Michigan Friend of The Court Child Support Modification Request

Some Thoughts on Child Support and Michigan's
Friend of the Court
Doug Dante
dougdante1@yahoo.com
Updated: August 28, 2009
Basic Information
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
These are tough times in Michigan, and many parents are loosing good jobs, particularly in the
automotive sector, and are they unable to find more work at the same pay rate. Some of these
parents pay child support through the Michigan Friend of the Court, and they're having a hard
time getting the FOC (Friend of the Court) and courts to adjust their child support obligation to
reflect their new income.
Sometimes, a FOC employee or judge will say that children who benefit from child support
"should not suffer" because a parent looses a job. I feel that if he/she says this, he/she is not
properly conducting his/her duties, and is not obeying the laws of the state of Michigan.
It's not more money that's in the child's best interest, it's the correct application of the Michigan
Child Support Formula Manual.
As of Oct 1, 2008, the 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual is used.
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/
2008MCSFmanual.pdf
For use in reviewing previous orders, 2004 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual may be
used.
2004MCSFmanual.pdf
Conflicts of Interest
However, the court and FOC have a financial conflict of interest in ruling on these matters as
they themselves make more money when they collect more dollars of child support. (This
conflict of interest also extends to custody and parenting time matters).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives
This conflict of interest sometimes encourages the court or the FOC to view the paying parent as
simply a source of income for the child, and not a vital part of the children's lives. However,
long understood problems of children from homes without one parent may be helped when the
child has consistent and close contact with both parents.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/425877/The-Effects-of-Divorce-and-Sole-Custody-on-Children-
Problems from Incorrectly Calculated Support
If the child support burden is too low, the child's parent who receives child support may struggle
to care adequately for his/her child.
If the child support burden is to high, it may become difficult or impossible for the paying parent
to sustain his/her relationship with his/her child.
It's not in the child's interest that dad or mom loose his/her driver's license, that dad can't take a
child fishing or hunting, or that mom doesn't have enough money to feed herself, much less show
her child love. Nor is it in the child's best interest that unnecessary arrears mount, and prevent
the paying parent from getting his/her parenting time enforced. The correct application of the
formula is designed to protect from this.
See:
MCL 552.628 Order to suspend payer's occupational, driver's, or recreational or sporting license
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectName=mcl-552-629&relation=previous
I don't have the court rulings handy, but I understand that it's customary for courts to refuse to
hear parenting time complaints when parents are in arrears, although there's nothing about that in
the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act (MCL 552.641)
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-641
The Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act (MCL 522.605, Section 5, Paragraph 2 says:
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child
support in an amount determined by application of the child support formula
developed by the state friend of the court bureau as required in section 19 of the
friend of the court act, MCL 552.519. The court may enter an order that deviates
from the formula if the court determines from the facts of the case that
application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate and sets
forth in writing or on the record all of the following:
mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectName=mcl-552-604&relation=next
Necessity of Child Support Modifications
It's not some magical one time application of the formula that's the correct action under the law,
but rather the state is obliged, in the interests of the child and of justice, to modify support orders
when circumstances dictate.
MCL 522.615, Section 15 mandates change of circumstance notices:
" The payer and any recipient of support shall immediately give to the office of
the friend of the court notice of any change in circumstances which would affect
an order of income withholding or the distribution of money received under that
order."
mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-552-615
The Friend of the Court Act mandates that the FOC review child support orders upon
written request if they are due (MCL 522.517, Section 17):
(1) After a final judgment containing a child support order has been entered in a
friend of the court case, the office shall periodically review the order, as
follows:
...
(d) Upon receipt of a written request from either party. Within 14 days after
receipt of the review request, the office shall determine whether the order is due
for review. The office is not required to investigate more than 1 request received
from a party each 36 months.
This isn't just an option, this is federally mandated!

These programs are paid for by our federal tax dollars, and the federal government requires the
states to
have expedited procedures to modify support orders. US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 >
SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666 says that states participating in the program, including
Michigan, must have:
“(2) Expedited administrative and judicial procedures (including the procedures

specified in subsection (c) of this section) for establishing paternity and for
establishing, modifying, and enforcing support obligations.”
US CODE TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000666---
-000-.html
The Minimum Threshold for Modification
When requesting a modification, the easiest thing for me to do might be to run the calculations
myself, and in the written request for modification, provide an affidavit that states the new
calculations, based on my best available information, exceed the minimum threshold for
modification in section 4.04, and request that the FOC follow Section 4.04 of the 2008 MCSFM,
which requires mandatory petition of the court:
4.04 Minimum Threshold for Modification

4.04(A) The "minimum threshold for modification" is 10-percent of the currently ordered
support payment or $50 per month, whichever is greater.
4.04(B) Following a child support review by the friend of the court office, if the difference
between the recommended amount and the current order exceeds the minimum threshold for
modification, the friend of the court office must petition the court to modify the order.
I believe that a FOC worker must generate two support recommendations, one with imputation,
and one without, and present them to the court, but I can't find the reference now. More
information on imputation is available below.
However, the sad fact of the matter is that the Friend of the Courts and the Courts make $27
Million each year from Federal Incentive Funds, which are based on how many dollars in
support they collect, and how much effort they expend collecting that money. Also, some local
FOCs may be ordering parents to pay arrears payments via check or other method, and may be
exceeding the 60-65% limits in the federal consumer credit protection Act.
Obtaining Forms to Request Modification
Obtaining forms for child support modification can occasionally be difficult. One might even
suspect that some local FOC offices are intentionally making it as difficult as possible for parents
to submit child support modification requests, hoping that those parents go into arrears while
dealing with the bureaucracy, so that the offices themselves can profit by generating work for
themselves as enforcers as well as interest like fines on arrears.
Firstly, I would check on my local FOC's web site and download the appropriate forms.
Unfortunately, sometimes the individual links aren't working correctly, so it may be helpful to
download the entire archive of FOC forms. Sometimes, it may be useful to review the forms to
see the different things that the court expects to do within its normal standard operating
procedures.
Packet of Revised Friend of the Court Forms

http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/courtforms/revised_foc_forms.zip
foc16.pmd : 21-DAY NOTICE TO ALLEGED VIOLATOR OF CUSTODY OR

PARENTING TIME PROVISIONS
FIXME:
FOC 50: Motion Regarding Support
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/courtforms/domesticrelations/support/foc50.pdf
Other forms:
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/courtforms/domesticrelations/drindex.htm
Please note that each office is required to have these forms available. MCL 552.505(1)(d),
which reads in part:
"(1) Each office of the friend of the court has the following duties:
...
(d) To make available to an individual form motions, responses, and orders for
requesting the court to modify the individual's child support, custody, or
parenting time order, or for responding to a motion for such a modification,
without assistance of legal counsel. The office shall make available instructions
on preparing and filing each of those forms and instructions on service of process
and on scheduling a modification hearing."
mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-552-505&query=on&highlight=forms
Getting Income Information Required for the Formula
Also, with regards to how much to request the child support should be, as required on the form,
if I were you, I would consider doing the calculations with my best available data, using the 2008
Michigan Child Support Formula manual. I would then include those calculations attached to
the form, and on the form write “$XXX.XX dollars per month, so long as the income of the other
parent hasn't substantially changed from $YYY.YY per year.” That way, I know up front what I
believe the law says is in the best interests of my children, and I'm prepared to handle other
parties, such as the other parent or the FOC, who want to work in their own interests and against
the children's interests.
If I'm concerned that the other parent's income has changed significantly, I might consider
sending the other parent a polite written request for his/her current annual income, so that I can
run the calculations so that the child support may be set in accordance with the best interests of
the child. I would probably volunteer to show the other parent all of the calculations before
sending them to the FOC. Then, having run the calculations, I might offer to the other parent
that we agree to the calculated amount so that I can enter it as an agreement using the FOC form,
and reduce fighting and court costs. Note that this may be a consent agreement as described
below, and may adversely effect future modifications, but I may believe that it will be worth it to
avoid a battle. I might even agree to offer extra bonus money, even though it's not in the
interests of the children, just to make the modification process run smoothly and quickly. A
good lawyer knows how to write such agreements and make such deals.
If I get no cooperation from the other parent, then I would note it in my attached documents, and
I might ask the other parent in front of the FOC worker or referee to write down or state on the
record “under penalty of perjury” what his/her income is, or I might consider various motions to
obtain that information. While accurate income information is necessary for the correct
application of the child support manual, I should still be able to get a modification based on the
best available information I have on hand. Again, a good lawyer knows how to make the
motions to obtain the necessary information.
If I'm unable to complete the child support manual, then I could simply enter on the form,
“whatever is in the best interests of my children, given proper application of the 2008 Michigan
Child Support Manual, given that my annual income is $ZZZ.ZZ”. I could then ask the judge to
instruct the FOC to investigate, get accurate income data from both parents, and run the formula.
Note that, to me, a FOC worker is supposed to verify income, and not just take the parent's word
for it, although some have been known to only require documentation from the one parent only.
This may encourage fraud, and I would likely object if the other parent doesn't produce
documentation of income such as tax returns.
Applying the Child Support Formula
Please note that some parents have reported that the FOC may not always run the formula
accurately. I could also hire a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) to read the formula and
prepare a report showing different results, and given the detailed calculations of the FOC worker,
I could ask the CPA to prepare a report indicating if and why such calculations are incorrect.
Using either a CPA's calculations, or my own, I could then object to the results of the FOC
workers calculations in front of the referee on the grounds that the FOC worker failed to follow
the 2008 MCSFM.
FOC workers often use software supplied to them by the SCAO. Past versions of the software
seem to have been inaccurate, and may have consistently calculated support obligations which
are too high.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/962203/Should-Software-for-Child-Support-Calculations-be-
Treated-As-Unreliable
Also, some parents accuse FOC workers of gaming the application of the formula, to maximize
the child support obligation, which maximizes the federal incentive funds to their employer.
More below.
Spreadsheet For Calculating Child Support Available
I've written a spreadsheet for the manual, which is free to FRC members. FRC is free to join.
Join at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FRC/
After joining, download the spreadsheet from:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FRC/files/
The file name is “2008MichiganChildSupportCalculator.ods”
It requires OpenOffice.org which is also free. It can be downloaded from:

http://www.openoffice.org/
My spreadsheet does not currently include net income calculation (Section 1), but it does provide
detailed calculations for the other sections of the 2008 MCSFM, specifically referencing the
manual section for each step and giving detailed results.
For information purposes only. I make no warranty, expressed or implied. Use at your own risk.
Limitations on Orders, Financial Incentives, and Possible Illegal

