Court Opinion

ID: 9688139
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:34:45.388682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:35.291513
License: Public Domain

SCHUETTE, J.
(concurring). I join in the opinion of Judge OWENS, which reverses the trial court’s decision, remands for a hearing, and requires the entry of an order for child support. In the absence of any contrary directives by the Legislature, the public policy of the state of Michigan provides that child support is for the benefit and needs of the child involved. Macomb Co Dep’t of Social Services v Westerman, 250 Mich App 372, 377; 645 NW2d 710 (2002), citing Evink v Evink, 214 Mich App 172, 175-176; 542 NW2d 328 (1995). With *295respect to the requirement of payment of child support, Michigan law does not contain any exceptions based on consensual or nonconsensual sexual activity that results in a child being conceived, or on whether a participant was coerced, seduced, or victimized. In the case before this court, as more fully explained at note 7 in Judge OWENS’s opinion, the record does not appear to contain any evidence of respondent’s allegations of alcohol-induced activities and other sexual promises that might lead to a different conclusion had the Legislature so provided.