying her motions to transfer this case to Rhode

Island; (2) the circuit court erred in finding her in contempt regarding Alan’s visitation with

their minor child (MC) and regarding Alan’s telephone communication with MC; (3) the

circuit court erred in awarding Alan attorney’s fees incurred in Rhode Island; (4) the circuit

court erred in calculating support owed and in imputing full-time income to her; and (5) the

       1
       We note that the record contains two different spellings of appellee’s first name
throughout.
circuit court erred in its division of attorney ad litem fees. We affirm in part and reverse in

part.

                                       I. Previous Litigation

        Alan and Jessica were married and have one child together, MC. They were divorced

in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, and on July 28, 2009, an amended order granted

Jessica custody of one-year-old MC, subject to Alan’s visitation. In addition to visitation, the

amended order provided that both parties were to allow reasonable telephone contact with

MC while he was in the other’s care, which was to “be no less than every night between 7

p.m. and 8:00 p.m.” Further, Alan was ordered to pay child support biweekly in the amount

of $182.

        Subsequent to the divorce, Jessica married Joshua Mathis (Joshua), who was on active

duty with the United States Navy. Over the next few years, Joshua was transferred several

times. Joshua, Jessica, and MC moved to Hawaii,2 then to Washington State, and then to

Rhode Island. Joshua, Jessica, and MC have resided in Rhode Island continuously since

September 2014.3

        Between 2009 and 2018, despite Jessica’s no longer residing in Pulaski County, the

parties were frequent participants in a variety of contested custody-related issues in the

Pulaski County Circuit Court, to-wit: On December 23, 2009, the circuit court reduced

        2
       The record is unclear; however, Jessica and MC may have moved to Hawaii on more
than one occasion.
        3
            Joshua and Jessica have three children of their own born during their marriage.

                                                 2
Alan’s child-support obligation to $109 biweekly. On April 28, 2010, the circuit court

permitted Jessica to move with MC to Hawaii. On September 18, 2012, Alan was awarded

additional visitation, including Christmas, spring break, Thanksgiving, and the summer on

certain years; the amount of child support was also modified for Alan to pay $400 biweekly.

On December 8, 2014 (by this time, Jessica resided in Rhode Island), child support was again

modified, the holiday visitation schedule was again adjusted, and Alan was permitted to call

or Skype MC “from 7:00–8:00 p.m. nightly as currently set out to 6:00–7:30 p.m. in the time

zone in which the child resides.” In this order, Jessica was directed to “take those steps

necessary to facilitate such contact without interruption or distraction, and to facilitate the

child’s calling or videoconferencing [Alan] back as soon as possible following any

unavoidably missed call or Skype session.” Regarding visitation, the circuit court ordered

the following:

                3. [Jessica] may, following holiday visitation with the minor child for
       Christmas 2014, obtain the child at 6:00 p.m. on that Friday evening three days
       before the resumption of school. Thereafter, at [Jessica’s] election made at least four
       weeks before the commencement of any holiday visitation during the school year, to
       facilitate the return of the child to his home on that day, [Jessica] shall have the child
       ready for pickup up to three hours earlier than the 6:00 P.M. exchange time two days
       before the resumption of school recited in the parties’ most recent Order, in which
       event [Jessica] may within two weeks of notification thereof, at his election notify
       [Alan] that he will be obtaining the child up to three hours earlier to commence
       visitation, which if not made in that time will result in his obtaining the child at 6:00
       p.m. as set out in the most recent Order. [Alan] will deliver the child to the Little
       Rock Airport for exchange unless [Jessica] agrees to pick him up at the Bryant Lowe’s.
       [Alan] will pick the child up at his school if he elects to get him at 3:00 p.m. otherwise
       [Jessica] will deliver the child to the Providence Airport by 6:00 p.m. or hotel near the
       Providence airport if requested by Plaintiff.

                                               3
              4. In view of the addition of a winter break in the child’s new school system,
       the parties’ existing holiday visitation shall be adjusted so that [Alan] continues to
       receive Christmas Break (as defined in earlier Orders) starting on even-numbered
       calendar years, and the spring break in odd-numbered years, and alternating winter
       break so that [Alan] receives it in even numbered years.

       The parties were back in court, and on October 1, 2015, the circuit court modified

Alan’s child support and ordered that he pay $555 biweekly. The circuit court recognized

that there would be additional moves likely because of Joshua’s service in the military. The

circuit court recognized that there had been problems regarding Alan’s ability to

communicate with MC while he was in Jessica’s custody and noted the following:

               9. With respect to phone calls, the Court does find there have been problems
       for Mr. Hickman in making contact via phone. The Court is concerned with that
       and wants any problems with phone calls stopped. If the phone call problems
       continue, the Court will deal with it in a drastic fashion. The Court would point out
       that the presences of the two other children in [Jessica’s] home are not a concern of
       the Court because they are not before this Court. [Jessica] is to exercise her best effort
       to allow phone contact. For example, if the child is in a restaurant and a phone call
       is placed to him by Mr. Hickman it is reasonable to have the phone call returned after
       leaving the restaurant. If he is in a car returning from boy scouts or some other
       activity he should be allowed to return the phone call. Mr. Hickman needs to realize
       that a child that is approximately 7 years of age is not generally going to speak for a
       long period of time.

               10. [Jessica] will allow [MC] to call [Alan] at any reasonable time he wants to.
       Further, [Jessica] is to foster communication between [MC] and [Alan]. The parties
       are to be reasonable about phone call times and length of calls. Further it is the
       Court’s desire that the parties use FaceTime or Skype whenever possible. The Court
       reiterates that the continued problems with the calls may lead to further action by the
       Court that will be severe.

              11. The Court finds that a majority of the time [Jessica] never answered the
       phone when [Alan] called. That has to stop. The Court will not have any patience
       with the problem in the future.

                                               4
               12. The Court is going to modify its previous Orders regarding the time for
       phone contact. In the Court’s view it is not reasonable to call at 7:45 a.m. when the
       person is trying to get out of the door to school. It is not reasonable to call at 10:00
       p.m. if you know he goes to bed at 8:00 p.m. The Court stresses that it is [Jessica’s]
       obligation that if the call did not go through because the child was down the street
       playing or some other reason he was unavailable that she has the obligation to replace
       the call as soon as possible and generally that means that day.

And, finally, the parties returned to court, and on September 13, 2018, Alan’s child support

was set at $554 biweekly. That takes us up to the present litigation, which was initiated by

Jessica in Rhode Island on or about March 13, 2019.

                                     II. Current Litigation

       There was a lull in the litigation between the parties for approximately six months.

On March 13, 2019, Jessica filed an emergency ex parte motion to temporarily suspend

visitation in the state family court of Rhode Island, allegedly pursuant to the Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Jessica alleged that MC did not

desire to return to visit Alan in Arkansas. In support, Jessica submitted a signed thirty-seven-

paragraph affidavit and therein alleged, inter alia, that MC had been “exposed to domestic

violence in the home by [Alan] towards [Jessica] prior to their divorce,” that MC had

witnessed Alan “punch a hole in the wall while exhibiting his anger towards his step-sister,”

and that Alan does not take enough time off work and spend enough time with MC during

his visitations.” (Emphasis added.) Of particular note, despite the history of at least six

modifications as outlined above, Jessica also stated in an affidavit to family court in Rhode

Island, “That to the best of my knowledge, said Amended Order of Divorce has not been

amended or modified since July 27, 2009.”