Activity
Under the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, all money collected for most children must
generally be given to the children first, excluding federal and repayment of state assistance to the
family, and the child support collection agency (FOC) is never given priority over receiving
money from the family. That is, if the family is due any money, it gets its money now, not the
FOC, excluding certain federally required minor monthly and yearly fees.
TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 657. Distribution of
collected support
(a) In general
Subject to subsections (d) and (e) of this section, an amount collected on behalf of
a family as support by a State pursuant to a plan approved under this part shall
be distributed as follows:
.....
(3) Families that never received assistance

In the case of any other family, the State shall distribute the amount so collected
to the family.
....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000657---
-000-.html
This includes both arrears as well as child support. To ensure that the law is obeyed, the federal
government required all child support and arrears to go through each state's central disbursement
unit. (MiSDU)
Also, under federal law, orders, processes, and garnishments for child support and arrears must
be restricted to no more than 60%-65% of net income of the obliged parents. This includes all
garnishments, orders to pay via check, orders to pay medical insurance premiums via an
employer, and all other orders, processes, and garnishments:
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1673. Restriction on

garnishment
(a) Maximum allowable garnishment

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this
title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for
any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
...
(b) Exceptions
...
(2) The maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for
any workweek which is subject to garnishment to enforce any order for the
support of any person shall not exceed—
(A) where such individual is supporting his spouse or dependent child (other than
a spouse or child with respect to whose support such order is used), 50 per
centum of such individual’s disposable earnings for that week; and
(B) where such individual is not supporting such a spouse or dependent child
described in clause (A), 60 per centum of such individual’s disposable earnings
for that week;
except that, with respect to the disposable earnings of any individual for any
workweek, the 50 per centum specified in clause (A) shall be deemed to be 55 per
centum and the 60 per centum specified in clause (B) shall be deemed to be 65 per
centum, if and to the extent that such earnings are subject to garnishment to
enforce a support order with respect to a period which is prior to the twelve-week
period which ends with the beginning of such workweek.
(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited
No court of the United States or any State, and no State (or officer or agency
thereof), may make, execute, or enforce any order or process in violation of this
section.
-000-.html
Michigan explicitly recognizes these limits:
552.608 Limitation on amount of income withheld.
Sec. 8.
The total amount of income withheld under this act under all orders to withhold
income for current support, past due support, fees, and health care coverage
premiums effective against a payer shall not exceed the maximum amount
permitted under section 303(b) of title III of the consumer credit protection act,
Public Law 90-321, 15 U.S.C. 1673.
mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-608
However, please review the 2008 MCSFM and the 2008 MCSFM Supplement. It is very easy to
exceed these limits, particularly for low income parents, with just the support payment and
standard medical care. If the children have day care needs, then the limits can be exceeded for
many middle income parents. There is no provision in the 2008 MCSFM limiting the obligation
under MCL 552.608 or US Code, Chapter 41, § 1673. Personally, I believe that the Michigan
and federal laws above mandate such a limit.
As reported on the Yahoo! FRC group and elsewhere, some local FOC offices, including
Macomb County, reportedly sometimes order 65% of net income garnished, and they then order
obligated parents to pay an additional 15% of their income directly to the Macomb County FOC
for arrears.
While this, to me, plainly violates the applicable laws above, it also may violate federal law
which mandates that all payments go through the state central disbursement unit (MiSDU) and
federal law which mandates automated collections to the extent possible.
One possible motivation that local FOC offices may have to make these questionable orders is to
secure this payment of 15% of the parent's net income outside of the MiSDU. That is, if the
MiSDU were to have access to these payments, they would likely follow federal law and send
the payments to the children. Outside the MiSDU, the local FOC would have the ability to
disburse the money in a manner which violates federal law, including paying itself interest like
fines on arrears first, and not distributing that money to the children. In short, I'm deeply
concerned that local FOCs who make these orders are stealing from the children they are
supposed to serve.
See:
552.603a Support payment; surcharge; computation; assessment; collection;

enforcement.
mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-603a
Furthermore, these orders of 80% of net income, or even more when including health care
insurance premiums ordered to be removed from parents wages, are so excessive that it is
unlikely that the parents can actually meet these court orders and survive. In other words, these
orders create deadbeats, and this creates work for the FOC. This work can then be billed back to
the federal and state governments via the Title IV-D program. In a sense, if these excessive
orders do exist, they inevitably create false billing of taxpayer dollars to execute enforcement
actions that would never have been needed if the limits were respected. In short, I'm deeply
concerned that this is a backhanded way to steal taxpayer money which should never have gone
to these local FOC offices in the first place.
Also, note that by executing these procedures, courts, which share a budget with the local FOC,
have a significant financial incentive to create arrears, impute income, and deny modification
requests, potentially making FOC evaluators, judges and referees less than fair in this matter (
Source: CSPR report)
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/services/focb/CSPR12-06ReportAndRecommendations.pdf
Common Techniques To Increase Payments Which May Amount To

Fraud
There are several common techniques which generally increase child support payments, which is
in the financial interests of the FOC and the court, some of which may amount to fraud on the
paying parent and the children (whose best interests are defined as the proper application of the
formula).
Firstly, FOC workers will sometimes substitute a software application for the actual MCS
Manual. This software application has been show to consistently give obligations substantially
larger than those specified in the manual. See also:
Should Software for Child Support Calculations Be Treated As Unreliable?

Secondly, FOC workers or the payee parent or both working together will sometimes lie about
the payee parent's income. Some parents have complained that the FOC worker in their case
indicated that the other parent lost his/her job 6 months ago, and if the paying parent objected,
the FOC worker would say something such as, “Why are you being so distrustful?”
If this were me, I might explain that I'm concerned about a possible falsehood, given the FOC
worker's financial conflicts of interest in this case, and request documentation that this is true. If
pressed, I might offer that if both the FOC worker and the other parent write and sign a
document in their own handwriting indicating that this is true under penalty of perjury and give it
to me on the spot, and in this document agree to pay all legal costs of my recovery if they are
lying, then I would accept their statements as true. If they won't write down what they have said
verbally, I would suspect that it's a lie. I would then object to any support recommendation in
court, and possibly write a grievance against the FOC worker. Also note that as far as I know,
FOC workers, with the exception of when they are making a custody recommendation, are only
covered under normal governmental immunity, and may be sued for intentional torts such as
fraud.
Another technique that might be used is the FOC worker assigns the paying parent the
requirement to pay health care insurance premiums for the children, but neglects to deduct the
recipient parent's portion of that support payment (based on his/her part of total family income)
from the garnishment order, harming the best interests of the children, which are to follow the
manual. However, again, this act is in the financial best interests of the FOC.
A classic technique, often deployed against military fathers, is for the custodial parent to demand
cash payments outside of the Friend of the Court system. After several years, the custodial
parent will then apply to the court for help in getting support for his/her children, and
fraudulently state that the parent who is away has never paid anything in support. In this way,
the caring parent essentially can double his her obligation during the cash only period, as it will
be assigned as arrears. The FOC may suspect this fraud, but because it means that they will be
able to charge significant interest-like fines on those arrears and collect more money, which
means more incentive payments, they may turn a blind eye to it, or the FOC might even
sometimes encourage or participate in such illegal activities.
Possible Evidence of Ongoing Fraud in Child Support Calculations
In a February 21, 2009 message to the FRC mailing list, a member, who will not be named here,
indicated that his/her lawyer questioned a child support specialist for a Michigan County under
oath, and briefly summarized his/her testimony for the members of the FRC list. (Archives are
available to list members).
This FRC member indicated that the child support specialist only used the software application
provided to him/her, and never reviewed the results of calculations using the 2008 Michigan
Child Support Formula Manual.
Many parents have expressed concern that the software may be incorrectly calculating support.
It is possible that the support specialist may believe that the software is incorrect too. How many
times has the specialist been asked by someone who's run the calculations by hand to correct the
errors from the software? How many times has the specialist demurred, made excuses, or looked
the other way? At some point, if the software is incorrect, and if the specialist is ignorant that
he/she breaking the law, it's only because he/she is willfully ignorant of the errors in the
software. If the software is incorrect, and the specialist knows it, his/her "ignorance" is the
thinnest veil of a lie hiding his/her intentional deception of parents, and his/her act of calculating
support while knowing that it is not in the best interests of the children that he/she is being paid
to serve. Unfortunately, this could amount to fraud.
The FRC member also indicated that the specialist also used the amounts, such as income and
parenting time, from figures provided to him/her by the court regardless of whether they were
right or wrong. This raises the concern that this support specialist was knowingly computing
support obligations using bogus income, and thus generating a bogus support amount.
Support specialists often encourage parents to sign consent agreements to obtain voluntary
compliance on child support orders. In some cases, parents have suggested on the FRC list and
elsewhere that a support specialist or other FOC worker has strongly encouraged or even
attempted to coerce the paying parent into signing orders, saying that he/she must sign it, or even
threatening to modify custody recommendations if the parent does not sign the voluntary
agreement. When this specialist makes a support computation based on data that he/she knows is
false, does he she explain this to the parent? Does he/she explain t what the figures would be
using real data? Does he/she avoid high pressure techniques to gain voluntary agreements for
support amounts that he/she knows are based on bogus inputs and not in the best interests of the
children?
Given these practices of the specialist who may be knowingly computing support using wrong
inputs, we might be concerned that the technique of plausible deniability may be employed here.
Upon failing to obtain an agreement, the specialist might send his/her computations to the court,
where the judge, having created an environment where such behavior is encouraged without his/
her actual knowledge of the details, rules that the specialist has followed the law and demands
support payments based on the bogus inputs. In the unfortunate and unlikely event that this were
to occur intentionally, then those actions could include conspiracy against rights, fraud, perjury,
or subornation of perjury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
The FRC member also briefly indicated that the support specialist also gave significant
testimony that the FOC is manipulating computation of support to maximize transfer payments
when those payments are not otherwise in the best interests of children based on the accurate
computation of the support in the support formula manual.
While we aren't given details, this, to me, is the most troubling statement in the message that I
read. To me, it sounds like the lawyer elicited testimony from the support specialist that he/she
intentionally used various techniques which she may apply to deceive parents, knowingly acting
against the best interests of children, to increase support orders when those orders are not in the
best interests of the children who are to be served.
Considerations Regarding Consent Orders
If I'm concerned at all that the calculations are not 100% correct, or if I'm concerned that I might
later lose my job or other source of income, one thing I would be unlikely to do is to sign a
consent order. As far as I understand, signing this is 100% optional and doesn't provide the
paying parent with any significant benefits.
The consent order may be used to “lock in” payments which may be calculated in an unlawful
manner is to get both parents to sign a consent order with a specific dollar amount. Then these
parents can't later object based on the fact that the MCSFM wasn't followed, because they've
consented to pay more for the good of the children. This can also be used to later deny
modification requests when parents lose a job, because the parent has consented to a specific
dollar amount.
As far as I understand, signing a consent order is an optional act, and is in essence, an agreement
to depart from the guidelines:
Domestic Relations - Child Support - Friend of the Court Guidelines - Departure

