(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reduce plaintiffs child support obligation; however, I also believe that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to eliminate the child support arrearage accumulated during the time which plaintiffs sole source of income was the adc he received on behalf of his two other children. I find Causley v LaFreniere, 78 Mich App 250; 259 NW2d 445 (1977), and Gonzalez v Gonzalez, 121 Mich App 289; 328 NW2d 365 (1982), to be dispositive of the issue at hand. The majority’s attempt to distinguish these cases by stating that the defendants in those cases were married and therefore had wives who could presumably care for children is without merit. As noted in Causley, the defendant could be employed and earn the minimal amount necessary to support his child without jeopardizing his adc benefits. The same is true of plaintiff in this case. Plaintiffs other children were twelve and fourteen and plaintiffs girlfriend lived with him most of the time. In any event, I cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to eliminate plaintiffs child support arrearage accumulated during the time when plaintiffs sole source of income was adc and in ordering plaintiff to pay the arrearage from his future income. Causley, supra; Gonzalez, supra.