                                               5
       Alan obtained counsel in Rhode Island and moved to dismiss. Nine days after Jessica

filed her ex parte motion in Rhode Island, Alan filed a motion for contempt in the Pulaski

County Circuit Court on March 22, 2019. Alan alleged that Jessica was interfering with his

communication with MC in direct contravention of the circuit court’s 2015 order. Jessica

responded and asked that the motion be denied and dismissed.

       Jessica subsequently filed a motion in the Pulaski County Circuit Court to change

venue and jurisdiction from Pulaski County to Rhode Island pursuant to the UCCJEA. She

alleged that Rhode Island is MC’s home state and the proper state to determine any custody

and visitation issues. Jessica went on to explain that her husband is in the military, that she

intended to remain in Rhode Island, and that any witnesses and telephone records were

either located in or originated in Rhode Island. She additionally alleged that the motion for

contempt was “groundless” and attached approximately one hundred pages of telephone

records that she argued disproved the basis of Alan’s contempt motion. Alan filed his

response, asking the Arkansas circuit court to deny Jessica’s motion alleging that the Pulaski

County Circuit Court has exclusive continuing jurisdiction, MC has a substantial

connection with Arkansas by coming to visit Alan on a regular basis, and the Pulaski County

Circuit Court is familiar with the case.

       At some point, the Rhode Island judge and the Pulaski County Circuit Court judge

conferred by telephone concerning the proper forum for the current dispute between the

parties. After a hearing held on April 11, 2019, the Rhode Island court filed a written order

dismissing Jessica’s ex parte petition “after conference with counsel for the parties and review

                                               6
of the papers, as well as the Court’s telephone conference thereafter with Judge Pierce of the

Arkansas Court.” The Rhode Island order specifically found the following:

       1. [Alan’s] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

       2. The State of Arkansas shall continue to exercise exclusive continuing jurisdiction
       pursuant to G.I. § 15-14.1-15 so long as [Alan] resides in the State of Arkansas.

       3. The Arkansas Court will address the concerns raised by the parties in this matter,
       including [Jessica’s] request to suspend visitation, and [Alan’s] objection thereto, and
       the issue of any makeup parenting time owed to the [Alan] as a result of the instant
       litigation.

This order ended the Rhode Island litigation.

       Back in Arkansas, on April 16, 2019, Alan filed a motion for an “Emergency Order

to Enforce Visitation” or, alternatively, a request for an emergency hearing in the Pulaski

County Circuit Court. Alan alleged that he was scheduled to pick up MC in Rhode Island

on April 12, 2019, for his spring break visitation. However, Jessica filed the action in Rhode

Island. After the hearing on April 11, 2019, in which the Rhode Island court indicated that

it was dismissing that action, Alan sent Jessica a text message stating that he needed to know

if Jessica “planned on allowing [him] visitation for [MC’s] spring break.” Jessica never

responded. Instead, Joshua responded and stated, “[P]lease direct your legal question to

[Alan’s Rhode Island attorney].” Alan texted, “So you’re telling me that I have to go through

an attorney to get visitation with my son since your case in Rhode Island has now been

dismissed, is that where we stand?” Alan attached screen shots of these text messages to his

motion. Jessica responded to the motion, arguing that she directed Alan to contact his

                                              7
Rhode Island counsel on the advice of counsel and that she nevertheless had a plane ticket

in place for MC’s return trip.

       Jessica subsequently filed a counterclaim on April 30, 2019, seeking to amend MC’s

summer visitation schedule with Alan. She sought to reduce Alan’s visitation because MC

was unable to participate in certain activities in Rhode Island, MC was upset that he does

not have his own room when he visits Arkansas, Alan’s wife had gambled while on a family

vacation and stayed in a different hotel than MC, and Alan had subjected MC to

“psychological terror” in insisting that MC ride certain amusement rides. Jessica also filed a

motion for immediate temporary relief, repeating the same concerns that were expressed in

her counterclaim. Alan filed responses to Jessica’s counterclaim and motion and asked that

both be denied.

       This flurry of pleadings led to Alan to file his own petition for modification of custody

on May 20, 2019. He alleged that Jessica had continued to interfere with his visitation and

limited his telephone contact with MC. He explained that Jessica had insisted that MC end

his calls within minutes, told MC what to say during the calls, ran electronics in the

background to make it difficult for him to hear MC, or created other distractions. Regarding

visitation, Alan explained that Jessica had made continual efforts to shorten his visitation

time and “pursued litigation in an attempt to disrupt and sabotage [Alan’s] visitation and

relationship with [MC].” Alan also stated that he believed Jessica was making negative

comments about him to MC and was attempting to influence MC’s behavior toward him.

As such, he requested that he be granted primary custody and that Jessica pay reasonable

                                               8
child support. Jessica generally denied these allegations and asked the circuit court to deny

Alan’s petition.

       Alan followed up his petition to modify custody with an amended motion for

contempt on June 13, 2019. In the amended motion for contempt, Alan alleged that Jessica

should be held in contempt “for her continual interference with [Alan’s] telephone

visitation; for her continual interference with [Alan’s] visitation; specifically, [Alan’s] Spring

Break visitation; and for her failure to not inform [Alan] that the minor child was enrolled

in counseling.” Jessica responded and generally denied the allegations and asked that Alan’s

motion be denied.

       Jessica filed a motion for appointment of an attorney ad litem (AAL). Alan requested

that the motion be denied or, alternatively, that Jessica be solely responsible for the cost of

an AAL. On July 2, 2019, the circuit court ordered that an AAL be appointed. The circuit

court ordered both parties to directly pay the AAL a $500 retainer. The circuit court further

determined that pending any approval of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to

pay any AAL fees, the AAL would bill at the rate of $150 an hour and submit any bill to the

parties to be divided pending any further determination of the court. The circuit court

explicitly reserved “the right to allocate payment of the entire attorney ad litem fee between

the parties at the final determination.” The circuit court additionally added that it was

reserving the right to order that the AAL be paid at the rate promulgated by the AOC should

the parties qualify for the approval of AOC funds.

                                                9
       A few days later, on July 16, 2019, Jessica filed yet another motion in the circuit court;

this time, she filed a motion for an increase in child support. She claimed that Alan’s

affidavit of financial means did not include his gambling winnings. Alan responded with a

motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a response to Jessica’s motion, generally denying that

Jessica was entitled to an increase in child support. Jessica amended her motion for an

increase in child support on August 7, 2019, and realleged that she was entitled to an

increase in child support, which Alan denied in his response.

       Alan then filed a motion for holiday visitation on November 11, 2019, requesting

that he be permitted to have visitation with MC during Christmas break; and he filed an

amended petition for change of custody on November 21, 2019, repeating many of the same

allegations as before. Jessica responded to both motions and asked that they be denied.

       Eventually, Alan filed a motion to reduce child support on May 4, 2020, after his

hours at work had been reduced through no fault of his own. 4 Jessica timely filed her

response in which she requested that the circuit court grant her previous motion to increase

child support and make it retroactive prior to any reduction being granted.

