Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 495 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-554 Opinion Delivered October 21, 2026 QUINN SCHRATZ APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT APPELLANT [NO. 72DR-20-46] V. HONORABLE CRISTI BEAUMONT, JUDGE KELSEY SCHRATZ (NOW FREDRICKS) APPELLEE AFFIRMED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge This is a postdivorce domestic-relations case, and the only issue on appeal involves health insurance coverage for the parties’ three children. Appellant Quinn Schratz appeals from an order of the Washington County Circuit Court that denied his motion to modify the health insurance payor from appellee Kelsey Schratz (now Fredericks) to him. Quinn argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard because the cost of health insurance for the children through Kelsey’s employer is not reasonable; speculation about future out-of-pocket expenses does not justify payment of unreasonable insurance premiums; and in reaching its decision, the trial court considered factors not permitted under Administrative Order No. 10. We affirm. I. Facts and Procedural History The parties were married on March 30, 2007, and were divorced on November 12, 2020. At the time of the divorce, the parties’ three children were ages sixteen, twelve, and three. The divorce decree awarded Kelsey primary care, custody, and control of the children subject to Quinn’s standard visitation. The decree contained the following provision for the children’s health insurance: That Defendant, Kelsey Schratz, shall maintain the minor children on her hospitalization, medical or health insurance as long as said insurance is available through [her] employer at a reasonable cost. Both parties shall be responsible for one- half (½) of the medical, dental, orthodontic, psychological, pharmaceutical, optical and other health-related expenses, including the deductible not covered by such insurance. Each party agrees to indemnify the other party for the other’s respective one-half (½) obligation. The child-support worksheet attached to the divorce decree showed that Quinn’s monthly gross income was $8,543 and Kelsey’s monthly gross income was $4,223. The “additional monthly child support expenses” section of the worksheet showed that Kelsey was paying $332 a month for the children’s health insurance and that each party was paying $487 a month in work-related childcare expenses. Applying these figures to the shared-income formula prescribed in Administrative Order No. 10(V), the trial court calculated Quinn’s monthly child-support obligation at $1,790, and he was ordered to pay that amount. On November 12, 2024, Quinn filed a petition to modify child support. In the petition, Quinn argued that there had been a material change in circumstances and that modification was warranted because, among other things, Kelsey’s income had increased. He requested that child support be recalculated under Administrative Order No. 10. On 2 December 10, 2024, Kelsey filed a response to Quinn’s petition to modify child support asking that the petition be dismissed. An agreed order was entered on March 4, 2025, which resolved outstanding contempt motions unrelated to this appeal. The agreed order, however, did not resolve the issues relating to modification of child support. The agreed order provided: 10. The parties are not in agreement on which party should carry the health insurance and the amount of [Kelsey’s] work-related childcare expenses for the minor children and hereby agree to allow their attorneys to brief said issue and present same to the Court for a decision within thirty days. Based upon the Court’s ruling, the parties agree to in good faith work together to correctly fill out the Child Support Worksheet so that [Quinn’s] 2025 child support obligation can be modified accordingly. .... 12. The parties agree that this Agreed Order fully and finally resolves all issues pending before this Court with the exception of the party to be responsible to provide health insurance for the minor children and the amount of [Kelsey’s] work-related childcare expenses and the monthly child support obligation going forward which shall be resolved [later]. On March 7, 2025, Kelsey filed a brief on the health insurance issue.1 In her brief, Kelsey argued that Quinn had not met his burden to modify the prior court order with regard to modification of health insurance. Kelsey noted that in the divorce decree, she was ordered to “maintain the minor children on her hospitalization, medical or health insurance as long as said insurance is available at a reasonable cost.” Kelsey stated that she is employed by the Veterans Administration and continues to have health insurance available through 1 Kelsey also asserted in her brief that her work-related childcare expenses were $378 a month and should be so reflected on the child-support worksheet. Quinn did not contest the amount of Kelsey’s work-related childcare expenses either below or on appeal. 