A Review of Friend of the Court Legislative

Changes: Suffer the Little Children

Doug Dante
DougDante1@yahoo.com
Wed May 5, 2010
Updated Tues August 17, 2010

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

On December 29, 2009, Michigan's House and Senate finalized and Governor Granholm signed a package of
laws which appear to violate the constitutional rights of parents and children, and evade federal laws which
require certain services that benefit parents and children. This document reviews an SCAO memorandum
regarding this legislation, includes a list of elected officials who voted for this legislation, and includes a
letter formerly sent to all members of the Michigan House of Representatives regarding this legislation.

Table of Contents
1.0 Navaeh Buchanan and her father Shane Hinojosa

1.1 Father Absence and Fragile Families

2.0 A Review of the SCAO Memorandum Regarding This Legislation

2.1 Custody And Parenting Time Now Normally Require A Lawyer

2.2 Bad Record Keeping at the FOC Can Make Good Parents Into Felons

2.3 Speculation on The Profitable Application of Strategic Incompetence

2.4 New Laws Enable Evasion Of DRA 2005 To Avoid Paying Children

2.5 Parents Now Unable To Question Vague Application of Laws

2.6 Parents Can Now Be Tethered

2.7 Parenting Time Enforcement Is Still Unlikely (esp. Wayne County)

2.8 FOC Records Can Now Be Destroyed At Will

2.9 Other Changes

2.10 First Class Mail Notification Enables Questionable Behavior

3.0 A List of Michigan House and Senate Members Who Voted For This Legislation

4.0 Letter to Michigan House Members Regarding Bills in Hearing Wed Oct 14, 2009
5.0 What You Can Do To Help Parents and Children

5.1 Vote

5.2 Learn More

5.3 Gather Information

5.4 Share Information

5.5 Organize

5.6 Complain

5.7 Know Your Civil Rights - Secret Hearings and Secret Evidence

5.8 Who is an Impartial Decision Maker?

1.0 Navaeh Buchanan and her father Shane

Hinojosa
Navaeh Buchanan was a 5 year old girl who was murdered by unknown people in Monroe county in 2009.

All The Latest News: Nevaeh Buchanan

http://a11news.com/2020/nevaeh-buchanan/

Blink on Crime: Nevaeh Buchanan

http://blinkoncrime.com/category/neviaeh-buchanan/

"Sheriff Crutchfield said Kennedy [a convicted sex offender], described by authorities and
relatives as the boyfriend of [Navaeh's mother] Jennifer Buchanan, and Roy Lee Smith, 48, were
still being treated as "persons of interest" "

Toledo Blade: Monroe County sheriff holds out hope that Nevaeh is still alive

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090530/NEWS02/905309997

According to Naveah's mother, Kennedy was sometimes around Navaeh. "85% of the time, my daughter
wouldn't be around" When asked if he served as a father figure, Jennifer said "Yeah".

In a Nancy Grace interview, Shane Hinojosa [Navaeh's father] indicated that Naveah's grandmother had
custody, and Shane claimed he tried to get custody:

"I went to court, and the judge looked at me and said well you have no rights to your daughter at
all. ... I don't know why I didn't get custody. I guess in the State of Michigan, it's grandmother,
after something went wrong."
 Missing Tot Mom

Nancy Grace

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/03/ng.01.html

Shane Hinojosa, was the father of 5-year-old Nevaeh Buchanan. As far as I know, his name was never
mentioned in a Michigan newspaper. In contrast, the Toledo Blade decided that his concern for his daughter's
disappearance was newsworthy.

Toledo Blade: Concern over missing 5-year-old brings strangers into family fold

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090529/NEWS02/905290477

Until her disappearance, when "Mr. Hinojosa, Nevaeh's father, said he and other family members will
continue to sleep in a tent they've pitched at the apartment complex until the girl is found.", it appeared that
Hinojosa was completely isolated from her.

This included a period when Navaeh's mother was jailed. "Sherry Buchanan, Jennifer's mother, took custody
of Nevaeh while Jennifer spent 11 months in jail."

Kidnapping, Murder and Mayhem: The latest on the Nevaeh Buchanan case

http://kidnappingmurderandmayhem.blogspot.com/2009/05/latest-on-nevaeh-buchanan-
case.html

Shane Hinojosa indicated in his interview that he was not was behind in paying his child support. However,
some Michigan courts refuse to modify parenting time or enforce parenting time for parents who are behind
on child support, and may refuse to give such a parent custody of his/her child.

"Shane Hinojosa has not seen his daughter in 3 years and is distraught (now that she is
missing)."

Nevaeh Buchanan is Missing Michigan Girl

By JoAnne Thomas

http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=486

"'This is what happens when they give children to bad people, I guess,' said the birth father,
Shane Hinojosa, of Nevaeh Buchanan. ... Nevaeh's birth father, 22-year-old Shane Hinojosa,
who accused the pair of being bad people, openly admitted he hasn't seen his daughter in three
years. He’s now living in Toledo and a search of his past only revealed some recent traffic
violations. He plead guilty to all of them. He became the girl's father when he was 17-years-old."

Fact Finder: The adults in Nevaeh Buchanan's life

Toledo on the Move

http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=305099

If Shane Hinojosa were behind on his child support, and his child support obligation was automatically
imputed in violation of various Michigan laws and Michigan Supreme Court rulings (see my child support
document), and he was denied access to his daughter or custody of her as a result of that automatic
imputation (which may be a violation of state and federal laws), then the automatic imputation, which may
have effectively deprived Mr. Hinojosa of most of his parental rights, may have been a proximate cause of
Navaeh's death.

"In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to
be held the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law, cause-in-fact and
proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but-for" test: but for the action,
the result would not have happened."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause

Unfortunately, recent legislation makes it easier for vulnerable children such as Navaeh and their parents
such as Shane Hinojosa to be isolated from one another. This situation is mutually detrimental to both the
parent and the child.

1.1 Father Absence and Fragile Families

Many studies have shown the statistical benefits accrued to children who are born in marriage in the US and
in other industrialized nations:

"children born outside marriage in the US are much more likely to be poor and much more likely
to experience father absence than children born outside marriage in other countries. Both
poverty and father absence have been shown to negatively affect children’s future life
chances"

Unwed Parents or Fragile Families?

Implications for Welfare and Child Support Policy

by Sara McLanahan Princeton University, Irwin Garfinkel Columbia University, Nancy

Reichman Princeton University, and Julien Teitler Columbia University, May 15th 2000.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ssw/projects/.../WP00-04-FF-McLanahan.pdf

Outside of marriage, the study above, and many others, appear to create a double standard for fathers. For
example, in this study, the authors examine the capacities of fathers in the target group versus the general
father population, finding them lacking, and suggest that these statistical variations be used to reduce their
time with their children. However, one can reasonably expect that mothers in the target group are also
similarly statistically lacking, and yet, such data is never considered, much less used in a public policy
context to evaluate the appropriateness of promoting father involvement.

Sadly, we see that "responsibility" appears to become exclusively "forcing fathers to pay child support" on
page 9. However, I strongly support the statements of the authors that "we need to make sure that our
income-tested programs are not discouraging family formation."
2.0 A Review of the SCAO Memorandum
Regarding This Legislation
The following sections and page numbers review and refer to a memorandum sent by the Michigan State
Court Administrative Office to local Chief Circuit Judges in early 2010. It is available online at:

Memorandum

DATE: February 11, 2010

TO: Chief Circuit Judges

Friends of the Court

FROM: Elizabeth Stomski, Management Analyst

RE: Friend of the Court Legislative Changes

Michigan Supreme Court

State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/services/focb/Memoranda/02-11-10-LegislativeSummary.pdf

2.1 Custody And Parenting Time Now Normally

Require A Lawyer
Custody and Parenting Time: Parents must get approval from the judge in their case, before the FOC will
even consider letting parents see their children (page 2). Parents are to be charged fees for the cost of
investigating whether they should be allowed to spend time with their children. Note that this is especially
true for unmarried fathers of children born out of wedlock, who automatically loose legal custody of their
children at birth in the State of Michigan.

This means that the FOC forms available to parents (in theory at least, many times in the past the FOC has
been accused of simply hiding them from the parents), are now useless without a judge's pre-approval.

In most cases, in order to be heard before a judge, a parent needs a lawyer. This means that parents have no
rights to even see their children until they hire a lawyer. No provision has been made in state law for parents
who can't afford a lawyer.