       A year passed, and on June 8, 2021, despite the fact that the Rhode Island family

court had previously dismissed her motion for ex parte relief two years earlier, Jessica filed a

motion to transfer the entire case to Rhode Island. She argued that Rhode Island was the

       4
        Although there were multiple other motions filed during the pendency of this case,
including discovery motions, we need not discuss these motions since they are irrelevant to
the issues in this appeal.

                                              10
appropriate forum to determine any motion for change of custody because MC had lived in

Rhode Island since September 2014, the chance that she and her husband would move from

Rhode Island is slight, almost all relevant witnesses would be located in Rhode Island, and

any information would be more readily available to the courts in Rhode Island. Alan

disagreed in his response and argued that the circuit court had continuing jurisdiction over

this case pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-202. He further argued that

the Pulaski County Circuit Court had years of knowledge of this case and was “best-suited

to continue to preside over this case.”

       On October 18, 2021, the circuit court entered a pretrial order. The circuit court

noted that Alan had withdrawn his motion for change of custody on the record on June 21,

2021, and that it was therefore dismissed. The circuit court additionally ruled that several

motions from both parties (mostly regarding discovery issues) were “moot and therefore

denied” and that only the specifically listed motions and pleadings would be heard at the

final hearing. A hearing on those remaining pleadings and motions was held on October

28–29, 2021. During this lengthy hearing, the following relevant evidence regarding Jessica’s

points on appeal was presented.

       Jessica testified at length.   Jessica was questioned about her decision to file

proceedings in Rhode Island. She admitted she signed an affidavit for those proceedings

stating that the amended order of divorce had “not been amended or modified since July

27, 2009.” She explained that she filed everything through the advice of her counsel in

Rhode Island. Jessica acknowledged that multiple orders had been filed in Arkansas since

                                             11
the 2009 amended order of divorce. However, she stated that she did not know those orders

were considered amendments of the amended order of divorce. Rather, Jessica said that she

thought they were “just amendments of . . . visitation and that sort of thing.” She also

acknowledged that the Rhode Island proceedings were dismissed after the circuit court in

Arkansas retained jurisdiction.

       Regarding the visitation Alan was supposed have with MC during spring break of

2019, Jessica admitted that the Rhode Island case had been dismissed the day before spring

break, that Alan had messaged her to exercise his visitation, and that her husband messaged

Alan to contact his attorney in response to that message. That said, Jessica did not agree that

she prevented Alan from exercising his visitation. Instead, she blamed Alan for not

providing her details about when he was picking MC up from Rhode Island, even though

she refused to respond to his text messages. Jessica did offer during the hearing to allow the

missed visitation to be made up later that year during Christmas break from December 26,

2021, through January 2, 2022.

       Regarding the court-ordered phone communication between Alan and MC, Jessica

denied that she had ever intentionally interfered with the phone calls. She claimed that she

did not run the vacuum while MC was talking on the phone or tell MC what to say. Jessica

testified that she did not recall making MC place the call on speaker phone, hanging up the

phone while the two were talking, or telling MC’s friends that MC cannot play because he

has to talk to Alan. She did admit that she refused to share the passcode to the cell phone

she provided to MC to use while he was in Alan’s care.

                                              12
       The testimony revealed that shortly before she filed the ex parte motion in Rhode

Island, unbeknownst to Alan, Jessica took MC to counseling sessions with a therapist.

Regarding MC’s counseling, Jessica admitted that she took MC for counseling on March 12,

2018. The initial intake reports from the therapist indicated that Alan had not been a part

of MC’s life during the child’s first three years of life. On cross-examination, Jessica denied

that she told the counselor during intake that Alan had not been part of MC’s life for the

first three years, even though the intake form indicated such. Jessica agreed that the

statement was false. Although she initially claimed that she had informed Alan about the

counseling, she was shown an email she had sent to Alan about the counseling that was sent

after the first official session had already taken place. She also admitted that she did not

inform Alan that MC was meeting with someone from the Fleet and Family Advocacy

Program, which is generally a program within the United States Navy for family assistance.

       Jessica admitted she is aware that Alan and his current wife, Betsy Hickman, have a

guardianship over another child. Jessica admitted she had contacted the parents of that child

and also Betsy’s ex-husband in an attempt to either discover negative evidence about Alan or

to otherwise question Alan’s parenting skills. Jessica had also contacted the Benton Police

Department to “ask questions about the concerns that were pending,” even though MC had

been in Rhode Island at the time. Jessica said that she asked the police department what the

“protocol be” when MC did not have his own bed at Alan’s home in Benton. When asked

why she denied in her interrogatories that she had contacted the police department, Jessica

explained that she thought the question was whether she had filed a police report. While

                                              13
she admitted she had contacted the police department, Jessica denied having filed a police

report.

          Jessica testified that the last time she worked was in 2010, when she worked full time

as a sales representative for the Hershey Company, making “close to” $40,000 to a year.

          Joshua testified that he had recently retired from the United States Navy and was not

working at that time. He explained that in addition to MC, he and Jessica have three

children together, ages ten, almost seven, and four. He said that the four-year-old and ten-

year-old have special needs. He explained that it was helpful to have Jessica remain a stay-at-

home mother because he was more “marketable” with her doing so. On cross-examination,

Joshua admitted he would not have contacted Betsy’s ex-husband as Jessica had.

          Betsy Hickman, Alan’s wife, testified that her fourteen-year-old daughter and a

seventeen-year-old girl that both she and Alan have a guardianship over live in the home.

Betsy confirmed that Alan has had many issues with phone communication and visitation

with MC. She testified that the communication had improved since Alan filed the recent

motion for contempt. She opined that Alan has a “positive influence” on MC’s life and that

Alan cherishes the time he has with his son. Betsy stated that Jessica had been harassing her

by contacting the parents of the young girl she and Alan have a guardianship over, her ex-

husband, and the Benton Police Department. Although she admitted that MC did share a

room with the girls at one point while he was visiting, she explained that he “has always had

his own bed.” She also explained that he has had his own bedroom since 2018.

                                                14
       One of the issues before the court was the countering petitions to increase or decrease

child support. To calculate child support, Alan asked that the circuit court impute $60,000

in annual income to Jessica. He explained that the last year they were married in 2009,

Jessica made well over $50,000 working for the Hershey Company.

       Regarding his motion for contempt, Alan reiterated that he missed his spring break

visitation with MC in 2019. He explained that even after the Rhode Island litigation was

dismissed, Jessica still did not allow MC to exercise his spring break visitation. As a sanction,

he asked that he be awarded $6,319.60 for attorney’s fees he incurred in Rhode Island and

asked that he be allowed to make up that missed time with his son. He was willing to accept

the time (an extra week during the upcoming Christmas break) Jessica offered during her

testimony. Regarding his other allegations of contempt, Alan testified that Jessica did not

inform him about counseling beforehand. He also refuted the records that indicated the

counselor believed he had not been a part of MC’s life for the first three years. He asked the

circuit court to order that MC’s records be corrected because he thought this misinformation

was detrimental. Alan further testified that he has had trouble maintaining contact with

MC. He described instances in which he would call and text with no responses, Jessica would

be running the vacuum cleaner next to the phone, there would be other children screaming

in the background, and Jessica would hang up the phone during the conversation. Alan

admitted that some of his communication with MC had gotten better since he filed the

motion for contempt. Alan opined that Jessica contacted Betsy’s ex-husband, the parents of

the young girl he and Betsy have a guardianship over, and others in an attempt to reduce the

                                               15
time he has with MC. Alan stated that he felt like he has “a stalker from afar.” Finally, Alan

asked that Jessica be responsible for paying his attorney’s fees in this case in addition to the

attorney’s fees he incurred in Rhode Island.

