Statutory child support review pursuant to MCL 552.517(1) & b(1); Modification of a child support order; MCL 552.517b(8); MCL 552.517b(2); Hearing before a referee; MCL 552.517(4) & (5); The change-of-circumstances standard; MCL 552.517b(7); Friend of the Court (FOC)

Holding that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied the change-of-circumstances standard, the court vacated the order denying a petition to modify child support and remanded. The trial court affirmed a recommendation of a referee to deny the FOC’s petition to modify child support on the basis defendant-father had not established a change of circumstances to warrant modification. It acknowledged his argument that the support review in this case was initiated by the FOC and therefore did not require proof of substantial change of circumstances pursuant to MCL 552.517b(7), but found the basis for his objection was erroneous. It also explained that “at the referee hearing, it was discussed that defendant requested a support review and his attorney agreed, which suggested that defendant, not the FOC, initiated the support review.” On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by applying a change-of-circumstances standard. “Pursuant to MCL 552.517b(7), defendant is correct—because the FOC filed the petition to modify child support, no party needed to prove a substantial change in circumstances to sustain the FOC’s recalculation of the support obligation.” The court noted that defendant “never moved the trial court for a modification of his child support obligation—the FOC filed the petition in this matter.” MCL 552.517b(7) “expressly provides that ‘[t]he court shall not require proof of a substantial change in circumstances to modify child support when support is adjusted under [MCL 552.517(1)].’ Thus, the referee’s conclusion that defendant needed to prove a change of circumstances was legally incorrect.” Likewise, the trial court’s order, “which adopted the referee’s order, was legally incorrect. In short, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied the change-of-circumstances standard.”