LME V ARS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
L. M. E. and FAMILY INDEPENDENCE
AGENCY,
FOR PUBLICATION
March 16, 2004
9:10 a.m.
Petitioners-Appellants,
v
No. 242681
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 2000-002352-UI
A. R. S.,
Respondent-Appellee.
Updated Copy
June 4, 2004
Before: Owens, P.J., and Schuette and Borrello, JJ.
SCHUETTE, J. (concurring).
I join in the opinion of Judge Owens, which reverses the trial court's decision, remands
for a hearing, and requires the entry of an order for child support. In the absence of any contrary
directives by the Legislature, the public policy of the state of Michigan provides that child
support is for the benefit and needs of the child involved. Macomb Co Dep't of Social Services v
Westerman, 250 Mich App 372, 377; 645 NW2d 710 (2002), citing Evink v Evink, 214 Mich
App 172, 175-176; 542 NW2d 328 (1995). With respect to the requirement of payment of child
support, Michigan law does not contain any exceptions based on consensual or nonconsensual
sexual activity that results in a child being conceived, or on whether a participant was coerced,
seduced, or victimized. In the case before this court, as more fully explained at note 7 in Judge
Owens's opinion, the record does not appear to contain any evidence of respondent's allegations
of alcohol-induced activities and other sexual promises that might lead to a different conclusion
had the Legislature so provided.
/s/ Bill Schuette
-1-
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.
