Você está na página 1de 3

Considerations for when a Parent Spends Child Support on Himself/Herself and the

Court Doesn't Care

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

Note: I need to change this to be gender neutral. Please forgive this error.

Someone wrote that in his case the mother of his children was spending the child
support that he paid for his children on expensive gifts for her new boyfriend and
on makeup for herself, and that when he complained to the courts, they said that
it didn't matter what mom did with the money, and that it's not the court's

I would disagree.

The US Supreme Court held in Troxel V Granville that:

"We explained in Pierce that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State;
those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high
duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Id., at 535. We
returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), and again
confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to
direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the custody,
care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function
and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor
hinder.” Id., at 166."

If mom is using my child support dollars for her boyfriend, or some other purpose
than taking care of the children, I would argue that the court is intentionally
hindering my right to recognize and prepare my children for future obligations by
interfering with my capacity to care and nurture my children. They are doing this
by taking away money from me that I would use for this purpose, and giving it to
mom to be used on her makeup and her boyfriend, and not for the care of the
children. This is an unconstitutional act under Troxel.

Furthermore, the Friend of the Court Act MCL 522.501, states up front that:

"(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the “friend of the court act”.
"(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; ..."
Emphasis added.

The court gets its authority to garnish wages from the Support and Parenting Time
Enforcement Act, which begins:

"AN ACT to provide for and to supplement statutes that provide for the provisions
and enforcement of support, health care, and parenting time orders with respect to
divorce, separate maintenance, paternity, child custody and support, and spousal
support; to prescribe and authorize certain provisions of those orders; to
prescribe the powers and duties of the circuit court and friend of the court; to
prescribe certain duties of certain employers and other sources of income; to
provide for penalties and remedies; and to repeal acts and parts of acts."

(Emphasis added)
"Support" is understood to mean child support, as this act is meant to keep the
state of Michigan in compliance with US Code Titel 42, Section 651, which begins:

"For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents
to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are
living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and
spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be
available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible for assistance
under a State program funded under part A of this subchapter) for whom such
assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each
fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part."

US Code does not provide matching funds for non-custodial parents to support mom's
makeup, or her new boyfriend, but rather the children of the parents.

This court is acting as a federal contractor and gaining federal matching dollars
for such activities, can make it liable in federal court for false billing under
the False Claims Act.

Please note that no exception is provided in law for the court to say that it
doesn't have time or doesn't want to expend the effort to protect the best
interests of the children, and instead only wants to focus on establishing a
payment stream such that it can collect the maximum federal dollars. Such an act
is a plain violation of the judicial code of ethics, which begins:

"CANON 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

"An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our

society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing,
and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and
independence of the judiciary may be preserved. A judge should always be aware
that the judicial system is for the benefit of the litigant and the public, not
the judiciary. The provisions of this code should be construed and applied to
further those objectives."

Emphasis added.

Furthermore, by allowing mom to take child support money that I provide for my
children and use it on makeup and her boyfriend, the court is assisting her in an
act of domestic violence against me.

The Michigan Court's Domestic Violence Benchbook states:

"The Batterer Intervention Standards for the State of Michigan define “domestic
violence” as follows:

“Domestic violence is a pattern of controlling behaviors, some of

which are criminal, that includes but is not limited to physical
assaults, sexual assaults, emotional abuse, isolation, economic
coercion, threats, stalking and intimidation. These behaviors are
used by the batterer in an effort to control the intimate partner. The
behavior may be directed at others with the effect of controlling
the intimate partner.” Batterer Intervention Standards for the State
of Michigan, §4.1 (January 20, 1999)"


By taking a substantial portion of my income for her makeup and her boyfriend,
which I would otherwise use to care for my children, mom is engaging in economic
coercion and limiting my capacity to care for my children directly.
By taking money from me and giving it to mom for the purpose of buying more makeup
and supporting her boyfriend, the court is taking my money without due process of
law. This puts the court in an actionable position for violating my civil rights,
as US Code Title 42, 1983 says:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that
in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in
such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the
purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the
District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of