3 her employer at a reasonable cost. Kelsey stated that although the monthly health insurance premium through her employer is more expensive than the proposed monthly health insurance premium through Quinn’s employer, Walmart, her insurance is a much better plan for the children. Kelsey stated that the cost of the children’s health insurance under her plan is $412.64 a month and that it includes a supplemental dental plan for an additional $79.82 a month, for a total monthly premium of $492.56. She attached a “Summary of Benefits and Coverage” reflecting a $0 deductible, a $35 copay per visit to treat an injury or illness, and a $50 copay per visit for a specialist. By contrast, Quinn’s proposed health insurance policy had a $5,500 annual deductible, and copays would still apply after the deductible is met. Kelsey argued in her brief that the high deductible under Quinn’s plan would not be in the best interest of the children or the parties. Kelsey gave several examples of how her insurance is more economical than Quinn’s proposed insurance in instances such as ER visits, inpatient hospital care, and ambulance coverage. Kelsey also attached a copy of her Metlife Federal Dental Plan, which covers orthodontics, cleanings, and both minor and major dental procedures. Kelsey argued that Quinn’s request to modify health insurance should be denied, and she attached to her brief a proposed child-support worksheet to calculate Quinn’s new monthly child-support obligation. Kelsey’s proposed child-support worksheet showed that Quinn’s monthly gross income was $16,825, and Kelsey’s monthly gross income was $6,081. The “additional monthly child support expenses” section of the worksheet shows that Kelsey pays $492.56 a month for the children’s health insurance and also pays $378 a month in work-related 4 childcare expenses. Applying these figures to the formula prescribed in Administrative Order No. 10(V), Kelsey proposed that Quinn’s monthly child support be set at $2,358. On March 13, 2025, Quinn filed a motion and brief to modify health insurance payor. In his motion, Quinn cited Arkansas Administrative Order No. 10(IV)(1), which provides: 1. Health insurance. The court shall consider provisions for the children’s health care needs through health insurance coverage. Health insurance coverage is considered reasonable if the cost of dependent coverage does not exceed 5% of the gross income of the parent who is to provide coverage. The court may require coverage by one or both parents who can obtain the most comprehensive coverage through an employer or otherwise, and at the most reasonable cost. (Emphasis added.) Quinn noted that Kelsey is currently paying $412.54 a month for the children’s health insurance, which is 6.8 percent of her monthly gross income of $6,081 and thus exceeds the 5 percent threshold in section (IV)(1). He stated further that, when including the supplemental dental insurance, Kelsey is paying $492.56 a month, which is 8.1 percent of her gross income. Quinn attached his Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance policy, which showed he could provide health insurance (which would include dental and vision insurance) to the children at a cost of only $77.04 a month, which is just 0.5 percent of his monthly gross income of $16,825. Given these disparities in insurance premiums, Quinn argued that it is unreasonable for Kelsey to continue to pay for the children’s health insurance because this would be contrary to the provisions of section (IV)(1) and providing the insurance coverage at “the most reasonable cost.” 5 In his motion and brief, Quinn acknowledged that his insurance has an individual in-network deductible of $2,750 and a $5,500 deductible for out-of-network but stated that many services for common medical events require only a $35 copay per visit. Quinn stated that, similar to Kelsey’s insurance, under his insurance, once the deductible is met a person pays only 25 percent co-insurance for most services. Quinn stated further that, historically, the parties have been very fortunate that their children have been healthy and do not have to visit the doctor often. He claimed that his insurance would save the parties considerable money given that the cost would be only $77.04 a month plus an occasional $35 copay for a doctor visit. For these reasons, Quinn argued that Kelsey should no longer provide the children’s health insurance coverage and that he should be allowed to assume the responsibility of maintaining their health insurance. Quinn attached his proposed child- support worksheet, which used the exact same figures as Kelsey’s proposed worksheet except that it has him paying $77.04 a month for the children’s health insurance instead of her paying $492.56. Applying these figures to the formula prescribed in Administrative Order No. 10(V), Quinn proposed that his monthly child support be set at $1,975 (as opposed to the $2,358 proposed by Kelsey). There was no hearing on Quinn’s motions to modify child support and to modify health insurance payor, and the trial court entered an order based on the parties’ briefs. In a “Supplemental Order” entered on June 27, 2025, the trial court rejected Quinn’s request to modify child support payor and found: 1. This court has continuing jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper. 6 2. The parties requested this Court to rule on child support and health insurance coverage from the submitted briefs. 