- Agreement
The SPTEA does not prohibit a court from entering a child support order which is
agreed to by the parties and which deviates from the child support formula, if the
requirements for deviation from the formula are met.
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?mode=view&digestId=69595
If I don't want to do this, then one possible thing I might do is to say something like, “I decline to
convert this court order into a consent order, so that I may retain future rights to act in the best
interests of my children and modify this obligation as circumstances dictate, or if I later discover
that I and my children were victims of fraud, I can act in their best interests to modify the order
as circumstances dictate.”
Sometimes, parents have complained that FOC workers and others have chastised parents for not
signing consent orders, asking them “Don't you want to support your children?”
Given this sort of emotional blackmail, I might respond, “I believe that this consent order is
created by the court to protect the financial interests of the court, and I believe that by reserving
my rights to the greatest extent possible is in my children's best interest.” or also “I am aware
that the FOC has various financial conflicts of interest with regards to the Title IV-D program,
and I want to reserve my rights to protect my children and myself”, or similar things.
If told that I must sign off the record, again, I would demand that the FOC worker write this
down and sign the statement, indicating something like, “I assert the following is true under
penalty of perjury...” blah blah blah. Personally, I might not sign even given the written
statement. The FOC worker could simply be mistaken, but if the worker refuses to write down
his/her statement, to me, it kind of ends his or her credibility to assert what the law says or does
not say immediately.
Retroactive Modifications
With competent legal help, I would discuss getting a retroactive modification of support. This is
very difficult to achieve, but may be possible.
Once the child support obligation has been set, it can't be retroactively modified. However, there
is an exception in the law for deception. If the other parent lied about his/her income, then
retroactive modifications are allowed.
"If an individual who is required by the court to report his or her income to the
court or the office of the friend of the court knowingly and intentionally fails to
report, refuses to report, or knowingly misrepresents that income, after notice and
an opportunity for a hearing, the court may retroactively correct the amount of
support."
MCL 552.603b
mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-603b
Secondly, if the child support was calculated incorrectly, then the court should retroactively fix
its mistake so that it doesn't harm the best interests of children.
Michigan's court of appeals said:
"Under the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act, a court must order
support in an amount determined by application of the child support formula
developed by the state Friend of the Court bureau as required by the Friend of the
Court Act, but the court may enter an order which deviates from the formula if the
court determines from the facts of the case that application of the child support
formula would be unjust or inappropriate."
Gehrke V Gehrke
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/
DigestDetail?digestId=49755&mode=view#306975
If the court used a software application, then that software application probably didn't compute
the obligation correctly:
The parenting time abatement in the child support computations must be computed by correctly
determining the number of nights the children spend with their mother and father. (See both the
2008 and 2004 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual). If the obligation is computed using
other information, such as a judicial ruling that has no effect on the children's home in practice,
then I believe it's incorrect, and not consistent with appellate decisions.
Imputation of Income
If my income from the obligation was imputed, then I might argue that my obligation had been
inflated by automatic imputation, and the FOC and court failed to follow the guidelines for
imputation in Berger V Berger:
"In calculating child support under the child support formula, a court had the
discretion to impute income to a parent, usually when there is a voluntary
reduction of income or a voluntary unexercised ability to earn. In determining
whether to impute income, a court should consider: (1) prior employment
experience, (2) education level, (3) physical and mental disabilities, (4) the
presence of the parties' children in the person's home and its impact on earnings,
(5) the availability of employment in the local area, (6) the prevailing wage rates
in the local area, (7) special skills and training, and (8) whether there is any
evidence that the person is able to earn the imputed income. In this case, in
calculating child support, the trial court apparently calculated support under the
child support formula based on the plaintiff's current income, which was based on
part-time employment, while in assessing the plaintiff's ability to care for her
children in granting custody, the court had accorded to the plaintiff her earning
capacity based on fulltime employment. Further, the court had found that the
plaintiff's occupations in nursing and dance afforded her a flexibility in
employment schedule which permitted both employment and child custody. The
court had apparently imposed the entire financial obligation of child support on
the defendant. Under the circumstances, the trial court improperly failed to
impute to the plaintiff income from fulltime employment in calculating child
support"
Berger V Berger
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=67285&mode=view#436175
Given reasons why the obligation wasn't computed correctly, I might request that the court
recompute my obligation, nunc pro tunc, or "now for then" using the correct application of law,
which is defined as being in the children's best interests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunc_pro_tunc
Historical Use of Automatic Imputation
FOC's internal "2008 Changes to the Michigan Child Support Formula" says that they have
abandoned "automatic imputation".
Potential Income
Criteria ensure that imputation
is based on actual ability and
likelihood of earning
Any other rule based on pure
speculation and violates
requirement to base support on
actual resources of the parent.
2008 Changes to Michigan’s Child Support Formula 16
Potential Income - cont'd

Basing Income on a parent’s actual ability and likelihood of earning
Shift in Thinking
Automatic Assumption v Actual Ability
“Just the Factors please”
Just Factors, please
Recording Info [MCL 552.517b(6)(a)]
2008 Changes to Michigan’s Child Support Formula
http://courts.michigan.gov/mji/webcast/2007-08/032508/
2008_Changes_to_Michigans_Child_Support_Formula_presentation.pdf
Yes, FOC can and will impute based on "actual ability and likelihood of earning" (see relevant
case law at link below if you like).
However, the training statement above implies above that some parties within the FOC until
October 1, 2008 of automatic assumption.
The relevant, to me, parts of the law referenced above are, from MCL 552.517(b):
(6) The following provisions apply to support review proceedings under this
section:
(a) A recommendation under subsection (3) shall state the calculations upon
which the support amount is based. If the friend of the court office recommends a
support amount based on imputed income, the recommendation shall also state
the amount that would have been recommended based on the actual income of the
parties if the actual income of the parties is known. If income is imputed, the
recommendation shall recite all factual assumptions upon which the imputed
income is based.
(b) The friend of the court office may impute income to a party who fails or
refuses to provide information requested under subsection (2)."
http://legislature.mi.gov/
mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-517b
The law requires the use of "factual assumptions". I don't know what the changes in the law are,
but the last change was in 2005. Although I don't have the old versions handy, in all likelihood,
this section of the law always required "factual assumptions" since imputation was introduced.
Yet, the FOC training implies that some people used "automatic assumptions", until October 1,
2008. and that there had previously existed "Any other rule based on pure speculation", including
an "automatic assumption" rule.
To me, Berger V Berger establishes the precedent and the factors for imputation. But look, these
rulings regarding imputation go all the way back to 1998.
Ghidotti V Barber
Domestic Relations - Child Support - Friend of the Court Guidelines - Parental Income - Ability
to Earn - Determination
The child support formula developed by the Friend of the Court is required to be based on the
needs of the child and the actual resources of each parent. To include a parent's unexercised
ability to earn an income as an actual resource, a court must determine that the parent has the
actual ability and likelihood of earning income. In doing so, it must consider factors such as the
parent's employment history, education and skills, available work opportunities, diligence in
trying to find work, personal history, assets, health and physical abilities, and availability for
work, the presence of children in the parent's home and its impact on the parties' earnings, and
prevailing wage rates.
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/
The FOC, in the document above, appears to be admitting that some within its ranks may have
been violating a Michigan Supreme Court ruling for 10 years!
State of the Economy and Imputation of Income
The guidelines for imputation in Berger V Berger include evaluations of the economic
conditions.
"... (5) the availability of employment in the local area, (6) the prevailing wage
rates in the local area..."
Berger V Berger
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=67285&mode=view#436175
I might find it helpful to discuss with my lawyer presenting evidence regarding the local
economic conditions. Evidence may news accounts or other information on the state of the
economy, including:
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Local Area Unemployment
12.9% for Michigan April 2009
http://www.bls.gov/lau/
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Historical Data
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/
SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST26000003
Detroit Free Press

Economist: Jobless rate among African Americans to hit 27.8%
By JOHN GALLAGHER • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • May 27, 2009
http://freep.com/article/20090527/BUSINESS06/90527031/
Economist++Jobless+rate+among+African+Americans+to+hit+27.8
Considerations Regarding Debtors Prison
Some parents have claimed that they've been sent to jail as a form of illegal debtor's prison.
The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Michigan recently took up the case of a woman
whom they argued was in this sort of situation and reportedly won her release. They also
reportedly performed a similar legal service for a man in a similar situation.
The ACLU legal brief is here:
http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/nowlinmotion.pdf
If I were in this sort of situation, and I could not otherwise afford a lawyer, I would consider
contacting the Michigan ACLU to see if they could assist.
http://www.aclumich.org/
Considerations for Child Support and SSDI (Social Security Disability

Income)
There is a link to it on their story page, which is linked to below.
With regards to SSDI, the Betters V Betters case may interest you.
If I were a recipient of SSDI and I were ordered to pay child support, I would read it and discuss
it with my lawyer.
In particular:
" Further, 42 USC 407(a) provides that “none of the moneys paid or payable
. . . under [subchapter II] shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment,
garnishment, or other legal process . . . .”42 USC 1383(d)(1) extends 407(a)’s
protection to SSI benefits. See Becker Co Human Services v Peppel, 493 NW2d
573, 575 (Minn App, 1992). 42 USC 407(a) and 1383(d)(1), and the child support
manual, as they must be read together, prohibit the imputation of income to a
parent receiving means tested income unless the trial court determines from the
facts of the case that application of the child support formula would be unjust or
inappropriate and sets forth in writing or on the record the following:
(a) The support amount determined by application of the child support
formula.
(b) How the support order deviates from the child support formula.
(c) The value of property or other support awarded instead of payment
of child support, if applicable.
(d) The reasons why application of the child support formula would be
unjust or inappropriate in the case. [Ghidotti, supra at 196, quoting MCL
722.717(3); MSA 25.497(3).]"
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/
20000211_C211529(0038)_211529.OPN.PDF
This seems to me to set a sort of child support level to be taken out of SSDI at $20 a week on a
person who is conscious and capable of caring for his children under SSDI, on the assumption
that he can find some income during that week, even at less than minimum wage.
Considerations for Fathers Who Claim that the FOC Refuses to