       Kathleen Clarkson, MC’s therapist in Rhode Island, testified through a deposition

that was read into the record at the hearing. She testified that MC had anxiety issues but

that there had “been a tremendous improvement.” She opined that MC has a good

relationship with Alan.5

       At the conclusion of the October 28 hearing, the circuit court orally announced that

it was not transferring the case to Rhode Island. On December 8, 2021, the circuit court

advised the parties by letter that it found Jessica had “wrongfully withheld Spring Break

visitation . . . during 2019, even after Rhode Island declined to take jurisdiction.”

Accordingly, the circuit court ordered Jessica to allow Alan visitation with MC the second

half of Christmas in 2021 as a makeup period and that Jessica would also be responsible for

all travel costs. The court’s letter also directed the parties to provide calculations for income

and child support pursuant to Administrative Order No. 10 and advised that it would make

further findings regarding the remaining outstanding issues thereafter.

       Each party provided the circuit court with its own calculations of child support. The

circuit court held a hearing via Zoom on January 13, 2022, during which it announced its

       5
        There is voluminous testimony and documents not summarized herein that are not
necessary for the disposition of this appeal.

                                               16
detailed rulings on the various outstanding issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

court asked Alan’s counsel to prepare a proposed order, which is detailed below.

       Alan’s attorney submitted a proposed order as requested by the court.              Not

surprisingly, Jessica’s attorney did not approve the order, and each party filed another flurry

of motions. Eventually, on March 18, 2022, the circuit court filed its lengthy final order

from the October 28–29, 2021, hearing in which it made the following pertinent findings:

              1. Jurisdiction and venue are proper herein.

               2. The Court finds that due to the voluminous pleadings and hearings in this
       matter since its inception, no other court would have more knowledge of the facts
       and history of this matter than the present court. Mother’s Motion to Change Venue
       filed on April 30, 2019 is denied. Mother’s Motion to Transfer Case filed on June 8,
       2021 is denied. Her motions to move this case to Rhode Island are without any merit
       or basis. The Court finds that Mother committed perjury in her affidavit to Rhode
       Island.[6]

              3. The Court has considered the recommendations of the attorney ad litem
       and the Court’s rulings herein are in line with those recommendations and are in the
       best interest of the minor child.

              4. Father’s Motion for Emergency Order to Enforce Visitation filed April 16,
       2019 and Father’s Motion for Holiday Visitation filed November 11, 2019 are
       granted as set forth herein. The Court issued a partial letter opinion on December
       8, 2021 which found that Mother wrongfully withheld Spring Break visitation from
       Father during 2019. During trial, Mother offered and Father accepted the second
       half of the 2021 Christmas vacation as a makeup period which is the order of the
       Court. The Court found that Mother shall pay the entire travel cost for the child
       when Father exercises his Christmas visitation in 2021. The Court reserved further
       rulings in its December 8, 2021 partial ruling letter.

             5. Father’s Motion for Contempt filed March 22, 2019 and Father’s Amended
       Motion for Contempt filed June 13, 2019 are granted as set forth herein. The Court

       6
         The court did not further elucidate on its finding that Jessica committed perjury in
her affidavit in Rhode Island.

                                              17
finds that Mother willfully violated the Court’s orders by interfering with Father’s
telephone communication with the minor child. The Court finds that Mother
willfully violated the Court’s orders by continuingly interfering with Father’s
visitation.

         6. Mother is found in willful contempt for continuingly interfering with
Father’s custody and visitation. She willfully denied him his 2019 Spring Break
visitation. She willfully violated the Court’s orders by filing actions in Rhode Island in an
effort to interfere with his custody and visitation and to harass Father. She has interfered
and/or attempted to interfere with Father’s visitation by contacting the parent(s) of
the two children living in Father’s home.

        7. Mother further interfered or attempted to interfere with Father’s visitation
by harassing him by contacting the Benton Police Department. The Court found the
stepfather to be credible. Stepfather testified he did not think it was a good idea that
Mother had contacted the parent(s) of the children over whom Plaintiff and his wife
have guardianship. Mother’s harassment of Father is a violation of the Court’s orders
regarding no harassment and her harassment is an attempt to interfere with Father’s
visitation.

        8. Mother has interfered and continues to interfere with Father’s visitation
and communication and contact with the child. She has interfered with Father’s
phone communication with the child despite previous Court orders that warned her
against the same. Specifically, the Court’s 2015 Order states “there have been
problems for Father in making contact via phone . . . if the phone call problems
continue, the Court will deal with it in a drastic fashion . . . Mother is to exercise her
best effort to allow phone contact . . . Mother is to foster communication between
the child and Father . . . the Court reiterates that the continued problems with the
calls may lead to further action by the Court that will be severe.”

     9. Mother shall reimburse Father for his Rhode Island attorney fees in the
amount of $6,319.60 within 180 days of entry of this order.

       10. Mother is sanctioned by ten days in the Pulaski County Jail which ten days
are suspended and conditioned on her not violating any court order of this Court in
the future until such time as the Court loses jurisdiction over the child. Should the
Court find Mother in contempt in the future the Court will sanction her
appropriately for that contempt and enforce the ten days which are currently
suspended. The Court takes this action based upon the present violations and a
complete review of this case and the ongoing problems with Mother in this case.

                                         18
        11. Father’s Petition for Modification of Custody filed May 20, 2019/First
Amended Petition for Modification of Custody filed November 21, 2019 are moot as
to change of custody as Father did not move forward on these motions as to custody.
Father did request relief as to issues of phone communication, travel issues and
specifications on visitation days/exchanges which are granted as set forth herein.

....

        19. The minor child may miss classes on Fridays for travel to see Father unless
he has a test or project that he cannot miss or he has a low grade in a class he would
miss and the absence would negatively affect his grade. If this provision becomes an
issue either party may petition the court for relief regarding the same.

       20. Upon reasonable notice to Mother, Father may go to Rhode Island to see
the child for additional visitation, and the Court encourages Father to do so.

       21. The parties shall take into consideration the travel time and airfare and
communicate with one another as to which airport the child should fly out of when
deciding between Providence or Boston, including potential additional time
considerations for traveling in or through Boston.

....

        24. Mother’s Counterclaim to Modify Summer visitation filed on April 30,
2019 is denied. Father’s summer visitation with the minor child shall not be
modified. The Court finds that the minor child cannot have it all because of the
parties’ divorce and distance. He is a stellar child. The Court has no concerns with
either parent’s home. Father has a limited amount of time with the minor child. It
is necessary for the minor child to have time with Father to continue a viable
father/son relationship. The Court finds it is not in the child’s best interests for
Father’s time to be reduced or modified. The Court considered the football coach’s
deposition which was introduced as Joint Exhibit 1. The Court finds that the child
can play football for the school, but he will just have to start later in the year.

