Court Opinion

ID: 9678622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:25:59.201316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:48.657244
License: Public Domain

Weaver, C.J.
I concur in the result, but write separately because I disagree with the majority’s unnecessarily broad holding that, as a matter of law, income disparity between the parties is not an appropriate reason for departing from the applicable child support formula. Rather, I would reverse solely on the basis of the friend of the court’s error, which went uncorrected by the trial judge.
In preparing its recommendation, the friend of the court proceeded as if this case involved sole custody, rather than shared custody.1 The friend of the court mistakenly made a recommendation based on the sole custody guidelines. At the hearing on the petition Mr. Burba objected to the recommendation, pointing out that he and Mrs. Burba shared custody. Instead of admitting the error, the friend of the court attorney stated that the friend of the court had a policy of not *652using the shared custody guidelines when there was a large disparity in income between the parties. However, in its amicus curiae brief, the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court has assured this Court that it does not have a policy of applying the incorrect guidelines, under any circumstances. Instead of remanding to the referee for a recommendation based on accurate information, the trial court proceeded with the hearing, ultimately adopting a support payment that was in excess of the support levels recommended by the formulas for shared custody. I would reverse and remand for further proceedings because the trial court did not have the proper recommendation before it; thus, I agree with the majority’s result.
However, unlike the majority, I would not hold that the trial court is not allowed to consider the parties’ disparity of income in determining whether the application of the child support formula would be “unjust or inappropriate,” in accordance with MCL 552.17(2); MSA 25.97(2).2 The majority incorrectly asserts that *653because the parties’ income was a factor when the support level was initially set by the formula, it cannot not be considered when deciding whether the application of the formula was unjust or inappropriate. This is the first time this Court has addressed what factors may be considered in determining whether application of the child support formula is unjust or inappropriate;3 I regret that the only guidance the majority offers is that the parties’ disparity of income cannot be considered. The logic of the majority’s opinion4 would require it to hold that none of the factors relied upon in the Child Support Formula Manual (West, 1999) can be used in making the MCL 552.17(2)(d); MSA 25.97(2)(d) “unjust and inappropriate” analysis. The majority’s interpretation would preclude the courts from considering any of the factors taken into account in the Child Support Formula Manual, including parental income, family size, the ages of the children,5 child care expenses,6 and the existence of other minor children7 or stepchildren.8 Such a restriction would improperly fetter the trial judge—a result not required by either the statutes or the Child Support Formula Manual. Therefore, we should not hold, as a matter of law, that the trial *654court cannot consider income disparity when determining whether the application of the formula was unjust or inappropriate.
I would reverse and remand because the friend of the court report was based on inaccurate assumptions.

 It is clear from the recommendation itself that the friend of the court incorrectly believed that this was a sole custody situation. The recommendation says that it is based on the guidelines, rather than a deviation from them. Further, the recommendation provides for a fifty percent abatement when the minor child spends eight consecutive nights with the parent; the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual (West, 1999) states that “Parenting time abatement should not be used in conjunction with the shared economic responsibility formula because that formula contemplates substantial economic sharing and the formula has already accounted for time spent by the child[ren] in both households.” § IV(C), p 27.

 MCL 552.17(2); MSA 25.97(2) provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order support in an amount determined by application of the child support formula developed by the state friend of the court bureau. The court may enter an order that deviates from the formula if the court determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate and sets forth in writing or on the record all of the following:
(a) The support amount determined by application of the child support formula.
(b) How the support order deviates from the child support formula
(c) The value of property or other support awarded in lieu of the payment of child support, if applicable.
(d) The reasons why application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the case.

 The phrase “unjust or inappropriate” recurs in MCL 552.16(2); MSA 25.96(2), as well.

 The majority contends that because the parents’ income is one of the factors used in the formula to set the level of child support, considering income disparity as a factor rendering the formula unjust or inappropriate would be “repugnant to the Legislature’s intent that income be dealt with as it is dealt with by the formula,” and would amount to a “double dipping.” Ante, p 648.

 See the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual, p vi.

 Id., p 29.

 Id., p 11.

 Id., p 12.