Health Insurance for a Child Constitutes Support, Trial Court Erred in Analysis of Support Ability
Opinion Published: June 13, 2024 (Markey, P.J., and Riordan and Cameron, JJ.)
Docket No. 368581
Livingston Circuit Court - Family Division
Opinion Authored by Judge Markey
Holding: The trial court properly concluded that making health insurance available for a child constitutes “support” according to MCL 710.51(6)(a). However, the trial court erred by not conducting an analysis of the parent’s “ability to support” when determining whether such support was “substantial.” The Court of Appeals accordingly reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Facts: The parties, Ashley LaPoint and Alexander Saintclair, married in 2012 and had one child, MSL, in 2014. In March 2016, Saintclair was incarcerated for various crimes. The parties communicated by phone and letters during this time, and LaPoint brought MSL to visit Saintclair at least once. LaPoint filed for divorce in 2016, and she was awarded sole legal and physical custody of MSL in May 2017 upon the divorce’s finalization.
The Judgment of Divorce ordered that Saintclair shall not pay child support due to his incarceration. Also as part of the judgment, both parties were partially responsible for providing healthcare coverage for MSL so long as insurance is reasonably available. The Uniform Child Support Order, however, indicated that only LaPoint was responsible for healthcare coverage. In its final decisions, the trial court did not consider Saintclair’s gross annual income.
Before the parties met, Saintclair served in the Army. He was discharged after sustaining injuries—injuries for which he received $1,200 per month and a healthcare insurance policy through Humana Military. This Humana policy covered MSL as well.
In 2021, LaPoint married Jeremy Baker. The two petitioned to terminate Saintclair’s parental rights to MSL and to name Baker as the child’s adoptive father. Saintclair fought back, arguing that LaPoint and Baker could not satisfy the requirements of MCL 710.51(6)(a).
Key Appellate Rulings
Making healthcare insurance available to a child does constitute an act of providing “support” for purposes of MCL 710.51(6)(a), and two years of unwavering coverage counts as “regular.”
MCL 710.51(6) governs the termination of parental rights in stepparent adoption cases. A parent’s rights may only be terminated if, over the course of the past two years, he or she had the abilities but failed or neglected to (a) provide regular and substantial support; and (b) visit, contact, or communicate with the child. Only subsection (a) is at issue here. The Court of Appeals reasoned that MCL 710.51(6)(a) does not delineate, describe, or limit the form of support necessary to satisfy the provision. As the Humana policy was available to MSL for the whole two-year lookback period, it constitutes “regular” support within the meaning of the statute. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Trial Court that simply because LaPoint did not use the policy for the benefit of MSL did not mean that the policy could not constitute “regular support” under MCL 710.51(6)(a).
Whether support is deemed “substantial” is circumstantial and depends on an analysis of the parent’s “ability to support.”
MCL 710.51(6)(a) requires contemplation of a parent’s ability to provide support when either the support order reflects a “$0.00” or the issue of support is reserved. Determining a parent’s ability to provide support includes assessing the noncustodial parent’s income, expenses, and general financial status and situation. Saintclair’s ability to support MSL was relative to his income and finances, and the trial court did not assess this. Thus, the trial court erred and the Court of Appeals remanded so that the Trial Court could determine whether providing medical insurance constituted “substantial” support within the meaning of MCL 710.51(6)(a), given Saintclair’s relative ability to support.
