Questions For Public Officials Regarding

Michigan's Friend of the Court

Doug Dante
DougDante1@yahoo.com
Tuesday August 25th, 2009

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

If you believe these are interesting questions based on reasonable information, then please
feel free to ask these questions of public officials, including FOC workers, Judges, Public
Attorneys, Michigan Congresspeople, Michigan Senators, or any statewide elected official.
These officials often appear at public speaking events. If you do, please let me know what
they said. Each of these questions intentionally mentions the FRC yahoo group. A couple of
these questions are redundant, because they're intended for different public officials acting
in different capacities.

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

Please be aware that there is some evidence of racketeering and other possible criminal
activities at the FOC. Appearing to criticize the FOC in a public forum, even when asking an
honest question, could bring participants in the system consequences for their political
speech. According to some members of FRC, they believe that even being associated with
parent's rights advocates has caused them unnecessary difficulties with the FOC. Yes, I
believe that, if true, these alleged actions on the part of FOC could be violations of citizen's
first amendment rights.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/454566/Racketeering-in-Michigans-Friend-of-the-Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Child Support

#1: When a FOC support specialist "runs the numbers" and hands me a filled out form with
his/her support calculations, how can I believe that they are accurate, given that a support
specialist in a major Michigan county admitted under oath that he/she didn't follow the
support manual, used numbers that he/she may have known were wrong, and "... also went
on to say a great deal more that proves that FOC is putting their thumb on the scale",
according to a message on the online FRC yahoo group which seems to be a legitimate first
person account, and other evidence of possible fraud in support calculations? (FOC records
are for members only, but the message was ID #23705 if you are a member)

FOLLOW UP: Why can't I see a line by line breakdown of the calculations, so that I can
confirm for myself, using the manual or independent software, that they are correct? What
is the purpose of hiding from me and my child the calculations for parenting time offset,
deductions for retirement account contributions, income offsets for other children, etc, etc?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-
Modification-Request

#2: FOC's internal "2008 Changes to the Michigan Child Support Formula" says that they
have abandoned "automatic imputation", and will impute based on "actual ability and
likelihood of earning". This is a great change of policy, but sorely overdue, because from
my reading in FRC yahoo group, it looks like the precedent demanding this change was
from Ghidotti V Barber, a 1998 Michigan Supreme Court ruling, from ten years prior.

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=58195&mode=view#365695

If my child and I have been harmed because the FOC previously violated Michigan law over
the past ten years by automatically imputing my income, how do I retroactively modify my
obligation to reflect the actual application of Michigan law and the best interests of my
child?

#3: I have read on the FRC yahoo group e-mail list that some Michigan courts may openly
ignore their legal obligations under US Code TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > §
1673. Restriction on garnishment and MCL 552.608 Limitation on amount of income
withheld, and refuse to limit their garnishment orders to aggregate disposable earnings not
to exceed 50% for payors with spouses and other family members, 55% for payers without,
and 60-65% for payers who are in arrears. Do you recognize that Michigan and federal law
limits your garnishment orders? Do you also recognize that state and federal law forbid
other mechanisms to collect the remaining income of payers, including demanding monthly
checks, when § 1673 says: "No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or
officer or agency thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation
of this section"?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-608
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001673----000-.html

Parenting Time

#4: I heard about something odd while reading the FRC yahoo group. Does this office force
parents who are seeking parenting time enforcement to request a parenting time
modification, and then sometimes use that request to reduce the amount of parenting time
that they have with their children? If so, why can't parents request enforcement without
the risk of losing time with their children? Isn't that kind of like punishing parents who want
to have a relationship with their kids?

Child Custody

#5: MCL 552.23 provides the 12 child custody factors. Factor (c) is: "(c) The capacity and
disposition of the parties involved to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or
other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in place of
medical care, and other material needs." I understand that this is sometimes interpreted to
mean that parents who have low incomes cannot have a court ordered joint custody
arrangement, because they don't have the means to provide the child with two bedrooms,
two sets of toys, etc. Does this court or the FOC have a minimum income that it uses below
which it will not generally recommend joint custody? If so, what is it?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-23

FOLLOW UP: In the case of two parents of modest incomes, particularly when one is on
welfare, who want to have a substantially equal joint custody arrangement, does the court
force or discourage them from making their own agreement for substantially equal joint
custody?

FURTHER FOLLOW UP: What part of the law permits the court to overrule the
constitutionally protected fundamental liberty interests of two fit parents who want to make
decisions about the best interests of their child, and why do the needs of the state trump
the fundamental liberty interests of two fit parents to care for their own child in the manner
that they see fit?

