KAREN L POORTENGA V KENNETH J POORTENGA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
KAREN L. POORTENGA,
UNPUBLISHED
January 4, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 207516
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 95-002220 DM
KENNETH J. POORTENGA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Saad, P.J., and McDonald and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a judgment of divorce. We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. During the pendency of the case, defendant was charged
with criminal sexual conduct in the second degree (CSC II), MCL 750.520c; MSA 28.788(3), based
on allegations that he molested two of the parties’ children. During the trial on plaintiff’s complaint for
divorce, the evidence showed that defendant held a minority interest in two family-owned companies.
His employment provided medical insurance for the family.
Prior to entry of the judgment of divorce, defendant pleaded guilty to CSC II, and was
sentenced to a term of two to fifteen years in prison. He moved to terminate his obligation to pay child
support during his incarceration. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suspend his child support
obligation, but denied both his request to suspend his obligation to provide medical insurance, and his
request to reconsider his valuation of certain assets.
We review a trial court’s findings of fact on a support issue for clear error, and the ultimate
disposition de novo. Edwards v Edwards, 192 Mich App 559, 562; 481 NW2d 769 (1992).
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suspend his obligation to
provide medical insurance for the children during his term of incarceration. We disagree. A judgment
of divorce must require one or both parents to maintain medical insurance coverage that is available at a
reasonable cost or as a benefit of employment for the benefit of minor children. A self-employed parent
-1
who carries health insurance must maintain dependent coverage for the benefit of minor children, if
available at a reasonable cost. MCL 552.16(5); MSA 25.96(5). Here, the evidence showed that
although defendant’s employment was terminated after he was convicted in the criminal case, he
retained his ownership of a minority interest in the family companies. Defendant did not establish that as
an officer and co-owner of the family companies, he would be unable to continue to provide medical
insurance for the children. His reliance on Pierce v Pierce, 162 Mich App 367, 370-371; 412 NW2d
291 (1987), is misplaced. In that case, another panel of this Court held that an inability to pay child
support due to imprisonment for an unrelated offense excuses payment for the period of incarceration.
While the term “support” can include payment of health care expenses, MCL 552.602(w); MSA
25.164(2)(w), the holding in Pierce, supra, has not been extended to forms of support other than cash
payments. In the absence of evidence that defendant is without the means to continue providing
insurance for the children, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred by denying his request to
suspend his payment obligation.
Next, defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to reconsider its valuation of his
minority interest in the family companies. We disagree. The determination of the valuation date for
marital assets is within the discretion of the trial court. Thompson v Thompson, 189 Mich App 197,
199; 472 NW2d 51 (1991). Defendant retained his ownership interest in the companies after his
employment was terminated. No evidence showed that his termination resulted in a change in the value
of his interest. No abuse of discretion occurred.
Affirmed.
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
