See, e.g.,Brown v. Brown, 305 Ark. 493, 809 S.W.2d 808 (1991) ; Aswell, 88 Ark.App. 115, 195 S.W.3d. 365. A factual finding that the party created the inability to pay supports the contempt order and conditional incarceration. Ex parte Coffelt, 239 Ark. 324, 389 S.W.2d 234 (1965). In the absence of such a factual finding, we have remanded cases for a finding of the ability to pay. Whitworth v. Whitworth, 331 Ark. 461, 961 S.W.2d 768 (1998).
Clearly, the trial judge determined that any inability the appellant had in paying the appellee was due to appellant's own actions or inactions. While inability to perform is a defense to contempt citations, we have held that where the inability to pay is due to actions or inactions on the appellant's own part, a finding of contempt is proper. Ex Parte Coffelt, 239 Ark. 324, 389 S.W.2d 234 (1965). When there are conflicts in the testimony, it is our duty to give the same force to the findings of the trial court in contempt proceedings as we do in other cases when there is a conflict in testimony.
The extent of review by this Court is also discussed in Ex parte Johnson (supra) and in Blackard v. State (supra). A recent case on contempt is Ex parte Coffelt, 239 Ark. 324, 389 S.W.2d 234. An interesting annotation may be found in 12 A.L.R.2d 1059. The petitioner, Bobby Harrison, and Lola Harrison were divorced by decree of the Conway Chancery Court dated September 12, 1962, and the following are portions of so much of the divorce decree as are germane to this present proceeding: