Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burdick v. Burdick
Citations: 244 Ark. 1091; 428 S.W.2d 248; 1968 Ark. LEXIS 1465Docket: 5-4572
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 3, 1968; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
On July 21, 1965, Patricia Burdick was granted a divorce from Richard L. Burdick, receiving custody of their three children and $300 monthly in alimony and child support. In August 1967, Richard sought a modification of the decree to gain custody of their son, Richard Leroy Burdick, Jr., reduce child support, and eliminate alimony. Patricia countered with a request to increase support payments to $500. The court awarded custody of the son to Richard, allowed him to place the child with an aunt in Oklahoma, eliminated alimony, and reduced child support to $225 monthly. At the time of the hearing, the children were aged 16, 15, and 4. Patricia appealed the decision, arguing that there was no sufficient change in circumstances to justify these modifications. Evidence presented showed Richard, now a Major in the U.S. Army, earning $1,263.73 monthly, an increase from his previous salary as a Captain of $1,039.03. Richard acknowledged his initial agreement to pay $500 monthly but claimed he could no longer afford it due to debts. He admitted to sending $300 monthly, though some payments were returned for insufficient funds. Richard recounted that after learning of his son's troubles, he temporarily gained custody and later placed him with his sister upon being informed of a deployment to Vietnam. Following the custody change, Richard reduced his support payments to Patricia and began sending $100 monthly to his sister for the child's care. He detailed his expenses, which left him with approximately $700 monthly after deductions, while Patricia was earning $305 monthly and facing significant financial strain, being $800 behind on house rent. Robert E. Hosford confirmed that Mrs. Burdick is renting his property. Mrs. Burdick testified that she has been unable to contact her son due to her aunt's lack of a telephone and unresponsive letters, and she noted ongoing friction with the boy, who had legal troubles related to shoplifting. While she did not oppose his temporary custody with his father, she objected to the child being placed in the aunt's care. The court found no sufficient change in circumstances to justify a reduction in support payments, emphasizing rising living costs and the increased financial burden of supporting two children compared to three at the time of the divorce in 1965. Mrs. Burdick now incurs nursery costs of $40 per month for her youngest child, and she pays her ex-husband’s G.I. insurance, which she does not consider extravagant spending. Despite her employment, she is eight months behind on rent. Although her ex-husband's income has increased by approximately $225 per month, his social obligations do not diminish his responsibility toward his children. Regarding custody, the court found no error; evidence suggested the son preferred not to live with his mother, opting instead to stay with his grandparents during visits. The court underscored that the child's welfare is paramount, but also noted the child's expressed preference to live with her mother, indicating a strong mother-child bond. The court ultimately reversed the previous decree, reinstating the $300 monthly alimony and child support, while affirming all other aspects of the decree. The correct support amount noted was $225, despite the appellant's brief stating otherwise, and no brief was submitted by the appellee.