2.2 Bad Record Keeping Can Make Good Parents

Into Felons
MiCSES Payment Records; MiCSES records are considered "prima facie evidence of the amount due". Bad
record keeping by the FOC could make good parents into criminals. (page 2)
 "In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which – unless rebutted –
would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

Here's a first person account from "ripoffreport.com". It is similar to other first person accounts available
online:

"Submitted: Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Last posting: Thursday, May 15, 2003

"I began paying my support from date I was ordered to start paying at the time I was serving in
the US Navy. Shortly there after I was summoned to see a referee for arrearage of some $400.00.
I explained I began payments immediately and had plenty of proof. When I asked why I suddenly
owed arrearage and for proof of such I got a major run around and was told "Just pay it!".

"After 8 years of paying from my Navy check I ran into some difficulty paying after my discharge,
due to a hard time finding work. I paid when I could. I tried to contact them to have my case
reviewed and got no answer. Over the following time I ended up owing $5200 in arrearage,
which I do not deny. They intercepted my 2001 State and Federal taxes in the amount of $2677,
of which my child only received my State tax amount of $277.00 which took 6 months for them to
get. None of the amount taken was credited to my case account.

"They then intercepted my 2002 taxes in the amount of $4832.00. Again this has not yet been
credited and my child has not seen a penny of this. The math is not difficult. I owed $5200 and
they now hold over $7200.00 of my money. I do not have it and my child or her mother does not
have it...Where is it? The Friend of the Court should be held accountable. I also know now that I
am not the only one in this situation.

"Stephen

Johnstown, Pennsylvania

U.S.A."

http://www.ripoffreport.com/government-services/wayne-county-friend/wayne-county-friend-of-
the-cou-57bjd.htm

Thanks to the prima facie evidence of debt change in Michigan law, Stephen and his child will not be able to
get the benefit of support computed in the child's best interest, but rather Stephen will be required to pay
$7,200 extra. In many cases, it's not the child, but rather the state agency providing services that would
receive this money. If not, then Stephen's child might benefit by more dollars in his/her caring parent's pocket
(even if this were otherwise a violation of Michigan law).

However, Stephen can be summarily stripped of parenting time based on any disagreement with the other
parent while in debt and most Michigan courts will generally ignore his petitions to see his child, which more
significantly negatively effects the welfare of his child than those few dollars might benefit him/her.

However, in this case the money was never credited to Stephen's account, indicating that was never disbursed
to the child or to any agency which provided services to the child or his/her other parent.
Stephen will have a very hard time even contesting this in court, because he's technically a felon for failing to
pay thousands of dollars in child support, so he risks arrest if he even shows up to ask about his child's
money. This is true even if someone at the FOC deliberately stole that $7,200 from Stephen and his child.

This change in law makes this sort of crime much easier to commit against children and parents like
Stephen's child and Stephen, and much easier to cover up. Steal a parent's child support money, and if they
complain, ignore the complaints and throw them in jail as a child support debtor. While we don't know if it's
happening in Stephen's case, if he's telling the truth, someone has (or had) his $7,200 that was supposed to go
to his child.

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that Michigan's public defenders will not effectively represent parents
accused of such crimes, and may simply push them to accept a plea bargain. See also:

Some Thoughts on Inadequate Appointed Counsel in Michigan

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34635954/Some-Thoughts-on-Inadequate-Appointed-Counsel-in-
Michigan

Failure to forward this money to the benefit of Stephen's child, received through a tax intercept, may be wire
fraud:

"Wire fraud, in the United States Code, is any criminally fraudulent activity that has been
determined to have involved electronic communications of any kind, at any phase of the event."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud

2.4 More examples of possible theft of child

support from ripoffreport.com
A Google search of all reports for "Michigan" and "Friend of the Court" at ripoffreport.com shows other
potential complaints which might be explained by theft of children's and parent's money by people at the
FOC:

"About 2 to 3 months later I received a letter from Friend of the Court stating I was behind in
child support by over $3000. Wow! What a mistake this was. Money was taken out of my check
every payday. I was never behind like that. I have the proof that money was taken out each
payday when my company received the letter. It all shows it was on time and never once
behind. ... I am clueless what to do because I play phone tag between Local and State Friend of
the Court not wanting to correct this $3000 error."

http://www.google.com/search?&q=Michigan+"Friend+Of+The+Court"+site
%3Aripoffreport.com

"Friend of the Court is holding my child support payment and cannot t ell me when I receive the
money. My ex's income tax refund has been withheld by the friend of the court for the last 5
years. He though I was getting the money. However, I told him that the Friend of the Court has
not sent me anything. This tax year that took about $11,000 of his tax refund. He and his wife
filed an injured spouse form and received half their refund back from the Friend of the Court.
 However, I have not received anything, and they show that his or my child support account has
was debited the balance of $11,000. When I went down there 3 times they could not tell me
anything. They said it was not my money until they give it to me. Need resolution."

http://www.ripoffreport.com/Customer/Wayne-County-Friend/wayne-county-friend-of-the-cou-
7xf55.htm

"Wayne County Friend of the Court has taken this persons income taxes for 4 years....they have
garnished their paycheck of 100.00 a week for 4 years, 50.00 for current support and 50.00 for
arrearages.The total owed now is 20,000.......This money has not been posted to either account
and my guess is the state is sitting on this money collecting interest...

This person has continuously accrued LATE FEES because they will not post the money.Now, I
dont care what city or state you live in.......... THIS IS ROBBERY !!!!!!!!!!!"

http://www.ripoffreport.com/social-services/wayne-county-friend/wayne-county-friend-of-the-
cou-83f6f.htm

"After one year of being told that Mr Sowders owed the Friend of the Court, Wayne County, MI.
He finally had his day in court where he was able to provide proof of payment. He also showed
that no attempt was made by Friend of Court to respond.

In this instance a case of possible theft of child support was caught by a diligent parent, and a judge moved to
stop the activities of the FOC. Many parents are not so diligent, persistent, or such careful record keepers.

"In fact Mr Sowders was given a $4,065.11 credit for child support by order of Honorable Judge
Lita Masini Popke on Dec. 16, 2003. With the help of Friend of Court Staff Attorney, Camille M.
Dennis also an assistant Friend of the Court, the matter was resolved.

...

"A few months had past, Taxes were filed and Mr Sowders expected to receive $3,409.00 back
until he was notified that it was sent to the Friend of the Court, Wayne County for garnishment.

"At no time has Mr Sowders ever been behind in child support and has followed the rules. Even
after a Judges order the Friend of the Court defy's (sic) the law!!! It is demanded that they be
controlled and disciplined. There is no phone number to call, address to write, email to send that
will allow for a human being to communicate with. It's all recording or prefabricated info
leading to the caller/sender to hang up or give up."

http://www.ripoffreport.com/family-services/wayne-county-friend/wayne-county-friend-of-the-
cou-ba27e.htm

2.3 Speculation on The Profitable Application of

Strategic Incompetence
The following is speculation based on available information. However, it is grounded in statements such as
those made by whistle blower Carol Rhodes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24
One may expect that the FOC might claim that it lost tax return intercepts and other money properly
belonging to parents and children through errors and what we may understand to be general incompetence.

"Incompetence is the inability to perform; lack of competence; ineptitude."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompetence

However, $7,200 in the case above, as well as other money in other cases, is a significant incentive to
become or remain incompetent at the handling of other children's and parent's money.

There may exist a system of enabling fraud under the guise of incompetence, otherwise known as "strategic
incompetence" to cover for intentional crimes.

"Strategy refers to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Strategic incompetence has been documented in may fields:

"It's an office skill that Steven Crawley finds indispensable. 'The inability to grasp selective
things can be very helpful in keeping your desk clear of unwanted clutter,' says the executive in
HR"

The Art of Showing Pure Incompetence

The Wall Street Journal

April 16, 2007

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-art-of-showing-pure-incompetence

Here it may be the strategy of someone who's plan was to steal money from parents and children would
deploy an intentionally incompetent system to cover their crime with plausible deniability.

"Plausible deniability refers to the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command
where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs, and the lower rungs are often
inaccessible, meaning confirming responsibility for the action is nearly impossible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

This description seems rather accurate given the frequent complaints of inaccessible FOC employees.

Given other evidence of fraud and racketeering at the FOC, we have to ask ourselves if this may be evidence
of simple incompetence, or rather evidence of strategic incompetence to cover for theft via wire fraud.

In the context of these changes in law, we must ask, do these changes promote this potentially unlawful
behavior and do they harm parents and children like Stephen and his child?

Also, it is my belief as a non-lawyer that courts under this new law will generally not allow parents to issue
discovery requests to show that they and their children have been the victims of clerical errors, mistakes,
fraud, or effectively argue that the debts presented are a violation of public policy.
For more information on evidence of fraud in the calculation of child support. Please see:

Some Thoughts on Child Support and Michigan's Friend of the Court

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-
Request

(Search for "fraud", "mistake", and "public policy")

Please note that failure to pay child support is a felony in Michigan, regardless of the amount due.