Enforce Mom's Support Obligations Due to Gender Bias
A father contacted a mailing list that I'm on and claimed that the local FOC in his county was
refusing to enforce mom's obligation to support her children due to their own gender bias. In this
case, the dad claimed that mom brazenly refused to support her children, and that the FOC
refused for years to enforce her obligation in any meaningful manner.
If I were in such a position, I would be concerned that my children and I are victims of gender
discrimination by the local FOC, courts. I would seek the advice of a lawyer if at all possible.
Regarding the FOC, there is a statutory grievance procedure that I would consider using with the
assistance of my lawyer. (MCL 552.526)
http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-526
I would discuss with my lawyer the possibility of filing a grievance with the FOC, complaining
of zero child support enforcement effort against mom, and alleging gender discrimination if I
believed it to be true. I might file it by return receipt requested mail.
If, after 30 days, I receive no response, or an unsatisfactory response, I might file an appeal of
the grievance with the Chief Judge of county based on MCL 552.526 above and including my
original complaints.
I might also contact my Michigan Representative or Senator and ask them to assist my children
and I in getting the support that we deserve.
http://legislature.mi.gov/
Also, if the FOC seemed unwilling to seek criminal charges when I felt that they would have
been brought otherwise, due to gender discrimination, I might contact the PA and respectfully
request my rights as a crime victim (parent who is due support but not receiving any) under the
ELLIOT LARSON CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. (MCL 37.2102)
http://legislature.mi.gov//mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-37-2102
Later Modification If I Had Signed A Consent Agreement
If I had signed an agreement to pay support, then the judge may refuse my arguments on the
grounds that such an agreement makes later modification impossible.
If this is a hardship on me and on the children when they're in my care, or if the obligation makes
it difficult or impossible for me to care for my children, through my lawyer I may argue that such
an agreement is illegal in Michigan, because:
"A biological parent has an inherent obligation to support his child, and he must
support his minor child unless a court of competent jurisdiction modifies or
terminates the obligation or the child is emancipated. "
Macomb County Department of Social Services v Westerman

By not properly computing the obligation using the 2004 MCSFM, and by collecting support for
time when the other parent is not caring for the kids, the court is allowing the other parent to get
away from his/her inherent obligation to support his/her children, in violation of court of appeals
rulings such as Macomb County Department of Social Services v Westerman.
Also:
"The purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of a child. The parents of
a child are not permitted to bargain away a child's right to receive adequate
support ... "

If I'm unable to both care for my children when they're with me in an appropriate manner without
hardship, and pay the agreed amount, then the children are not getting adequate support from the
other parent in the form of a properly computed support obligation. Even if I had made an
agreement to pay such support, such an agreement is not permitted because it does not provide
for the needs of the children when they're in my care as the court of appeals said in Macomb
County Department of Social Services v Westerman.
Also, if I felt it to be true, I would probably state that I felt that I been deceived, either by the
improper use of software which replaced the formula, false information used to calculate the
obligation, or false statements that I was required to sign various paperwork, and not being
adequately informed by the court that such an agreement could subsequently harm the best
interests of my children by preventing me from seeking adequate support from their other parent,
or I was accepting legal advice from a court worker with a financial conflict of interest
encouraging larger support awards, even if that harmed my children, then would argue that an
agreement based on deception from an officer of the court that is plainly not in the best interests
of children cannot be enforced and should be voided.
Through my lawyer, I might also argue that
"[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and
direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and
prepare him for additional obligations.”
Troxel V Granville
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html
I might argue that by allowing this tangled web of lies to continue, and not recognizing the duty
of the court to properly compute the support obligation and arrears based on the actual custodial
environment of the children, our actual income, appropriate use of imputation, and the actual
Michigan Child Support Formula Manual, and not software known to be incorrect, that the court
may be violating my right to the care and custody of my children.
Also, I might argue that incorrectly computed support obligations could result in my being sent
to jail in a contempt hearing or in a felony criminal conviction for non-support, and sending me
to jail, on the grounds that I loved, fed, clothed, and supported my children, rather than sending
sufficient money to the other parent, simply because of some paperwork based on false
information, or because it's in the best interests of the court, and not in the best interests of my
children, is a violation of my rights to the care and custody of my children.
Also, if the obligation is not computed correct, and especially if the child is residing with the so-
called non-custodial parent, rather than the so-called custodial parent, or the child's periods of
custody are substantially different from those used to compute the child support order, then the
child support recipient parent is spending child support money on himself/herself and not the
children.
The Child Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act grants to the court:
"AN ACT to provide for and to supplement statutes that provide for the provisions
and enforcement of support, health care, and parenting time orders with respect
to divorce, separate maintenance, paternity, child custody and support, and
spousal support; to prescribe and authorize certain provisions of those orders; to
prescribe the powers and duties of the circuit court and friend of the court; ... "
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-act-295-of-1982
In this instance, I might argue politely that court may be conspiring with a de facto non-custodial
parent to misuse the powers given it under the act to steal from children and the de-facto
custodial parent.
More here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1018457/Considerations-for-when-a-Parent-Spends-Child-Support-
on-HimselfHerself-and-the-Court-Doesnt-Care
To take a parent's money for “child support” when he/she is in fact supporting the children
directly is a violation of the de-facto custodial parent's fundamental liberty interest to the care
and custody of his/her children. In other words, I feel that even if the law were to be interpreted
by the court to mean that a def-facto custodial parent must pay a de-facto non-custodial parent
child support, which did not benefit his/her children, but rather went into the pocketbook of the
de-facto non-custodial parent, such an interpretation would be a plain violation of the rights of
that parent to the care and custody of his/her children as well as his/her fourteenth amendment
due process rights to the care and custody of his/her children (Troxel V Granville)
By conspiring with the de-facto non-custodial parent to steal from the de-facto custodial parent
and the children, the court is preventing the de-facto custodial parent from caring for his
children, and violating his right to prepare his children for future obligations.
See also:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/404652/Fiction-John-Q-Public-and-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Before-
It-Begins
The Friend of the Court has a duty to investigate all relevant facts if ordered by the court:
"(g) To investigate all relevant facts, and to make a written report and
recommendation to the parties and to the court regarding child custody or
parenting time, or both, if there is a dispute as to child custody or parenting time,
or both, and domestic relations mediation is refused by either party or is
unsuccessful, or if ordered to do so by the court."
From MCL 552.505
mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-552-505&query=on&highlight=investigate
If the court refuses to make a reasonable order to investigate an apparent violation of a parent's
rights, I think that it's clear legal error that could be overturned on appeal. If the court made such
an order, and the FOC failed to correctly verify the actual living conditions of the children, then
the FOC has failed in its duties, and I still think it's clear legal error, because they're nothing
more than an arm of the court.
It is possible, sadly, that a local court and/or FOC may fail to conduct a reasonable investigation,
determine the facts, and act in the best interests of the children, because they're engaged in
racketeering. Unfortunately, there is some evidence of racketeering in Michigan's Friend of the
Court.
Unenforceable Consent Agreements
If I believed it to be true, when the issue of a previously signed consent agreement arises, I
might, through my lawyer, focus on the arguments that there was "fraud", "mistake", or
"unconscionable advantage" when the consent agreement was signed. This would make the
agreement unenforceable.
I might point to Berger V Berger:
"Domestic Relations - Child Support - Friend of the Court Guidelines - Income -

Imputed
"In calculating child support under the child support formula, a court had the
discretion to impute income to a parent, usually when there is a voluntary
reduction of income or a voluntary unexercised ability to earn. In determining
whether to impute income, a court should consider: (1) prior employment
experience, (2) education level, (3) physical and mental disabilities, (4) the
presence of the parties' children in the person's home and its impact on earnings,
(5) the availability of employment in the local area, (6) the prevailing wage rates
in the local area, (7) special skills and training, and (8) whether there is any
evidence that the person is able to earn the imputed income. In this case, in
calculating child support, the trial court apparently calculated support under the
child support formula based on the plaintiff's current income, which was based on
part-time employment, while in assessing the plaintiff's ability to care for her
children in granting custody, the court had accorded to the plaintiff her earning
capacity based on fulltime employment. Further, the court had found that the
plaintiff's occupations in nursing and dance afforded her a flexibility in
employment schedule which permitted both employment and child custody. The
court had apparently imposed the entire financial obligation of child support on
the defendant. Under the circumstances, the trial court improperly failed to
impute to the plaintiff income from fulltime employment in calculating child
support."
If I believe it to be true, I might argue that the imputation was fraudulent. That is, the officer of
the court intentionally fraudulently presented his/her decision to impute to me as a lawful one,
and that he/she had the ability to do so, or that no judge would review the action, etc.
Also in Laffin V Laffin:
"A court must order child support in an amount determined by application of the
child support formula developed by the state Friend of the Court bureau. A court
may deviate from the formula if it determines from the facts of the case that
application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate, and
articulates on the record its reasons for the departure."
DigestDetail?mode=view&digestId=69065
I might argue that the court secretly substituted a software application for the Michigan Child
Support Formula Manual, probably the Margin Soft software, about which Michigan Courts
online site says:
“This application is being provided as a service and is not supported by SCAO

