Michigan Votes

2007 House Bill 4564 (Establish joint custody presumption )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Glenn Steil, Jr. on April 5, 2007, to establish that in a custody dispute between parents, a court must order joint custody unless it determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child; or unless the parent moves outside the school district and is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption. In that case, the court must order that the parents submit to mediation to determine a custody agreement that maximizes both parents' ability to participate equally in a relationship with their child while accommodating the child's school schedule.
    • Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on April 5, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on October 10, 2007, with the recommendation that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on October 10, 2007.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Glenn Steil, Jr. on April 5, 2007. New Comment

1) Also Persecuted by Pezzetti [by Anonymous Citizen on October 20, 2008]
Beware of Judge Pezzetti!! I have been victimized by this incompetent moron for almost nine years! She never reads briefs or motions provided to her and nearly always allows the wife's attorney free reign in court. During one motion hearing, we started at 11:55AM (at Pezzetti's request), then were promptly told that she had a luncheon appointment and we had to "hurry along".....this was a motion to move my daughter to a school district 90 miles from my home. Needless to say, the wife's attorney and wife presented a quick and tearful argument for this move, and we had less than 10 seconds; you can guess the outcome. Despite promising to live with her daughter, the mother quickly moved in with a boyfriend 75 miles from my daughter and my daughter went to school with her cousins (despite the JoD specifically prohibiting a school district move!).
On another account, the wife made many claims about not owing me money, despite clear definition of asset splits in the JoD. This time, the judge finally sided with me............but it took seven years and then she didn't award any fees, interest or compensation for the time the wife had the $$$ The stories go on and on with this loser.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Also Persecuted by Pezzetti [by Anonymous Citizen on October 20, 2008]
Beware of Judge Pezzetti!! I have been victimized by this incompetent moron for over seven years. She never reads briefs or motions provided to her and nearly always allows the wife's attorney free reign in court. During one motion hearing, we started at 11:55AM (at her request), then were promptly told that she had a luncheon appointment and we had to "hurry along".....this was a motion to move my daughter to a school district 90 miles from my home. Needless to say, the wife's attorney and wife presented a quick and tearful argument for this move, and we had less than 10 seconds; you can guess the outcome. Despite promising to live with her daughter, the mother quickly moved in with a boyfriend 75 miles from my daughter and she went to school with her cousins.
On another account, the wife made many claims about not owing me money. This time, the judge finally sided with me............but it took seven years and then she didn't award any fees, interest or compensation for the time the wife had the $$$ The stories go on and on with this loser.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) My God!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2008]
Sir I can't believe it, something has to be wrong.
For you not to get your kids out of there you must be really bad yourself. Tell me more about you.
But I do KNOW the kids should be TOTALLY REMOVE FROM HER CARE.
ty
Reply New Comment

Line

4) WheresDADDY.org [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2008]
PARENTAL ALIENATION, PARENTAL ABDUCTION & PARENTAL KIDNAPPING ARE LEGAL IN THE U.S.A. TODAY!

There are many men / fathers fighting for equal rights to their children. The simple core is create a joint legal & joint physical custody order at birth. Any parent who creates just cause to revoke or modify that order will be dealt with as it always has. Elementary Watson.

Read Brandon's Law on www.WheresDADDY.org for many innovative ideas and options from common since to controversial discussions on fathers and children's rights.

Coming back Aug 2008 www.AChildsRights.org
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Paternity Fraud Documentary [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
I am looking for individuals of paternity fraud to participate in a television documentary. This will be an opportunity to state you case in the court of public opinion. If you are a person who does not agree with the paternity fraud concept I want to hear from you too.
This program will air throughout the sate of Michigan. Legislation has been introduced on the topic and the voting public needs you stories to make smart voting choices. Please email me at paternityfraudmovie.com or drevus@msn.com

Reply New Comment

Line

6) HB 4564 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 31, 2008]
We have noticed that their is a law that
provides for women to :
"Parent ? allowed to anonymously leave "unwanted" child at authorized facility",
Biological "Fathers" are not included in this law. Why ?

Suggest that Biological Fathers be included as having
a say and/or be given an opportunity for "Sole Custody"
of the "unwanted" child by law .


Thanks
DADSAmerica.Org
Supporting Father Sole Custody of his own Children
Reply New Comment

Line

7) How Can I Get Involved [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
Good Evening Everyone,

Can someone please direct me on how to get involved in changing the laws in order to get equal treatment by the court? I have been divorced for several years (3) and have a 7 year-old daughter. We had joint custody, where I had her for 5-6 nights a week (by order) and she had her 1-2 nights. Our case was, and is, heard by the Oakland County FOC.
During the last 3 years, my ex-wife has moved 6 times and had several different live-in boyfriends. I petitioned the court for full custody and PROVED that she was an alcoholic, PROVED that she uses illegal drugs (Vicodin among others), PROVED that she is committing federal and state tax fraud (by over 75K a year), PROVED she lived with at least 3 different men, and PROVED that she lied under oath (she was impeached on 7 different occassions) regarding important issues. My ex freely admitted under oath that she calls me a "f*&( ass)*(" to my daughter on a regular basis. I did not lie under oath and was not impeached one time.
The referree came back with a recommendation to give my ex-wife more time with her (3 nights)and stated that I did not provide clear and convincing evidence. However, they did give me $100.00 per week in child support. I am not interested in the money as much as getting my daughter out of my ex-wife's care (she is living with a self-purported gangster who posted my daughter's picture on his MySpace page).
I am filing an objection to the ruling and am willing to take it to the Court of Appeals if necessary.
I would like some feedback from those of you that have dealt with the Oakland County FOC. My attorney says that we should appeal (but what else would he say), and I think that I have been dealt an enormous injustice. Have any of you gone to the Court of Appeals in Michigan?
Please let me know how to get involved.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) what do i have to do??! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2008]
I as a Father need to know what actions or motions(court terms) need to be fidled for the courts to do an ivestigation on my ex wife. She has moved 16 times in three and a half years. I have proof of all addresses and its funny cause 6 of them are on Oakland County FOC docs. The others i had to find on my own and believe me it wasnt that hard. Most of her eviction was for non payment, and she also gets childsuport from another Father too. She was getting $1400 dollars between the two of us, and in which i found out from an exroommate she was not using daycare she was just not paying people for there services. She has never presented an legal document from any type of daycare in any hearing i have had, now the other father has a case in macomb in which she has never shown any legal proof of day care and he doesnt have to pay for his daughters daycare but yet I do.

WHAT CAN I DO??
Reply New Comment

Line

9) OAkland county court [by Anonymous Citizen on September 24, 2008]
I also proved my ex to be very unfit! I have a ppo against him, he has created fake myspace pages of me and our 6 year old daughter, he has no license due to 4 DUI's and still with the ppo they made me take the kids and drop them off with him everyother weekend and every wednesday. He has NEVER paid child support over 8,000 in arrears, he tried suicide a couple weeks ago, violated the ppo and was charged but still gets to see my kids?? I dont understand?? He also is addicted to vicodin and xanix and drinks like a crazy person, they dont care about the kids, Pezzetti is who i was in front of.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Re How Can I Get Involved [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
I am sorry to hear your case. I am a foreigner, well educated and degreed. Born in England, and have lived all over the world (including South Africa during the apartheid years). I have ALWAYS conducted myself in a gentlemanly manner in court, yet the referee has treated me like a common criminal who has committed some heinous crime! I am APPALLED at the manner in which the FOC conducts itself and the overtly obvious anti-male bias they display. I am not exaggerating when I say it reminds me of what I saw the oppressed black people go through in South Africa! This is supposed to be the "Land of The Free", I feel very much otherwise.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Joint Custody HB 4564 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 31, 2008]
http://www.dadsamerica.org/jc.htm
Joint Custody is Not in the Best Interest of Children when:
The mother is on Crack: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Women+addicted+to+Crack+cocaine&spell=1
The mother is on Drugs : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=women+with+drug+addiction&btnG=Search
The Mother is Bipolar.. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=women+with+mental+bipolar+problems&btnG=Search
The mother has a Gambling Problem : http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Women+who+gamble+to+much&btnG=Google+Search

Reply New Comment

Line

12) JUDGE ELIZABETH PEZZETTI [by Anonymous Citizen on May 20, 2008]
Has anyone had any issues with Judge Elizabeth Pezzetti with the Oakland County FOC? How about any of her staff?
Reply New Comment

Line

13) judge pezzetti [by Anonymous Citizen on July 13, 2008]
If you get her for a judge run. She doesnt care about childern at all. She has put our ganddaughter in serious danger because she does not look at any information about the parents or the people involved. She takes things personally or possibly friends with the attorneys on the other side so hope you are not on that side because she only cares about how she fells not the facts.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Pezzetti Is Not Impartial [by Anonymous Citizen on June 5, 2008]
I am a father and had a divorce case in front of Judge Elizabeth Pezzetti last year. She was completely uninterested in hearing from either myself or my attorney. She let my ex-wife's attorney speak all she wanted but very rarely let my attorney speak. When she (my attorney) tried to speak, the Judge yelled at her. I don't know what I did to make Judge Pezzetti upset, by my impression was that she didn't like me. My only guess is because I'm a male / father. I never disrespected her or spoke out of line. Despite a mountain of evidence against my ex-wife, she gave custody of my two children to my ex-wife and awarded her child support. If someone is going to begin recall efforts against this judge, I am more than willing to throw my hat in the ring to help. She has absolutely no business being on the bench.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) More Morality Policies [by beverlytran on March 19, 2008]
What is the legal definition of "unfit" and "fit"?

What entity is to make these determinations?

Who is going to pay for the determinations?

Who will be authorized to make determinations?