2.4 New Laws Enable Evasion Of DRA 2005 To

Avoid Paying Children
Fines, Fees, Costs, and Non-Support Collection: The FOC may be evading federal disbursement laws by
spending taxpayer dollars on establishing a second income stream to collecting for the court and FOC before
the children. (page 3)

Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2008, support collected for children must first either go to the child's
parent who is caring for that child, or to the agency that is giving benefits to that parent. Courts may collect
fines and other fees only after the child's support is current, and only after the child has received his/her
money for this month. Up to 65% of the paying parent's income can be used for this purpose.

In what appears to be an attempt to evade federal law, the legislature has limited a child's support to 50% of
the parent's income, and reserved an additional 15% for the court. "The legislature" is almost a euphemism
here, as there is substantial evidence of illegal taxpayer funded lobbying by the SCAO, and sufficient
evidence to suggest that they wrote the legislation. See:

Is the Friend of the Court Stealing Taxpayer Dollars From Children for Illegal Lobbying?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12744555/Is-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Stealing-Taxpayer-Dollars-
From-Children-for-Illegal-Lobbying

How is the state of Michigan paying to establish and collect that 15% of paying parent's income which goes
to the court? There is no funding for it, so they're almost certainly using the same people and time that the
federal taxpayers are primarily funding, as can be seen in the memo in question.

The state of Michigan is unlikely to explain in detail to the federal government in their filings how much
federal taxpayer money went into collecting the 15% that evades DRA 2005. Instead, the state will more
likely submit incomplete records to the federal government showing only the 50% that was collected
according to federal rules, and fail to mention the additional funds that are not disbursed to benefit children
as required by federal law, but which the cost of collecting was paid for primarily by federal taxpayers. These
methods may reasonably be termed "creative accounting".

"Creative accounting and earnings management are euphemisms referring to accounting

practices that may follow the letter of the rules of standard accounting practices, but certainly
deviate from the spirit of those rules. They are characterized by excessive complication and the
use of novel ways of characterizing income, assets, or liabilities and the intent to influence
 readers towards the interpretations desired by the authors. The terms "innovative" or
"aggressive" are also sometimes used."

Creative Accounting

Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_accounting

These creative accounting methods may allow for a successful taxpayer lawsuit under the Federal False
Claims Act (and possibly similar lawsuits under Michigan's state laws):

"The False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729–3733, also called the "Lincoln Law") is an
American federal law that allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file
actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_Claims_Act

2.5 Parents Now Unable To Question Vague

Application of Laws
Support Investigation Meeting: The FOC doesn't have to meet with parents to deny requests. Because form
FOC 10a is so vague, it's very difficult for a parent to determine if support was calculated correctly. This
allows the FOC, which has a conflict of interest in the matter, to deny parents modification requests without
allowing them to ask the questions necessary to determine whether they've been given access to expedited
administrative and judicial procedures to modify their child support, as required by federal law. (page 6)

Some Thoughts on Child Support and Michigan's Friend of the Court

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-
Request

(Search for "FOC10", page 44)

Here's the story of one parent who claims that the FOC would did not care that it was apparently violating
Michigan law and the court orders in his case:

"The judgement required me to pay her the child and spousal support directly until the FOC
began to withhold it from my paycheck, and this is where the problems start. I paid her the
correct amount, on time, faithfully for 72 weeks before the FOC started withholding. Yes, 72
weeks!! Why on earth did it take them 72 weeks, the only answer they give me is, "I don't know.".
To top that off, they immediately assumed that I had violated the court order to pay her directly
and accused me of not paying her at all for the 72 weeks, saying I was in arrears for well over
$26,000 dollars."

"They issued a withholding order to my employer requiring not only the ordered support, but
much extra to cover arrears, and my employer is sending them 50% of my paycheck every week.
This is causing a huge financial burden on me, as my budget, which was already tight, was based
 upon the correct amount and they are now getting over $88/wk or over $350/month from me that
I do not owe."

"I immediately contacted them when this order was issued in August of 2002 and ws told "Oh
well.". I was accused, tried, convicted, sentenced and punished, all without a trial, nobody even
asked if I owed back support, they just said I did and that was that. In September of 2002, I filed
a motion to have the support withholding changed to the correct amount and sent them proof that
I had paid her directly in the form of 72 consectuve (sic), dated money order receipts. At this
time, they did away with human beings answering the phone, so there was no easy way of finding
out the status of the motion or even if they had received it."

http://www.ripoffreport.com/Government-Corruption/Wayne-County-Friend/wayne-county-
friend-of-the-cou-87e9p.htm

2.6 Parents Can Now Be Tethered

Jail Alternatives: The court can tether parents (page 4)

2.7 Parenting Time Enforcement Is Still Unlikely

(esp. Wayne County)
Parenting Time Bench Warrants: There is no serious evidence that the FOC is changing policies and is
sincere about enforcing parenting time. The 2008 SCAO Statistical Supplement, which was not released to
the public, will be the last one published, thanks to changes in the law.

In that supplement, Wayne County in particular, Michigan's largest, showed a shocking disinterest in
attempting to enforce parenting time.

Highlights for Wayne County Custody and Parenting Time:

page 15:

parenting time motions filed: 0

Page 34

petitions for make up parenting time: 23 (only 23 people ever wanted parenting time made up in
2008 in Wayne County? Sure. More like they didn't have access to forms and didn't know about
it)

Hearings held on make up parenting time: 0

Make-up parenting time applied by the FOC: 0

Make-up parenting time ordered: 0

Amount (in days) of make up parenting time applied by FOC: 0

 Amount (in days) of make up parenting time ordered by the court: 0

Page 36

Show cause for child custody

Requested: 0

Resolved by FOC: 0

Heard by Referee: 0

Heard by Judge: 0

2008 Friend of the Court Statistics

SCAO 41 Report

Michigan Supreme Court

State Administrative Office

Final_Report_2008.pdf

Not published online.

The Friend of the Court was created by the Friend of the Court Act. In MCL 552.501, the act says:

"(2) The purposes of this act are to enumerate and describe the powers and duties of the friend of
the court and the office of the friend of the court; to ensure that procedures adopted by the friend
of the court will protect the best interests of children in domestic relations matters; to encourage
and assist parties voluntarily to resolve contested domestic relations matters by agreement; to
compel the enforcement of parenting time and custody orders; and to compel the enforcement of
support orders, ensuring that persons legally responsible for the care and support of children
assume their legal obligations and reducing the financial cost to this state of providing public
assistance funds for the care of children. This act shall be construed to promote the enumerated
purposes and to facilitate the resolution of domestic relations matters."

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-501

Please note that one purpose of the FOC is "to compel the enforcement of parenting time and custody
orders".

However, it is clear from FOC publications that the FOC is uninterested in fulfilling its legislative mandate.
The Pundit is its primary publication, and its subtitle is "Michigan Child Support Information".

The latest issue includes an interview with Zenell Brown, who is the new director of the Wayne County
FOC. If information in the 2008 SCAO Statistical publication didn't make it obvious, the interview makes it
crystal clear that Wayne county is not now, nor planning in the future, any significant attempt to compel
enforcement of parenting time orders.

According to the interview, it appears that the most significant attempt that the FOC makes is "In the Third
Circuit Court Mediation Project, the court trains mediators who donate their time to help parents resolve
custody and parenting-time issues."

There is no attempt to "compel enforcement". In Wayne County, the courts simply refuse to use their
legislatively granted authority to ensure that parents and children can enjoy a mutually beneficial
relationship.

The Pundit

Michigan Child Support Information

March 2010

Volume 23, Number 3

pages 3+

Interview with Zenell Brown, New Director at

Wayne County Friend of the Court Office

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/focbnewsletters/march2010pundit.pdf

In 2008, Wayne County had a caseload of 245,856 cases. I'm not sure if this is "cases" or "children". (In fact
"children" doesn't appear in the statistical supplement, and "child" appears only once in the phrase "child
support". The dollar sign appears hundreds of times).

Perhaps this disinterest in the welfare of children, which is enhanced by a good relationship with both
parents, wouldn't be so bothersome, the federal taxpayers weren't paying for "Grants to States for Access and
Visitation Programs" under US Code Title 42, Chapter 7, Sub chapter IV, Part D, Section 666B. These have
a $100,000 per state minimum.