staff.”
http://courts.mi.gov/scao/services/focb/mcsf.htm
If I felt it were true, I might argue that The officer of the court instead deviated by refusing to
impute my real income to apply it, or by using software known to be incorrect.
If I felt that I had been coerced to sign, such as being ordered by a judge or officer of the court,
and it had not been explained to me that my signature was optional, and of my own free will, I
might argue that I had been coerced. This coercion was either intentional fraud on the part of an
officer of the court, an innocent mistake by an officer of the court, or an application of
unconscionable advantage by an officer of the court and therefore the consent agreement should
be considered invalid.
If my lawyer tried those arguments and they failed, then I might ague that the agreement is still
unenforceable if it violates public policy. I might argue that my obligation violates public
policy, because imputation was done incorrectly, and because the agreement effectively forces
me to relinquish my rights to have the other parent properly support the children during his/her
periods of custody.
Laffin v Laffin
"The parties in a divorce may not relinquish their child's right to support"
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/DigestDetail?mode=view&digestId=69065
And further:
Laffin v Laffin
"Contracts which violate public policy may not be enforced. In this case, the trial
court's orders ensuing from the 2004 exhaustion of the equity debt improperly
enforced a contract which was void as against public policy, and therefore
remand for a determination of the plaintiff's appropriate child support obligation
was necessary."
I might argue that because the children aren't getting the support they need from the other parent
in the form of a correctly computed obligation, and because they're being deprived of my care
should I be jailed or have my license revoked, etc, for an obligation that I can't possibly pay, this
consent agreement, even if it were valid, plainly violates the public policy that child support is
for the benefit of the children.
I might argue through my lawyer that the court can't enforce a consent agreement whose purpose
is to harm the children by depriving them of their other parent's support for their needs and the
direct love and care of their myself by taking me from them and throwing me in jail or
preventing me from picking them up or dropping them off, or preventing me from fishing with
them, by seizing my licenses. Here the court is insisting that I, as a parent, must "relinquish my
child's right" to the other parent's support of the children when their in his/her care and custody,
by incorrectly imputing income and forcing a consent agreement based on the false imputation, if
applicable.
Considerations When Facing Unreasonable Delays to Modify Support
Obligations
Sometimes, a parent will contact the FOC and request that the payment be modified to fit the
best interests of the children. Unfortunately, I've heard of at least one person who claimed that
the FOC simply sat on his/her request and introduced significant delays with the other parent
complained about the modification that he/she requested.
This parent indicated that, the FOC accepted an objection from the other parent but didn't
forward that objection to the requesting parent. If I were in that situation, I would discuss with
my lawyer the possibility of immediately demanding a copy.
I would discuss with my lawyer requesting the objection by pointing out to them that the
objection of the other parent is de-facto secret evidence, and that such secret evidence violates
my fourteenth amendment due process rights. To me, this matter of changing the child support
to act in the best interests of the children plainly effects my income, which is my property under
the fourteenth amendment, as well as my due process rights to the care and custody of my
children, also protected under the fourteenth amendment ( Troxel V Granville ), as I need
sufficient income to care for them when it's my turn to have parenting time.
If I felt it to be reasonable, I might also point out to FOC that their purpose is to make a
recommendation to the court as to the proper application of the support formula, not to
adjudicate disputes between the parties. I would point out that deviations from the formula are
matters for the court to decide, on the record, and the original calculations, the deviations, and
the reasons for deviation must all be provided. If the FOC believes that deviation is appropriate,
it should first follow the formula to get the correct figure, create a figure which deviates, and
provide the court with reasons it thinks the deviation is appropriate. In any case, the matter is a
judicial one. FOC helps the court decide by presenting information. It is not the role of the FOC
under law to make make secret decisions off the record to deviate from the application of the
formula.
MCL 552.605, Section 5, Paragraph 2:
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child support in an amount
determined by application of the child support formula developed by the state friend of the court
bureau as required in section 19 of the friend of the court act, MCL 552.519. The court may
enter an order that deviates from the formula if the court determines from the facts of the case
that application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate and sets forth in
writing or on the record all of the following:
(a) The child support amount determined by application of the child support
formula.
(b) How the child support order deviates from the child support formula.
(c) The value of property or other support awarded instead of the payment of child support, if
applicable.
(d) The reasons why application of the child support formula would be unjust or inappropriate in
the case.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-act-294-of-198
In this case, the parent was being garnished at 83% of his/her gross income, far in excess of the
limit of 65% of net income as I understand it. If I were in such a position, I might discuss with
my lawyer filing a grievance with the FOC if they didn't act on my request promptly.
In the grievance, I might point out that the FOC may be aware that I'm suffering and have no net
income, and they may be trying to break me by starving me out and forcing me to accept under
the table work,. so that they can criminalize me. This will inevitably destroy my relationship
with my children, of which they're aware, and to me, this is intentional infliction of emotional
distress. I might mention that MCL 691.1407 does not provide government workers immunity
from intentional torts, such as IIED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress
Considerations for Orders with Multiple Children (and Multiple

Counties)
Someone wrote on an online list of which I'm a member that he/she had several children and the
cases for these children were in two counties. Furthermore, he/she felt that those counties
weren't adequately communicating and taking into accounts the payments for all of the children.
To my way of thinking, if they're not calculating support properly for all of the children, then, to
me, they're not properly doing their jobs.
The 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual reads in part
"1.02(C) To avoid recalculating support each time the number of children for
whom support is paid changes, support provisions for multiple children must
include tiered amounts for fewer children. When a support order is for several
children, unless it specifies an amount for a particular child, each child’s share of
the support obligation is that child’s per capita share of the ordered amount."
and:
"3.02(A) To even out support amounts for children of the same parents, whether
ordered in one case or multiple cases, calculate base support using the total
number of children-in- common.
(1) If less than all of the children-in-common are included, then the present
case’s base support and the parental time offset (§3.03) is its children’s per
capita share of what the amount would be if all of the children-in-common were
included on one case.
..."
Please note that there's nothing in the 2008 MCSFM that says:
"County lines are magical entities, and these rules do not apply when the people
calculating support in for children are doing so over those magical county lines."
(NO!)
In fact, the county lines, or different jurisdictions, to me, should have nothing to do with the
amount paid in support, except that, I feel that people are naturally lazy, and disinclined to make
any calculations or make phone calls and send FAXes to their counterparts in other counties.
This is particularly true when there might exist a financial conflict of interest in the matter, even
if it means that they're not acting in the best interests of the children or of the families involved.
If I were in such a situation, after communicating with my lawyer, and if he/she agrees, I might
calculate the correct and accurate amount of child support, using the 2008 MCSFM, and file it
along with a grievance in both counties simultaneously, asking both local FOCs to obey
Michigan law, the 2008 MCSFM, and properly calculate support in my children's best interests.
I might also talk with my lawyer file an affidavit in both courts stating the facts and how the
servants of the court are failing to properly conduct their lawful duties and harming the best
interests of my children.
Considerations for Orders with Multiple Payments
Sometimes a court may use income withholding to obtain child support money, but also require
the parent to send in a check on a monthly basis to cover arrears.
One financial incentive that a local court may have to modify support is if it is improperly using
separate payments from arrears paid directly to the court, and/or payments made during show
cause hearings to make money for itself.
Perhaps when a paying parent makes a payment directly to the court for arrears, or when he/she
shows up for a show cause hearing and pays, the court is not properly disbursing the parent's
payments to the children, but rather claiming that money as interest-like fines on arrears, which
puts that money in the court treasury, violating the disbursement rules in the Federal Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, which mandates that collected money goes first to the children who are
supposed to benefit from child support.
Collecting child support debt must be done via the protections of the Federal Consumer
Protection Act Federal law mandates that these consumer protections be place for the state to
receive child support program (Title IV-D) funding.
by saying that they "may not exceed the limit permitted under such section 1673 (b)". []
“except that the amount of the allotment, together with any other amounts
withheld for support from the wages of the member, as a percentage of his pay
from the uniformed service, shall not exceed the limits prescribed in sections [1]
1673(b) and (c) of title 15. “
US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 666
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1673&url=/uscode/html/
uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000665----000-.html
These restrictions prevent abuses of justice such as a court which takes 100% of a parent's pay
check that he/she has no money left on which to survive, and limit maximum payments to 65%
of parents income in all cases, and less if the parent is supporting another spouse or other
children:
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001673----000-.html
For these purposes, income doesn't include health care premiums paid by the parent for his/her
own care, and the percentage included in the obligation includes those additional premiums paid
by the parent for the health care of his/her own children. (See Title IV-D).
Furthermore, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 established disbursement rules for collected
support, which require essentially that states first pay themselves to reimburse for welfare
expenses for the children, and secondly give all remaining money to the other parent for the
Some local courts may argue that it's perfectly OK to violate the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
indicating that it's federal law, and they don't have to follow it. In that case, I would point to the
Michigan Court of Appeals, which said in:
“The goal in interpreting a federal statute is to give effect to the intent of

Congress”
Empson-Laviolette v Crago
In that case, the court of appeals, discussing an Indian child's custody, added:
“The purpose of the ICWA is to establish minimum standards for the removal of
Indian children from their families in order to protect the best interests of Indian
children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and their
families. .... In a custody proceeding involving an Indian child, a state court must
apply the minimum standards articulated in the ICWA unless the applicable state
law provides a higher standard of protection to the Indian child’s parent or
Indian custodian. Michigan has not provided greater protections than the ICWA,
and so the ICWA applies to custody proceedings involving Indian children in
Michigan”
I would ask my lawyer to argue by analogy that the purpose of the purpose of the federal Title
IV-D program under which the court operates is plainly stated in the Federal law itself:
For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial

parents to their children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such
children are living, locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity,
obtaining child and spousal support, and assuring that assistance in obtaining
support will be available under this part to all children (whether or not eligible
for assistance under a State program funded under part A of this subchapter) for
whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated
for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part.
-000-.html
Title IV-D mandates that parents be given a free copy of their account once per year, and more
often if they pay the reproduction fees. I would get a copy, review all of my payments, and make
sure that the court isn't violating the disbursement rules by taking the money I pay to support my
children to pay itself interest-like fines on arrears. I know of no law that allows a court to
collect any money for children and claim that it can take the money for itself as arrears and not
apply it as child support for the benefit of the children. Besides reimbursement for welfare,
Congress clarified that the children are the first recipients of any money collected.
Considerations for an Automatic Imputation of Working Hours
Should a FOC worker indicated that he/she is required to calculate child support based on my
current hourly pay rate with an arbitrary work schedule, such as 35 or 40 hours, when work at
my current pay rate is only available for a reduced number of hours, such as 20, and other work
allowing me to maintain my child's schedule is only available at a reduced pay rate, or simply
not available in a manner consistent with my parenting time schedule, I might consider the
following.
I might point out MCL 552.605, Section 5, Paragraph 2, which says in part:
"(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the court shall order child
support in an amount determined by application of the child support formula ..."
I might point out that the FOC's job is to help the court by creating a recommendation consistent
with that formula.
I might review the formula, and I might also try the child support calculator available to
members of FRC, do manual calculations, and offer to the FOC my best reasoning as to what the
formula amount should be.
I might point out the that the 2008 MCSFM says in part:
"2.01(B) The objective of determining net income is to establish, as accurately as

possible, how much money a parent should have available for support. All
relevant aspects of a parent’s financial status are open for consideration when
determining support."
I might also point out that potential income is covered in the formula:
"2.01(G) Potential Income