         25. The Court will not modify Father’s schedule for the child to attend Boy
Scouts. Father and the minor child can discuss the details and Father can determine
if he is able and willing to modify his time to accommodate the camp.

       26. Mother shall not offer up activities for the child to participate in during
Father’s time before discussing the same with Father. She will not make Father the
bad guy by telling the child about a camp or event before clearing it with Father. If

                                      19
Father says no and the child already knows about it and wants to go it is not a
winnable situation for Father.

      27. Mother’s Motion for Immediate Temporary Relief filed on May 8, 2019 is
denied.

....

       30. The parties shall equally divide the cost of the child’s travel between Rhode
Island and Arkansas.

       31. Mother’s Motions to Increase Child Support filed July 16, 2019/Amended
Motion to Increase Child Support filed August 7, 2019 are denied as to an increase
in child support but granted as to modification as set forth herein. Father’s Motion
to Reduce Child Support filed May 4, 2020 is granted as set forth herein.

      32. The Court finds that there has been a material change in income that
warrants a modification in child support. The Court’s child support calculations and
worksheet are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A.

       a. The Court imputes gross monthly income to Mother in the amount of
          $20.00 per hour on a forty-hour work week which equates to $3,467.20
          per month. The Court denies Mother’s request to impute income to her
          for part-time work rather than full-time work. There is a rebuttable
          presumption that the payor and the payee can work full-time or earn full-
          time income. The Court finds Mother did not overcome this
          presumption. The Court is not required to consider the presence of young
          children or disabled children who must be cared for by the parent as being
          a reason why a parent is unable to work. The Court considered the specific
          circumstances of both parents, including the parents’ assets, residence,
          employment and earnings history, job skills, educational attainment,
          literacy, age, health, criminal record and other employment barriers,
          Defendant’s record of seeking work as well as the local job market and
          Rhode Island minimum wage which is $12.25 as of January 1, 2022. The
          Court considered the testimony of the parties as to Mother’s earning
          capabilities.
       b. The Court finds that Father received a raise on November 19, 2021, after
          the trial in this matter, but prior to the ruling and informed the Court of
          the same. Therefore, there will be separate child support calculations until
          November 19, 2021 and after November 19, 2021.

                                       20
       c. The Court finds that prior to November 19, 2021 Father’s gross monthly
          income from all sources was $10,982.36 ($63.35/hour at 40 hours a week).
       d. The Court finds that as of November 19, 2021–present Father’s gross
          monthly income from all sources is $11,339.48 ($65.41/ hour at 40 hours
          a week).
       e. The Court denies Father’s request for a deviation for summer abatement.
       f. The Court denies Father’s request for a deviation for travel expense since
          the parties are now equally dividing this cost.
       g. The Court denies Father’s request for a deviation for federal taxes paid
          through Father’s bankruptcy plan.
       h. The Court denies Mother’s request to impute rental income to Father and
          Father’s request to deviate the depreciation on the alleged rental income.
       i. The Court denies [Mother’s] request to add gambling winnings as
          additional income to Father since [Father’s] Exhibit 21 shows an overall
          loss and even if there had been winnings, Father’s losses should be
          considered as well.
       j. The Court finds that the modification in child support is retroactive to
          July 16, 2019 the date of Mother’s Motion to Increase Child Support
          (although Father’s child support obligation is actually going to decrease.)
       k. The Court finds that Father’s child support obligation to Mother was
          $1,035.68 per month from July 16, 2019–November 18, 2021.
       l. The Court finds that Father’s child support obligation to Mother from
          November 19, 2021–present is $1,058.34 per month.
       m. The Court finds Father has an overpayment of child support credit from
          July 16, 2019–November 18, 2021 in the amount of $1968.96.
       n. The Court finds Father has an overpayment of child support credit from
          November 19, 2021–January 31, 2022 in the amount of $142.98.
       o. The overpayment credit of $2111.94 shall be pro-rated until the child ages
       out in the amount of $40.61 per month. Therefore, Father’s child support to
       Mother shall be $1017.73 per month effective February 1, 2022 until May 1,
       2026.
....

                                     21
              34. The attorney ad litem shall submit a fee petition and a proposed order
       with a blank for each parent’s allocated portion.

               35. As previously stated, Father is awarded his Rhode Island attorneys’ fees in the
       amount of $6,319.60 which shall be paid within 180 days of entry of this order. Father is the
       prevailing party, and the Court has inherent authority to award fees. Therefore, Father’s
       Arkansas counsel shall file a petition for fees.

(Emphasis added.)      Jessica timely appealed, and Jessica abandoned any pending but

unresolved claims in her notice of appeal.7

                  III. Motion to Transfer from Pulaski County to Rhode Island

       Jessica first contends that the circuit court erred in denying her motions to transfer

this case to Rhode Island. (The term “circuit court” as used herein refers to the Circuit

Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas.) The UCCJEA, as codified at Arkansas Code Annotated

sections 9-19-101 et seq. (Repl. 2020), is the exclusive method for determining the proper

state for jurisdictional purposes in proceedings involving matters of child custody that

       7
          In her second amended notice of appeal, Jessica purports to appeal from two
additional orders that were filed after the court’s March 18, 2022, order on the merits. First,
Jessica stated that she “appeals from the denial of her Rule 60 motion by operation of law.”
It is true that Jessica filed a motion pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 on June
8, 2022. However, the June 8, 2022, motion was not filed within ten days of the March 18,
2022, final order; therefore, contrary to Jessica’s assertion, it was not deemed denied by
operation of law because Rule 60 contains no deemed-denied provision. Further, Rule
4(b)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil would apply only if the motion
had been filed within ten days. See Dale v. White, 2018 Ark. App. 172, 545 S.W.3d 812.
Accordingly, there is no ruling by the circuit court on this motion from which to appeal. Id.

       Second, Jessica stated that she “appeals from the Circuit Court’s September 13, 2022
Order awarding attorney’s fees to [Alan].” However, our appellate record does not include
an order filed on September 13, 2022, and Jessica’s appellate brief does not address these
attorney’s fees. As such, we do not address the issue of whether the circuit court erred in
awarding attorney’s fees in its September 13, 2022, order.

                                                22
involve other jurisdictions. Doughty v. Douglas, 2017 Ark. App. 445, 527 S.W.3d 732. Our

standard of review in a case involving the UCCJEA is de novo, although we will not reverse

the circuit court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. Once a circuit court

determines that it has jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA, it has the discretion to decide

whether to decline to exercise jurisdiction, and we will not reverse the court’s decision on

that matter absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.