A Quick Summary of Title IV-D Funding and Incentives

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives

Wayne County had a 2008 estimated population of 2,061,162, while Michigan's population was estimated at
10,045,697, giving Wayne County about 21% of Michigan's people. We can also reasonably estimate 21% of
children and parents involved in the FOC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_County,_Michigan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan

The amount of money spent by the federal government on parenting time enforcement is rather small.
However, it's a shame that the state of Michigan does not appear to be spending a single dime of it on
enforcing the parenting time of 21% of its parents and children, to their mutual loss. The state of Michigan
could also spend some of our taxpayer money ensuring that parents and children aren't separated.
2.8 FOC Records Can Now Be Destroyed At Will
Retaining Imaged Records: The FOC can destroy its records at will (page 5)

Unfortunately, there is evidence of racketeering and fraud at the FOC.

Just listen to former FOC worker and whistle blower Carol Rhodes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24

This means that some of the records that can now be destroyed may include evidence of criminal activity.

Furthermore, these records may be vital in determining just what went on or didn't go on in a domestic
relations action, given that many referees are actively refusing to follow court rules regarding
contemporaneous recordings (and there has apparently been no significant attempt to stop these violations of
court rules).

Contemporaneous Recordings for Referee Hearings in Michigan

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2257035/Contemporaneous-Recordings-for-Referee-Hearings-in-
Michigan

Forms: Domicile: Legally speaking a child is not really living with a parent until that parents get the other
parent to sign FOC forms (page 5)

This may violate the rights of parents to care for their children, and violate the intent of federal law, which is
to provide care for children, and not to provide an income stream for absent parents, or to reimburse
government agencies which provide services to absent parents, while taking parental income from the
children who've been abandoned. See also:

Considerations for when a Parent Spends Child Support on Himself/Herself and the Court
Doesn't Care

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1018457/Considerations-for-when-a-Parent-Spends-Child-Support-
on-HimselfHerself-and-the-Court-Doesnt-Care

Some Thoughts on Child Support and Michigan's Friend of the Court

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-
Request

(Search for "intent of Congress")

2.9 Other Changes

Support Investigation Meeting: The FOC doesn't have to meet with parents. (page 6)
Support Review: It appears that the FOC is preventing parents from having access to legal processes to
determine the other parent's income. This prevents those parents from acting in their children's best interests
to ensure that the child support ordered is based on the legal definition of their children's best interests. (page
6)

Statistical Reporting: The FOC will never be required to produce statistical reports again. (page 7)

Several reviews of past reports show that the custody decisions of the FOC, when reviewed between counties
appear to be arbitrary and potentially racially biased, including this one:

Analysis of Friend of the Court Custody Recommendations

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6169001/Analysis-of-Friend-of-the-Court-Custody-Recommendations

2.10 First Class Mail Notification Enables

Questionable Behavior
Unfortunately, the FOC can now use first class mail as an official notification procedure, and stop notifying
parents for whom mail is returned. Because there is evidence of racketeering at the FOC, this means that
some workers who may engage in this illegal practice can lie to parents and tell parents that the FOC mailed
things the FOC never mailed. (page 8)

Lies claiming that mail was sent which was never sent which are then used to obtain something of value may
reasonably be considered instances of the crime of mail fraud:

"Mail fraud is an offense under US federal law, which refers to any scheme which attempts to
unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the
commission of a criminal offense."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_fraud

There is evidence that some individuals at the FOC have engaged in similar mail fraud and other forms of
fraud in the past, including fraudulently back dating forms. See also:

Detecting Fraud in Court Filings: Postal Meters, Color Printers/Copiers, and Cartridges

http://www.scribd.com/doc/948712/Detecting-Fraud-in-Court-Filings-Postal-Meters-Color-
PrintersCopiers-and-Cartridges

One common complaint from parents is that FOC workers commonly claim to have completed forms on
Sunday, which are then mailed on Monday, in order to prevent parents from having an additional weekend on
which to work on responses. If these forms are deliberately back dated to reduce the ability of parents to
respond to motions effectively, then this might also reasonably be considered a form of fraud.
3.0 A List of Michigan House and Senate Members
Who Voted For This Legislation
Below is an Action Alert message which was distributed via e-mail. Multiple copies of this alert were was
sent to all members of the Michigan House regarding these bills before they passed them. Similar alerts were
sent to the Michigan Senate.

Voted for most or all of these bills:

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm

Michigan House (All members - very few exceptions on individual bills):

David Agema

Justin Amash

Kathy Angerer

Richard Ball

Vicki Barnett

Joan Bauer

Doug Bennett

Timothy Bledsoe

James Bolger

Darwin Booher

Lisa Brown

Terry Brown

Pam Byrnes

Barb Byrum

Brian Calley

Bill Caul

Ed Clemente

Bob Constan

Bettie Cook Scott

Marc Corriveau

Andy Coulouris

Hugh Crawford

George Cushingberry Jr.

Kevin Daley

Robert Dean

Cindy Denby

Larry DeShazor

Andy Dillon

Marie Donigan

Fred Durhal Jr.

Kate Ebli

Kevin Elsenheimer

John Espinoza

Douglas Geiss

Bob Genetski

Lee Gonzales

Kevin Green

Vincent Gregory

Martin Griffin

Jennifer Haase

Gail Haines

Richard Hammel

Goeff Hansen

Harold Haugh

Joseph Haveman
Dave Hildenbrand

Kenneth Horn

Mike Huckleberry

Shanelle Jackson

Bert Johnson

Rick Jones

Robert Jones

Andrew Kandrevas

Deb Kennedy

Marty Knollenberg

Eileen Kowall

Kenneth Kurtz

Michael Lahti

Richard LeBlanc

Gabe Leland

LaMar Lemmons Jr.

Steven Lindberg

Ellen Lipton

Lesia Liss

Matt Lori

Pete Lund

Jim Marleau

Jeff Mayes

Gary McDowell

Tom McMillin

Mark Meadows
Arlan Meekhof

Tim Melton

Kim Meltzer

Fred Miller

Tim Moore

Chuck Moss

David Nathan

Judy Nerat

Andy Neumann

Paul Opsommer

Phil Pavlov

Tom Pearce

Gino Polidori

John Proos

Sarah Roberts

Tory Rocca

Bill Rogers

Roy Schmidt

Wayne Schmidt

Tonya Schuitmaker

Paul Scott

Dan Scripps

Kate Segal

Joel Sheltrown

Dian Slavens

Jim Slezak
Alma Smith

Dudley Spade

Jim Stamas

Woodrow Stanley

Jon Switalski

Rashida Tlaib

Sharon Tyler

Mary Valentine

John Walsh

Rebekah Warren

Jimmy Womack

Coleman Young II

Michigan Senate (All members - I do not believe that there were any exceptions):

Jason Allen

Glenn S. Anderson

Jim Barcia

Raymond E. Basham

Patricia L. Birkholz

Michael Bishop

Liz Brater

Cameron Brown

Nancy Cassis

Deborah Cherry

Irma Clark-Coleman

Hansen Clarke

Alan L. Cropsey
Valde Garcia

Thomas M. George

Judson Gilbert II

John Gleason

Bill Hardiman

Tupac A. Hunter

Gilda Z. Jacobs

Mark C. Jansen

Ron Jelinek

Roger Kahn MD

Wayne Kuipers

Michelle McManus

Mike Nofs

Dennis Olshove

John Pappageorge

Bruce Patterson

Michael Prusi

Randy Richardville

Alan Sanborn

Martha G. Scott

Tony Stamas

Michael Switalski

Samuel Buzz Thomas, III

Gerald VanWoerkom

Gretchen Whitmer
4.0 Letter to Michigan House Members Regarding
Bills in Hearing Wed Oct 14, 2009
Doug Dante

DougDante1 at yahoo.com

Wed Oct 14, 2009

TO:

TimBledsoe@house.mi.gov, lamarlemmonsjr@house.mi.gov, bettiecookscott@house.mi.gov,

colemanayoungii@house.mi.gov, bertjohnson@house.mi.gov, FredDurhal@house.mi.gov,
JimmyWomack@house.mi.gov, georgecushingberry@house.mi.gov,
shanellejackson@house.mi.gov, gabeleland@house.mi.gov, DavidNathan@house.mi.gov,
RashidaTlaib@house.mi.gov, AndrewKandrevas@house.mi.gov, edclemente@house.mi.gov,
ginopolidori@house.mi.gov, bobconstan@house.mi.gov, andydillon@house.mi.gov,
richardleblanc@house.mi.gov, JohnWalsh@house.mi.gov, marccorriveau@house.mi.gov,
DianSlavens@house.mi.gov