When a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, or has an
unexercised ability to earn, income includes the potential income that parent
could earn, subject to that parent’s actual ability."
"(1) The amount of potential income imputed should be sufficient to bring that parent’s income
up to the level it would have been if the parent had not voluntarily reduced or waived income."
If true, then I might voluntarily state that I have found work at minimum wage or whatever the
available wage is that is consistent with my parenting time schedule for the extra time period up
to 40 hours, or show that I'm unable to get any work within my parenting time schedule, through
a list of places to which I've applied to work.
I might present evidence from my employer that my reduction in income and hours is
involuntary.
I might point out furthermore that the relevant factors to be considered are:
"(2) Use relevant factors both to determine whether the parent in question has an
actual
ability to earn and a reasonable likelihood of earning the potential income. To
figure the amount of potential income that parent could earn, consider the
following:
(a) Prior employment experience and history, including reasons for any
termination or changes in employment.
(b) Educational level and any special skills or training.
(c) Physical and mental disabilities that may affect a parent’s ability to obtain or
maintain gainful employment.
(d) Availability for work (exclude periods when a parent could not work or seek
work, e.g., hospitalization, incarceration, debilitating illness, etc.).
(e) Availability of opportunities to work in the local geographical area.
The prevailing wage rates in the local geographical area.
(f)
(g) Diligence exercised in seeking appropriate employment.
(h) Evidence that the parent in question is able to earn the imputed income.
(i) Personal history, including present marital status and present means of support.
(j) The presence of the parties’ children in the parent's home and its impact on that
parent’s earnings.
(k) Whether there has been a significant reduction in income compared to the
period that preceded the filing of the initial complaint or the motion for
modification."
I might also point that in Berger V Berger, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that:
"In determining whether to impute income, a court should consider: ... (5) the
availability of employment in the local area, (6) the prevailing wage rates in the
local area ...."
With this information, I might discuss with my lawyer arguing that automatic imputation of
income is inappropriate in this case, as in all cases.
Considerations for Orders to Pay When the Child Lives with Me
Sometimes the court, through its agents the FOC, will delay modifications to the support order
when the children are in my care, either I am their full time parent, or I have more parenting time
than is reflected in the order.
Given the information in the previous section, I would ask my lawyer to contend therefore, that
any purpose other than “enforcing support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their
children and spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living” is not a lawful
purpose under federal law.
If the living arrangement of the child is not properly considered in the calculations, or if the
calculations are somehow otherwise incorrect, or since the court is not using the money collected
to support the other parent and children, but rather violating disbursement rules and keeping the
money for itself, this is not an enforcement of a proper support obligation, and it's not a proper
purpose of the program or of federal funds used to sponsor it.
Therefore, improperly enforcing an improperly computed support obligation, with federal tax
dollars “fails to give effect to the intent of Congress”. Just as when Michigan law fails to protect
Indian children in the IWCA, the IWCA must be used, so here also, when Michigan law would
otherwise fail to ensure that children are properly supported, so must the court also look at the
intent of Congress and apply the minimum standards of that law.
Such minimum standards include, but are not limited to:
“A State plan for child and spousal support must ... (A) provide services relating
to the establishment of paternity or the establishment, modification, or
enforcement of child support obligations, as appropriate, under the plan ... “
-000-.html
And therefore, I might ask my lawyer to argue, I feel that such services for modification of the
obligation, including to reflect the actual living situation of the children, must be made available
under federal, as well as state, law. And under Empson-Laviolette v Crago, if state law is not
adequate, the court must interpret the intent of Congress and give that intent effect by making
modification services available.
However, there's no guarantee that the Court of Appeals or any other court will agree with the
analogy or with any other arguments. See also Champion v Secretary of State below.
I would also request that any modification extend back to when the child first came to live with
me, or when I first informed an agent of the court, on the grounds that the other parent's modified
obligation to the child began on that day.
Considerations for Motions To Modify Support
One option I may consider is filing motions directly with the court.
Michigan Court Rules: Chapter 2: Civil Procedure

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/rules/documents/1Chapter2CivilProcedure.pdf
Any review in preparation for action, for me, would include a reading of "Subchapter 2.600
Judgments and Orders; Postjudgment Proceedings"
In particular, with regards to a child support order to which I'm subject and which I don't feel
follows the 2008 MCSFM, I might file a motion under several different rules on the grounds that
the calculations were clearly erroneous due to either a clerical mistake or intrinsic fraud on the
part of a servant of the court.
If my total contributions to the welfare of my children (withholding, medical premiums, etc) is

greater than 65%, I might also motion on the grounds that such a portion of the order is void.
The rules that may be relevant include:
Rule 2.611 New Trials; Amendment of Judgments ("A verdict is clearly or grossly inadequate or
excessive")
Rule 2.612 Relief From Judgment or Order
Rule 2.613 Limitations on Corrections of Error (facts set aside must be "clearly erroneous")
Rule 2.614 Stay of Proceedings to Enforce Judgment
Also, I could motion for waiver of fees, and enter a supporting affidavit which includes the
relevant facts, stating that I have no money because of the judgment of the court
Rule 2.002 Waiver or Suspension of Fees and Costs for Indigent Persons
I might consider motioning for suspension of fees simultaneous with motions for a new trial,
relief from judgment, etc. Under MCR 2.0002, I think that I can just basically include an
affidavit all of the relevant facts in the motion for waiver of fees showing what I earn, how much
I'm required to be paid, and that I have no real capacity to pay fees.
I would note "Rule 2.113 Form of Pleadings and Other Papers", and try to follow them to the
best of my abilities. I would also ask the court for its pro-se or pro-per manuals, and check on
the court's web site for the same.
Someone made a template "Answer to Motion" that may be relevant in getting the physical
formatting right.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6343612/Answer-to-Motion
Also, I believe that legal secretaries are adept at doing this sort of thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_secretary
I might use Google to find a 1-3 legal secretaries, call them, talk to them, and see to what extent
they can help me prepare motions.
I would also be prepared to consider an appeal on due process grounds if my motions are
summarily dismissed. In fact, it may be helpful for me to review my due process rights before
making any motions. I might take a look here as a starting point:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9131878/Considerations-for-Appeal-of-Discovery-Rulings-in-
Michigan-Family-Law
I also might ask the court to appoint me a lawyer, as my fundamental liberty interests in the care
and custody of my children are at stake, and I don't have the money to hire one myself. I think
that this will probably be denied, but there's always a chance.
Michigan-Family-Law
Note that one consequence of filing a motion in bad faith is to be held in contempt of court:
Rule 2.116 Summary Disposition
I would also note that such contempt rulings may be used as legal cover for other purposes, such
as suppressing facts or punishing "trouble makers", if I'm facing a racketeering enterprise, of
which there is some evidence at the Friend of the Court:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/454566/Racketeering-in-Michigans-Friend-of-the-Court
If I'm going to be arrested for a contempt charge anyway based on an order which I think is
impossible to meet, I would consider filing motions to fix the situation first.
Considerations for Child Support Orders When the Both Parents are
Married/Statue of Limitations
A father contact the FRC yahoo group and indicated that he had married the mother of his child
while they both attended college. The FOC had established a child support order while he was
unmarried, and simply refused to remove the order. As a student he was unable to pay, amassed
child support arrears while married, and the FOC is demanding fines, fees, and arrears for the
time that the parents were married. The FOC also ignored the statute of limitations MCL
600.5809, which reads in part:
"(4) For an action to enforce a support order that is enforceable under the support and
parenting time enforcement act, Act No. 295 of the Public Acts of 1982, being sections
552.601 to 552.650 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the period of limitations is 10 years
from the date that the last support payment is due under the support order regardless of
whether or not the last payment is made."
http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-600-5809
What does Michigan law and what do Michigan courts say about collecting child support in this
manner?
"The purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of a child. The parents of
a child are not permitted to bargain away a child's right to receive adequate
support ... "

How is harassing married parents, making up phantom arrears, creating make work for youself
and generating fines that you take from the parents and child providing for the needs of the
child?
To me, it's not.
Also, note
“The goal in interpreting a federal statute is to give effect to the intent of

Congress”
OK, so did Congress intend for the state to interfere in the affairs of married parents? They told
us what their intent was:
For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial parents to their
children and the spouse (or former spouse) with whom such children are living, locating
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining child and spousal support, and
assuring that assistance in obtaining support will be available under this part to all
children (whether or not eligible for assistance under a State program funded under part A
of this subchapter) for whom such assistance is requested, there is hereby authorized to be
appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this part.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000651----000-.html
It seems pretty clear that two married parents and their child were never an intended target of this
program.
So, that means, to me, that there's no statutory authority for the court's actions in attempting to
collect a child support order between two married parents.
What should the court do in this case? The legislature gave the courts instructions as to how to
handle this:
552.625i Return of forwarded money to payer; reimbursement of fee, cost, or penalty;

interest; allocations.
Sec. 25i.
(1) If, after a financial institution forwards money to the state disbursement unit, all of the
forwarded money is returned to the payer due to a mistake of fact or court order, the title
IV-D agency shall reimburse the payer for a fee, cost, or penalty that the financial
institution assessed against the payer under section 25g. The title IV-D agency shall also
compensate the payer for the amount of interest that the financial assets would have
earned had they not been converted and forwarded to the SDU, to the extent that the
interest can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-625i
The legislature made it clear. Right your wrong. Return the money. Pay back the fees that the
parent never owed.
There was some discussion that parents were often forced to waive their rights to the statute of
limitations under threat of jail. As a non-lawyer, it's not clear to me whether that is legal.
Demanding that someone give you something or you will imprison them may be extortion. If
given such an option, and forced to sign such a waiver or go to jail, I might elect to write in caps
"SIGNED UNDER EXPLICIT THREAT OF IMPRISONMENT MADE BY MR/MRS SO-
AND-SO" and sign over my disclaimer.
Obtaining Child Support Account Status Information
Michigan has a new MiCase web site so that parents can automatically get accurate information
on their child support case.
https://apps.michigan.gov/MiCase
If I wanted, with the assistance of my lawyer, I might also request "timely information on the
current status of support payments under an order requiring payments to be made by or to the
parent" as required by US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > §
654b. I might also ask the other parent to do the same, so that we might compare the responses
and verify that no money has accidentally been lost in transit.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000654---b000-.html
Even if Michigan law doesn't explicitly provide for account status information, or audits, then I
personally believe that under a recent court of appeals ruling, this "thing" must be created,
because it is a required procedure to get the federal welfare funds which are required by the
state's compelling interests in collecting and distributing child support.
US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 654b
§ 654b. Collection and disbursement of support payments
says in part:
"(b) Required procedures

