In this case, plaintiff received approximately $57,000 or $67,000 from her parents. The trial court included the money from plaintiff’s parents as income for its 2017 child support calculation.
Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results
Posts in the Child Support category:
FAMILY LAW 33: Defendant posited that he was an affiliated father under the Revocation of Paternity Act.
Following entry of the judgment of divorce, plaintiff filed a motion for revocation of an acknowledged father’s paternity under MCL 722.14371 of the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA).
FAMILY LAW 32: Trial court committed error in failing to address whether there was an established custodial environment.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to make any findings regarding (1) the child’s established custodial environment, (2) the child’s best interests regarding the grant of primary physical custody to defendant, (3) the child’s best interests with respect to parenting time, and (4) the child’s best interests pertaining to the parties’ dispute over daycare.
FAMILY LAW 30: Discretionary trust assets cannot be reached to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
The key difference between discretionary trusts, support trusts, and spendthrift trusts is that creditors cannot compel the trustee of a discretionary trust to pay any part of the income or principal in order that the creditors may be paid. The opposite is true of spendthrift and support trusts, which allow trust assets to be reached to satisfy creditors, including creditors seeking to satisfy claims for child support and alimony.
DIVORCE 25: Judgement of divorce ordered children as beneficiary on life insurance policies presently outstanding.
In order to provide security for the payment of his support obligations in the event of his death, the judgment also ordered decedent to irrevocably designate the minor children of the parties as the beneficiary on any and all life insurance policies presently outstanding upon his life, until his duty to support shall cease.
The trial court’s opinion and order terminated respondent’s parental rights to the minor child under MCL 710.51(6) (failure to comply with a support order for two years or more and failure to visit, contact, or communicate with the child for two years or more).
In an issue of first impression, the court held that a support order is irrelevant in determining whether a child who has turned 18 but is still attending high school is residing on a "full-time" basis with the support payee
In a published case, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order to the extent it ruled that compliance with the parenting time order constituted "full-time" and remanded for it to consider (where relevant) the Workman factors in...