Court Opinion

ID: 9704035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:19:25.933336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:54.913320
License: Public Domain

V. J. Brennan, J.
(dissenting). This is an appeal by defendant husband from the lower court’s order increasing child support and denying his motion to vacate judgment of divorce.
On August 2, 1967, the parties began the trial of a contested divorce; after a day of trial the parties effectuated a settlement. At that time there were two children born of this marriage, one Pamela Jean Ballard born September 19, 1962, then age four and Elizabeth Anne Ballard born June 10, 1964, then age three.
During the course of these proceedings it was disclosed that the Friend of the Court had recommended support of $28 per week per child. The settlement was as follows: In addition to property division and other expenses of the divorce, the defendant husband was to retain 100 shares of bank stock with all dividends paid to the plaintiff wife solely for child support until the children reached the age of 18, plus the husband was to maintain medical and hospitalization insurance for the children; and the plaintiff was to receive no alimony.
It subsequently developed that dividends from the aforementioned stock, which were allocated for child support, amounted to approximately $160 per year. In November of 1969, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the judgment asking for in*42creased child support. Defendant cited the agreement of the parties and alleged that the only change of circumstances was for the better since the wife was now employed.
At this time the Friend of the Court recommended that the defendant pay $30.50 per week for each child’s support. Defendant objected to this and in April of 1970, the trial judge conducted a hearing concerning plaintiffs motion. That hearing revealed that the child support over the last few years amounted to no more than $2.84 per week per child. It was revealed that the plaintiff had been employed and was earning a substantial income. It also revealed that the plaintiffs parents had been helping support the children financially, but that her father had since retired and was unable to continue the support. The court found that there had been a change of circumstances but for the better; however, he ordered that the child support payments be $30 per week per child and entered such a judgment from which defendant appeals.
Here our attention is directed primarily to the child support issue. The original award for child support was so small, approximately $2.50 per week per child, that it essentially amounted to no award at all. When a divorce decree does not provide for support, such maintenance may later be provided by the court and does not depend upon a change of circumstances. West v West, 241 Mich 679, 686 (1928). So, in reality, the first time that such support was awarded in this case was at the time of this latest judgment, and was, therefore, within the court’s discretion. It is axiomatic that the overriding consideration in these matters is the welfare of the children. Davis v Davis, 8 Mich App 104 (1967). And, also, that the obligation of a *43divorced husband is to, in fact, support his minor children. Slater v Slater, 327 Mich 569 (1950). It may be pointed out that in the original negotiations the welfare of the children had been neglected and it should have been clear at that time that the $2.50 per week was grossly inadequate. With this situation facing the trial court, he reached the equitable result.
As the Supreme Court stated in Wiersma v Wiersma, 241 Mich 565, 566 (1928):
"The law of this state is settled that the parents may not bargain away the children’s welfare, the children’s rights, that the court may always do what seems reasonable and necessary to protect the children’s rights.”
Friend of the Court offices investigate literally thousands of these cases; they make very thorough findings; they have the benefit of all the documents and testimony concerning the families’ income, needs, and indebtedness. Over the years they have set up standards and guidelines in determining equitable support arrangements dictated by their findings. The trial judges have consistently placed their confidence and trust in these recommendations; and, if the court feels they have overlooked some aspect that is brought to the court’s attention, the case is returned to the Friend of the Court for further investigation.
These extensive investigations and recommendations help the courts make their findings and for our Court to reverse such findings, we must find that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. Anneberg v Anneberg, 367 Mich 458 (1962); Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich 382 (1959); Newberry v Newberry, 332 Mich 265 (1952).
Under all the facts of this case it appears that the trial judge did what logic, reason, and the *44exercise of good judgment compelled in increasing the child support to a conscionable amount.
I feel the record fully supports the trial court’s findings and further I can find no basis for modification on this record. I would recommend not only that the award of child support be affirmed, but also, because the record clearly establishes grounds for divorce, I would recommend that the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside the judgment of divorce be affirmed.