The State disbursement unit shall use automated procedures, electronic
processes, and computer-driven technology to the maximum extent feasible,
efficient, and economical, for the collection and disbursement of support
payments, including procedures—
...
(4) to furnish to any parent, upon request, timely information on the current status
of support payments under an order requiring payments to be made by or to the
parent, except that in cases described in subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section, the
State disbursement unit shall not be required to convert and maintain in
automated form records of payments kept pursuant to section 666 (a)(8)(B)(iii) of
this title before the effective date of this section."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00000654---
b000-.html
While I'm not aware of any specific thing in Michigan law that allows "timely information on the
current status of support payments", I believe that Michigan's Supreme Court has, in effect,
recognized the supremacy of federal law in child support matters:
Champion v Secretary of State

Released: October 16, 2008
MCL 257.307(1)(a)
Domestic Relations - Child Support - Enforcement - Federal Funds - Qualification

- Enforcement Program
Welfare - Federal Funding - Requirements - Child Support Enforcement
To qualify for various federal welfare funds, a state must certify that it will
operate a child support enforcement program which conforms to the child support
enforcement act, being certain provisions of the Social Security Act, and that it
will do so pursuant to an approved detailed plan. The state must collect overdue
support payments, establish comprehensive systems to establish paternity, locate
absent parents, and help families obtain support orders.
Domestic Relations - Child Support - Enforcement - Government Interest
The government has a compelling interest in the establishment of paternity, the

tracking and locating of parents legally obligated to pay child support, the
enforcement of support obligations, and the collection of support payments, and
doing so in timely fashion, along with otherwise having in place a data-collection
mechanism and network to assist in locating individuals, establishing paternity,
and enforcing support obligations with respect to future births and parental
responsibilities. The requirement of the federal child support enforcement act that
driver’s license applicants furnish their social security numbers, as incorporated
into state law, promotes these interests.
So, I say something like, “In Champion V Secretary of State, the Michigan Court of Appeals
held that "[t]o qualify for various federal welfare funds, a state must certify that it will operate a
child support enforcement program which conforms to the child support enforcement act, ... ",
and further that "US Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 654b"
mandates "Required procedures ... [including procedures] ... to furnish to any parent, upon
request, timely information on the current status of support payments under an order requiring
payments to be made by or to the parent ... ".
To me, this is an important point. To me, the Michigan Court of Appeals has held, in essence,
that all of the requirements of the Title IV-D program are, even without explicit legislative
authorization, the law of the land in the state of Michigan.
Periodic Arrears Caused By Paycheck Timing (Normally Bi-Weekly)
MCL 552.605c(2) says in part "the friend of the court shall not consider the payer as having an
arrearage if a periodic temporary arrearage is created based upon the conversion of the monthly
support order to an income withholding order or other payment schedule"
However, I feel that some local courts, and perhaps all of them, fail to properly interpret this
statute to give effect to the legislature's intent of not requiring parents who pay on time through
deductions to be fined, it fails to give effect to every clause in the statute, and it renders MCL
552.605c(2) nugatory and surplusage.
http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-552-605c
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nugatory
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surplusage
In contrast, note the appellate digest entry for People V Blunt:
Statutes - Construction - Legislative Intent
When construing a statute, a court must ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s
intent. The first step in that determination is to review the language of the statute itself.
Statutes - Construction - As a Whole
In discerning legislative intent, a court gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a
statute, and construes the act as a whole to harmonize its provisions and carry out the
purpose of the Legislature. Words and phrases are considered in context, and a particular
word in one statutory section must be interpreted in conjunction with every other section.
Statutes - Construction - Surplusage
A court must avoid construing a statute in a manner which renders statutory language
nugatory or surplusage.
The net effect of this is that good parents who are obeying the law and paying their child support
on time are accused of being in arrears, and fined, when the law clearly says to me that they
should not be. This hurts the parents, and the children, who both can't enjoy the fruits of the
parent's labors. Furthermore, in one case, I believe that a father was denied the consent of
running for office as a member of a major political party because of his arrears only stemming
from these periodic issues. He had been gainfully employed and had paid his child support
faithfully for years.
The 2008 Michigan Child Support Formula Manual and Substantial Daytime Care
If a parent cares for his/her child and brings the child to the other parent simply to lay down his/
her head, this, to me, is called "substantial daytime care".
This can often happen with a weekday visitation, and while it's in the 2008 MCSFM, I don't
think it's used often to properly adjust support for the best interests of a child. However, the
2008 MCSFM specifically mentions it as a deviation factor. To me, given that many parents do
this, it should be baked in (e.g. treated as 0.75 overnights). However, it is not, and it appears that
the parent, through his/her lawyer, must specifically request a deviation.
Deviation Factors
1.04(E)
Strict application of the formula may produce an unjust or inappropriate result in a case
when any of the following situations occur:
(17) A parent provides a substantial amount of a child’s day-time care and directly
contributes toward a significantly greater share of the child’s costs than those
reflected by the overnights used to calculate the offset for parental time.
I might discuss with my lawyer the idea that the court should deviate from the formula based on
credible evidence of my "substantial day-time care", including the fact that I'm paying for the
food, entertainment, and utility costs for my child while the other parent is credited.
"(1) Base support mainly considers the cost of supporting a child who lives in one
household. When a parent cares for a child overnight, that parent should cover
many of the child’s unduplicated costs, while the other parent will not have to
spend as much money for food, utility, and other costs for the child."
Unfortunately, many "standard" parenting time orders include substantial day time care, but the
2008 MCSFM does not properly adjust the child support paid for this care automatically.
Parenting Time Offsets in the 2008 Formula, and How Committing Fraud is
Easy with Form FOC10
Firstly, under the 2008 MCSFM, all parenting time is part of the formula, and there are no
parenting time offsets. See section 3.03.
2008MCSFmanual.pdf
There are expenses to maintaining a household for a child when that child is not in the home,
including rent/mortgage on space dedicated to the child and utilities to keep that space in
working order. and utilities such as heat, A/C (although I recommend blocking the duct and
closing the door if no one is going to be in the child's room all summer). These expenses apply
to both parents. The parenting time offset formula is designed to calculate the portion of the
child's expenses that are allocated to each party.
I personally think that this is a mistake, but the change was made to reduce paperwork at the
SCAO.
Search for "offsets" and note the reference to "cost savings". Also search for "PTO" and note the
words "Only Do It Once" I've seen other mentions also.
Note that the new foc10.pdf form doesn't have the abatement language of the old form. (link
below)
Acts of fraud made easy by this form include lying to a parent and telling him/her that the
parenting time offset has been applied, and intentionally not applying it, and using those lies in
court to set an obligation, or out of court to secure a voluntary agreement regarding child
support.
The new foc10.pdf form almost appears to promote fraud by allowing the person filling out the
form to simply check a box stating that PTO has been applied, while not applying it, and not
showing the amount of PTO.
http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/courtforms/domesticrelations/support/foc10.pdf
Furthermore, a child support specialist bent on defrauding a parent has many opportunities to fail
to follow the 2008 MCSFM which are completely invisible to the parents on the form. FOC10
appears to almost be intentionally designed to prevent parents from determining whether support
has been properly calculated. Not listed items include, incomes used for both parents, offsets for
medical care based on the income of both parents, offsets for medical premiums paid by either
parent, offsets for retirement savings of up to 5.5%, offsets for other children not computed in
the obligation, and offsets for parenting time.
Personally, I think that people should start automatically handing people generating these figures
interogatories asking for exactly the amounts used and offsets made in calculating the formulas,
and the results of each step. Without this information, it's almost impossible to determine
whether the formula has been correctly applied or not. (Actually, if the FOC worker is
consistently over-applying the formula, it's probably rather easy to figure that out by running
bogus numbers and showing that the result could not possibly be legitimate).
In particular, I suspect almost no parent who provides substantial daytime care is getting their
child's support obligation properly computed to reflect it. This is ironic, because one of the
biggest features of the 2008 child support formula that has been touted by advocates is the
inclusion of daytime care, and yet, it probably isn't applied in the vast majority of cases. See:
Child Support: Making a Molehill out of a Mountain

Karen S. Sendelbach
Michigan Bar Journal
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1364.pdf
On the FRC yahoo group, I know of no one who has successfully applied for and received a
deviation based on daytime care, yet most parents with any significant parenting time and who
pay child support regularly provide day time care for their children, normally bi-weekly.
Parenting Time Offsets Could Often Be Insignificant
One interesting test of the parenting time offset is to estimate how much time a child spends with
a paying parent before a significant portion of the family resources are used for his/her care with
the paying parent. There's a concept called the just noticeable difference, where any difference
below a threshold is simply not noticeable, or is insignificant to the people involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-noticeable_difference
A typical just noticeable difference is 2%.
When both parents have $20,000 in annual net incomes, or a monthly net income of $1,666.67,
the total monthly base support for the child is $703.71 (Section 3.02(B) using my child support
calculator). Given that the paying parent spends no time with a child, his/her monthly base
support obligation is $351.85 (not including ordinary medical, medical insurance premiums, or
child care), and the caring parent also contributes $351.85.
How many overnights does child need to spend with the paying parent before there is any
noticeable difference in the amount of money available to the paying parent to improve the
standard of life of the child? We'll treat 2% as significant. The total amount f the child's
monthly $703.71 paid by the paying parent must be decreased by 2%, or $14.07, giving the
paying parent a net obligation of $337.78.
The child would have to spend 79 overnights with the paying parent before he/she noticed any
improvement in his/her living conditions at the paying parent's home.
Remember that daytime care is a deviation factor that most parents never know to ask for, so in
addition to these 79 dinners with the paying parent, the child may also spend one alternate
weekday with the parent, or 26 additional weekdays.
That's 105 dinners before the child notices any perceptible difference in the way his/her own
money is allocated for him/her. That's one parent eating steak alone, while the child and the
other parent dine on mac and cheese. After 105 dinners, perhaps a typical child might notice
every once in a while that the mac and cheese has peas in it.
Yet, we are to believe that:
"[the new formula] more accurately reflects the actual cost changes when parents move
from having one home for their child toward two homes ... Under the new rules, child
support begins to reduce when the noncustodial parent has 95 overnights—a much earlier
reduction."
Child Support: Making a Molehill out of a Mountain

