Appeals conclusion that a violation of MCL 750.165 (1) is a fentinuing offense. We thus overrule People v Westman, 262 Mich App 184; 685 NW2d 423 (2004) ,? to the extent that it is anconsistent with our decision in this ca: Defendant was charged with criminal noneupport well after the six-ycar limitations period expired. The Court of Appeals thus erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the Court of Appeals judgment. People v Monaco, 262 Mich App 596; 686 NW2d 790 (2004), We remand this case to the trial court for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge. I On August 20, 1984, defendant was ordered to pay child support for his two minor children under a default judgment ef divorce. the order required that the Defendant shall pay to the Friend of the Court for the County of Macomb to be transmitted to the Plaintiff for the support and maintenance of the minor children of the parties, the sum of $43.44 per week per child, for each of the two (2) minor children . . . until each of the said children have attained the age of eighteen or until further Order of this Court. redesignated subsections 4, 5, and 6. MCL 767.24(5) tow Provides the catchall limitations period. 7 In Westman, supra at 188-189, the Court of Appe:ls held that a violation of MCL 750.165 is a continuing offense. the defendant in Westman did not file an application for leave to appeal in this Court. 2