3. This Court finds that [Kelsey] was previously ordered to maintain the minor children on her hospitalization, medical or health insurance as long as said insurance is available through her employer at a reasonable cost. Both parties shall be responsible for one-half (½) of the medical, dental, orthodontic, psychological, pharmaceutical, optical and other health-related expenses, including the deductible not covered by such insurance. Each party agrees to indemnify the other party for the other’s respective one-half (½) obligation. 4. The evidence is indisputable that insurance is available through [Kelsey’s] employer. The Court finds that the amount is reasonable based on the current economy and benefits provided under the plan. 5. The Court recognizes that Administrative Order No. 10 states, “The court shall consider provisions for the children’s health care needs through health insurance coverage. Health insurance coverage is considered reasonable if the cost of dependent coverage does not exceed 5% of the gross income of the parent who is to provide coverage. The court may require coverage by one or both parents who can obtain the most comprehensive coverage through an employer or otherwise, and at the most reasonable cost.” 6. In this case, the parties agreed that [Kelsey] was ordered to pay for the health insurance through her employment at the VA in the original decree. At the time of the divorce, the parties agreed to the health insurance rate which was over 5% of Defendant’s gross income, but agreed that the coverage provided for the price was agreeable to both parties. 7. Based on the fact that the parties previously agreed it was in the best interest of the children to have insurance coverage through the VA, which although more expensive than [Quinn’s] policy, the VA policy provides much better coverage. 8. Additionally, the policy not only includes medical insurance, but includes dental insurance. 9. [Kelsey] has requested the Court to allow her to continue health and dental coverage for the children and [Quinn] financially has the ability to cover the extra cost for the more comprehensive coverage. 7 10. [Kelsey] is the primary custodian of the children and with that is allowed to be the final decision maker on many decisions. 11. With all these factors, the Court finds that the health and dental insurance provided by the Defendant through the VA is reasonable. 12. [Quinn] is ordered to pay child support per the attached exhibit “A” child support worksheet at $2,358 per month. The attached child-support worksheet was the same worksheet proposed by Kelsey. Quinn timely appealed. II. Standard of Review A material change in circumstances must be shown before a court can modify an order for child support.2 Slayton v. Dill, 2024 Ark. App. 372, 691 S.W.3d 279. Our standard of review for an appeal from a child-support order is de novo on the record; however, we will not reverse the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Linkous v. Linkous, 2026 Ark. App. 261. In a child-support determination, the amount of child support lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that court’s findings will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Taylor v. Taylor, 369 Ark. 31, 250 S.W.3d 232 (2007). The abuse-of-discretion standard is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court’s decision but requires that the trial court act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Zihala v. Staley, 2024 Ark. App. 269, 689 S.W.3d 82. A trial court’s conclusions of law, however, are given no deference on appeal. Taylor, supra. III. Health Insurance Coverage for the Parties’ Children 2 Both parties agree that there have been material changes in circumstances based on the significantly changed incomes of the parties and other factors. 8 In this appeal, Quinn argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify the health insurance payor and in not making him the payor and adjusting his child-support obligation accordingly. Quinn acknowledges that when the parties divorced, they agreed that the children would be covered under Kelsey’s health insurance and that the divorce decree provided that Kelsey “shall maintain the minor children on her hospitalization, medical or health insurance as long as said insurance is available through [her] employer at a reasonable cost.” Quinn, however, argues that the cost of health insurance available through Kelsey’s employer is not reasonable. Arkansas Administrative Order No. 10(IV)(1) provides: 1. Health insurance. The court shall consider provisions for the