Hunt v. Hunt (Vermont)
an interesting case where a father claimed his religious beliefs and practices kept him from paying a support order.Harris v. Harris (Vermont)where the supreme court reviews a trial courts determination of a contested custody hearing (the trial court split two children, ages 5 and 2)
Rowley v. Garvin (Michigan)Support after age 18, which is contingent upon the child being a full-time high school student, is NOT satisfied by the child's being in an adult-education program, therefore no post-majority support.
In re Clausen (DeBoer v Schmidt)(Michigan), better known as the Baby Jessica Case, where the Court decided to send the baby back to Iowa and the natural parents, from Michigan and the adoptive parents, without even holding a hearing on "best interest of the child", and my own Commentary on why the decision was the right one to make.
Schoensee v. Bennett (Michigan) Attorneys fees will be awarded, even when the parties have never been married to each other, when one party earns about $600,000 per year, and the other party earns about $9,000 per year, so that the issues related to child custody may be properly presented to the trial court, and to prevent the more well-off party from "flexing his financial muscles".
Bergan v. Bergan (Michigan) A husband who has been duped into believing that a child of the marriage is his own child, when in fact the child was another man's child, will not be required to pay child support for the child.
York v. Morofsky (Michigan) Unless the man wants to do so (see above). A husband who believed he was the father may not be just tossed aside because the mother decides to confess that another man fathered the child: the husband can retain the rights of fatherhood, and be declared the "equitable parent".
Van v. Zahorik (Michigan) But that applies (see the above two cases) only if you were a HUSBAND, not a BOYFRIEND: an ex-boyfriend (the parties lived together, but were never married) who believed he was the father of two children, found out that he was not the father of either child. The doctrine of "equitable parent" is not extended to former live-ins, just to former husbands, and this fellow loses.
Harvey v. Harvey (Michigan) No retroactive modification of child support means no retroactive modification, and it cuts both ways.