What entity will be the oversight authority for the determination process?

What entity will be implementing the enforcement of determination and what is the grievance process?

How about reducing the amount of government intervention. I want the invisible hand of government out of my pockets, for it shall take taxpayer money and the money of the parents to participate in this process.

Is "unfit" and "fit" part and parcel of MCL 722.622 et seq. ? This must be first clarified, otherwise, the child welfare arms will be open ready to receive.

We understand that parenting is a privilege, so how is it that parental rights are commanded? How can "rights" be terminated when it is a privilege. This legislation is the forerunner of licensing for parenting.

Think about it...

Beverly Tran


Reply New Comment

Line

16) Parenting is a privilege? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 22, 2008]
"We understand that parenting is a privilege". What?? Who is this idiot who who says "We understand that parenting is a privilege". It is a right!! The government dosen't give you the right to parent your own kids!YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Idiot's Name [by beverlytran on April 13, 2008]
The legal term is "parens patriae. 15 U.S.C sec. 15c.

Beverly Tran
Reply New Comment

Line

18) HB 4564 [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2008]
Re: "Parenting is a Privileg" as asked on March 22.

Yes, parenting is a "Privilege" when State Court Judges have the right to "treminate Rights". Furthermore, "Joint Custody" advocates are people trying to expand the State power over the kids by asking the State to make a law for "Joint Custody" when such a law is not needed. Parents have the right to STIPULATE to any agreement including "Joint Custody". The real question is
why do some people want to take up the time of the legislature with such dumb crap.

Victor Smith, DADSAmerica.Org

Reply New Comment

Line

19) Fighting to remain a dad [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
When my boys were little it was my job and delight to provide more than70% of their daily needs as well as at least 50% of their financial support, while working full time...It was this way for 10 years and I loved every minute of it. For whatever reasons my wife was generally too tired to deal with it all.

Despite this our Wayne County Judge stated as a matter of record "with all things being equal, as they are in this case, I would like to apporve shared custody, but this being Wayne County, Michigan, the standard is to award the mother the custodial rights and both parents equal legal rights and liberal visitation.

I have spent the last 12 years begging to be able to exercise my 50% legal rights and visitaion! No one told me that her live in boyfriend would also have so much say about my time with my sons!

Who stands up for and supports us?

Oh, by the way...raise your voice after driving 80 miles for a scheduled visit to find your sons are not there....and the Sherrif is NOT exactly on your side!

Chuck
Grand Rapids, mi.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) I am a father [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
I am a father that has spent countless thousands of dollars on attorneys, counselors, etc, each of which recommended that I should have equal parenting with my ex. The courts disagree and the attorneys and counselors didn't understand and said that I should appeal because the Judge clearly was wrong, but I don't have the countless thousands of dollars anymore to appeal. Basically, if equal custody was the norm, which my children deserve, our kids could spend equal amounts of time with both parents which would minimize litigation. They should add a penalty to parents that continue fighting once equal custody has been ordered unless there is some legitimate threat to the children.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Chew On This: [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]

Tue, Feb 5, 2008

SAULT STE. MARIE (AP) — A judge in Chippewa County has ordered two men to serve five days in jail for driving off-road vehicles through sensitive wetlands on Drummond Island.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality said Michael Edward Coon and Michael Donald Lucchesi pleaded guilty to violating the state's wetland protection law. They destroyed vegetation and disturbed habitat of nesting ospreys and other wildlife.

In addition to the jail time, Judge Michael MacDonald ordered them to fix the damage and pay $2,655 in fines and court costs.

---------------
Some people deny that where ORVs run they bring torn up ground, noise, pollution, and problems with illegal use, vandalism, trespass, litter and social conflict.

Hah! Try asserting that denial in front of Judge MacDonald.

It's a well documented and well known fact, folks, that the impact ORVs have on the environment and ambience of places where they run is overwhelmingly negative. Perhaps those in the tiny minority of recreationists who are riding their ORVs don't really notice the impact, or don't believe it is of any consequence. Perhaps they just think the impact is "natural," which it is, of course. It in the nature of the machine to be noisy, to pollute, to tear up ground, to intrude, to overwhelm.

But the negative impact is readily noticed and regarded as being of consequence by the vast majority of people who do not ride ORVs for sport. It is noticed to the point that they understand their enjoyment of places they live and recreate is diminished when ORVs run there.

The best public policy in respect to ORV recreation is to concentrate the activity and its impacts in areas already impacted by ORV use. Such a policy recognizes and serves all interests, not just those of the small minority of recreationists who enjoy riding their ORVs.

This legislation proposes to greatly extend the breadth of territory over which ORVs are permitted to run. That means, in reality, it proposes to broadcast the negative effects that ORVs bring with them across a vastly broader range. It is an unwise bill that serves only the narrowest of minority interests at the expense of public interests at large.

This bill should be rejected by the Senate.





Reply New Comment

Line

22) Dad [by jesusie on March 19, 2008]
In the begining my wife demanded a divorce. The marriage was pure and no other woman or thing was interferring, but she wanted out. She would not file. After 15 months of threatened suicide and depression on her part, and after she screamed, red in the face at our 2 year old child, "I'm not your mother any more!!", and many other episodes, I filed for divorce. She didn't want to be married, to me or anyone. A judge removed her from our house because of the [unstated]domestic violence she committed during a rage, and we began 7 months of 50/50 parenting time. Then a 5 day trial. The divorce was ordered. Our daughter was in effect also ordered to be divorced from her dad in that the mother was allowed to move to France, since she was French (no reason given). I never wanted the divorce. I sure did not ask for a divorce from my child! Yet custody was ordered for 10 months with the mother in France, and 2 during the summer with me. The equal parenting had given a balance to all. The mother had a MI RN nursing license, spoke fluent English, and had a valid green card. How custody can be established in such a way, vaguely related to the divorce action, is absurd, to put it lightly. EQUAL PARENTING LAWS ARE LONG OVERDUE!
Reply New Comment

Line

23) What court? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2008]
What court did this happen and what judge? More info would help...Send me a note at EMAL7717@yahoo.com
Reply New Comment

Line

24) Father that wants to be a Father [by tconyer2 on March 12, 2008]
Why is it that the Courts think that women can be better parents than men. I am working hard and trying to understand all the aspects of children and effects of shared custody. Bottom line is this all I want is to be a dad to my son! I am a well rounded individual that is successful and can provide a loving and caring home as well. Although I can do this the Courts seem to think that children are better off with their mothers the majority of the time. This is not right, I love and care for my son and deserve equal time with him as he progresses with age. I am all for shared custody that is implimented as a child grows in age so that there are no detachtment fears for my child.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Dad in name only? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2008]
It's great that a lot of dads want equal parenting time, and as a mom, I support most of you. A lot of times dads talk the talk, but dont walk the walk.
I have 50/50 parenting time with my ex, although he has physical custody. (week here, week there.) IN the 3 years since the order, he has not once taken our daughters to the doctor for check ups or illnesses, and on one occasion ignored the advice of the school nurse about sores on my daughters face. I found out about her being sick at a conference, which he did not, nor ever attend. I could not get ahold of him, and ended up tracking my daughters down the next day at his moms house. I took my daughter to urgent care, and she had strep throat and impetigo. During his parenting time, they spend 1-2 nights at his girlfriends house, and 1-2 nights at his moms house, and every morning before and after school they stay with his 82 year old grandma. I am married, have 2 other children, one older, one younger, and work 30 hours a week, home by 2pm, before they are out of school. My husband works 2nd shift the days I work, so my kids are home before and after school.
I have filed a motion to change custody. Not all dads want the responsibility that goes along with being a dad. For those of you who do, do it! Be a dad in name and in action. Your kids need you.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) The real problem! [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2008]
The real problem here is divorce. Divorce is destructive and selfish. If truly we parents were concerned about the best interests of our children, then we wouldn't put them through a divorce! What kind of future are we building for our children when we as adults put our own selfish interests ahead of our children? Divorce is wrong. It is detrimental to our society. It is the ultimate breakdown of the family. In addition it is statistically proven that children from divorce also divorce. Which means the divorce rate keeps going higher. Let's get rid of "no-fault" divorce and spend our money on marriage and family counseling to keep our families together. Then we won't need to be so concerned with custody. Don't get me wrong. I think this is a great bill. It is just so sad to me that we need it in the first place. What does it truly say about our society? Here's a challenge....Parents, let's work on our marriage relationships and make our priority to keep our families together, that will solve 100% of this problem.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Strain [by Anonymous Citizen on January 28, 2008]
Joint physical custody is more strain on the children of Michigan that they do not need.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) State control? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
We can battle back and forth on personal stories. I have seen dads I firmly believe do not deserve their kids. The problem is, by saying this I have to also say that those same kids do not deserve their dads. I can't do that. Our government has pushed themselves into our family and sits on our couch pushing the family off onto the floor. We have been listening to the "i know what's best for you" philosophy of the damn democrats for too long. God knows what he is doing and if you don't believe in God, then nature selected male+female=child. I cannot fathom that a citizen in a semi-free nation desires ultimate control over families by the state.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) joint physical custody [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
Although I agree that the court system is extremely unfair to the fathers in respect to parenting time and child support. I do not agree with joint physical custody with children under the age of 10 years. I believe that uprooting a child back and fourth from home to home is unstable for the child. I do, however, believe that the man should be granted more the the typical 4 hours on Wednesday night and every other weekend. That is crap! I am a mother of two young boys and divorced two years ago. I give my sons' father every opportunity to see his children so long as it does not interfere with school and have also cut his child support to an amount that is agreeable to the both of us. There are too many women out there that are selfish and want everything they can get and have no concern for the feelings of their children or the man they once loved.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Getting robbed [by Anonymous Citizen on August 7, 2008]
The courts have imputed support income to 16.00 per hour when I am only making 9.00, I only live on 125.00 per week and this makes it hard to pay 500.00 for rent. She nets
3,700 per month plus gets 1,050.00 of my taxed income. I live under poverty level. while she gets a brand new performance car that gets 20 mpg. why would anybody by a car like that with prices of 4.00 per gallon, guess I'm paying for that too. I have always paid my child support but
I can no longer financialy survive on this FOC order. I hardly have money for gas to pick up my 10 year old son plus buy him anything when I have him.
Last weekend I did have enough to buy him some ice
cream and that was all. He was ok with it though
he just likes to be with me, which is great! But I would personally like to buy him things. Empty
pockets. By the way our judge is a female do you
think she is unfair to fathers or maybe it is just me. How many other fathers are going thru this?
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Not the Norm! [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
If women were truly more like you claim to be...We as fathers would not have such an issue! Instead a majority of the Custodial Moms are influenced by their new boyfriends and other women who were "wronged" by their man!

