Motion to modify child support; Collateral attack on the Judgment of Divorce (JOD) & Uniform Child Support Order (UCSO); Change of circumstances (COC)

The court held that plaintiff-father was not entitled to relief on appeal because his argument was “an impermissible collateral attack on the 2018 JOD and UCSO.” Thus, it affirmed the trial court’s order, entered after a de novo hearing, denying his fourth motion to modify child support. Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion because it “did not comply with the requirements of MCL 552.605(2) when entering the JOD and UCSO.” The only way he “could prevail on appeal is not to attack the validity of the original order, but to instead demonstrate that there was a [COC] to warrant modifying” the award. These “circumstances include changes in the physical custody of a child that the court has not ordered, the child’s needs, the financial conditions of the recipient or payer of support, or that the initial order was based on incorrect facts. In his fourth motion to modify child support, plaintiff alleged that there was a [COC] to justify modification because defendant’s income increased and the children were no longer in daycare or latch key programming. But the trial court did not clearly err in its findings that plaintiff failed to establish a [COC] to warrant modification. Additionally, the order referred parenting time issues to the FOC, and any changes to plaintiff’s parenting time will be taken into consideration in any new child support calculations.”