Court Opinion

ID: 9695748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:28:38.333959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:16.060863
License: Public Domain

McDonald, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion holding that the appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing upon proper request. However, I disagree with the holding that a circuit court has the power *694to order child support beyond a child’s eighteenth birthday until he or she graduates from high school. Felcoski v Felcoski, 159 Mich App 762; 407 NW2d 11 (1987); Passo v Passo, 170 Mich App 628; 428 NW2d 724 (1988) (dissenting opinion of Danhop, C.J.), lv den 431 Mich 1207 (1988).
A circuit court’s jurisdiction over child support is derived from MCL 552.17a; MSA 25.97(1), which was in effect in August, 1970. The Age of Majority Act, MCL 722.51 et seq.; MSA 25.244(5) et seq., was enacted and became effective January 1, 1972, and provided:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a person who is 18 years of age but less than 21 years of age when this act takes effect, and a person who attains 18 years of age thereafter, is deemed to be an adult of legal age for all purposes whatsoever and shall have the same duties, liabilities, responsibilities, rights and legal capacity as persons heretofore acquired at 21 years of age. [Emphasis added.]
If the Legislature intended to extend a parent’s duty to support a child beyond the child’s eighteenth birthday, it easily could have so provided and exempted the provisions of MCL 552.17a; MSA 25.97(1).