My X bragged about our marriage, until she met her new best friend and began hanging out after work...all of a sudden I was no longer a good husband, a good and caring father....Now, I anytime my sons and I want to spend time together...we nearly have to beg for the right!
Reply New Comment

Line

32) as usual [by Anonymous Citizen on December 14, 2007]
And she will get it the way the judges are in Michigan. Heavan help you if you get a woman. My ex was running to the bars, partying it up, and took me to the cleaners. Yet, unless she is a coke head they assume that the man is the problem. My advice go to a state appointed doctor for an evaulation with children and get her out in the open and stand up to her lawyer who will tell her to keep the children more than 50% to keep the checks flowing. As always, tell the children the truth, they will grow to know what mom is like, she can't hide forever behind lies. It's time these judges know all the facts, not what these woman lawyers lies tell them. Go to judges fund raiser dinners and tel everybody some of these cases so they have to defend themselves giving away all someone elses money. See what they think when their money stops, I bet they don't like it. Oh and get use to bankruptcy, you'll always qualify when she drains all your money. If you look at all the economy stats you'll find that when all these woman were getting divorces and takin all thier money that that is when the foreclosures started. Thank the judges. I have told my child everything that has happened to me in the past ten years and they respect me for the truth, his mom gets the burden of what she sews.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) JOINT CUSTODY [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2007]
I don't beleive that a parent should pay child support just to be able to see their child however I believe that a parent should not go for joint custody just because he/she doesnt want to pay child support The economy is bad and money is not love quality time is love
Reply New Comment

Line

34) ???? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
The point of paying child support is not to be able to see your children. It is a fact that the man can not be denied parenting time due to not paying child support. However, he can go to jail eventually. The child support is meant to be a means to help support the child (putting a roof over their head, heat, electricity, clothing, food...) I do believe that men do have to pay too much child support than should be required especially if they do not get equal time with their children.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) JOINT CUSTODY [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2007]
I don't beleive that a parent should pay child support just to be able to see their child however I believe that a parent should not go for joint custody just because he/she doesnt want to pay child support The economy is bad and money is not love quality time is love
Reply New Comment

Line

36) It's about time [by Anonymous Citizen on November 11, 2007]
My wife has just decided she wants a divorce and one of the first things she had to say was how much I was going to have to pay for support. We have not lived together for a year and a half and since then I bought a home and get our sons pretty much whenever I want, which is as much as possible. She has lived at her parents and is counting the days until she can start getting checks to pay for everything she wants, I currently make sure they need nothing. By choice she only works 24 hrs per week. I save, she goes out on the town, she had an FOC order set for one of our sons and it breaks me where I can't pay for my house. What do I get if she put the order into effect? Every other weekend and Wednesday evenings! FOC is a joke!
Reply New Comment

Line

37) It's About Time!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 5, 2007]
In the case of a divorcing family, each parent and their respective families should have an equal amount of time to share their lives, heritage, traditions, values, beliefs, and love with their children. No court, or government, should ever be able to abitrarily assign custody based on the subjective "Best Interest of the Child guide lines". Fathers deserve more respect, and its about time there is a real Equal Rights Amendment that addresses equality for both men, women and their children.
Reply New Comment

Line

38) Friend of the Court [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2007]
is not focused on the children. My daughters and I have been having the dubious distinction and disgusting past few months of battling with them over custody/pedophelia. Custody that should not even be question, can be twisted by low level low thinking money focused fems inside their little building while hiding in their cubes. Its a sad world sometimes. Those that ARE focused on the cash cow business they operate, should be terminated asap for disregarding what is best for children. DOES ANYONE think two girls, ages 9 and 11, should be forced to live with a convicted pedophile who is on the National Sex Offenders List for having s-- with his then 11 year old stepdaughter a few years ago, just because he married DADS ex wife two months ago?? please stand up and reply!!! Oakland County Friend of the Court Judge HALLMARK will be answering this question (finally) this wednesday 10-31-07, they have tried to postpone and hide and postpone and continue thier weak brained agendas for two years now. She may try to postpone. She may stand up. She may call in sick (but i doubt it), She may continue with her team at the FRIEND of the COURT and be anti DAD anti LOGIC. Please post your thoughts, this is LIVE this coming WEDNESDAY in PONTIAC at 1200 Telegraph Rd! thank you for reading! A Pedophile for Christs Sakes, is better than DAD??? Mom is an admitted alcoholic!! its beyond reason, other than DAD pays child support....speak up people!!
Reply New Comment

Line

39) How did this end up??? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2008]
How did this court case end up???
Reply New Comment

Line

40) Best Interest of the Children [by Anonymous Citizen on October 24, 2007]
The best interest of the children should be the most important factor, period whether mother or father or both. Cases should be based individuals factors of a case, with the best interest of the child/children involved. My children are and have been stuck in the middle of madness every since I left their father a year ago, I have tried over and over again to co-parent with their father, put our children first, people talk about moms trying use children, oh it is not exclusive to woman, not in our case, I tried for months to get my children's father (mind you who was a wonderful father, very loving and involved, until I broke off our engagement) to go to court so we could file joint custody, I've tried to give this man joint custody, because it's not about money for me, what matters most is our children's emotional well being and development, I would keep him posted and updated on any event or activity they were having so he could feel and understand that he is still and will always be an important factor for our children, and that they need him also. So please tell me what do you do when the other parent doesn't want focus on the children, but only focus on the relationship between you and him that is over and now only consist of working together for our children. What do you do when the father takes his anger at you out on the children emotionally, I finally went to friend of the court (I didn't want too at all, I prayed that we could move forward as adults and parents) but once I did that to resolve custody, things have gotten worse, this man actually went a filed a PPO against me 2 days after we went to our custody hearing, mind you I very rarely talked to him or seen him, and the only conversation I've had with him is about our children and God (also the judge through the PPO out because there were no grounds for it, he wouldn't even show up and the judge felt it was pay back for going to court). I've lost my jobn because of their father, I've begged the courts to require him to get counseling, the visitation they awarded him, I've tried to get him more involved, but the more time goes by, and he refuses too get counseling or even just make it about our children, it's so much I don't think I have enough space to say everything, but my point The Best Interest of the Child/Children should be the only factor because parents whether mother or father, can't focus on that sometimes and the kids get emotionally abused and stuck in the middle. Anyone can have kids, that doesn't make them parents however.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Children Need Both Parents [by darricksf on November 5, 2007]
If both parents are already fit and the law was already a presumption of equal custody then you would not be even talking about custody. The two of you would know that you are both suppose to equal raise and support your children and that it is an expectation that you both do it. From what you posted it would seem that you have resorted to using custody as a tool to fight so that you can have some economic stability via child support. Maybe you both need to tell him that you want equal custody but need to have support which under HB 4564 you would still get if one parent makes more money then the other. The Best Interest of the Child is to have both parents equally involved in their lives.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) van buren friend of the what [by Anonymous Citizen on October 17, 2007]
I am the father of 2 daughters. My ex wifehas custody of my kids and i am disabled. the foc in van buren county tried to throw me in jail more than 2 times and now that i have a small amount of income I pay my support. I never missed a payment when i was working. My ex wife calls constantly and harasses me about getting a joba job telling me to quit being lazy, even though my doctor at the va hospital in Battle creek says i am going to be in a wheelchair soon. I have tried to call the cops but they say call the Friend of the What? I tell the FOC but all they do is laugh. We dads need to get together on this and any mothers that want to join in and fight the state on these. I called the state cicil rights office and was told basically the FOC is beyond the law. We live in a free country and this is allowed to happen???????????????
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Chances of Joint Physical Custody in Wayne?? [by Anonymous Citizen on October 15, 2007]
My husband is trying to get joint physical custody of his children from his previous marriage. The ex is a good mom and he is a great dad. They live 5 min away from eachother. Does anyone know what his chances are of the courts ordering him joint physical custody?? This is in WAYNE COUNTY. Is it worth going through the evaluation process and involving the kids in this mess?
Reply New Comment

Line

44) welcome to the system.$.$.$.$ [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
I agree. The system needs re vamped. Starting with the affidavit of parentage form given to un wed parents. The second or third line states that the mother has custody unless written otherwise. Overwhelmed with all the literature and pamphlets of warnings and recommendations on new borns, mix in raw emotions of first time father hood, one definitely feels pressured to sign this form. After all this is your new child. Who wants to take this to a lawyer for a recommendation or explanation of this simple little “you are the father” form. I later found out how big of a mistake I made by not investigating it further. That line as mentioned above had a longer, life changing reach then I could ever imagine. After the fact, broken up relationship and my baby was gone. Many calls to “friend to other than myself” and they cannot tell me how the system works. I was told if I didn’t have a case then to get a lawyer and start one and maybe then they could answer my question on how the system works. Well we went through the rigors of figuring out how much I was going to pay first thing. Then how little I would see my child was second. Now I know how the “system” works”. My lawyer told me that had I crossed off the words “has custody” and wrote 50/50 and we both initial it, that was written otherwise. I hope this bill gets passed so no one else has to experience this terrible experience I am enduring.
Reply New Comment