       Once an Arkansas circuit court enters the initial divorce decree and award of custody,

the court has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the child-custody determination until it

makes either of the two determinations set forth in Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-

202(a). In order to lose jurisdiction, the circuit court must find that “(1) . . . neither the

child, nor the child and one (1) parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a

significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in

this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships or (2)

the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in

this state.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-202(a)(1) & (2) (emphasis added); see Harris v. Harris,

2010 Ark. App. 160, 379 S.W.3d 8. The Arkansas court in the present case initially awarded

child custody in 2009 when it entered the divorce decree, thus giving the court exclusive,

continuing jurisdiction over the custody determination until the Arkansas court made either

of the two determinations set forth in section 9-19-202(a). Id. In the present litigation, the

circuit court did not find that Jessica proved either 202(a) determination; therefore, the

Pulaski County Circuit Court continued to have exclusive and continuing jurisdiction.

                                              23
       Jessica does not appear to contest that the circuit court retained exclusive, continuing

jurisdiction under section 9-19-202(a). Instead, she argues that the circuit court should have

granted her motion and declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Arkansas Code Annotated

section 9-19-207(a) because Arkansas is an inconvenient forum. Section 9-19-207 provides

the following in pertinent part:

           (a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child-
       custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it
       determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court
       of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may
       be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request of another court.

           (b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state
       shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise
       jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information
       and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

          (1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future
       and which state could best protect the parties and the child;

          (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;

         (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that
       would assume jurisdiction;

          (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

          (5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

            (6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending
       litigation, including testimony of the child;

          (7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the
       procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

            (8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending
       litigation.

                                               24
Thus, under section 9-19-207, a court may refuse jurisdiction under the UCCJEA if it

considers itself an inconvenient forum and finds that another state is the more appropriate

forum. Lowder v. Gregory, 2014 Ark. App. 704, 451 S.W.3d 220. However, if a court chooses

to retain jurisdiction, we will not reverse that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id.

       Jessica argues that the circuit court considered only the last factor because it was the

only factor discussed in the circuit court’s order, and the other factors enumerated under

the statute weighed in favor of transferring the case to Rhode Island. Jessica further disputes

that the circuit court had any specialized familiarity with the case. We disagree.

       Just because the circuit court did not grant her motion and discussed only the factor

to which it gave the most weight does not mean the circuit court did not consider all the

other factors in its decision. In the absence of a statute or rule requiring specific findings of

fact or a timely request for specific findings under Ark. R. Civ. P. 52, we will ordinarily

presume that the circuit court made the findings necessary to support its judgment. Grayson

v. Anderson, 2023 Ark. App. 428, at 8, 675 S.W.3d 900, 905; Skinner v. Shaw, 2020 Ark. App.

407, at 12, 609 S.W.3d 454, 461. Here, the statute does not require a court to provide

written findings as to each factor; nor does the statute require that each factor be weighed

equally.

       Here, it is clear that Alan has remained in Arkansas, MC continues to travel to

Arkansas for visitation with Alan, and the circuit court has had familiarity with this case

since 2009 when it initially awarded custody and continued to exercise its jurisdiction in

                                               25
multiple orders modifying that decree over the years. The facts of this case are similar to

those in Uttley v. Bobo, 97 Ark. App. 15, 242 S.W.3d 638 (2006). In Uttley, we similarly

affirmed a circuit court’s decision to retain jurisdiction after considering Arkansas Code

Annotated section 9-19-207 where the father remained in Arkansas, the children continued

to travel to Arkansas for visitation, and the Arkansas court was familiar with this case because

the parties had been before it since the divorce litigation began sometime prior to entry of

the divorce decree on June 27, 2000. We therefore see no abuse of discretion in the court’s

continuing its jurisdiction and affirm this point.

                                        IV. Contempt

       Jessica argues that the court erred in finding her in contempt (1) for interfering with

the communication between Alan and MC and visitation; and (2) for filing the ex parte

motion in Rhode Island family court. We address these arguments separately.

              A. Contempt for Interference with Communication and Visitation

       Jessica contends that the circuit court erred in finding her in contempt for interfering

with both Alan’s visitation with MC and Alan’s telephone communication with MC. Our

standard of review for civil contempt is whether the finding of the circuit court is clearly

against the preponderance of the evidence. Omni Holding & Dev. Corp. v. 3D.S.A., Inc., 356

Ark. 440, 156 S.W.3d 228 (2004). In order to establish civil contempt, there must be willful

disobedience of a valid order of a court. Applegate v. Applegate, 101 Ark. App. 289, 275

S.W.3d 682 (2008). However, before one can be held in contempt for violating the circuit

                                              26
court’s order, the order must be definite in its terms and clear as to what duties it imposes.

Id.

       Here, the circuit court granted Alan’s motion and amended motion for contempt for

multiple reasons.    It found that Jessica had “willfully violated the Court’s orders by

interfering with Father’s telephone communication with the minor child” and that Jessica

had “willfully violated the Court’s orders by continuingly interfering with Father’s

visitation.” In support of these findings, the circuit court more specifically found that Jessica

had “willfully denied [Alan] his 2019 Spring Break visitation”; had “interfered and/or

attempted to interfere with Father’s visitation by contacting the parent(s) of the two children

living in Father’s home”; had “interfered or attempted to interfere with Father’s visitation

by harassing him by contacting the Benton Police Department”; and had “interfered with

Father’s phone communication with the child despite previous Court orders that warned

her against the same.” Jessica argues that none of these findings are supported by the

evidence to hold her in contempt.8 We disagree that the evidence is insufficient to support

the circuit court’s contempt finding.

       Before Jessica could be held in contempt for violating the circuit court’s order, the

order must be definite in its terms and clear as to what duties it imposes. Here, the circuit

       8
         To the extent Jessica expands her argument—including a due-process argument—for
the first time in her reply brief, this argument comes too late. Unless an appellant files an
opening brief that states all the arguments for reversal, an appellee has no opportunity to
respond to those arguments in writing, and it is well established that we will not consider an
argument made for the first time in a reply brief. Mattox v. Main Entrance, Inc., 2021 Ark.
App. 382; Fennell v. City of Pine Bluff, 2016 Ark. App. 275, 492 S.W.3d 887.

                                               27
court filed two orders that are particularly relevant. In its December 8, 2014, order, the

circuit court ordered that Alan was permitted to call or Skype MC “from 7:00–8:00 p.m.

nightly as currently set out to 6:00–7:30 p.m. in the time zone in which the child resides.”

Jessica was directed to “take those steps necessary to facilitate such contact without

interruption or distraction, and to facilitate the child’s calling or videoconferencing [Alan]

back as soon as possible following any unavoidably missed call or Skype session.” Regarding

visitation, the circuit court ordered, “4. In view of the addition of a winter break in the

child’s new school system, the parties’ existing holiday visitation shall be adjusted so that

[Alan] continues to receive Christmas Break (as defined in earlier Orders) starting on even-

numbered calendar years, and the spring break in odd-numbered years, and alternating

winter break so that [Alan] receives it in even numbered years.” In its October 1, 2015,

order, the circuit court included the following directives:

               9. With respect to phone calls, the Court does find there have been problems
       for Mr. Hickman in making contact via phone. The Court is concerned with that
       and wants any problems with phone calls stopped. If the phone call problems
       continue, the Court will deal with it in a drastic fashion. The Court would point out
       that the presences of the two other children in [Jessica’s] home are not a concern of
       the Court because they are not before this Court. [Jessica] is to exercise her best effort
       to allow phone contact. For example, if the child is in a restaurant and a phone call
       is placed to him by Mr. Hickman it is reasonable to have the phone call returned after
       leaving the restaurant. If he is in a car returning from boy scouts of some other activity
       he should be allowed to return the phone call. Mr. Hickman needs to realize that a
       child that is approximately 7 years of age is not generally going to speak for a long
       period of time.

