Court Opinion

ID: 9699242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:14:35.771358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:47.722352
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, P.J.
(concurring). I write separately to acknowledge that I have changed my position since Dunn v Dunn, 105 Mich App 793; 307 NW2d 424 (1981). The intervening six years and the succession of cases brought through the courts have convinced me that a voluntary reduction in income, even without bad faith or a willful disregard for the interests of the dependent chil*777dren, may not justify a reduction in child support. While it may be laudable for an individual to enter religious service under a vow of poverty or to undertake the full time care of her stepchildren, the parent of a minor child has a preexisting duty which must be fulfilled. Responsibility is not egocentric. Charity begins not simply at the home in which a party may hang her hat, but in the home of the party’s lawful dependents. Many promises are fulfilled by parenthood, but many options are foreclosed. Among them, for this plaintiff, is the option to devote her energies entirely to the children of another. The decision of the trial court was equitable and just. I would therefore affirm.