Line

45) welcome to the system.$.$.$.$ [by Anonymous Citizen on August 16, 2008]
I had the same experience! I decided not to sign but after talking with my attorney (An ADAM attorney) we decided to sign it and then fight for the custody. The problem is that the form (for unwed couples)gives custody to the mother and at the same time it acknowledges that you are the father. If you say you are the father then it goes to say that "OK" now we are giving custody to the mother. Its the most ridiculous document you could ever sign. If you don't sign it then you are saying that you are not the father and then you have no legal argument for custody....basically you are screwed!
Reply New Comment

Line

46) Joint custody [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
I believe that their should be equal parenting if the mother or father deserve it. Who has been raising the child. I do not believe that joint custody should be granted just because this is your child or children. It takes alot more than that to be a good stable parent. Also I do not believe that a parent who has been absent by choice should get rights just because he/she decided one day that they wanted to see their child or have a relationship with them. IT should be up to the child at this point. Or if one of the spouses is abusive infront of the children why do they deserve joint custody. but its happening.
Reply New Comment

Line

47) Absolutely [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2007]
If a parent is abusive or absent and then shows up - that is just unfit. Why should they have strong rights!
Reply New Comment

Line

48) HB 4564 for Fit Parents [by darricksf on November 5, 2007]
This law is only for fit, willing and able parents who live in the same school district/area so that their school schedule is maintained.
Reply New Comment

Line

49) JOINT CUSTODY [by Anonymous Citizen on October 10, 2007]
I believe in equal parenting!!!! However I do not believe that it is fair for a child or children to be bounced from parent to parent week by week. We are creating a unstable living arrangement. And then If the parents don't get along and hate eachother they can feed their children with negativity about the other parent. There has to be a better way than every other week. Are we looking out for the parents best interest or the childs.
Reply New Comment

Line

50) Children Deserve Both Parents [by darricksf on November 5, 2007]
This bill is about what is best for both children which is to be able to maintain the stabiiity of their parental relationships. Why should a child be a part of their parent's breakup or disputes? Read the bill and you will see that this is only for fit parents and if there is clear and convincing evidence otherwise it will not apply. It also allows parents to agree on their own plan as long as the judge does not find clear and convinving evidence of a need to impose their will. www.achildsright.net
Reply New Comment

Line

51) bouncing kids [by Anonymous Citizen on October 11, 2007]
to those who saying having the kids bouncing from parent to parent isn't in the best interest of thie kids.
The fact is, kids brought up in a single parent environment are far more likely to wind up involved in a teen pregnancy, in jail, or hooked on drugs.
Is that what you view as "in the kids best interest?
Reply New Comment

Line

52) whatever [by Anonymous Citizen on March 19, 2008]
I don't know where you're getting your facts but there is no proof that children of married people or single families grow up to do any of those things. My two brothers and I grew up in a single mother family along with over half of my friends and family and I can only think of one or two people that have done any of the things that you are suggesting. I have 5 female cousins that grew up their whole lives with their married parents from birth and 4 of the 5 girls either do drugs have used abortion as a form of birth control and so on. So get your facts straight.
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Re:whatever [by Anonymous Citizen on August 16, 2008]
Who ever wrote this has not done the research. You can take a personal example and apply it to the rest of the millions of other examples!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

54) Re:whatever [by Anonymous Citizen on August 16, 2008]
Who ever wrote this has not done the research. You can take a personal example and apply it to the rest of the millions of other examples!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

55) JOINT CUSTODY NOT A PERFECT WORLD [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2007]
I am a single parent, and I believe that if her father paid child support,and wanted to infact be involved with her life than okay but what about all the parents that stick their kids in the middle????? And they don't want to pay child support sooo they go for joint custody. OR HOW ABOUT THIS WHEN IS THE KID GOING TO BEABLE TO SPEND QUALITY time with either parent when they have to work leaving the kid to spend most of their time with their teachers, or a babysitter IS THAT FAIR???????????????
Reply New Comment

Line

56) Support v Custody [by darricksf on November 5, 2007]
You say that you want your children's father to be involved as long as he is willing to pay support, is that really what is best for children. What about all those parents and the state for that matter who as a matter of routine deny a child a significant relationship with the parent who works so that support can be collected? Is it right that our state and most single parents use their children as a source of tax collections and income redistribution? HB 4564 does not eliminate child support it allows children their right to be raised by both of their parents.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) JOINT CUSTODY NOT A PERFECT WORLD P.s [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2007]
Its about how you raise your child you raise them with morals, and strength. You give them consistancy yeah it's hard but you do it because when you become a parent single or not that is your obligation. If you dont do that than you are failing your child IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU ARE DOING IT ALONE OR WITH SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Reply New Comment

Line

58) Get Real [by Anonymous Citizen on October 17, 2007]
I am tired of hearing that all single parents raise kids who are most likely to be on drugs, become a parent very early in life,Lets reflect on the successful parents for example in the NFL how may of those players were raised by single moms and look where they are today, let look at the base ball players out there
get off the hook that single parents raise troubled kids. If the other parent were a more positive atribute in the childs life and was not on drugs or in jail, and paid support,it might make a difference in the childs life on where they live or even how they live.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) Fact: Children do Better with Both Parents [by darricksf on November 5, 2007]
The laws that where established 30 years ago have created an incentive for divorce and custody dispute. The result has been to have a significant amount of our children being raised without a real relationship with one parent. The standard custody order of 4-6 days a month of parenting time has been shown through research to harm the emotional development of children. Basing laws on a few individuals who may have succeeded inspite of the fact that they where denied a parent is pure foolishness.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Red Writer [by Anonymous Citizen on October 9, 2007]
I am watching this Bill closely. This would be a great success for all children in the state of Michigan. Children deserve the chance to know both their parents, good and bad. How did a great nation such as America allow itself to get to where taking a child out of the lives of their parents was thought to be a good thing for the child? Where is the "Best Interest for the Child" in that thought?
Reply New Comment

Line

61) joint in mason county [by Anonymous Citizen on September 24, 2007]
are any of you from mason county or surrounding areas. And can any of you fathers get joint custody. We need to fight for this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

62) Genesee County FOC not out for "best interests of the children!" [by Anonymous Citizen on September 21, 2007]
I have personally seen the devastation of divorce and by awarding one parent, most often the mother, sole custody, it allows her to be the "superior" parent. This is unfair and extremely biased!! What are the chances that after a divorce, parents get along? SLIM to NONE! and what better way to hurt your ex than by using the kids again him!
And this comment if from a WOMAN!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

63) FOC [by Anonymous Citizen on October 15, 2007]
The FOC is no friend of mine either. Ionia County FOC has determined, my ex doesn't owe back child support, and for no other reason that the teenagers want to, HE gets full custody and $650 a month!
I think children need BOTH parents. Exclusive to when the parents are abusive, etc.

Reply New Comment

Line

64) MONTMORENCY FOC [by MomForMen on October 8, 2007]
As I read the comments I cannot believe what I am reading. One reader states that our country depends on this change or we are going to be in trouble. We already are in trouble. These kids are so screwed up because of divorce and one parent is soooo absent from their lives and we have our wonderful FOC to thank. Where they get their name is beyond me . They are friend to noone they should be called Enemy of Dads. I will admit moms are sometime the target but 99% of the victims are dads and kids. These women get in front of these mediators and judges and create these huge stories that are usually false and these people actually believe these women. When you try to tell them the real story you are viewed as being someone who is just making up stories to cover things up. Well do I have a story for you'all. I met my husband 4 years ago and he has a 19 year old daughter and a 7 year old son. At the time his son Travis was 4.
The first time I saw my stepson I was appalled at the care this child was being given. Here is a 4 year old with teeth rotten to the gum line, who weighed about a 1/2 what he should and talked like a 2 year old. I found out that not only did she control visitation but they were not going through the FOC for support either. His ex-girlfriend was one that rarely allowed my husband to see his son. I also found out that my husband was not only giving this childs mother 240.00 a month support in cash but was paying all her bills as well. My husband explained that he felt that if mom was happy and not under too much stress from money issues she would be better to the kids. I didn understand this concept and told him this is going to stop. A good mother doesnt need MONEY to be a good parent I told him to tell her to get a job like everyone else. This concept that a mother should stay at home and live on medicaid so they can be with their kids is ridiculous. I was a single mother for 9 years and worked and didnt get a dime of support. I NEVER used medicaid and I dont have a college degree. Once he stopped giving this woman over 1000.00 a month she started refusing visitation. We contacted the FOC in Montmorency County and thought for sure they would see the problem and fix this and do what is right. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! These people are completely discriminatory against MEN. They gave us a caseworker that was horrible. She was extrelemly one sided and this woman thought this childs mother could do no wrong and believed everything that she told her. We decided that since this child is being so neglected , medically , physically and socially that we would ask for more visitation. Since the child was not in school we asked for 3 days a week. You would have thought that we tried to cut off their arms and legs. The childs mother was an alcoholic and used recreational drugs. We tried to tell the FOC mediator but she didnt even want to listen let alone investigate our claims. We decided to go to FIA and see if we could get help here surely we figured they would see this childs physical situation and react. WRONG WRONG WRONG!! We took the child to a physician and she filed a 3200 with FIA for neglect. This agency didnt even investigate this and it came from a very well known Pediatrician. It all comes down to 2 years of private investigation and court costs to get custody of this child which we finally got after 2 years of struggling with an agency that is clearly for the MOM. Now the child support is even more baffling. When this case was opened (by us) child support was given to mom for an astronomical amount of $487.oo a month for an income of only $34,000 a year. The friend of the court fought with my husband over deductions and things that are supposed to be included in his deduction BY LAW. He was treated like a dead beat and had never missed a payment to this woman EVER prior to the FOC stepping in. She lied and told them we never paid her anything. Fortunately my husband always gave her moneyorders which we had receipts for . We were then informed that we should have never paid her directly prior to the order becoming final which took 4 months, because all the money he had paid here was considered a GIFT can you believe that a GIFT. These people are criminals and should be put in jail. !!!!! DISCRIMINATION- After we received custody of my stepson in November of 2005 we finally got the child turned over to us in feb of 2006. They did a support evaluation on his mother and she was ordered to pay $40.00 a month. I was furious. How can this be. After a judge finds she is unfit to be a parent and this woman was proved to do drugs and was sited for neglect they imputed her income at $5.85 and hour. It took until September 25 of 2007 to get a suppport order in place. To this day we have not received a dime. Almost 2 years with no support from this woman. If this was a man he would be in jail. We still have not received a dime. Me and my husband are seeking legal advise about this and would like to hear from other perspective clients with similar situations. If you have a similar story please email me with your story at sheri_naidus@yahoo.com LET' DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!!!! THIS IS WRONG WRONG WRONG
Reply New Comment