              10. [Jessica] will allow [MC] to call [Alan] at any reasonable time he wants to.
       Further, [Jessica] is to foster communication between [MC] and [Alan]. The parties
       are to be reasonable about phone call times and length of calls. Further it is the
       Court’s desire that the parties use FaceTime or Skype whenever possible. The Court

                                              28
       reiterates that the continued problems with the calls may lead to further action by the
       Court that will be severe.

              11. The Court finds that a majority of the time [Jessica] never answered the
       phone when [Alan] called. That has to stop. The Court will not have any patience
       with the problem in the future.

               12. The Court is going to modify its previous Orders regarding the time for
       phone contact. In the Court’s view it is not reasonable to call at 7:45 a.m. when the
       person is trying to get out of the door to school. It is not reasonable to call at 10:00
       p.m. if you know he goes to bed at 8:00 p.m. The Court stresses that it is [Jessica’s]
       obligation that if the call did not go through because the child was down the street
       playing or some other reason he was unavailable that she has the obligation to replace
       the call as soon as possible and generally that means that day.

       Despite these clear orders, the circuit court was presented with evidence that Jessica

did not permit Alan to exercise his spring break visitation with MC in 2019, even though

the Rhode Island proceedings had been dismissed. It is undisputed that Alan sent text

messages to Jessica specifically asking whether she “plan[ned] on allowing [him] visitation for

[MC’s] spring break per [their] current court ordered arrangements[.]” She failed to respond

to any of his inquiries. Instead, Jessica’s husband simply texted Alan to “please direct your

legal question to [Alan’s Rhode Island attorney].” Additionally, it is clear that the circuit

court provided Jessica clear directives regarding Alan’s communication with MC while in

her custody. However, Alan testified that Jessica repeatedly did not allow him to have contact

with MC, would hang up the phone during conversations, and would be vacuuming near

the phone during conversations. While Jessica denied these allegations, the circuit court was

not required to believe her self-serving testimony. Because these actions were in violation of

the circuit court’s orders, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erred in finding Jessica

                                               29
in contempt. As such, it is unnecessary for us to specifically address the other alleged actions,

and we affirm on this point.

               B. Contempt for Filing the Ex Parte Motion in Rhode Island

       In paragraph 6 of the court’s order, the court found: “Mother is found in willful

contempt for continuingly interfering with Father’s custody and visitation. . . . She willfully

violated the Court’s orders by filing actions in Rhode Island in an effort to interfere with his

custody and to harass the father.” Then, in paragraph 9, the court orders: “Mother shall

reimburse Father for his Rhode Island attorney fees in the amount of $6,319.60 within 180

days of entry of this order.”

       Jessica contends that the circuit court erred in finding her in contempt for filing her

action in Rhode Island and awarding Alan attorney’s fees incurred in the Rhode Island

action. She argues that the circuit court lacked authority to award attorney’s fees in a case

that was filed and dismissed in Rhode Island. Certainly, a circuit court has the inherent

power to award attorney’s fees in domestic-relations proceedings, and no statutory authority

is required. See Hargis v. Hargis, 2019 Ark. 321, 587 S.W.3d 208; John v. Bolinder, 2019 Ark.

App. 96, 572 S.W.3d 418. However, we agree with Jessica that this inherent authority is

inapplicable here because the fees awarded were not from the domestic-relations proceeding

before this circuit court but were the result of a proceeding before another jurisdiction.

       That said, at the final hearing, Alan specifically requested that he be reimbursed the

$6,319.60 in attorney’s fees he expended in Rhode Island as a sanction for Jessica’s civil

contempt. Certainly, a circuit court is authorized to impose a fine for civil contempt. A

                                               30
contempt fine for willful disobedience that is payable to the complainant is remedial and

therefore constitutes a fine for civil contempt. Omni Holding & Dev. Corp., 356 Ark. 440,

156 S.W.3d 228.

       As stated previously, before Jessica could be held in contempt for violating the circuit

court’s order, the order must be definite in its terms and clear as to what duties it imposes.

Here, on advice of local counsel in Rhode Island and relying on its interpretation of the

UCCJEA, Jessica filed an ex parte motion for relief in Rhode Island. The motion was

ultimately dismissed. The record does not reflect that Jessica’s filing the ex parte motion in

Rhode Island violated any court order in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. As such, we

reverse the finding that Jessica was guilty of contempt of court for filing the ex parte motion

in Rhode Island and reverse the award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,319.60.

                                      VI. Child Support

       Jessica contends that the circuit court erred in calculating support owed and in

imputing full-time income to her. Our standard of review for an appeal from a child-support

order is de novo on the record, and we will not reverse a finding of fact by the circuit court

unless it is clearly erroneous. David v. David, 2022 Ark. App. 177, 643 S.W.3d 863. In

reviewing a circuit court’s findings, we give due deference to that court’s superior position

to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.

Id. In a child-support determination, the amount of child support lies within the sound

discretion of the circuit court, and that court’s findings will not be reversed absent an abuse

                                              31
of discretion. Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d 232 (2007). However, a circuit

court’s conclusions of law are given no deference on appeal. Id.

       First, we must note that there were several modifications to child-support orders over

the years, and there were several motions, amended motions, and countermotions

concerning an increase or a decrease in child support that were pending before the court at

the final hearing. Some of the confusion lies in the fact that Alan was sometimes ordered

to make biweekly child-support payments, and sometimes he was ordered to make monthly

payments. Further, Administrative Order No. 10 changed dramatically during the thirteen-

year period that this case has been matriculating.

       Jessica argues that the circuit court’s calculation of Alan’s overpayment was erroneous

because the circuit court did not consider its previous order in which Alan was ordered to

make biweekly payments and the fact that Alan had underpaid as a result of that previous

order. Jessica’s argument is misplaced.

       In its March 18, 2022, order, the circuit court retroactively modified Alan’s child-

support obligation. It found that Alan’s child-support payment from July 16, 2019, through

November 18, 2021, should have been $1,035.68 a month, and from November 19, 2021,

forward should have been $1,058.34 a month. The circuit court calculated the amount Alan

had overpaid on the basis of the modified amount and attached its calculations to its order.

The circuit court determined that Alan was entitled to an overpayment credit of $2,111.94

by taking the amounts Alan should have paid during those time periods on the basis of its

modified amount and subtracting the amounts Alan actually paid during those time periods.

                                             32
We hold that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s methodology and calculations

as Jessica contends on appeal.

       Jessica also complains that the circuit court’s written order states that the

modification in child support was retroactive to July 16, 2019, instead of October 28, 2021,

as it had orally announced. She contends that the circuit court’s change of heart without

any intervening change must be considered an abuse of discretion and reversed. Again, we

disagree. A court is free to alter its decision after its oral ruling upon further consideration

of the matter. Self v. Dittmer, 2022 Ark. App. 48, 641 S.W.3d 4. Our law is clear that to the

extent a court’s oral ruling conflicts with its written order, the written order controls. Tipton

v. Tipton, 2017 Ark. App. 601; Howard v. Codling, 2013 Ark. App. 641.

