Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 552 / Act 295 of 1982
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605 (2026)

Child support order; deviation from formula; agreement.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUPPORT AND PARENTING TIME ENFORCEMENT ACT


Act 295 of 1982


552.605 Child support order; deviation from formula; agreement.

Sec. 5.

    (1) If a court orders the payment of child support under this or another act of the state, this section applies to that order.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child support in an amount determined by application of the child support formula developed by the state friend of the court bureau as required in section 19 of the friend of the court act, MCL 552.519. The court may enter an order that deviates from the formula if the court determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate and sets forth in writing or on the record all of the following:

    (a) The child support amount determined by application of the child support formula.

    (b) How the child support order deviates from the child support formula.

    (c) The value of property or other support awarded instead of the payment of child support, if applicable.

    (d) The reasons why application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate in the case.

    (3) Subsection (2) does not prohibit the court from entering a child support order that is agreed to by the parties and that deviates from the child support formula, if the requirements of subsection (2) are met.

History: Add. 2001, Act 106, Eff. Sept. 30, 2001

Compiler's Notes:

    Former MCL 552.605, which pertained to support orders entered before effective date of act and to withholding of income, was repealed by Act 210 of 1985, Eff. Mar. 1, 1986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Peterson v. Peterson, 727 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peterson v. Peterson, 727 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 9× “17 (now found in MCL 552.605[2]) by not articulating, in writing or on the record, the amount of child support it would have ordered had it followed the child support formula and how the child support order deviated from the formula.”
Ewald v. Ewald, 810 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “” A uniform child support order attached to the judgment provides that plaintiff pay defendant when two children are covered by the order, $571 plus $47 ordinary medical ($618/month), and when only one child is covered by the order, $867 plus $23 ordinary medical ($890/month).”
Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the MCSF-recommended child support was not “unjust or inappropriate” as required by MCL 552.605(2) to support a deviation. *215 In setting the amount of child support, the Legislature has required…”
Borowsky v. Borowsky, 733 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “However, once atrial court decides to order the payment of child support, the court must “order child support in an amount determined by application of the child support for-mula____” MCL 552.605(2); see also 2004 MCSF 1.04; Ghidotti v Barber, 459 Mich 189, 200 ; 586 NW2d 883…”
Laffin v. Laffin, 760 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Finally, the trial court’s April 28, 2004, order and any other orders that serve to recognize and enforce the reciprocal alimony provision, or nullify plaintiffs obligation to pay child support, also violate MCL 552.605(2). MCL 552.605(2) provides that the court “shall order…”
Berger v. Berger, 747 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” MCL 552.605(2); Peterson v Peterson, 272 Mich App 511, 516-517 ; 727 NW2d 393 (2006).”
Holmes v. Holmes, 760 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “IV GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT A circuit court’s power to determine an award of child support is governed by MCL 552.605(2), which provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child support in an amount determined by…”
Diez v. Davey, 861 N.W.2d 323 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “MCL 552.605(2). See also Clarke, 297 Mich App at 179 .”
Riemer v. Johnson, 876 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “A trial court must comply with the requirements of the formula in calculating the parents’ support obligations unless it “determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate .”
In re Beck, 793 N.W.2d 562 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “3 is the duty to provide a child with support: (1) The parents are jointly and severally obligated to support a minor as prescribed in section 5 of the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295 , MCL 552.605, unless a court of competent jurisdiction modifies *13 or…”
Lme v. Ars, 680 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “717 (providing for order of filiation declaring paternity and providing for support of child), MCL 552.605 (providing that child support amount is to be determined according to formula developed by state friend of the court bureau).”
Weaver v. Giffels, 895 N.W.2d 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Clearly, MCL 552.605(2) [sic] requires courts to use the Michigan Child Support Formula which accounts for the parenting time split between the parties.”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(1) — 3 cases