Line

65) the FOC is exactly that, the FRIEND OF [by suppressed american on September 22, 2007]
THE COURT!!!! not the friend of the mother, not the friend of the father. THE FRIEND OF THE COURT.

YES, THIS IS WRONG PLAIN AND SIMPLE. but, if this was all for the parents they wouldn't need all those people in the FOC. what would all those people do for jobs ???

the best thing for people to do is to draw up a agreement independant of the FOC. if you can eliminate the FOC you don't have to worry about losing you driver licence, don't have to pay those FEE"S that could be used for the children's clothes, shoes, etc.

don't always think that ANY government agency is giong to make matters better for you. in most cases it only makes matters worse.

do for your self, to much government in your life is NOT what you need.

QUESTION YOUR GOVERNMENT...DAILY !!!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Get more Parent visiting time [by Anonymous Citizen on September 3, 2007]
There are Michigan Court Forms,scao,Child Support.
Have to get prove,need payments lowered,receipts,
prove your children need More TIME with you, thereby
stating,more time with you,should mean less money you should give to supporting. Get more parent time


Reply New Comment

Line

67) Van Buren County FOC is unfair [by Anonymous Citizen on August 31, 2007]
I am a mother and I pay child support for my two daughters. I cannot afford that amount and be able to afford my son and my bills. My daughters father lives with a women and gets his income, my child support, and his girlfriends income. While I have no food to feed my son. I have tried to prove this to the courts that my ex-boyfriend is lying about where he lives but the FOC will not listen to me. I am a nurse and make good money but I have to go to FIA today and see if I can get some assistance so that I can pay my bills and feed my son. I really think that the system is unfair. And where is my child support going my girls get their closes at goodwill. When I pay 700.00 a month....
Reply New Comment

Line

68) Unfair support [by Anonymous Citizen on October 8, 2007]
Correct you are and it is not just your county I was a single mother now married who has disagreed with Friend of the court for both wayne county and Montmorency County. Are you willing to fight for our rights please contact me Someone needs to stand up for the rights of all and end this mess my email is sheri_naidus@yahoo.com, me and my husband and exhusband are working on a solution with our lawyer all interested please contact me.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) Reform the Forms/or Get it in Writing/or you get zero [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2007]
Social Reaction of Childrens Needs should be a Yes Vote,anything good for best interest of ChildRIGHTS
Parents are Not offered,nOT know laws to protect there Rights or there childs rights, in Custody.
Example, if a parent gives up there Custody rights to a relative/someone,thinking you will get visit
Think again, unless you get it in written Form.
710.44 5(b,D)gives you that right.under lAWS OF SEPARATE AGREEMENT AFFECTS CONSENT But the Courts ignor that Law,do Not Include it in ADVICE Rights,
Legislature needs to REFORM THE FORMS that parents
sign,to give protection of Childs Right to visits.
Parent Rights org. yell about keeping their rights
but then allow,legislature and courts to take it
away so easy,termination of Parents Rights Forms.
REFORM THE FORMS,or you better get it in Written
Notary Form,that visitation will be enforced.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Equal Parenting [by Anonymous Citizen on August 11, 2007]
Unless a parent, Father or Mother, is proven unfit, joint custody should always be the rule. I know women who were given custody of children who should have never been given custody. There were pictures, videos and witnesses, yet the judge awarded custody to the Mother because that is the "norm". Children need BOTH parents; each have a God given responsibility to fulfill. However our government has stripped the responsbility from the Fathers. Example: Divorced parents have 2 sons, 10 and 13. They recently were involved in some trouble in Onsted. Both boys are great kids, attend Church and love their Mother and their Father. However, because the Mother literally decides when the Father sees the boys, he has little to do with them except one or two weekends a month he sees them. So, they get in trouble, the Mother wants the Father to discipline the boys. Why would a Father who gets to see his boys a few hours a month discipline them. How would he?
Ground them? Spank them? Yell at them?

Boys and Girls need both parents. Boys going into puberty need their Fathers more, not less. Girls going into puberty need their Mothers more, not less. Yet, the "system" seems to award the Mothers everything--most time, money, etc.

It's not right. It must be changed. The future of our nation depends on it.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) equal parenting [by MomForMen on October 8, 2007]
Your comment is so true, why arent parents given equal time. Kids need their dads. I have seen so many women get custody also who shouldnt and the court doesnt want to see the proof. I have a letter from foc stating visitatin was given based on other cases similar to ours. Not given based on the best interest of OUR child which is what the law reads. Who is accountable for these errors? I am trying to get this changed someone needs to be accountable for this who should it be. Our kids need EQUAL time with both parents.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Just Do It [by Anonymous Citizen on July 31, 2007]
I just emailed (cut and paste) all 110 Michigan House of Representatives for support of this bill. It only took a few minutes and these are the individuals that can get it passed. This is the web page http://house.michigan.gov/replist.asp
Please do the same and lets get this passed for the children in this pathetic system called Friend Of the Court!
Reply New Comment

Line

73) This bill sounds good. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 19, 2007]
This state has long favored mothers. My husband and i raised his two children from a previous marriage for eight years with no financial or emtional support from their biological mother. She was younger and wanted to party and could not provide for the kids, so he took them. Our mistake was we didn't file for sole custody because he was worried that she would take them back, and he rathered them be cared for properly. Well years later she began to come around and do more with the kids, she got married, got a steady job, and grew up (or so we thought). She begged him for a chance to be a mother to her kids again, and after many short visits and baby steps, he agreed to let them stay with her, so they would not resent him for not being able to develop a relationship with their mother. He told her that they could stay as long as we were able to see them openly like she had always been able to do. Well that lasted all of about a month, next thing we know everytime we tried to get them they were grounded or busy or couldn't go. We ended up going to court where the female judge look at him as if he was crazy for even thinking that he should have equal time with the kids that we raised alone for eight years. When he tried to explain all we had done with no help her only response was that "that was your job" and while it was his job where was her harsh words for her? We now only get every other weekend, two weeks in the summer, and every other holiday and birthday. Not to mention the high child support he was slapped with, when she paid nothing and contributed nothing for eight years. The kids are unhappy and so are we, my husband only looked for what was in their best interest and he was returned not with a pat on the back for being the man that many are not but with a slap in the face, and a judge that obviously favored the mother. This bill should pass.
Reply New Comment

Line

74) Our children deserve [by Anonymous Citizen on July 15, 2007]
Frankly, it was a shock years ago to hear Michigan forced our children to give up one of their parents simply because their government needed to collect federal monies. One would think this is a no brainer. However money talks, our fathers walk. The legislation is a step in the right direction for michigan's families. There are many more to go before we can truly make Michigan a great place to live.
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Equal Parenting [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2007]
This is something that is long overdue. Children were born bacause of two parents. If they are both capable of raising children, eventhough they decide to become divorced, the children should spend equal time with both parents.
Children need both parents. Children with both parents in their lives do better in school, social situations, moral values and many other areas. Lets help shape Michigan and provide equal access for our future adults by allowing the children equal access to both of their parents.
make A Difference and pass this legislation. At least it is a start!
Reply New Comment

Line

76) HB 4564 will help stop the abuse of children and families [by mtross152 on July 14, 2007]
The time has come for Michigan to reverse decades of family destructive statutes and policies that have installed a swollen, corrosive,and robotic bureaucracy that systemically abuses children. HB 4564 is a first step to a bright future for Michigan families and their children and for the overall well-being of our State and its economy.

The Child Custody Act of 1970 asserts that "the best interests of the child" must be determined by the State when relationship problems lead Mom and Dad to parent apart. In practice, this means that judges, DHS bureaucrats, Friend of the Court personnel, social workers, police agencies and other criminal enforcement professionals, mental health and health care professionals and attorneys must decide the best "interests of the child" rather than a childs own parents.

This is not only preposterous, it is cruel and insane. Common sense and reams of child research suggest that children do best when Mom and Dad decide what is best for them whether they parent them together or apart.

The system argues that parental disagreement mandates that the State intervene to care for and decide what is best for the child. This makes no sense developmentally for the children, nor interpersonally for the parents, nor logically and economically for the State. This approach clearly violates the US Constitution.

