The Michigan Court of Appeals is publishing People v. Adams (Case No. 251213; May 18, 2004). The court held that the felony nonsupport statute provides for strict liability and that inability to pay is not a defense.
Judge Gage concludes (excerpt):
In sum, we cannot ignore the clear legislative intent expressed in MCL 750.165. Analysis of the factors listed in Nasir and Quinn does not mandate the imputation of an intent element to MCL 750.165. Criminal prosecution under the statute arises out of a court order in an earlier civil action of which the defendant had personal notice; thus, the non-supporting parent cannot claim ignorance of the obligation to pay. The defendant had the opportunity to voice any objections in the original proceedings. In addition, there are ample statutory provisions under which a party can seek to have the judgment revised to take into consideration changing financial circumstances, instead of inviting criminal liability. While the Ditton Court may have read a defense into the statute, the statute has since been amended to delete any reference to refusal or neglect to pay. We conclude that MCL 750.165 should be enforced as written, and as written, it provides for strict liability. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of defendant’s inability to pay.