DouglasGeiss@house.mi.gov, DebKennedy@house.mi.gov, SarahRoberts@house.mi.gov,

JonSwitalski@house.mi.gov, mariedonigan@house.mi.gov, EllenLipton@house.mi.gov,
LesiaLiss@house.mi.gov, timmelton@house.mi.gov, toryrocca@house.mi.gov,
fredmiller@house.mi.gov, JenniferHaase@house.mi.gov, kimmeltzer@house.mi.gov,
WoodrowStanley@house.mi.gov, VincentGregory@house.mi.gov, PeteLund@house.mi.gov,
VickiBarnett@house.mi.gov, HughCrawford@house.mi.gov, LisaBrown@house.mi.gov,
chuckmoss@house.mi.gov, martyknollenberg@house.mi.gov, HaroldHaugh@house.mi.gov

GailHaines@house.mi.gov, EileenKowall@house.mi.gov, TomMcMillin@house.mi.gov,

jimmarleau@house.mi.gov, CindyDenby@house.mi.gov, richardhammel@house.mi.gov,
leegonzales@house.mi.gov, JimSlezak@house.mi.gov, PaulScott@house.mi.gov,
pambyrnes@house.mi.gov, rebekahwarren@house.mi.gov, almasmith@house.mi.gov,
kathyangerer@house.mi.gov, KateEbli@house.mi.gov, dspade@house.mi.gov,
KennethKurtz@house.mi.gov, MattLori@house.mi.gov, robertjones@house.mi.gov,
LarryDeShazor@house.mi.gov, KateSegal@house.mi.gov, JamesBolger@house.mi.gov

martingriffin@house.mi.gov, mikesimpson@house.mi.gov, BillRogers@house.mi.gov,

barbbyrum@house.mi.gov, joanbauer@house.mi.gov, markmeadows@house.mi.gov,
MikeHuckleberry@house.mi.gov, rickjones@house.mi.gov, JustinAmash@house.mi.gov,
tompearce@house.mi.gov, daveagema@house.mi.gov, robertdean@house.mi.gov,
RoySchmidt@house.mi.gov, kevingreen@house.mi.gov, SharonTyler@house.mi.gov,
johnproos@house.mi.gov, tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov, phillippavlov@house.mi.gov,
KevinDaley@house.mi.gov, johnespinoza@house.mi.gov, terrybrown@house.mi.gov

richardball@house.mi.gov, rephildenbrand@house.mi.gov, briancalley@house.mi.gov,

BobGenetski@house.mi.gov, arlanbmeekhof@house.mi.gov, JosephHaveman@house.mi.gov,
maryvalentine@house.mi.gov, dougbennett@house.mi.gov, paulopsommer@house.mi.gov,
kennethhorn@house.mi.gov, andycoulouris@house.mi.gov, jeffmayes@house.mi.gov,
timmoore@house.mi.gov, JimStamas@house.mi.gov, billcaul@house.mi.gov,
goeffhansen@house.mi.gov, DanScripps@house.mi.gov, darwinbooher@house.mi.gov,
joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov, WayneSchmidt@house.mi.gov, kevinelsenheimer@house.mi.gov
AndyNeumann@house.mi.gov, garymcdowell@house.mi.gov, JudyNerat@house.mi.gov,
stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov, mikelahti@house.mi.gov,

Subject

Please Help Michigan's Children and Parents By Opposing HB 5501, 5503-4, and SB 99-107

Body

Michigan House Member,

At 10:30AM today, members of the Michigan House Families and Children's Services will hear
testimony on a package of bills which they may recommend to you for passage. All of these
measures were essentially ghost written by special interests connected to the Michigan Friend of
the Court, they represent significant civil liberties violations, and they are a danger to Michigan's
children and parents. I urge you to oppose all but HB 5502.

http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=committeemeeting&objectname=2009-
HCS-022394fb-513d-47ee-9066-77526fce6547

HB 5501Â

This bill simply changes the names of required procedures from "domestic relations mediation"
to "alternative dispute resolution". What harm can come of that. A lot. Mediation is a procedure
defined by law, custom, and court rules. In this context, Domestic Relations Mediation is a
process whereby a neutral party listens to the parents involved in a domestic dispute, such as
child custody, parenting time, or child support, in private, and attempts to find solutions to which
both parties can agree.

What is "alternative dispute resolution". Nothing. There is no legal definition, and despite
Michigan law requiring such practices, in the majority of cases, families are given no meaningful
services to assist them, and there is no meaningful confidentiality. The purpose of Alternative
Dispute Resolution is not to mediate disputes between the parties, but rather to gather evidence to
justify a pre-determined cookie cutter solution. For example, see "Reasonable Rights of Parenting
Time: Ingham County":

http://www.ingham.org/FC/reasonablerights.pdf

Good luck if you want to see your children on a Jewish holiday in Ingham county, or if you're a
mother with a major family reunion on Memorial Day, but willing to give up Labor Day!Â
Alternative Dispute Resolution isn't going to help you. Just read the statistical summary of
parents and read their comments as to how the de-facto ADR system we have now worked out for
them:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3123830/Michigan-Child-Custody-Survey-Report

The real reason for ADR rather than mediation. When private and confidential mediators bill
parents for their services, and do a good job, not only do parents typically spend more equal
amounts of time with their children, cutting into Title IV-D funds for the FOC, but also the FOC
can't bill the parents for their own ADR "services". This is probably the primary reason that
Michigan law is being ignored in Oakland County:
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/362206/Oakland-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-
the-Law-and-Hurts-Kids

In Macomb County:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3987229/Macomb-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-
the-Law-and-Hurts-Kids

In Ingham County:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/362198/Ingham-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Is-Ignoring-
The-Law-and-Hurting-Kids

And probably in most other counties.

Rather than removing Domestic Relations Mediation from Michigan law, I urge you to pass
legislation providing for mandatory fines when FOC workers violate Michigan law and short
circuit the process Michigan law demands they follow to helping parents to talk to one another to
work out an arrangement that's best for their own children.

Title IV-D money drives the FOC, by the way, and creates substantial conflicts of interests for
Michigan courts as they rule on child custody, child support, and other family law matters:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-
Incentives

There is evidence of fraud in calculating child support, and there is evidence that the FOC has
been illegally using automatic income imputation to compute obligations which are neither in the
interests of the child, according to Michigan law, nor in the interests of the paying parent, for
approximately 10 years.Â

http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-
Modification-Request

(Search for "fraud" and "imputation", which are both in several sections)

Thankfully, as of last fall, FOC workers have been officially trained to stop violating Michigan
law with regards to automatic income imputation, and they will likely stop, but old habits die
hard, and those children whose parents suffer from arrears created through these apparently
illegal means still suffer the shame that their dad or mom is a deadbeat, not to mention the serious
threat of prison for the parents, and the increased likelihood of the destruction of the protective
and mutually beneficial parent-child relationship, as courts will not customarily enforce parenting
time orders of those parents who are in arrears.

HB 5502

This establishes a requirement to pay the mother's birth expenses, and is based on income. In it's
original form as essentially written by the FOC, this measure would have assigned all birth
expenses to the father, and could have criminalized men who fell into coma before the birth of
their child, and thus had no income to pay such expenses. Imagine his testimony at trial under fire
from the prosecution: "Admit your guilt!"Â His pathetic attempt at avoiding jail, the Beep-Beep-
Beep of the machines keeping him alive.
In case you're interested, here's some information on evidence regarding the FOC's authorship of
these bills in their original forms, which is a violation of State and Federal anti-lobbying laws.Â
By the way, it appears that the money used to write the bills may have been stolen from the very
children FOC is supposed to serve:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12744555/Is-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Stealing-Taxpayer-
Dollars-From-Children-for-Illegal-Lobbying

HB 5503

Provides for the automatic revocation of driver's licenses without a hearing if a parent fails to
meet a payment order. This is essentially contempt of court without a hearing. I'm not going to
argue against this, but rather let the US Supreme Court do it for me, with over 100 years of
established case law backing it up:

"even conceding that the statute does not limit their authority, and hence that the
courts of the District of Columbia, notwithstanding the statute, are vested with those
general powers to punish for contempt which have been usually exercised by courts
of equity without express statutory grant, a more fundamental question yet remains to
be determined -- that is, whether a court possessing plenary power to punish for
contempt, unlimited by statute, has the right to summon a defendant to answer, and
then, after obtaining jurisdiction by the summons, refuse to allow the party
summoned to answer, or strike his answer from the files, suppress the testimony in
his favor, and condemn him without consideration thereof, and without a hearing, on
the theory that he has been guilty of a contempt of court. The mere statement of this
proposition would seem, in reason and conscience, to render imperative a negative
answer. The fundamental conception of a court of justice is condemnation only after
hearing. To say that courts have inherent power to deny all right to defend an action
and to render decrees without any hearing whatever is, in the very nature of things,
to convert the court exercising such an authority into an instrument of wrong and
oppression, and hence to strip it of that attribute of justice upon which the exercise of
judicial power necessarily depends.