When parents cannot agree, it is up to them to resolve their differences. When clear and convincing evidence shows that the well being of a child is threatened by parental conflict, the state should mandate that the parents select a way to resolve their impasse.

Parents could negotiate a resolution themselves or seek assistance from other family, friends, clergy or a variety of professionals including from family mediation specialists. For indigent families, the State would assist in the costs. Other families would figure it out on thier own.

In custody matters, this would call for the parents to develop a comprehensive parenting plan that addresses the daily routine, unexpected circumstances, the growth of the children and inevitable future disagreements.

HB 4564 provides Michigan a vital solution to a State whose broken family infrastructure has helped to ruin its institutions and its economy.

So why is Rep. Brenda Clack, Chairman of Families and Children's Services Committee, whose Flint constituents so need family relief, preventing this promising bill from coming before her committee for a vote?

The time has come for politicians of all parties, if they are Americans, to recognize that having family relationships is an inalienable human right and that loving and caring for one's children is a fundamental liberty no State may violate. Let no State abuse a child by removing his or her Mom or Dad without meeting a high standard of evidence that a parent can no longer act in the best interest of his or her child.

Michael T. Ross, MD
President
Family Rights Coalition of Michigan
www.frcmi.org
248 561 7272
Reply New Comment

Line

77) I Support [by DougDante on July 14, 2007]
I support this legislation. Title IV-D funding is weighing down the scales of justice against joint custody in this state. Because they stand to loose federal funding, some courts are actually fighting with parents who walk in the door and who both want joint custody! It's time to stop this nonsense, accept that the government is not all knowing, and give joint custody a shot for families unless there is a reason that it can't work. If it doesn't work, then the courts can make a sole custody decision quickly and easily.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Social Benefits of Fathers [by Glaucon on July 13, 2007]
Watchdogs, an organised group first out of CA now within the National Center for Fathering, placed Fathers on elementary playgrounds and diminished playground violence.
The incidence of adolscent pregancy diminishes as Father involvement rises.
Father's groups in Michigan work to provide parenting guidance despite repressive Public Policy.
While the NEA's Pesident calls for more male models and the First Gentleman encourages mentoring: should we not at a minimum empower those Father's seeking increased parental particpation, by adopting Public Policy such as HB 4564, and by, supporting the Legislators who sponsor such socially responsible legislation?
Reply New Comment

Line

79) Children need their Dads [by BobV01 on July 13, 2007]
Fathers are critical to their children’s development: that has been proven by peer reviewed empirical research. Equal is equal and just is just, four decades of squandering children’s futures is sociopathic. No fault should have meant no fault, instead it has meant decades of duplicate homes, never ending disputes and a diminished future for our children
There has been much political diatribe, political pandering combined with increased obesity, diminished scholastic scores, more insistent geoeconomic pressures and a retardation of forward movement as a society, in Michigan, in America.
Misandry is wrong, using children for gain is wrong, north end, south end east coast, west coast: we getting nowhere and we got there a while ago. Planned obsolescence was not a panacea nor is current Family Public Policy in Michigan. The anecdotal evidence is appalling in scope and weight.
PWORRA may have sought more personal responsibility, Michigan DHS places aid with those who receive Child Support (Primary Parent) which then is a disincentive for personal responsibility for some.
Even if the UofChi B School sought an economic redistribution via current public policy regarding children they would not seek the current system, which with, its economic reallocation has raised America’s Trade Deficit.
If the rising sun is above the west it is only because we have not taken time to read the same literature some dating back to the Han dynasty but made available again circa 1970.
Fathers are critical to their children’s development. Even when adults’ relationships evolve past a committed relationship, the children need each unique contribution: public policy should not thwart those contributions.

Reply New Comment

Line

80) Equal Parenting = Better Cooperation [by Anonymous Citizen on July 13, 2007]
I can attest to the fact that equal parenting equals better communication and cooperation between the parents in the long run.

My ex acted like the queen of England while I didn't have equal parenting. She issued orders, with no discussion allowed, and if I even asked a clarification question it was taken as an insult to the 'queen'. I was offered 'crumbs' from her table - take it or leave it.

Went back to court and my son talked to the judge in chambers and I got 6 more days a month and real equal shared parenting. The 6 additional days and rearranging the schedule resulted in alternating weeks. She pouted for a couple of months, but finally came around and now we can finally talk about issues regarding our son in a peaceful manner and on equal footing. Equal parenting prevents one parent from being able to use the child as a weapon to club the other parent with. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out!
Reply New Comment

Line

81) better cooperation [by MomForMen on October 8, 2007]
My husbands ex was the same way being cruel to the point of simple things. She lived 1 1/2 hours away and by my father - in - law. If we were visiting we would call the day before and ask for a couple of hours visitation and the answer was always no. She always had a lame excuse. They wanted to eat dinner together or she already had plans or he was sick. We even contacted her around the holidays and asked for some extra time for a family X-mas party again it was no. We asked to have him for a couple of hours a COUPLE OF HOURS because we had family visiting from Germany and you think she would agree HELL NO!!! Power is always placed in these womens hands and make men feel like ants being squashed. Women wonder why men want pre-nups go figure.


Reply New Comment

Line

82) FIT PARENTS ARE EQUAL [by Anonymous Citizen on July 13, 2007]
If one of the parents or the STATE can not prove that one of the parents is "UNFIT" the presumption of the court should be that both are fit and equal with equal rights.

It is high time to look at the financial incentive to break familys up and favor one parent over the other. Also this "Best Interest of the Child Standard" is to vague and is being misused. Judges are not even required to put in the court record the reason for their decision to favor one of the parents over the other and the reason is there is no logicial reason to favor one fit parent over the other.

If in consideration of the circumstances the State would not take a child from a parent that is married why should they take equal assess from a divorcing parent lacking the same standard of review. This treats the rights of both the children and the parents of a divorced family differently.

There is much wrong with our "Family Courts" and it time for some political leadership and meaningful change. Are we as a society looking our for the best interest of the "DIVORCE and LEGAL INDUSTRY or are we looking out for children and citizens that are supposed to have equal rights.

The information (data) is there now it is time for the elected officials to make a long overdue change. In a nation were all sexes and even gay partners are treated with respect its time to look at the what we are doing to fathers and some mothers whose only 'CRIME" was to divorce.

I pay to god you see the plight of the people who have voted to have you represent them.


Reply New Comment

Line

83) Equal =Equal [by Anonymous Citizen on July 13, 2007]
Our Constitution is all about equality & justice yet family courts operate outside of it. Show me a law any where that says judges are the best parents in the world. Fact is best interest is very subjecttive and statistics show kids are better off with equal access to both parents. Still the "family court cartel" intrudes on the rights of the parents just to make profit.
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Van Buren County FOC is a Joke [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2007]
Van Buren County Friend of the Court is the most ineffective, sexist, harmful organization I've ever come in contact with. They inflated my income to three times its actual in order to confiscate more than 50% of my income. They threaten me with jail time and fines for any reasons my ex-spouse can invent. They are a government organization that just keeps on growing and spreading more harm to children and families in Van Buren County.

I think these employees and the imbecilic director actually believe they're accomplishing good things for people. It's delusional!

What's worse, Van Buren County doesn't have a Citizen's Council to hear any complaints. The FOC regulates itself.

To anyone who resides in Van Buren County and is considering a divorce/custody action, please save yourself the grief. They will not help you or your children, they will hurt you and your children, and rationalize it all as "the best interests of the children". OPT OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Broken Family Courts [by Anonymous Citizen on June 24, 2007]
The real problem is that there is a judiciary in Michigan that believes it is independent of scrutiny from the legislature and the citizens' they represent. The legislature needs to place a "check" on the family courts, since they have run amuck with their so-called "judicial discretion." All that "discretion" has warranted thus far is an increase in revenue for the government (i.e. Title IV-D), poor decisions based solely upon anecdotal testimony, an increase in children's isolation from one of their parents, and ever-expanding government agencies (the most effete being the Friend of the Court).

Change is needed. Currently, Michigan is operating under a government-sponsered kidnapping program. They come into your home, take one's child away, and extort individuals in order for one to have occasional access to one's own child(ren).
Reply New Comment

Line

86) PRETTY SIMPLE [by Anonymous Citizen on May 22, 2007]
In the absense of one stable two parent houshold you must have 2 stable one parent housholds
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Prove it [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2007]
1)When both parents can prove they were "equal" parents during the relationship/marriage, only then should joint custody be considered. A large percentage of fathers couldn't tell you their child's pediatrician's name, or even their teacher's.

2)Being bounced around half the time one place and half another is extremely difficult and detremental to children. Children need stability.

3)This bill will be a great excuse for more non-custodial parents to get out of their child support obligations, which is why I suspect so many fathers support it in the first place.

4)What is truly needed are more efforts in co parenting. It's the adults who need to get their acts together. Don't punish the children by making their lives unstable.

