FRIEND OF THE COURT ACT
Act 294 of 1982
552.517b Review of order; notice of right to request; notice of review; calculation of support amount; objection; joint meeting expediting resolution of support issues; provisions; modification; frequency of review.
Sec. 17b.
(1) Child support orders entered after June 30, 2005 shall be modified according to this section. For each support order entered before June 30, 2005, the friend of the court office shall provide notice to the parties of their right to a review under this section as required by federal law. Notices under this subsection may be placed in court orders as allowed by federal law.
(2) The friend of the court office shall initiate proceedings to review support by sending a notice to the parties. The notice shall request information sufficient to allow the friend of the court to review support, state the date the information is due, and advise the parties concerning how the review will be conducted.
(3) After the information in subsection (2) is due, but not sooner than 21 days or later than 120 days after the date the notice is sent, the friend of the court office shall calculate the support amount in accordance with the child support formula and send a notice to each party and his or her attorney, which shall include all of the following:
(a) The amount calculated for support.
(b) The proposed effective date of the support amount.
(c) Substantially the following statement: "Either party may object to the recommended support amount. If no objection is filed within 21 days of the date this notice was mailed, an order will be submitted to the court incorporating the new support amount." The notice also shall inform the parties of how and where to file an objection.
(4) Twenty-one or more days from the date the notice required by subsection (3) is sent, the friend of the court office shall determine if an objection has been filed. If an objection has been filed, the friend of the court shall set the matter for a hearing before a judge or referee or, if the office receives additional information with the objection, it may recalculate the support amount and send out a revised notice in accordance with subsection (3). If no objection is filed, the friend of the court office shall prepare an order. The court shall enter the order if it approves of the order.
(5) The friend of the court may schedule a joint meeting between the parties to attempt to expedite resolution of support issues in accordance with the guidelines developed under section 19(3)(m). The joint meeting and proceedings following the joint meeting are subject to the requirements of section 42a of the support and parenting time enforcement act, MCL 552.642a.
(6) The following provisions apply to support review proceedings under this section:
(a) A recommendation under subsection (3) shall state the calculations upon which the support amount is based. If the friend of the court office recommends a support amount based on imputed income, the recommendation shall also state the amount that would have been recommended based on the actual income of the parties if the actual income of the parties is known. If income is imputed, the recommendation shall recite all factual assumptions upon which the imputed income is based.
(b) The friend of the court office may impute income to a party who fails or refuses to provide information requested under subsection (2).
(c) At a hearing based on an objection to a friend of the court office recommendation, the trier of fact may consider the friend of the court office's recommendation as evidence to prove a fact relevant to the support calculation if no other evidence is presented concerning that fact, if the parties agree or no objection is made to its use for that purpose.
(7) The court shall not require proof of a substantial change in circumstances to modify a child support order when support is adjusted under section 17(1).
(8) A party may also file a motion to modify support. Upon motion of a party, the court may only modify a child support order upon finding a substantial change in circumstances, including, but not limited to, health care coverage becoming newly available to a party and a change in the support level under section 17(5)(a).
(9) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the friend of the court office shall conduct a more frequent review of the support order upon presentation by a party of evidence of a substantial change in circumstances as set forth in the child support formula guidelines.
History: Add. 1994, Act 37, Imd. Eff. Mar. 7, 1994 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 571, Eff. June 1, 2003 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 207, Eff. June 30, 2005 ;-- Am. 2009, Act 233, Imd. Eff. Jan. 8, 2010
PopularName Notes:
Friend of the Court
Notes of Decisions
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 4× “MCL 552.517b, which pertains to review of child support orders, specifies that “[t]he friend of the court office may impute income to a party who fails or refuses to provide information” to the FOC, MCL 552.”
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 16× “The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
Nossonal Kleinfeldt v. Nicole Stern (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Defendant is presumably referring to the trial court’s July 6, 2023 order, which provided a temporary parenting-time schedule for the summer and early fall of 2023, and she relies on MCL 552.517b to support this theory. MCL 552.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “) MCL 552.517b(1) requires courts to apply this standard when considering modification of a child support order entered after June 30, 2005.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “) MCL 552.517b(1) requires courts to apply this standard when considering modification of a child support order entered after June 30, 2005.”
Sonja Faith Moffett v. David Jemmott Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See Lemmen v Lemmen, 481 Mich 164, 167 ; 749 NW2d 255 (2008) (stating that the trial court has the ability to make modifications to child support orders when such modifications are necessary); MCL 552.517b(8). Affirmed. /s/ Michael J.”
Sonja Faith Moffett v. David Jemmott Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See Lemmen v Lemmen, 481 Mich 164, 167 ; 749 NW2d 255 (2008) (stating that the trial court has the ability to make modifications to child support orders when such modifications are necessary); MCL 552.517b(8). Affirmed. /s/ Michael J.”
Francis Joseph Hinsberg v. Maria Hinsberg (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“” MCL 552.517b(8). Based on the lack of an evidentiary record for this Court’s review, the issue of child support modification is remanded to the trial court for compliance with the relevant statutory provisions and explanation.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(1) — 3 cases
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“) MCL 552.517b(1) requires courts to apply this standard when considering modification of a child support order entered after June 30, 2005.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“) MCL 552.517b(1) requires courts to apply this standard when considering modification of a child support order entered after June 30, 2005.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(2) — 1 case
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(3) — 1 case
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(4) — 1 case
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(6)(a) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
“MCL 552.517b, which pertains to review of child support orders, specifies that “[t]he friend of the court office may impute income to a party who fails or refuses to provide information” to the FOC, MCL 552.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(7) — 2 cases
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
Nossonal Kleinfeldt v. Nicole Stern (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“Defendant is presumably referring to the trial court’s July 6, 2023 order, which provided a temporary parenting-time schedule for the summer and early fall of 2023, and she relies on MCL 552.517b to support this theory. MCL 552.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.517b(8) — 7 cases
Sharon Anne Maranda v. Cory Lamond Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“The trial court 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. This appeal followed.”
Sonja Faith Moffett v. David Jemmott Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See Lemmen v Lemmen, 481 Mich 164, 167 ; 749 NW2d 255 (2008) (stating that the trial court has the ability to make modifications to child support orders when such modifications are necessary); MCL 552.517b(8). Affirmed. /s/ Michael J.”
Sonja Faith Moffett v. David Jemmott Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See Lemmen v Lemmen, 481 Mich 164, 167 ; 749 NW2d 255 (2008) (stating that the trial court has the ability to make modifications to child support orders when such modifications are necessary); MCL 552.517b(8). Affirmed. /s/ Michael J.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“) MCL 552.517b(1) requires courts to apply this standard when considering modification of a child support order entered after June 30, 2005.”
David Trebnik v. Kirsten Trebnik (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“) MCL 552.517b(1) requires courts to apply this standard when considering modification of a child support order entered after June 30, 2005.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.