Teran v. Rittley

882 N.W.2d 181 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

While F was in the military and stationed abroad in Ecuador, he fathered a child with M. The child was born on November 18, 2006, in Quito, Ecuador. F left Ecuador shortly after the child was born and did not leave M any contact information. In July 2007, M sued F for child support in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Virginia court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on February 7, 2008. On September 30, 2010, M filed the instant paternity action to determine custody, parental responsibility, and child support. DNA testing was performed on samples from the parties and the child. F could not be excluded as the child's father. The probability that F was, in fact, the child's father was 99.99%. Using $22,892 for M's gross income, and $109,774 for F's gross income, the FOC recommended setting a child support obligation at $1,211 a month. F filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court observed that 'the fact that the child was conceived or born outside of this state is not a bar to entering a complaint against the putative father.' F presented the testimony of Stan Smith, Ph.D. (University of Chicago), whom the trial court recognized as an expert in economics. Dr. Smith testified that he examined the cost of living in Quito, Ecuador, and Washington, D.C., and converted the costs of living in those cities to the cost of living in Detroit, Michigan. According to Dr. Smith, plaintiff's income of $22,900 in Quito equated to $36,914 of purchasing power in Michigan, and D's income of $127,000 in Washington, D.C., equated to $89,557 of purchasing power in Michigan. Using this determination of the parties' respective purchasing power in Michigan dollars ($36,914 and $89,557), Dr. Smith calculated that the amount of child support should be $1,021 per month. Dr. Smith further testified that in order to achieve the equivalent of $1,021 purchasing power in Michigan, a person in Ecuador would need only $634.00 (as of January 2012) or $567.00 (as of May 2013). The trial court issued a written opinion and order setting the amount of child support at $1,211 a month, as the FOC had recommended. The trial court issued a written opinion and order setting the amount of child support at $1,211 a month, as the FOC had recommended. It rejected F's argument that it would not be a deviation to reduce the formula-recommended child support to an amount consistent with Dr. Smith's testimony regarding the relative purchasing power in the different locales. The trial court first reasoned that F's proposal would be administratively unworkable, require expert testimony in many cases, place undue burdens on litigants and the judicial system, and delay entry of support orders. It also reasoned that child support should not depend on the parents' choice of residences, but on the economic ability of the child's parents to provide support. The court ruled from the bench that it was appropriate to start payment of child support from the time of the Virginia case. The trial court also awarded M $23,000 in attorney fees, payable to M's Michigan attorney, which included part of the expense of a Florida attorney who assisted in prosecuting the case. F appealed.