There are many good fathers out there, and many not so great mothers, but this bill goes too far. Truly protecting children means giving them one stable home with whichever parent they were most nurtured by.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Re: Prove It! [by Anonymous Citizen on August 27, 2008]
I agree 100% with you. Children, especially babies and any child under 8 need to be at home where they LIVE. It is not fair to have the children bounced around. If you want to visit the child do so where the child is comfortable and around the parent they are most comfy with ( especially babies/toddlers/and little ones never living with both parents!) How come when the parents are married the judge doesn't make mommy leave so the father and his side can have time with the kid alone. I think there is something wrong with people who feels in order to spend time with a child they must do so without mom around and away from where the child knows as home. Children need both parents, but biological parent means nothing if it is in a disfunctional situation which is not just drug abuse and the other stuff we call bad, but children months apart and stuff like that. When fathers force themselves in the child's life early on is it really a commitment to the child forever or just because you are hot under the collar at mom and feels she has something that belongs to you because you dropped a little sperm? Are you going to be there 5 years from now or is mom going to have to comfort the child becuase dad disappoints the child because he didn't think things all the way through when he decided he wanted to be involved. I don't know if any of you all notice this or not but men seem to change their minds about fatherhood when they are not married to the mom or when other things or people come into thier lives. I agree, prove it. Moms should work with dad but dads need to leave baby and really young children at home with mom. You and mom will know when the child is ready to spend the night away from home. How is that we don't make kids spend the night away with friends when they are young but we allow courts to force kids to spend the night or nights away from home and such young ages. Courts do this but fathers allow it, so shame on you fathers.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) prove it "WHAT" [by MomForMen on October 8, 2007]
This is absurd, You take a man and woman you send a man to work and have a mother that stays home and takes care of the kids the appointments the house and then divorce and just because your husband has to gain some new knowledge your sayinghe is unfit and unequal. KIDS NEED BOTH PARENTS EQUALLY. Your crazy if you dont think this is a posative thing people like you are probably receiving a lOT of child support god forbid you have to give up your income so your kids can see their dad.
Reply New Comment

Line

90) Good attitude [by Anonymous Citizen on July 31, 2007]
Gold digger? Are you one?
Reply New Comment

Line

91) Total Bullsh*t [by Anonymous Citizen on July 19, 2007]
4) Prove it [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2007]
1)When both parents can prove they were "equal" parents during the relationship/marriage, only then should joint custody be considered. A large percentage of fathers couldn't tell you their child's pediatrician's name, or even their teacher's.

IF one parent was working to provide for the family, and the other was doing the other things (Dr. visits, etc), how exactly is that ever going to be equal?

2)Being bounced around half the time one place and half another is extremely difficult and detremental to children. Children need stability.

Um, is it any better being bounced around every other weekend, or only during the summer, or even less often if the other parent decides to move across the country or across the world? Why not just save the children the trouble have them not see the other parent at at? Maybe make up excuses why the children can't or don't want to see the other parent. Or just move to the other side of the country, where it is more stable. The children need stability. But keeeeep that money coming!

3)This bill will be a great excuse for more non-custodial parents to get out of their child support obligations, which is why I suspect so many fathers support it in the first place.

Yes, keep that money coming. Oh yeah, if the parents have roughly equal incomes and equal time with their kids, there WON'T BE any child support obligation. which is why I suspect so many YOU are against it in the first place.


4)What is truly needed are more efforts in co parenting. It's the adults who need to get their acts together. Don't punish the children by making their lives unstable.


There are many good fathers out there, and many not so great mothers, but this bill goes too far. Truly protecting children means giving them one stable home with whichever parent they were most nurtured by.

That's right, this is a contest to see who can "nurture" the children the best, winner takes all, loser pays.

I am a former child victim of this system, I can tell you, I would give anything to be able to go back and have BOTH parents, not just a "parent" and a "visitor".


Reply New Comment

Line

92) prove it [by MomForMen on October 8, 2007]
your post to the prove it lady is right on . I would say she wants that almighty dollar, god forbid she would have to go get a job and support herself and her kids. I was also a 70's child victim of the 4 DAYS A MONTH , let me say that again 4 DAYS A MONTH, that is ludacris , You can have stability and schedules with joint custody and the kids WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think women are going to fights against this bill because they will be losing their nest egg. It has nothing to do with their kids. Men dont pay child support because the court system makes it impossible to afford the payments incomes are inflated and the womans income is deducted. go figure
Reply New Comment

Line

93) joint custody in the middle [by Anonymous Citizen on October 26, 2007]
I believe in joint custody to a point i believe that fathers let me say this again DADS need more rights than every other weekend IT IS JUST REALLY SAD THAT PARENTS BRING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD AND IF THEY GET A DIVORCE never look past their anger and decide "well we cant be married but we love our child(ren) So lets work together for them" ITS NOT A PERFECT WORLD AND I DONT NECCESSAREILY BELIEVE THAT JOINT CUSTODY IS THE MIRACLE however Like i said before fathers do need and deserve more rights
Reply New Comment

Line

94) HB 4564, the Equal Parental Responsibility Bill [by mtross152 on July 14, 2007]
Child support consists of all of the things a parent does to love and nurture a child including assuming responsibility for the costs of doing so. This responsibility falls equally on both parents.

If, in the course of loving and nurturing a child and fully meeting one's parental responsibility to that child, a parent legitimately and legally reduces the amount of child support paid to the other parent, this is in the best interest of the child and of the other parent.

House Bill 4564 is the Equal Parental Responsibility Bill. It is time both parents share equal responsibility for their children and the State stop using children as pawns in its welfare and social programming agendas.
Reply New Comment

Line

95) Prove It - I Lived it [by Anonymous Citizen on July 5, 2007]
My parents divorce, FOC recommended sole custody. Order was for joint legal, joint physical, equal time, and no child support. What a blessing!!!!

Because of circumstances, I probably have come across more divorce cases than any one FOC personal. Why is it that when joint legal, physical, equal time, and no child support it seemed everything works out time and again. As children, we complain about leaving our favorite item at the parents house or something of that nature. Why is it that when sole physcial custody is order things are much uglier, an array of bad items. If you have one father that doesn't care for the child as much mother, give me a name. All the fathers I know, know the parents doctor and dentist names; and I know alot. Experience tells me that many house holds if not a majority, the father and mother has the job, dad usually spends more time with the child(ren). Mom is usually involved in PTA, aerobics, or something. But, I live in the USA.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) HB 4564 - A Child's Right [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2007]
Michigan children deserve better! Michigan children deserve Michigan House Bill 4564. It is a child's right to EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents.

Equal Parenting has been proven:
1)Better adjusted children
2)Reduced crime and gang involvement
3)Lower divorce rates
4)Decrease extended and expensive custody battles
5)More cooperation between parents in the long-term

Please consider helping with the following event:
daddyblogger dot com

Please be sure to also attend the August 18th 2007 Washington, D.C. Rally
Reply New Comment

Line

97) FOC Reform [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2007]
I agree with this bill completely.

Also FOC/circuit rulings need to be modified, if the determination of FOC and the subsequent ruling says parentaal time should be denied until X, Y, and Z, happens, then there should be an automatic review of the case, within 30 days, with an automatic adjustment to 50/50 unless that hearing takes place.

I also feel it's time to review privatizing FOC, I have yet to see them actually DO anything, all they do is blame the rulings on the Judge (who is rubber-stamping their "recomendation", or some computer or department half way across the state.
Let's subcontract the job of FOC to a private company, and pay them based on performance standards.

Reply New Comment

Line

98) must be done [by sonhurts on May 14, 2007]
This must pass to save future generations from the greed of the FOC and family law courts and lawyers. My 2 kids were taken from me for no reason, I asked for a reason from the PA office the judges assistant and the psychologist who met with me and my kids. No one could tell me why my ex was given sole custody, everyone knew I was a single parent, my ex remarried to get my kids, this is discrimination to have awarded him sole custody? Guess who has suffered? You guessed it my two beautiful kids. Still ask why they can't be with me equal time? What is the best answer to give them? Greed?
Reply New Comment

Line

99) We screwed up... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2007]
can we get a re-count? Jenny, You are a disgrace to all women...
Reply New Comment

Line

100) LOL [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2007]
LOL
Reply New Comment

Line

101) Equal Parenting - long overdue [by Anonymous Citizen on May 3, 2007]
I'll keep it brief as there are many truly enlightening comments that bring this whole situation to light.
This is a bill that NEEDS to be passes and MUST be enforced. There are too many children who lose out in regards to one of their parents, through no fault of their own.
There are many selfish parents with PAS, there are too many money-hungry FOC's out there that just want their Title funding.
Parents who live with a boyfriend or girlfriend, should not be the fit parent. Fit parents are those who dedicate themselved to providing unconditional love and guidance to their children. They help with homework, fix boo-boos, teach them right from wrong, teach moral values, etc.
In my decree, it states that we cannot have overnight guests of the opposite sex who are not related. Great idea, but I know many people who don't follow this and is it really enforced?
Children are our future! They need both parents in their lives. Just because the parents can't get along doesn't mean that the court should punish the child by taking one parent away from them.
Please support this bill.
Thanks!
Reply New Comment

Line

102) Equal Parenting - HB 4564 [by Anonymous Citizen on May 3, 2007]
HB 4564 needs to be passed because the best interests of children are served when they have 2 active and involved parents.

Under existing family law the court system promotes conflict between parents by providing:
1) vast rewards for winning.
2) vast consequences for losing.

These unequal outcomes are necessary to promote conflict over the issues and to financially support the lawyers to the direct financial detriment of the families involved, and by virtue of parentage, the children involved.

After the fact, when the parents are financially and emotionally destroyed and can no longer keep a well paying job then the government turns around and says that money matters, and they start enforcement services. It then becomes a game of beating the deadbeat horses, not for welfare of the child(ren), but for the welfare of the bureaucracy, for every dollar spent by the state pulls two dollars from the feds.

Government can never care for children like the real parents do. With the thousands or tens of thousands of cases per worker they don't even have time to properly look at evidence, much less interview the children and form proper opinions. The stakes are so high that even people of ordinarily reasonable character have been coached to perjure themselves for personal gain. It is a waste of taxpayer money to pretend to do our children proper justice.

The ONLY fair and best alternative for children is to put the burden of proof of unfitness upon the requesting party. Until that claim is proven we must set a presumption of JOINT and EQUAL custody to allow the parents to work together for the interests of the children they BOTH care about.

