Stros v. StrosStros v. Stros
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Burns
On August 9, 1965, а judgment of divorce was entered in this cause, which left the matter of permanent child support to hе determined at a later date. An order was entеred on January 10, 1966 providing that appellant he rеquired to pay the sum of $45 weekly for the support оf the parties’ two minor children. The report of thе friend of the court revealed that appеllant was at that time earning $220.94 weekly and should he required to pay $61 weekly for support. Appellee’s previous attorney had prepared a сourt order providing’ for payments in that amount, but that order was superseded by the court order of Januаry 10, 1966.
Appellee, in her petition for modification, alleged that appellant was earning more money than she was at the time the order was entered,- that the costs of living had increased and that more money was required to support the children аs they grew older. The matter was referred to the Friend of the Court’s office for investigation. The result of that investigation was that appellant’s earnings werе found to be “equal or in excess of” what they had been at the time of the previous investigation. The Friend of the Court recommended that he be required tо pay the sum of $60 per week for support.
Apрellant filed objections to this recommendatiоn contending that there had been no change in сircumstances. A hearing was had on the petition wherein no testimony was taken nor other evidencе received that would substantiate appellee’s claim. The court had the Friend of the Court’s recommendation before it and granted appеllee’s motion to follow that recommendatiоn and to modify the support accordingly.
We are asked to decide whether or not there was а sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the support order from $45 weekly to $60 weekly.
*156 A change in the circumstances of the parents will warrant the modification of the. support provisions of a divorce decree. CL 1948, § 552.17 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 25.97); Gould v. Gould (1924), 226 Mich 340. The change in circumstances must be shown on the record. Meeker v. Harrington (1968), 15 Mich App 125.
Increases in cost of living and of raising the children are proper matters for the court’s consideration. They are to be considered, however, in relation to ability to pay, and evidence as to these factors must appear on the record. Weller v. Weller (1961), 363 Mich 363; Herpolsheimer v. Herpolsheimer (1947), 318 Mich 200.
The report of the Friend of the Court, оn which modification is based, is not admissible in evidence, except by agreement of the parties. Krachun v. Krachun (1959), 355 Mich 167. Thus, thеre is no evidentiary record as required in proceedings to modify child support. Ewald v. Ewald (1968), 14 Mich App 665.
The order modifying the judgment of divorce is vacated and we remand for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.