In an unpublished opinion, a panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals decided on November 25, 2008 that child support would be payable on behalf of a child who was over the age of 18 and residing with a parent, even though that child might not be able to graduate from high school by the age of 19 1/2. The ruling in this case, were the case published and controlling law, would have wide-reaching ramifications.
The child support statute, MCL 552.605b(1)reads as follows:
"The court may order child support for the time a child is regularly attending high school on a full-time basis with a reasonable expectation of completing sufficient credits to graduate from high school while residing on a full-time basis with the recipient of support or at an institution, but in no case after the child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age. A complaint or motion requesting support as provided in this section may be filed at any time before the child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age."
Using general rules for interpreting statutes, this is what the court of appeals panel decided:
As long as a child is regularly attending high school on a full-time basis and there is a reasonable expectation of his completing sufficient credits to graduate while residing full-time with the recipient of the support, support may be awarded beyond the child’s 18th birthday. However, in no case can such support be extended beyond the age of 19-½. The phrase “but in no case after the child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age” provides a maximum age at which time child support payments will cease even if the child regularly attends high school on a full-time basis with a reasonable expectation of graduating. A comma from the main sentence separates the phrase “but in no case after the child reaches 19 years and 6 months of age.” This punctuation reflects a qualifying clause serving as a ceiling beyond which no post-age of majority child support may be ordered, even if the child remains full-time in high school with a reasonable expectation of graduation. A comma setting off a modifying phrase is evidence that the phrase was intended to apply to all principles that came before it.
As a result, the court of appeals panel concluded that the trial court improperly interpreted the meaning of the statute. The COA said:
"A child can, while attending high school full time, receive the benefit of child support beyond that child’s 18th birthday if there is a reasonable expectation that the child will complete sufficient credits to graduate from high school while residing on a full-time basis with the recipient of support or at an institution. There is no requirement for the receipt of such support that there must be a reasonable expectation that the child will graduate from high school by the time the child is 19 years and six months old. But in no event can such child support extend beyond the time the child is 19 years and six months old."
The case is Cross v Cross, Docket No. 279286, decided November 25, 2008. You can read it here.
Comments