FURTHER FOLLOW UP: Does it concern you that given the lower incomes of African
American families in Michigan, and the fact that more mothers of any race or ethnicity
generally get custody more often than fathers, that this rule, for many African American
fathers of modest means, essentially means that the court is saying that it is illegal for them
to spend significant time with their children in Michigan? Are you aware of the studies that
indicate that father involvement improves child outcomes, reduces the chances of criminal
activity by children, and are you aware of the many detrimental child outcomes, including
high dropout rates and high unemployment rates, are substantially higher in many poor
African American communities in Michigan?

#6: As you may know, a statistical analysis of the most recently available child custody
recommendation data from the Michigan Friend of the Court published on the FRC yahoo
group shows vast disparities between the likelihood that a man or woman will get sole
custody or joint custody of his/her children in differing counties in Michigan. For instance,
of the more than 100 fathers who received custody recommendations in Livingston County,
63% were given recommendations for sole or joint custody. Similarly situated fathers in
Wayne county only received such recommendations 12% of the time. How can we believe
that the fourteenth amendment due process rights of these fathers and mothers to the care
and custody of their children (Troxel V Granville) when we see that a county line appears to
make a father more than 5 times more likely to spend a significant amount of time with his
kids (And a mother, similarly less likely)?

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

FOLLOW UP: Given the unequal distribution of people by race and ethnicity throughout the
various Michigan counties, even if people of different races and ethnicities are treated
identically in each county, African American fathers are only about three-fifths as likely as
White non-Hispanic fathers to obtain a recommendation for sole father or joint physical
custody. Do you think that such significant differences in outcome based on skin color can
exist in a system that fully protects the fourteenth amendment due process rights of
parents to the care and custody of their children?

FURTHER FOLLOW UP: To the best of my knowledge, there are no public, direct, ethnicity
or racial comparisons of custody recommendations. Would you support making and publicly
releasing such comparisons? Given that the SCAO (State Court Administrative Office) has
apparently violated Michigan law by not releasing a new statistical supplement since 2003,
would you support laws making the release of such data mandatory, and requiring strict
adherence to Michigan law by the SCAO?

Public Safety

#7 According to the online FRC Yahoo Group, at least one member reported a child support
specialist in a major Michigan county who admitted under oath to regularly apparently
ignoring Michigan law and apparently manipulating the child support formula, to the
detriment of the welfare of the children, and in a manner which benefits the bottom line of
the FOC. How can we enhance public safety by protecting parents and children from these
ongoing and apparently criminal activities?

#8 As you know, many studies have shown that father involvement reduces the chances
that a teen will commit a crime. African American teens without involved fathers are at a
significant risk of committing crimes. However, their fathers are often restricted from being
a part of their lives via a child custody decision. According to a study published online and
discussed on the FRC yahoo group, these African American fathers are only 3/5ths as likely
as white non-hispanic fathers to receive a recommendation for sole father or joint physical
custody. How can we enhance public safety and reduce the teen crime rate by making sure
that African American fathers get a fair shake in Michigan's courts?

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

Politics

Here is a follow up question that I might ask, particularly if I know that the public official to
whom I'm speaking has been informed of these issues in the past, and has, in my opinion,
not acted in an effective manner to serve the public interests and investigate or stop any
activities which I may feel are violations of the law, violations of constitutional rights, or
inherently wrong based on my religious beliefs or my personal conscience. It is important
to understand that the elected official may not share my beliefs, and be respectful and
tolerant of his/her differences.

#9: Are you affiliated with a political party? Has anyone in the leadership of that party or
anyone else, including a lobbyist, urged you not to investigate these matters, including
possible criminal activity in the Friend of the Court or possible violations of parent's
constitutional rights? If so, who is it and what did they say?

#10: Does your employer (e.g. Courts, Prosecuting Attorney's Office ) receive funds via
Title IV-D or through contracts with Michigan's Title IV-D "agency", the Friend of the Court?
If so, can you describe how much those contracts are worth to your employer? Given your
financial conflict of interest, will you work to appoint a reputable and independent individual
not affiliated with you or any other Title IV-D organization to review these serious matters?
If not, why do you feel that your financial conflicts of interests do not prevent you from
impartially acting in the public interests in these matters? (if applicable) Why did you not
act since being informed of (whatever it was) on (such and such a date)?

Follow up: If the person indicates that they refuse to answer: So if a party member tells you
to look the other way while crimes are being committed, your position is that you will do
that, or you may already be doing that but won't tell your constituents?