Child support; Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF); Second income; 2021 MCSF 2.01(C); Variable income; 2021 MCSF 2.02(A); De novo hearing; Presentation of proofs; Witness examination; MRE 614(a); Mode of examination; MRE 611; Authentication; MRE 901

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding defendant-mother’s second income from the child support calculation where plaintiff-father failed to present evidence of the amount of that income at the de novo hearing. Plaintiff objected to a referee’s proposed child support order, arguing in part that defendant continued to work a second job at a restaurant and that this income should have been included. On appeal, the court first noted that child support must be calculated under the MCSF, which includes “[w]ages, overtime pay, commissions, bonuses, or other monies from all employers,” and that variable income from “overtime, second jobs, bonuses, or profit sharing” should be calculated using information from at least the preceding 12 months. But the court held that plaintiff did not offer proof of defendant’s restaurant income at the hearing. Although defendant acknowledged she still worked at the restaurant and had paystubs available, plaintiff did not call her as an adverse witness, did not present the paystubs or other income evidence, and waited until after the trial court ran the child support calculation to seek questioning. The court rejected plaintiff’s reliance on MRE 614(a) because defendant was never sworn as a witness on the child support issue and declined to testify after the trial court sustained plaintiff’s objection to testimony about an FOC document. The court also held that MRE 611 and MRE 901 did not help plaintiff because they govern witness examination and authentication, not whether a party may question a witness after proofs closed and the trial court rendered its decision. Affirmed.