       Last, under this point, Jessica argues that the circuit court erred in imputing full-time

income to her even though her husband testified that her being a stay-at-home mother to

their children, two of whom have special needs, allowed him to make more money for their

family. Jessica argues that the circuit court’s refusal to consider this testimony was an abuse

of discretion, and its decision must therefore be reversed and remanded. We disagree.

       The circuit court decided this case under the “Income Shares Model” adopted by the

supreme court in In re Implementation of Revised Administrative Order No. 10, 2020 Ark. 131

(per curiam), which became effective on June 30, 2020. 9 Section III, paragraph 8 addresses

“Income Imputation Considerations” and provides in pertinent part:

       9
        Administrative Order No. 10 was again revised on October 6, 2022. However, the
version of Administrative Order No. 10 applicable in this case is the version set forth in In

                                               33
               If imputation of income is ordered, the court must take into consideration the
       specific circumstances of both parents, to the extent known, including such factors as
       the parents’ assets, residence, employment and earnings history, job skills,
       educational attainment, literacy, age, health, criminal record and other employment
       barriers, and record of seeking work, as well as the local job market, the availability of
       employers willing to hire the parent, prevailing earnings level in the local community,
       and other relevant background factors in the case.

               There is a rebuttable presumption that the payor and the payee can work full-
       time or earn full-time income, and the court may calculate child support based on a
       determination of potential income that would otherwise ordinarily be available to the
       parties.

              The court may consider a disability or the presence of young children or disabled
       children who must be cared for by the parent as being a reason why a parent is unable
       to work.

In re Implementation of Revised Admin. Order No. 10, 2020 Ark. 131, at 10 (emphasis added).

       Even Jessica acknowledges that the circuit court was not required to consider that she

has two children with special needs as a reason why she was unable to work. In its March

18, 2022, order, the circuit court made the following findings:

       [T]he Court imputes gross monthly income to Mother in the amount of $20.00 per
       hour on a forty-hour work week which equates to $3,467.20 per month. The Court
       denies Mother’s request to impute income to her for part-time work rather than full-
       time work. There is a rebuttable presumption that the payor and the payee can work
       full-time or earn full-time income. The Court finds Mother did not overcome this
       presumption. The Court is not required to consider the presence of young children
       or disabled children who must be cared for by the parent as being a reason why a
       parent is unable to work. The Court considered the specific circumstances of both
       parents, including the parents’ assets, residence, employment and earnings history,
       job skills, educational attainment, literacy, age, health, criminal record and other
       employment barriers, [Jessica]’s record of seeking work as well as the local job market
       and Rhode Island minimum wage which is $12.25 as of January 1, 2022. The Court
       considered the testimony of the parties as to Mother’s earning capabilities.

re Implementation of Revised Administrative Order No. 10, supra, which we will refer to herein
simply as “Administrative Order No. 10.”

                                              34
       The circuit court heard and considered that before the parties divorced, Jessica was

working full time and made approximately $40,000 a year by her own testimony. Jessica’s

husband, Joshua, testified that he was not working at the time of the hearing. He explained

that he and Jessica chose to have Jessica be a stay-at-home mother and care for their three

children, ages ten, almost seven, and four, in addition to MC. He said that the four-year-old

and ten-year-old have special needs. He explained that he thought he was more “marketable”

by Jessica’s not working. Jessica testified that if she worked outside the home and was

unavailable for care, the children would require a high level of care. Jessica also admitted

that both children qualify for a state program that provides institutionalized care but thought

the children could be cared for at home. The ten-year-old attends a charter school during

the day with another sibling, and the four-year-old attends a pre-K program at certain times

during the week according to her exhibit. We give deference to the circuit court on issues

of witness credibility. See Gadberry v. Gadberry, 2023 Ark. App. 398. After the circuit court

heard all the evidence and followed the directives of Administrative Order No. 10(III)(8), we

cannot say that the circuit court’s decision to impute income as it did for the purposes of

calculating child support was an abuse of discretion. As such, we affirm this point.

                                        VII. AAL Fees

       Finally, Jessica contends that the circuit court erred in its division of AAL fees. She

asserts that the circuit court failed to provide any reasons for its refusal to first submit the

AAL’s fees to the AOC for payment. Alternatively, she argues that the circuit court failed to

                                              35
provide any rationale why the parties should not bear the cost equally. However, these

arguments lack merit. In the absence of a statute or rule requiring specific findings of fact

or a timely request for specific findings under Ark. R. Civ. P. 52, we will ordinarily presume

that the circuit court made the findings necessary to support its judgment. Grayson, 2023

Ark. App. 428, at 8, 675 S.W.3d at 905; Skinner, 2020 Ark. App. 407, at 12, 609 S.W.3d at

461.

       A circuit court may appoint an AAL if doing so will facilitate a custody case and

protect the rights of the child. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(e)(2) (Supp. 2023). The AAL’s

fees and reimbursable expenses shall be paid by the AOC from funds appropriated for that

purpose. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(e)(4). The circuit court is required to send a copy of

its fee order to the AOC. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(e)(5)(A). However, the circuit court

may also require the parties to pay all or a portion of the ad litem expenses depending on

their ability to pay. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-13-101(e)(5)(B).

       Jessica’s arguments are similar to the arguments made in Szwedo v. Cyrus, 2019 Ark.

App. 23, 570 S.W.3d 484, that we rejected. In Szwedo, we noted that the record did not

disclose whether the court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to the AAL was sent to the AOC.

However, we explained that even assuming the statute requires that the order be sent to the

AOC and that it was not, Szwedo failed to show prejudice because section 9-13-101(e)(5)(B)

nevertheless allowed the circuit court to order the parties to pay the entire amount of the

AAL’s fees. We went on to explain that it was Szwedo’s burden to demonstrate and explain

                                             36
reversible error. Moreover, we explained that there was extensive testimony at trial about

both parties’ incomes and ability to pay the fees and affirmed the circuit court’s order.

       The same is true here. It is clear that Jessica cannot show prejudice because section

9-13-101(e)(5)(B) allows the circuit court to order the parties to pay the entire amount of the

AAL’s fees. Further, the circuit court heard extensive testimony about both parties’ incomes

and ability to pay the fees. In the present case, Jessica demonstrated the ability to hire Rhode

Island counsel, hire Arkansas counsel, have a two-day trial, have multiple hearings, and

conduct depositions—all of which demonstrate her ability to pay. As such, we cannot say

that the circuit court abused its discretion and affirm this point.

                                       VIII. Conclusion

       In conclusion, we affirm in part as set forth above. We reverse in part the circuit

court’s finding of contempt and its award of Alan’s attorney’s fees in the Rhode Island case

as set forth above.

       Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

       KLAPPENBACH and BROWN, JJ., agree.

       Pinnacle Law Firm, PLLC, by: Matthew D. Campbell, for appellant.

       LaCerra, Dickson, Hoover & Rogers, PLLC, by: Lauren White Hoover, for appellee.

                                              37