Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131593 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan LOUIS ARTHUR LAFFIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131593 COA: 266299 Oakland CC: 1999-620238-DM MARIZA LAFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

W EAVER , J., would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:

In this case, the parties b argained away their ch ildren’s right to child support. The “deal” that the parents ag reed on is unusual in the annals of divorce law in this state. It provides that if the father is ordered to pay any child suppor t in the future, the obligation must be satisfied entirely from the mother’s alimony.

Now, the trial court has enforced that ag reement and defendant ha s appealed to us. The trial judge, in denying the mother’s motion fo r child support, advised her that, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, any furth er motions attacking the judgment of divorce “may result in sanctions being assessed against her.”

This Court should examine the matter carefully rat her than deny l eave to appeal. As it pertains to child suppor t, the parties’ agreement may we ll be in viola tion of public policy. The Court will not enforce an agreem ent if it violates public policy. Rory v Continental Ins Co , 473 Mich 457, 469 (2005), quoting Wilkie v Auto -Owners Ins Co

, 469 Mich 41, 51-52 (2003). The agreement in this case would be contrary to public_______________________________________ __ 2

policy if it left the parties’ three children withou t support and rendered them public charges.

Existing relevant Michigan la w on this issue is found in Macomb Co Dep’t of Social Services v Westerman , 250 Mich App 372, 377 (2002). It provides:

Biological parents have an in herent obligation to support their children. Evink v Evink , 214 Mich App 172, 175-176; 542 NW2d 328 (1995). A biological p arent must support a minor child unless a court of competent jurisdiction modifies or terminates the obligation or the child is emancipated. MCL 722.3. The purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of a child. Evink

, supra at 176

. The parents of a child are not permitted to bargain away a child's ri ght to receive adequate support. Id

. This Court has stated that it has "a dim view of agreements purporting to sign away the rights of a child, partic ularly when the result of such an agreement may be that th e child becomes a public charge . . . ." Van Laar v Rozema , 94 Mich App 619, 624; 288 NW2d 667 (1980). I strongly believe that the Cour t should grant leave to appeal in this case to explore the important issue raised.

l1121 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 29, 2006
Clerk