## Facts

- Michael R. Rittley, a U.S. servicemember, was stationed in Quito, Ecuador, where he had a relationship with Susana E. Narvaez Teran.
- Their child was born in Quito on November 18, 2006.
- Rittley left Ecuador shortly after the child’s birth and did not provide Teran with contact information.
- In 2007, Teran pursued child support in Virginia. In that proceeding, Rittley—through counsel—presented a Michigan driver’s license and represented that his official residence was Johannesburg, Michigan, and that he had paid taxes there for many years. The Virginia case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- In September 2010, Teran filed a paternity action in Michigan circuit court seeking a determination of paternity and related relief, including child support.
- The parties stipulated to genetic testing. The test showed a 99.99% probability that Rittley was the child’s father, and the court entered an order of filiation in August 2011.
- The matter was referred to Michigan’s Friend of the Court (FOC), which recommended support of $1,211 per month under the Michigan Child Support Formula, using the parties’ reported gross incomes.
- Rittley moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Michigan’s Paternity Act, arguing that none of the parties lived in Michigan and that he had lived outside Michigan for years.
- Rittley also sought a downward departure from the guideline support amount, relying on testimony from an economics witness about Ecuador’s lower cost of living compared to the United States.
- The trial court denied dismissal, set child support at the guideline amount of $1,211 per month, made support retroactive, and later awarded Teran attorney fees based on the litigation record.
- Rittley appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the Michigan circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Paternity Act (MCL 722.714) when the mother and child lived in Ecuador and the father claimed he was not a Michigan resident.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by setting child support under the Michigan Child Support Formula without reducing the amount based on Ecuador’s lower cost of living.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering child support retroactively.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the mother attorney fees.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The court held that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction under MCL 722.714 because at least one party (Rittley) was found to reside in Michigan for purposes of the statute, based on the record and credibility findings.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by applying the Michigan Child Support Formula and rejecting a reduction tied to Ecuador’s lower cost of living.
- The court held that the trial court acted within its discretion in making the support award retroactive.
- The court held that the attorney-fee award was within the trial court’s discretion under Michigan domestic-relations standards and supported by the record.

## Legal Principles

- Subject-matter jurisdiction in a paternity action is governed by the Paternity Act, including MCL 722.714’s requirement that the child or at least one party reside in Michigan; the existence of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo, while underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
- In determining statutory “residence” in this setting, a court may consider objective ties and prior representations about residence (such as a driver’s license, tax history, and statements made in other litigation), and may resolve conflicts in testimony through credibility determinations.
- A child-support amount calculated under the Michigan Child Support Formula is presumed correct; a court may order a different amount only if use of the formula would be unjust or inappropriate and the court states reasons for the departure consistent with the child’s welfare.
- A lower cost of living where the child resides outside the United States may be considered, but it does not compel a departure from guideline support; whether to depart is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Michigan courts have discretion to order retroactive child support within statutory and equitable limits, including making support effective from an earlier point in the case where justified by the circumstances.
- Attorney fees in domestic-relations matters may be awarded when necessary for a party to carry on the case or when the opposing party’s conduct causes the other side to incur added legal expense; the decision and amount are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

Teran v. Rittley affirmed a Michigan circuit court’s authority to decide paternity-related support where the record supported a finding that the father resided in Michigan for purposes of MCL 722.714, even though the mother and child lived in Ecuador. The Court of Appeals also upheld guideline child support without a reduction based on Ecuador’s lower cost of living, and it sustained the trial court’s discretionary decisions to make support retroactive and to award attorney fees based on the case record.


Teran v. Rittley, 882 N.W.2d 181 (2015)