Hovey V Elliott

US Supreme Court, 1897

http://supreme.justia.com/us/167/409/case.html

This bill essentially creates the instrument of oppression described above, without affording the
alleged contemptor the pretense of a hearing, fair or not. It's just the sort of thing of which
expensive civil rights class action suits are made. Unfortunately, this bill is not out of the
ordinary based on messages received via the FRC Yahoo Group complaining about current court
practices in contempt proceedings:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/406110/Some-Thoughts-For-Parents-Facing-A-
Contempt-of-Court-Hearing

HB 5504

The summary for this bill says that it is to provide for costs and fees for various domestic
relations matters, but I think it should be called the "Protecting Secret FOC Files Act of 2009".
Notice this little tidbit:
 (6) Except for records described in subsection (3), this section only applies to
records filed with the court and maintained by the court clerk or register.

http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/House/htm/2009-HIB-
5504.htm

Now, FOC records, transcripts, and recordings can be deleted at will.

Why the concern. Well, there is evidence of Racketeering at the Michigan FOC, according to
former FOC worker and whistle blower Carol Rhodes:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/454566/Racketeering-in-Michigans-Friend-of-the-Court

Please watch her youtube video here. If you only click one link in this message, this is the one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24

There is evidence that some recordings may have been altered, and that court rules requiring that
parties who request it be given contemporaneous recordings of proceedings appear to be widely
ignored:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2257035/Contemporaneous-Recordings-for-Referee-
Hearings-in-Michigan

It's important that the interests of justice to maintain records which may show past wrongdoings,
on the part of any party, not be sidelined under pressure from those same parties. Such a move is
simply an invitation to more wrongdoings.

SB 99

Some portions of this bill simply clarify wording, which I urge you to support in general.
Particularly the part about making forms available to parties. Did you know that recently Ingham
County FOC recently violated Michigan law by withholding child support modification forms
and making parents wait up to a month to attend a meeting just so they could get a form. And
those same forms are download able on the SCAO web site!Â

The nastiest provision of SB 99 is that local courts may continue to collect support and fees.Â
Federal law mandates that a central disbursement unit collect and pay all support and fees, but
allows for local courts to collect them, so long as technological measures are used.

The purpose of this looks like it might be an end run around two federal laws that were updated
and could really pinch the money flow of fees into local courts, because that's exactly what they
were intended to do. US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUB CHAPTER IV > Part D > §
657 sensibly reformed child support by requiring that when a support agency gets money to
support a child under a federal program, that such money actually go to the child under most
circumstances, and not be siphoned off into fees for the agencies ordering the child support. After
all, the taxpayers are paying for these programs, and to support children, not bureaucrats.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000657----
000-.html

Similarly, US Code TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1673 sets a maximum
allowable garnishment of 65% of a payor's income.

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001673----
000-.html

Within that 65%, the FOC can legally collect arrears, including fees to itself, court costs to the
court, fees to politically collected lawyers who served the other parent or acted as LGALs, etc. If
the support order is at 65%, there is no money for the FOC, a serious problem when such fees are
a significant portion of your annual income.

However, these limitations on garnishment tend to be ignored for orders which walk like
garnishment, talk like garnishment, quack like garnishment, but aren't garnishment according to
those collecting them. According to members of the FRC group, all collections above 65% are
generally collected by the local court via court ordered monthly check, and many parents have
complained that they never show up on their statement with the state disbursement unit.

This is because these extra checks are applied to fees, we hope, as they don't always appear to be
accurately accounted for in any sort of statement.

In any event, I oppose these end runs around federal garnishment limits, for the same reasons that
the federal government regulated them in the first place, as they are an invitation to further
abuses.

SB 100

The disdain that the FOC workers who allegedly originally wrote this legislation must have for
parents and their rights comes through loud and clear in their own proposed laws:

(9) Except as provided in sections 11 and 25a, service of notices or other papers
under this act and under the friend of the  court act shall be made by first-class
mail, postage prepaid. If mail is returned as undeliverable from that address, the
friend of the court may change the address pursuant to guidelines established by the
state court administrative office or the supreme court.

(10) Unless federal law or regulation requires otherwise, if mail served under
subsection (9) is returned from an address and a new address has not been
established within 21 days after the mail is returned, the party waives his or her right
to notice and the friend of the court is not obligated to serve any notice or other
paper until the party submits a written change of address to the friend of the court or
until the friend of the court has changed the address pursuant to subsection (9).

http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2009-SIB-
0100.htm

Imagine the following situation. Mom shows up and asks where her kids are. FOC worker
replies: "So sorry, you no longer have children. Your rights to them were taken from you in a
hearing to which you had no notice because we sent a first class letter to your last address and it
came back to us, so we stopped sending you notices. Oh, well, we didn't get your change of
address form . What's that, you have a signed certified receipt from when you sent it. Can't past
change legal processes now. You should have contacted us to verify that we had your change of
address form. Didn't get through because the phones were always busy, not our problem. Have a
nice life."
 SB 105

Similar to HB 5504 above and I urge you to oppose.

SB 106

Similar to HB 5502 and HB 5504 above and I urge you to oppose.

SB 107

Part of this bill changes Michigan law preventing support orders from being retroactive to before
paperwork was filed in the case. I support those changes, as several military fathers have reported
that the mothers of their children demanded cash payments of child support, and then perjured
themselves, claiming that they had received no support, in order to establish arrears which
negatively harmed the fathers as well as the children involved.

Also, while I strongly support provisions to protect victims of domestic violence, the provision in
for DV in this bill refers only to "the defendant" who may have committed domestic violence. As
the defendant in these cases is always the man by custom, this law, as written, does not consider
the possibility that a woman may also be a perpetrator of domestic violence, and affords such a
female perpetrator extra status under the law, so I request that any such provisions should be
changed to be consistent with the existing and non-discriminatory Michigan laws on these serious
matters.

The other parts are similar to HB 5502 above and I urge you to oppose them.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

5.0 What You Can Do To Help Parents and

Children
If you're not satisfied with the performance of one of your elected officials, don't vote for him/her in the
future. Learn more by reading blogs, books, and listening to podcasts. Share information anonymously
online. Organize in person. Complain to your elected officials, know your civil rights, and consider collective
legal action.

5.1 Vote
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have
been tried."

Sir Winston Churchill

All of the elected officials above were selected by citizens of the state of Michigan to run our state. Register
to vote. If an elected official does not act in what you feel is the correct manner, don't vote for him or her.

Ask candidates about these issues. Do candidates support parents rights? Will he/she pass legislation to better
regulate court recordings to prevent their manipulation? Will he/she investigate the possible theft of income
tax returns and propose legislation to ensure that children get the support that's due them? Will he/she
investigate fraud in support calculation? Will he/she support strong parenting time enforcement?

5.2 Learn More

If you believe in fathers or families rights, then join the following yahoo groups to share information and take
collective action:

FRC

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frc/

FRC of Michigan

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FRCMich/

MichDads

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michdads/

Please join with an alias, because there is some evidence that the FOC monitors discussion on these lists, and
evidence that the FOC retaliates against parents who engage in free speech activities. That is, there's some
evidence that FOC workers may punish parents for their political speech. As a non-lawyer, such actions
would be a violation of the first amendment, but they may be executed in a plausibly deniable way. e.g. "We
think it's in your child's best interests that you only see him/her via an overpriced and politically connected
supervised visitation center, but we'll gently hint that we're punishing you and your child for your political
activities without directly admitting to it."

Web sites and podcasts from which you may learn more include:

Get Your Justice Live

http://www.getyourjusticelive.com/

Best Interest of the Family

http://bestinterestofthefamily.com/

Second Class Citizen (esp. Veterans)

http://www.secondclasscitizen.org/

The operator of that web site also has a list of Michigan advocacy groups created by Dan Diebolt.

http://www.secondclasscitizen.org/index.php?view=article&catid=46:state-
agencies&id=23:michigan-advocacy-groups&format=pdf

Books in which you may be interested:

Friend of the court enemy of the family: Surviving the child support system and divorce racket
 Carol Rhodes

http://www.amazon.com/Friend-court-enemy-family-Surviving/dp/0966816102

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice

Barbara C Johnson

http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Black-Robes-Failed-Justice/dp/1439241155

Barbara C. Johnson's web site:

http://falseallegations.com/

(Massachusetts)

5.3 Gather Information

There is a wealth of information available if concerned citizens would seek it out using FOIA and other
methods.