Eugene H Boyle Jr v. Catherine Metry Boyle (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Eugene H Boyle Jr v. Catherine Metry Boyle (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Monica Vaghani Sutariya v. Yashesh Sutariya (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(2) — 68 cases
Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the MCSF-recommended child support was not “unjust or inappropriate” as required by MCL 552.605(2) to support a deviation. *215 In setting the amount of child support, the Legislature has required…”
Peterson v. Peterson, 727 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “17 (now found in MCL 552.605[2]) by not articulating, in writing or on the record, the amount of child support it would have ordered had it followed the child support formula and how the child support order deviated from the formula.”
Ewald v. Ewald, 810 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” A uniform child support order attached to the judgment provides that plaintiff pay defendant when two children are covered by the order, $571 plus $47 ordinary medical ($618/month), and when only one child is covered by the order, $867 plus $23 ordinary medical ($890/month).”
Berger v. Berger, 747 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “” MCL 552.605(2); Peterson v Peterson, 272 Mich App 511, 516-517 ; 727 NW2d 393 (2006).”
Laffin v. Laffin, 760 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Finally, the trial court’s April 28, 2004, order and any other orders that serve to recognize and enforce the reciprocal alimony provision, or nullify plaintiffs obligation to pay child support, also violate MCL 552.605(2). MCL 552.605(2) provides that the court “shall order…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(2)(a) — 12 cases
Borowsky v. Borowsky, 733 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “However, once atrial court decides to order the payment of child support, the court must “order child support in an amount determined by application of the child support for-mula____” MCL 552.605(2); see also 2004 MCSF 1.04; Ghidotti v Barber, 459 Mich 189, 200 ; 586 NW2d 883…”
Ewald v. Ewald, 810 N.W.2d 396 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “” A uniform child support order attached to the judgment provides that plaintiff pay defendant when two children are covered by the order, $571 plus $47 ordinary medical ($618/month), and when only one child is covered by the order, $867 plus $23 ordinary medical ($890/month).”
Peterson v. Peterson, 727 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “17 (now found in MCL 552.605[2]) by not articulating, in writing or on the record, the amount of child support it would have ordered had it followed the child support formula and how the child support order deviated from the formula.”
Riemer v. Johnson, 876 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “A trial court must comply with the requirements of the formula in calculating the parents’ support obligations unless it “determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate .”
Emmanuel Kengni Ncheuguim v. Mireille Alice Maguikuie Tegadjoue (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(2)(b) — 1 case
Kristy M Napora v. Axel Y Pierson (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(2)(c) — 2 cases
Kristy M Napora v. Axel Y Pierson (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
Visna Mati v. Marshal Garmo (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(2)(d) — 3 cases
Holmes v. Holmes, 760 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “IV GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT A circuit court’s power to determine an award of child support is governed by MCL 552.605(2), which provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child support in an amount determined by…”
Gehrke v. Gehrke, 702 N.W.2d 617 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Elizabeth Ellen Woolever v. Shane Michael Woolever (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(3) — 6 cases
Holmes v. Holmes, 760 N.W.2d 300 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “IV GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES REGARDING CHILD SUPPORT A circuit court’s power to determine an award of child support is governed by MCL 552.605(2), which provides: Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child support in an amount determined by…”
Laffin v. Laffin, 760 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Finally, the trial court’s April 28, 2004, order and any other orders that serve to recognize and enforce the reciprocal alimony provision, or nullify plaintiffs obligation to pay child support, also violate MCL 552.605(2). MCL 552.605(2) provides that the court “shall order…”
Emmanuel Kengni Ncheuguim v. Mireille Alice Maguikuie Tegadjoue (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Shannon Lynn Ellis v. Michael Kevin Domalik (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Beverley Nettles v. Daniel E Nickerson Jr (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(b) — 1 case
Emmanuel Kengni Ncheuguim v. Mireille Alice Maguikuie Tegadjoue (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(c) — 2 cases
Emmanuel Kengni Ncheuguim v. Mireille Alice Maguikuie Tegadjoue (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Autumn Brooke Romain v. James Randall Romain (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 552.605(d) — 1 case
Emmanuel Kengni Ncheuguim v. Mireille Alice Maguikuie Tegadjoue (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
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.