Background
Jennifer and Kory Johnson married in 2011 and had five children. Jennifer worked full-time while providing most of the children’s daily care. Kory worked long hours as an orthopedic surgeon and held interests in his medical practice, an ambulatory surgery center, and other businesses. After Jennifer filed for divorce in 2023, the parties resolved many issues, including agreeing to joint legal custody, physical custody with Jennifer, and holiday and summer parenting-time schedules.
The Allegan Circuit Court conducted a trial on the remaining disputes: school-year parenting time and child support. It awarded Kory Tuesday-evening parenting time and alternating weekends from Thursday evening through Sunday evening. In calculating child support, the court averaged Kory’s annual income based on the financial evidence presented, including pass-through income from his business interests. Kory appealed the divorce judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the school-year parenting-time schedule. The trial court’s findings that best-interest factors concerning the children’s care, material and medical needs, school and community lives, and each parent’s support for the other parent-child relationship favored Jennifer were not against the great weight of the evidence. The record showed that Jennifer handled the overwhelming majority of the children’s daily routines while working full-time, whereas Kory’s proposed reduction in work and professional commitments remained largely a future plan. The trial court was also entitled to credit Jennifer’s testimony concerning the parents’ conduct and ability to facilitate the children’s relationships.
The court likewise affirmed the Uniform Child Support Order. Because Kory retained his business interests under the property settlement and would continue receiving pass-through income, the trial court properly included that income when applying the Michigan Child Support Formula. The settlement did not link the property division to a child-support deviation, and Kory presented no evidence that the settlement reduced the income available for support.
Kory also failed to substantiate his claim that reduced work hours had lowered his income. Although the parties’ 2024 tax return was unavailable, he could have offered other current income records but did not do so. The trial court therefore did not clearly err in determining income or abuse its discretion in setting child support.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s greater earnings do not control the best-interest factor addressing capacity and disposition to provide for children’s material and medical needs; the court may focus on who actually arranges and supplies that care.
- Plans to reduce work hours or assume more childcare do not outweigh evidence of the parents’ established caregiving roles when those plans have not been implemented.
- Pass-through business income may be included in income available for child support when the parent retains the business interests and offers no evidence that the income is unavailable.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference Michigan appellate courts give trial judges in parenting-time disputes, particularly on credibility and fact-intensive best-interest findings. It also shows that courts evaluate demonstrated caregiving patterns, not merely a parent’s stated intention to become more involved.
For business owners, the opinion underscores that a property settlement awarding one spouse the business does not automatically exclude the business’s continuing pass-through income from child-support calculations. Any intended relationship between property division and a child-support deviation must be clearly stated and supported by evidence.