This information includes:

All records, notes, meetings, and documents of the Governor's Child Support Leadership Council. This
council was formed by executive order in 2002:

Establishment of the Michigan Child Support Leadership Council EXECUTIVE ORDER 2002-7

EXECUTIVE ORDER

2002 - 7

CHILD SUPPORT COORDINATING COUNCIL

MICHIGAN CHILD SUPPORT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION

http://www.michigan.gov/formergovernors/0,1607,7-212-31303_31305-26211--,00.html

5.4 Share Information

Post your story on the FRC and MichDads list. Change the names and don't mention your specific location.
Your story probably isn't very unique.

Some people put their stories on a public complaint web site such as rip off report (as Stephen did above):

http://www.ripoffreport.com/
Some others post legal documents in your case to a web site such as scribd.com

http://www.scribd.com/

Some other create protest web sites.

5.5 Organize
In some cases, it may be crucial to organize to take peaceful legal and political collective action to effect
change.

If I claim that my child and I have been a victim of theft of our tax intercepts from our local FOC office, it
will be generally ignored by the media, and people will believe that I'm a victim of a bureaucratic error. If
two parents make the argument, it gives it more weight. If ten parents make the argument, then most people
in the public will generally accept that there is some merit to our statements. Furthermore, working together
as a group, we can more easily find a lawyer to represent us in a federal class action lawsuit to recover the
money that was stolen from us and our children.

While it is possible to obtain satisfaction as an individual, it is much more effective to approach your elected
officials as a team and request change than to show up as a lone individual.

This will require that you establish bonds of trust with people who are similarly situated with you.

It may be necessary to organize a local face to face meeting via a posting on craigslist.org or through similar
methods.

If you feel that you're a victim of injustice, you're almost certainly not the only one. Seek out similar
members of the public and discuss the situation with them. Clarify the issues.

5.6 Complain
If you feel that you're the victim of an injustice, contact your elected representatives. Tell them what's going
on, using your real name and facts if possible. People to contact include:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Your State Representative

(Proposes and votes on laws like the ones above)

http://house.mi.gov/

Your State Senator

(Proposes and votes on laws like the ones above)

http://senate.mi.gov/

Your Governor
(Votes on laws like the ones above. Chief executive of the State)

http://www.michigan.gov/gov

Your Attorney General

(the main legal advisor to the government, and is responsible for public prosecutions)

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/

Your Federal Representative

(Proposes and votes on legislation that effects the Title IV-D program)

http://www.house.gov/

Your Federal Senator

(Proposes and votes on legislation that effects the Title IV-D program)

http://www.senate.gov/

Your President

(Handles all executive functions of the federal government, including Title IV-D administration)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Secretary of Health and Human Services

(who runs Title IV-D program for the President)

http://www.hhs.gov/

US Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General

(protects the integrity of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs)

http://oig.hhs.gov/

Michigan Friend of the Court Bureau

(Organizes and runs the FOC)

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/services/focb/focb.htm

Michigan State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)

(Handles court administration)

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/
 Michigan Auditor General

(improves the accountability of public funds and to improve the operations of State government
for the benefit of the citizens of the State of Michigan)

http://audgen.michigan.gov/

It may be best to write you your elected official using pen and paper. Please view:

Talks | In less than 6 minutes

Omar Ahmad: Political change with pen and paper

http://www.ted.com/talks/omar_ahmad_political_change_with_pen_and_paper.html

5.7 Know Your Civil Rights - Secret Hearings and

Secret Evidence
The US Supreme Court held that parents have a due process right to the care and custody of their children.

Due process rights for parents are weak in Michigan's courts. Courts can essentially destroy parent child
relationships by restricting parents to extremely limited supervised visitation only in a place and at a cost
they can't afford utilizing the best interests of the child standard, and the courts often talk about due process
rights which are "not to the same extent" as those in termination of parental rights proceedings.

Considerations for Appeal of Discovery Rulings in Michigan Family Court

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9131878/Considerations-for-Appeal-of-Discovery-Rulings-in-
Michigan-Family-Law

In Michigan, parents and children are subject to a system in which a FOC custody evaluator is often the
effective judge of the amount of time they have with their children. That evaluator may have a financial
conflict of interest through the Title IV-D program. He or she may interview anyone not in the presence of
the other party, collecting what amounts to secret evidence that the other party may never see. That worker
may rely on secret records, including possibly black lists of people who have participated in political speech
such as parents rights movements online to restrict the custody of parents. Under recent changes to Michigan
law, he or she can now destroy those secret records at will, and they're not court records subject to the
various restrictions. He or she can hold secret hearings with the referee or judge or other experts in a case at
which they may predetermine the outcome of a parenting time dispute. This creates a situation in which the
"official record" of the proceedings doesn't reflect the actual proceedings at all.

Parenting is a fundamental liberty interest. It is much more important than say, welfare benefits. For many
poor parents, welfare benefits also depend upon child custody.

Consider some of the words of the US Supreme Court in Goldberg V Kelly and compare to the operation of
Michigan's FOC:

BRENNAN, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 397 U.S. 254

Goldberg v. Kelly

No. 62 Argued: October 13, 1969 --- Decided: March 23, 1970

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0397_0254_ZO.html

"The question for decision is whether a State that terminates public assistance payments to a
particular recipient without affording him the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to
termination denies the recipient procedural due process in violation of the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment." (It is)

In comparison, in Michigan, unwed fathers of newborns are summarily stripped of legal custody of their
children at birth, and prevented from taking them to the doctors office, without a hearing. They must later get
a lawyer to plead for their right to care for their children.

"Pursuant to subdivision (b), the New York City Department of Social Services promulgated
Procedure No. 68-18. A caseworker who has doubts about the recipient's continued eligibility
must first discuss them with the recipient."

A FOC caseworker who doubts a parent's eligibility to continue exercising custody of his child is not
required to discuss the matter with that party prior to taking any other action. (Remember, this more
expansive procedure was found unconstitutionally restrictive of the fourteenth amendment due process rights
of an individual for a lesser right).

"If the reviewing official affirms the determination of ineligibility, aid is stopped immediately and
the recipient is informed by letter of the reasons for the action."

In some Michigan counties, FOC worker "recommendations" are given immediate legal effect (they're
sometimes called "concillators"), similar to the unconstitutional system above.

"Appellees' challenge to this procedure emphasizes the absence of any provisions for the
personal appearance of the recipient before the reviewing official, for oral presentation of
evidence, and for confrontation and cross-examination of adverse witnesses."

Here Michigan law has been expanded to deny requests to modify parenting time and custody without oral
arguments in a similar manner to the unconstitutional system in Goldberg V Kelly.

"However, the letter does inform the recipient that he may request a post-termination "fair
hearing." [n5] This is a proceeding before an independent [p260] state hearing officer at which
the recipient may appear personally, offer oral evidence, confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him, and have a record made of the hearing."

It is my understanding that in most cases, parents are not permitted to cross examine FOC workers who make
recommendations, and they aren't even allowed to see key witness statements and evidence that is used to
restrict their parental rights, which is more restrictive than the system that the court struck down in Goldberg
V Kelly. Such a system would not allow an impartial decision maker to conduct secret hearings and access
secret evidence for a lesser right, and yet was found unconstitutionally restrictive.

"If the recipient prevails at the "fair hearing," he is paid all funds erroneously withheld."
Clearly a parent who is denied the right to care for his/her child cannot be sent back in time to collect that
time erroneously withheld. In fact, those restrictions, even if erroneous, can be used to justify further
restrictions on his/her child, by creating an "existing custodial environment" or allowing the creation of a
guardianship, which then further restricts the rights of the wronged parent.

"The constitutional issue to be decided, therefore, is the narrow one whether the Due Process
Clause requires that the recipient he afforded an evidentiary hearing before the termination of
benefits." (It does, a pre-termination hearing is required)

Here in Michigan we might argue by analogy that the due process rights of parents require an evidentiary
hearing before restrictions on his/her parental rights.

"While post-termination review is relevant, there is one overpowering fact which controls here.
By hypothesis, a welfare recipient is destitute, without funds or assets. . . . Suffice it to say that to
cut off a welfare recipient in the face of . . . "brutal need" without a prior hearing of some sort is
unconscionable unless overwhelming considerations justify it."

Again, a parent who loves his or her child is destitute in that he or she cannot be a parent to that child when
his or her rights are restricted. He/she cannot exercise his/her fundamental liberty interest in the care and
custody of his/her child. This creates the same sort of brutal need which can be unconscionable.