children’s health care needs through health insurance coverage. Health insurance coverage is considered reasonable if the cost of dependent coverage does not exceed 5% of the gross income of the parent who is to provide coverage. The court may require coverage by one or both parents who can obtain the most comprehensive coverage through an employer or otherwise, and at the most reasonable cost. (Emphasis added.) Quinn asserts that the health insurance provided by Kelsey is not reasonable because it exceeds 5 percent of Kelsey’s gross income. He correctly asserts that the monthly cost of $492.56 for Kelsey’s insurance amounts to 8.1 percent of Kelsey’s gross income. By contrast, the proposed health insurance through Quinn’s employer would cost only $77.04 a month and would be well below the 5 percent threshold. Quinn also argues that speculation about future out-of-pocket expenses does not justify the payment of unreasonable insurance premiums. And he states that the evidence does not support the trial court’s conclusion that Kelsey’s insurance provides much better 9 coverage than his. Quinn asserts that the parties’ children are generally healthy and free of chronic health issues and that there is no way to predict with certainty which health insurance coverage would result in a greater total expense to the parties over the course of any given year. In addition to the above arguments, Quinn argues that the trial court considered factors not permitted under Administrative Order No. 10, such as the fact that the parties initially agreed that Kelsey would provide the health insurance and that Kelsey is the primary custodian and final decision-maker for the children. Quinn contends that these factors are simply not relevant in determining whether Kelsey is providing health insurance at a reasonable cost as set forth in the divorce decree. Finally, Quinn argues that the additional dental insurance provided by Kelsey should not have been considered by the trial court in reaching its decision on the health-coverage issue because dental coverage is not contemplated by Administrative Order No. 10(IV)(1) but is instead listed as a child-support deviation factor under section (II)(2)(b). We do not agree with Quinn’s arguments. While it is true that Kelsey’s health insurance premium is 8.1 percent of her gross income, when the divorce decree was entered, her health insurance premium was 7.9 percent of her gross income. The trial court noted in its supplemental order that the parties’ agreement that Kelsey would provide the health insurance coverage upon divorce was evidence that both parties and the trial court deemed the 7.9% premium reasonable, and the current premium of 8.1% is not meaningfully different. The divorce decree stated that Kelsey is to continue to provide the children’s health 10 insurance as long as said insurance is available through her employer at a reasonable cost, and if it was reasonable then, it is reasonable now. In addition to the 5 percent threshold identified in Administrative Order No. 10(IV)(1), that section also provides that the court may require coverage by one or both parents who can obtain the most comprehensive coverage through an employer or otherwise, and at the most reasonable cost. The trial court correctly concluded that Kelsey is providing comprehensive coverage, and her coverage carries a $0 deductible. While Quinn’s insurance premiums would be much lower than Kelsey’s, his deductible of either $2,750 or $5,500 is quite high when compared with Kelsey’s policy. Although the children are evidently generally healthy, Quinn is correct that it is impossible to predict future medical events, and having a policy with a higher premium but a lower deductible and fewer out-of-pocket expenses was deemed reasonable by the trial court, and we do not find this decision to be an abuse of discretion. And while the trial court did find in its order that Kelsey is the primary custodian with final decision-making authority, this appears to simply be further support for the trial court’s conclusion that the insurance coverage being provided by Kelsey is reasonable. With respect to Quinn’s argument that the supplemental dental insurance policy should not be part of the analysis on health insurance, we observe that Quinn did not make this argument below and, in fact, included dental insurance as part of his proposed health coverage. The crux of this case is whether the health insurance available through Kelsey’s employer is being provided at a reasonable cost as contemplated in the divorce decree. 11 Having reviewed the record, we cannot say the trial court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration in concluding that it is. IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinn’s motion to change the children’s health insurance payor from Kelsey to Quinn. Accordingly, we affirm. Affirmed. TUCKER and WOOD, JJ., agree. Putman Law Office, by: William B. Putman, for appellant. Kelsey Schratz (now Fredricks), pro se appellee. 12