This precedent will change the face of divorce in Michigan to a more friendly face, and without the incentives to win, parents will be more likely to work out a better plan for the kids, and be more likely to resolve their differences and go on as happier well-adjusted individuals that will provide a better home for the children of Michigan.

Ed Kempen

Reply New Comment

Line

103) Too Late? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 3, 2007]
I only wish that this legislation had come long ago. Now I'm afraid it's too late for my step-daughter.

Thanks to FOC, my step-daughter has been mentally and emotionally abused by her "more fit" mother for 15 years. She has denied "liberal visitation" to her father and even fought to have my step-daughter spend more time to be around her grandma who was dieing of cancer.

Now my step-daughter is suffering from depression and is currently taking anti-depressiants (chemical parenting) regardless of FDA warnings against this as well as her fathers objection.

The "family" court system is driven by one thing: maxium matching Federal dollars through Title IVD funding. If they truely cared about the "best interest of the child" then they would not CREATE the "abscent parent" in a greedy attempt to enforce child support to get these funds.

The "family" court has given more parental rights to the FOC employees and Judges than the biological parents. EVERY decision they make are based on their own personal ajenda and bias and not on the law. If we continue to allow this violation of Cival rights for financial gain as well as for special interests, then we will continue to breed generations of dysfunctinal adults.

It may be too late for my step-daughter, but I hope that we can stop this trend before society completely falls apart.
Reply New Comment

Line

104) I support this bill [by Anonymous Citizen on May 3, 2007]
This bill ensures that children have equal access to both of their loving parents. They, and not the state, are what's best for the children.
Reply New Comment

Line

105) new times [by blk3271 on May 2, 2007]
this bill is what is needed for the new
times in our society,30 years ago many women
were just getting into the work force.parents
have evolved and changed thier rols to equal
finacial support of a home along with equall
parenting.as yet the law hasent accomidated
our new society.this bill does exactly that
and is needed imidiately.This bill helps the
children keep their excisting ties to both
parents which the excisting laws take away
The safty features excist for those who may say
this bill could cause more domestic violance
in fact this bill will reduce the violance and
help keep some families together.
Reply New Comment

Line

106) Please support [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2007]
I am in full support of this initiative and also the comments of DougDante. I would only modify his comments to include other FOC across the State.

From one two-hour interview, the FOC makes a recommendation on the the next 18 years of your child's life.

I've gone through two FOC evalutions. I've been exercising joint custody for four years; volunteer at child's school 3x a week and take ever opportunity to be with my child regardless of parenting schedule.

The most recent evaluation is because the mother wants to move to another country, where her boyfriend resides. The FOC concluded that based on a separate interview with the mother's boyfriend; the country had a better school system and safer community. The mother-child bond can not be overlooked and since the father is still single; it's preferred that the child live in a 'traditional' family. At the time of the interview, the mother was pregnant with her boyfriend's child.....(traditional?).

Current schedule; I have my child 1/2 the time and typically spend time with him 28 out of 30 days a month. I take every opportunity to be completely involved with my child.
FOC recommendation; 48 hours two weekends a month. I can also travel to his new country once a month and exercise parenting time from hotel room. In the summer, I would get my child for 6 weeks.

I had a second opinion completed by a psychologist, that concluded the child should remain in my custody if the mother decides to move. I'm waiting for a court date....but it amazes me how FOC based it's conclusions on hearsay and obvious gender biases without any fear of reprecutions.
Reply New Comment

Line

107) Past due, [by tz51w8 on April 18, 2007]
HB 4564, 2007, Equal parenting is long over due. Even though this is a start in the right direction, it still has too many holes to be abused by the system; and not enough in the children's best interst. What about military peronal that do not live in the same school system. Every child should have custody from both parents at all times. The parent that does not live in the school system should have priority for his/her schedule and all school vactions, weekends, and then holidays; until he/she achieves about 183 days per year. Also, no restrictions to school day visitation, since he/she lives outside of the district. Also, is child support money or emotional development and time together. My parents were divorced. Both of my parents had low incomes, and neither had to paid child support. It worked out much better. In short, I've long noticed that if parents have equal time, equal say, and each parent is 100% finacial responsible for the child while in his/her care; everyone seems to get along and work things out. My own parents case for one. Every case with this arraingment that I have observed has been a huge improvement over the vast majority; 2 wkends w/dad per month, 1/2 holidays (if regnozed by courts), 1/2 summers, large finacial child support, and denied visitations that are not ignored by the FOC and courts.

My family and friends support this HB, and would like it to pass immediately. BUT, we look for additional improvements later this year for the next bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

108) Not strong enough [by Anonymous Citizen on April 11, 2007]
Below is a copy of a recent grievance that I've files against the Wayne County FOC. Names have been changed but the content is as filed.
______________________________________________

On May 3rd of 2005 I was party to a mediation hearing that later admittedly not handled in a way that is described in literature from the FOC and various other Family court documents. On 12/5/2005 I filed a grievance that was answered on 1/31/2006.

In my initial complaint, I mentioned that Mrs. Mediator had refused review of documents that I wanted to use to dispute my ex-wife’s denial of certain relevant incidents. Mrs. Mediator refused these while accusing me of “Trying to make your ex look like a bad mother”. In your response, Mr. FOC explains that all relevant documents are reviewed following the appointment and prior to the recommendation. The documents were not allowed so they most certainly could have not been reviewed.

Mrs. Mediator made her recommendation prior to the end of our meeting. This was relayed to us, by Mrs. Mediator, prior to the end of the meeting. Once released, four months later, the recommendation was exactly as stated in the meeting. This recommendation was based on something other than the best interest of our son Tyler. Mrs. Well ignored, minimized or dismissed relevant medical documents, photos and statements presented by me. She dismissed the contents of the photos by stating that there was no way of dating them. Other photos showing open sores on our son’s legs and buttocks were dismissed by Mrs. Mediator when I told her that I had immediately took Tyler in for medical attention. This was done even though my ex wife denied any such occurrence. Instead, I was accused of trying to make her look like a bad mother.

A letter from Pediatric Dentist Dr. Jason Golnick states “It was apparent that she did not give the medication as prescribed since she stated that the last dosage administered was at 10pm last night and there was a considerable amount of medication remaining in the bottle. Fortunately, we were able to perform the nerve treatment indicated but it was a difficult procedure under the circumstances.” I was allowed to present a letter from the Dentist explaining failures on the part of my ex, regarding a root canal that our son suffered. Mrs. Mediator dismissed the letter stating that if the dentist thought the child was in danger, that he was obligated to report it. That may be so, but I don’t feel that that reason alone was sufficient to dismiss the contents of the letter. The threats that I made of police intervention in order to get Tyler to the Dentist, was viewed as “sufficient.” The dentist later told me that, because I was there and that there was no question of my abilities as a parent, there was no reason to notify the state. I don’t understand how an adult can have knowledge of a root canal on a two year old and not ask questions. When I complained about my ex failing to get out son to the dentist on numerous occasions, Mrs. Mediator asked me “Well, did you take him to the dentist?” When I responded, yes, she said “That’s all that matters. Again, this is a mediator that accused me of trying to make my ex look like a bad mother. I got the same response from Mrs. Mediator when I mentioned the many missed appointments with our son’s pediatrician. It was obvious to me this was not a hearing based on any procedure but on emotion, personal opinion and or laziness. And I paid for this.
Dental photos, records and a letter from the dentist were also dismissed.

Mr. FOC also writes that Mrs. Mediator stated that a certain comment made by her, “Occurred at a point in the investigation when Mrs. Mediator stated that there appeared not to be enough to support a change in physical custody”. Please correct me if I’m wrong but it is not the job of the mediator to decide custody, its establishment or weather there should be a change in it. I thought the mediator was supposed to make a recommendation based on the “Best interest of the child”. How can this be done when she was busy deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to change custody? The legal physical custody had not yet been decided in our case. In short, my son and I were denied the benefits of the best interest factors, its purpose and its intent.

Mrs. Mediator described the conversation between my ex wife and I as confrontational. Yes, I will be confrontational with a person that keeps my child away from me for up to five months at a time, without so much as an attempt at an explanation. I grow increasingly worried when an agency such as the Friend of the Court, does not demand an answer. Mrs. Mediator witnessed my ex wife admitting this and did not think that an explanation was in order. She didn’t even ask for one. One of the best interest factors requires a finding on each parents’ willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents.
Who can best cooperate with the parenting time schedule? At the meeting I presented proof of 4 show cause hearings, all which resulted in make up parenting time to me. To Mrs. Well this seemed insignificant or maybe she would have mentioned it.
Does either parent criticize the other parent in front of the child? I have a picture of my son wearing a shirt describing the ethnicity of my wife. My mention of this brought a smirk from Mrs. Mediator that seemed to say that I was being picky or childish. Mrs. Mediator did not inquire. My ex did address the shirt in a deposition hearing held on 11/8/2005. Her response was as follows:

Q-Did you purchase a T shirt for Tyler that reads, I
have a Puerto Rican grandmother?
A-Yes, Gibraltar Trade Center.
Q-Did you alter it?
A-Yes, I did.
Q-What does it say now?
A-I have a Puerto Rican stepmother.
Q-And who is it referring to?
A-Arlene.
Q-Why did you do that?
A-I thought it was cute.
There is no doubt in my mind that my ex would have admitted to this misuse of our son. This is not small and insignificant; this says a bout the character of the offending parent.


Mrs. Mediator defended the statement that (her recommendations were followed or accepted by the court), by saying that she stated “most of the time”. This is not true. I didn’t ask what the likelihood was of the acceptance of her recommendation. I stated that I did not agree with her recommendation and that I would still request more time with our son. Her response was “That’s my recommendation and my recommendations are followed 99% of the time”. The statement was made wi