Compare this to Michigan's Supreme Court on these issues:

"A parent's interest in the care and custody of his minor child is an important interest which
merits due process protection, but a custody decree which does not sever the parental bond and
is subject to modification is not entitled to due process rights to the same extent as in a
termination of parental rights proceeding. In custody disputes, the overriding concern is the
welfare of the child."

Michigan Appellate Digest

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=34375&mode=view#170525

What are a parent's due process rights when restricting his/her parent to as little as one hour of supervised
parenting time per month? How does this benefit the child? What are the best interests of the child which are
so compelling as to require the application of secret hearings, secret evidence, and blacklists? Why can't the
due process rights of parents be respected further by eliminating secret hearings and secret evidence without
harming the best interests of the child?

To my way of thinking, if there needs to be secret evidence, its use must be tightly regulated to only those
things necessary to protect the child and other parent (e.g. in the case where a judge has ruled that particular
piece of evidence is harmful to this child or other parent in this case, perhaps through a personal protection
order). Furthermore, any evidence used by a judge, referee, or any person upon whom any judicial decision is
imparted, in whole or in part, should be accessible later. We allow convicted murderers to have access to
evidence. Why not parents?

For example, what if a FOC counselor is told lies by a parent who is engaging in an act of domestic violence,
and fails to record the conversation, or throws away documentation of such a crime? Any evidence, such as
testimony, written correspondence, etc, should be accessible to both parties and archived for proper full
appellate review. I do not believe a system in which the record reviewed by an appellate court consists of a
brief written summary made by a FOC counselor, along with a written de novo review, in which such
underhanded acts are completely invisible to the other parent and to the court based on the record,
sufficiently protects the due process right of a parent who is potentially the victim of a crime.
What if a parent speaks to a FOC worker in private and offers him or her a bribe to recommend him or her to
be the parent with primary physical and sole legal custody? There are thousands of FOC workers. If the FOC
worker, like a person who's reviewing a welfare claim, were restricted to only reviewing facts and
documentation made at a hearing where both parties were present, then it would be more difficult to commit
a criminal act.

Also, today parents customarily do not appear to have access to evidence to verify the income of the other
party in order to verify that they and their children are not victims of fraud in the calculation of child support,
or to make the case that the application of the child support formula violates public policy. To my way of
thinking, if a parent's fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his/her children is effected by
any evidence in any way, the default position should be that he/she should be able to review that evidence.
We have a system today that has large potential for injustice, financial conflicts of interest, and quite
honestly, criminal malfeasance on the part of both parents and FOC workers who are agents of the court. It's
crucial that the due process rights of parents are respected to the greatest extent possible, and when the best
interests of the child require a restriction on the due process rights of parents, that its application be to the
smallest extent possible.

Here's another example from ripoffreport.com. If it's accurate, it's very difficult for me to understand how the
due process rights of this parent to the care and custody of his children were fully protected:

"To make it short, at this meeting with [PERSONNAME] over my ex getting custody of our two
youngest children this is what was used against me she in fact that very day stamped the judges
signature to a court order--ordering that my ex get custody of our two youngest children that
very day before the judge even heard the so called issues. ... At one time the [COUNTYNAME]
foc office sent me a show cause letter asking why I quit paying support even though my employer
kept taking it out and mailing it in all along. I contacted my human resources and had them get
copies of the checks that was mailed to the [COUNTYNAME] foc for the previous months. The
copies showed the checks sent to the foc were cashed around two days after they were sent--and
deposited into a local bank in [COUNTYNAME]. I took copies of these checks and wrote a letter
and contacted the judge about it--and it was dropped--I also gave copies to my ex. I was referred
to as a loser by the [COUNTYNAME] Friend of the Court as a dead beat. ... He found out the
friend of the court in [COUNTYNAME] collecting for foc in Florida that his taxes from last year
have already been taken--and that he needs to cough up $2,600.00 more or the bench warrant
still stands. The $710.00 from his federal taxes made no difference and when he has confronted
the [COUNTYNAME] Friend of the Court office about his lack of visitation it was brushed under
the rug. ..."

Report: [COUNTYNAME] County Friend Of The Court

Reported By: (Grand Rapids Michigan)

[COUNTYNAME] County Friend Of The Court Biased to me and my now older children also
involved with friend of court system [COUNTYNAME] Michigan

http://www.ripoffreport.com/family-services/ionia-county-friend/ionia-county-friend-of-the-cou-
948y2.htm

In this case, the entire judicial decision making process appears to have been handed over to a local FOC
agent in totality, in what seems to me plain violation of state law. Furthermore, there is some evidence that
the judicial agent making all decisions in this case is biased against one of the parties. Furthermore, he or she
appears to be taking in secret evidence and making secret rulings without any form of due process.

Again, if the minimal standards of Goldberg V Kelly were kept here, for the lesser right of welfare benefits,
these procedures would be impossible.

The person who wrote the report continues:

"I believe we all need to take a stand possibly file a class action suit against the Friend of the
Court System. As Carol Rhodes explained in the video its all about money--it has nothing to do
with the well fare of the children or the family. Carol Rhodes worked for 20 years as an foc
enforcement worker and finally decided to speak out. Any one else who has similar problems
with the foc I would truly like to hear from. Thank you for taking the time to hear parts of my
problems with the [COUNTYNAME] Friend of the Court."

While I'm not a lawyer, such a federal civil rights lawsuit seems possible under the circumstances. If I were a
parent in a similar circumstance, I would consider finding others who are similarly situated (like this parent is
doing), start gathering evidence, and begin to search for effective legal counsel from a lawyer who is a
member of the federal bar association.

5.8 Who is an Impartial Decision Maker?

The most basic due process right parents have when before the court is the right to be heard before an
impartial decision maker.

"Due Process - Procedural - Impartial Decisionmaker - Probability of Bias

Due process affords the right to a hearing before an unbiased and impartial decisionmaker. To
establish a violation of the right, actual bias need not be shown if the situation is one in which
the probability of actual bias on the part of a decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally
tolerable. Such circumstances include when: (1) the decisionmaker has a pecuniary interest in
the outcome; (2) the decisionmaker has been the target of personal abuse or criticism from the
party before him; (3) the decisionmaker is enmeshed in other matters involving the petitioner,
and (4) the decisionmaker might have prejudged the case because of prior participation as an
accuser, investigator, factfinder or initial decisionmaker. In this case, the petitioners argued that
they had been denied due process because the township board had been partial, as established
by the facts that the township board sent notice of the application proceedings to more adjacent
landowners than had the planning commission and that the township board's meeting was
advertised as a public hearing but was conducted as a regular meeting. Although the township
board provided notice to more adjacent landowners, the record was devoid of information as to
why the number of owners changed, and appellate review could not be based on speculation. The
record failed to establish that there was improper bias or prejudice by the board. Further, the
petitioners failed to cite authority in support of their argument regarding the distinction between
a meeting and public hearing and thus abandoned it on appeal.

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=70875&mode=view#476655

Interestingly, it can be argued that the FOC always has a financial conflict of interest through the Title IV-D
system, so any FOC worker automatically has circumstances including a pecuniary interest in the outcome.
See also:

A Quick Summary of Title IV-D Funding and Incentives

Doug Dante
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives

To me, simple reference to the incentives faced by the FOC will likely not be sufficient to establish bias in
the eyes of the court. However, I would consider submitting an interogatory to the decision maker at the FOC
regarding any pressure that the decision maker may be under.

For most practical cases, there is often no hearing or a brief hearing on the record. In these situations, the
only way to show bias is to establish that there is "evidence of deep-seated antagonism" on the record.

To me, a review of conditions 2, 3, and 4 can be handled similarly through interogatories to verify that the
conditions which prevent impartial decision making have been met.

You can see the review process for one motion to dismiss here:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20090922_c288733_70_288733.opn.pdf

In it, the COA held that they must find "deep-seated antagonism" on the record.

A person who is an impartial decision maker may be antagonistic, and may hold "dep-seated antagonism",
but so long as the evidence of antagonism on the record is not "deep-seated", that person is still viewed as an
impartial decision maker.

Because there is evidence of manipulation of recordings or transcripts, and because FOC officials never
record their proceedings, and most proceedings on the record are therefore only done on paper, it
unfortunately is possible for a person who is not an impartial decision maker to mask "deep-seeted
antagonism" from the appeals court. See also:

Contemporaneous Recordings for Referee Hearings in Michigan

Doug Dante

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2257035/Contemporaneous-Recordings-for-Referee-Hearings-in-
Michigan

To me, it is therefore necessary to consider utilizing interogatories and other discovery motions to expose
potential biases which may not otherwise be visible to the Court of Appeals.