Although
child support obligations generally end when a child reaches the age of
eighteen, there are limited circumstances where the court may make an
exception. If the child reaches 18, but is attending high school full-time and
residing on a full-time basis with the child support recipient, the support
obligation may continue. In the recent State of Michigan Court of Appeals case,
Weaver v. Giffels, the court decided that
“residing on a full-time basis with the child support recipient” means the
child must physically live at the residence of the child support recipient and
intend to make that place the child’s permanent residence. Ultimately, the case
was returned to the trial court to determine whether the child resided with her
mother full-time.
Facts
Plaintiff
and Defendant had two children together during their marriage: KG and MG. At the
time of divorce, the parties were granted joint custody of the children. The
parties informally agreed the children would live with Plaintiff four days a
week and with Defendant three days a week. Defendant was also ordered to pay
child support until either (1) the child’s 18th birthday, or (2) the last day
the child attended high school full time, as long as the child resided
full-time with the recipient of support, but not after the child turned 19 ½
years old. The oldest child, KG, turned 18 on November 26, 2014, while still
attending high school full-time. After she turned 18, Defendant filed to end
his child support obligations for KG. The referee determined “full-time basis”
meant the child must live with the recipient of support all of the time.
Because of this, the referee determined Defendant’s child support obligation
for KG ended.
Plaintiff
challenged the referee’s definition of “full-time basis” by arguing it would be
unlikely for a child receiving support to live with one parent all of the time
due to custody arrangements. After a hearing, the circuit court ordered Defendant’s
support obligation for KG to continue. The court defined “full-time basis” as
spending all of the time the custody arrangement ordered with the recipient of
the support. Therefore, Defendant was to continue support for KG on the basis
that she lived with Plaintiff all of time she was ordered. Defendant appealed.
Outcome
The
State of Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the lower court’s determination
that “full-time basis” refers to full compliance with a custody order because,
after the age of 18, KG was no longer subject to the custody order and was able
to choose where she wanted to live. The court determined that to live with a
parent on a “full-time basis,” the child must both physically live with the
parent and intend that place to be the permanent residence. The
court remanded the case and directed the trial court to consider (1) the
subjective or declared intent of KG; (2) the relationship between KG and the
members of the household; (3) whether the place where KG lives is in the same
house as Plaintiff; and (4) the existence of another place of lodging by KG.
Implications
If an
order provides a specific end-date, that order controls and may be modified on a
motion from a party. However, if an
order does not provide a specific end-date, as a result of the decision in Weaver, the requirements for the
extension of child support beyond the age of majority (eighteen) will be changed.
For a child support obligation to extend past the age of 18 without the
parties’ consent, four factors must be met: (1) the child must be enrolled in
high school and on track to graduate, (2) the child is not yet 19 1/2 years
old, (3) the child physically resides with the child support recipient, and (4)
the child intends the child support recipient’s house to be the place of
residence.
Please
contact Bill Bartels or Paul Gehm with any questions at 517-373-5975.