Karen S. Sendelbach
Michigan Bar Journal
http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1364.pdf
At 95 overnights, the paying parent's monthly obligation is now $322.48, a whopping monthly
reduction of $29.37, or a net transfer of 4% of the child's money from the recipient parent to the
paying parent. Such a child probably has bi-weekly daytime parenting time, and probably has no
deviations, so he/she eats dinner at his/her paying parent's home a total of 95+26=121 nights
each year, or 34% of the time. Yet, on a monthly budget of $703.71, only a paltry $29.37 can be
allocated to a child who spends about a third of his/her waking hours at one parent's home.
That's for his/her cable TV, DVDs, dinner, Internet access, dedicated bedroom, heating, cooling,
entertainment expenses including movies out, presents, toys, and entertainment expenses for the
child's friends. Such a disparity inevitably creates an obviously better living conditions for the
child at the payment recipient's parent's home.
Disturbingly, someone at the FOC may have manipulated graphs comparing the two appear to
make the change appear less radical than it actually is. The 2004 MCSFM had a cliff when the
paying parent had 110 overnights or more. However, in the "Changes to Michigan's Child
Support Formula Presentation" , a graph of PTO offsets which purports to shows the new
formula offsetting by less than 109 overnights, and more than 110 overnights, thus eliminating
"the cliff effect" has the cliff at about 126 nights. Furthermore, this graph doesn't account for the
net transfer of the child's money to the paying parent when he/she cares for the child for 6 or
more consecutive overnights.
Changes to Michigan's Child Support Formula Presentation

PTO offset graph
page 8 or slide 22
The changes don't merely eliminate a cliff effect. They represent a significant transfer of the
child's income from one parent to another. Don't believe me, believe Karen S. Sendelbach, who
wrote "the previous SERF amount is not realized until 150 overnights". She probably could
have clarified with "from 110 overnights - and not including the eliminated consecutive
overnights provision" (ibid)
However, we are thankful to learn that:
"The Family Law Section determined to address this as one of

the most significant problems facing family law practitioners.
The section created a Child Support Committee, headed by Kent
Weichmann and Carlo Martina, who spent hundreds of hours
working on proposals to address this issue. They were successful
in resolving this complex issue, and the impact on family law
will be significant."
(ibid)
I simply don't understand the reasoning of the family law section as to why this obvious
imbalance is good for children. However, I know one thing. Given that Title IV-D funding is
based on the number of dollars of child support collected, and that higher child support amounts
generate more enforcement efforts and more federally reimbursable hours for the FOC, this
change is great for the Friend of the Court, no matter how much it appears to me to harm
Michigan's children.
See also:
A Quick Summary of Title IV-D Funding and Incentives

Doug Dante
http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-
Incentives
See Also
Other concerns include:
More information on possible racketeering in the FOC:

More information on show cause hearings.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/406110/Some-Thoughts-For-Parents-Facing-A-Contempt-of-Court-
Hearing
The court has a financial conflict of interest that may discourage joint physical custody or the
higher earning parent to obtain custody of children:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives
Some local FOCs may delay or deny legitimate child support modification requests:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-
Modification-Request
Or refuse to respond to legitimate parenting time violations:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/550881/When-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Doesnt-Respond-To-
Parenting-Time-Violations
Or engage in troubling retaliatory practices:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/959159/When-Might-a-Federal-Racketeering-Lawsuit-Be-Allowable
Or may operate without knowledge of problems that fatherlessnes cause for children:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/425877/The-Effects-of-Divorce-and-Sole-Custody-on-Children-
Any local FOC is under the direction of the SCAO (State Court Administrative Office) which
created the troubling CSPR (or CSPER) report, and the federal dollars also extend the financial
conflict of interest from the courts to the local Prosecuting Attorneys:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/477791/A-Review-of-the-CSPER-Report
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/services/focb/CSPR12-06ReportAndRecommendations.pdf
Some local FOCs may improperly use internal mediators.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/405400/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Mediator-Questions
Some local FOCs may unnecessarily delay child custody rulings, damaging the parent-child
bond of the parent on the wrong side of a temporary order, and risking making any temporary
order a permanent order through simple longevity:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/509712/What-if-The-Court-Fails-to-Rule-Promptly-on-Custody
Some local FOCs may fail to allow contemptors to speak at contempt hearings:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/406110/Some-Thoughts-For-Parents-Facing-A-Contempt-of-Court-
Hearing
Some local FOCs may fail to properly ensure that the civil rights of parents are respected:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/404652/Fiction-John-Q-Public-and-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Before-
It-Begins
Some local FOCs may fail to enforce parent's rights to their children's school or medical records:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458635/Considerations-for-Getting-Your-Childs-School-Records-
using-FERPA
Some local FOCs may incorrectly substitute a software application for the correct child support
formula manual, creating an improper support obligation that may actually cause severe poverty
of the paying parent, which is not consistent with Michigan law nor in the children's best
interests:
Or they may fail to act in the children's interest when there is clear and convincing evidence that
their custodial parent isn't using the paying parent's payments to provide for the children:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1018457/Considerations-for-when-a-Parent-Spends-Child-Support-
on-HimselfHerself-and-the-Court-Doesnt-Care
Or they may back date forms, etc, making it difficult for parents to obtain justice:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/948712/Detecting-Fraud-in-Court-Filings-Postal-Meters-Color-
PrintersCopiers-and-Cartridges
Or they may fail to follow court rules and allow for contemporaneous recordings, or alter
recordings, or unnecessarily delay transcripts, to make it more difficult for parents to obtain
justice:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2257035/Contemporaneous-Recordings-for-Referee-Hearings-in-
Michigan
Or they may use biased custody evaluators:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2561734/Some-Thoughts-on-Child-Custody-Hearings
Or lawyers and judges may fail in their mandatory ethical duties to report ethics violations of
their peers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2618443/YOU-are-a-mandated-reporter
Or the mediators may not appear to act honestly, referees may seem less than fair, and judges
may rubber stamp decisions:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3123830/Michigan-Child-Custody-Survey-Report
Or the procedures on getting public information from the judiciary may be obscure and
confusing:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3584335/How-to-Get-Public-Information-From-the-Michigan-
Judiciary
For local FOCs:
Oakland:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/362206/Oakland-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-the-Law-and-
Hurts-Kids
Macomb:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3987229/Macomb-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-the-Law-
and-Hurts-Kids
Ingham
http://www.scribd.com/doc/362198/Ingham-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Is-Ignoring-The-Law-
and-Hurting-Kids
Kent
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6507067/Kent-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-the-Law-and-
Hurts-Kids
Be aware of House Joint Resolution NN, which would have added already protected federal
rights of parents to Michigan's constitution, and how a vote on it was stopped in a potentially
unconstitutional manner in the Michigan House:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1452062/Send-Michigan-Reps-a-Thank-You-For-House-Joint-
Resolution-NN
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4525506/-House-Joint-Resolution-NN-Specific-Problems-and-How-
It-Will-Help-Michigans-Children
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4339855/-Its-Time-To-Help-Parents-and-Children-By-Passing-HJR-
NN
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15612945/Possibly-Unconstitutional-Failure-to-Discharge-HJRNN
Related short fiction:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2261150/Fiction-Congratulations-Now-Pay-Up
Two free on line communities that you may find useful are:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michdads/
Be aware that FOC custody recommendations vary significantly between various FOC offices ,
and these variations also create differences in custody recommendations between various
population groups.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6169001/Analysis-of-Friend-of-the-Court-Custody-
Recommendations
I would be aware of my ability to make discovery motions, with my lawyer or on my own, and
my rights to discovery as they relate to my fundamental liberty interests to the care and custody
of my child:
Michigan-Family-Law
I would be aware of potentially illegal lobbying by the Friend of the Court Association at
taxpayer expense:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12744555/Is-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Stealing-Taxpayer-Dollars-
From-Children-for-Illegal-Lobbying
I would have an understanding of the Friend of the Court and the ways in which it can be easily
improved.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12745431/Suggestions-to-Help-the-Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-
Strengthen-Families
I would be aware of my rights as a parent with regards to Lawyer Guardian Ad-Litems who
represent my children, and work with my lawyer if I had concerns regarding the LGAL on my
case:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15639627/Lawyer-Guardian-AdLitem-in-Matters-of-Child-Custody
If at all possible, I would seek the help of a good lawyer!

Michigan Friend of The Court Child Support Modification Request

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Michigan Friend of The Court Child Support Modification Request

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Some Thoughts on Child Support and Michigan's

Friend of the Court

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

Problems from Incorrectly Calculated Support

Necessity of Child Support Modifications

MCL 522.615, Section 15 mandates change of circumstance notices:

This isn't just an option, this is federally mandated!

“(2) Expedited administrative and judicial procedures (including the procedures

The Minimum Threshold for Modification

4.04 Minimum Threshold for Modification

Packet of Revised Friend of the Court Forms

foc16.pmd : 21-DAY NOTICE TO ALLEGED VIOLATOR OF CUSTODY OR

Getting Income Information Required for the Formula

Applying the Child Support Formula

Spreadsheet For Calculating Child Support Available

After joining, download the spreadsheet from:

The file name is “2008MichiganChildSupportCalculator.ods”

It requires OpenOffice.org which is also free. It can be downloaded from:

Limitations on Orders, Financial Incentives, and Possible Illegal

(3) Families that never received assistance

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 41 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 1673. Restriction on

(a) Maximum allowable garnishment

Michigan explicitly recognizes these limits:

552.608 Limitation on amount of income withheld.

552.603a Support payment; surcharge; computation; assessment; collection;

Common Techniques To Increase Payments Which May Amount To

Should Software for Child Support Calculations Be Treated As Unreliable?

Possible Evidence of Ongoing Fraud in Child Support Calculations

Domestic Relations - Child Support - Friend of the Court Guidelines - Departure

Michigan's court of appeals said:

Historical Use of Automatic Imputation

Potential Income - cont'd

State of the Economy and Imputation of Income

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Detroit Free Press

The ACLU legal brief is here:

Considerations for Child Support and SSDI (Social Security Disability

There is a link to it on their story page, which is linked to below.

Considerations for Fathers Who Claim that the FOC Refuses to

Later Modification If I Had Signed A Consent Agreement

Macomb County Department of Social Services v Westerman

Macomb County Department of Social Services v Westerman

Through my lawyer, I might also argue that

Unenforceable Consent Agreements

I might point to Berger V Berger:

"Domestic Relations - Child Support - Friend of the Court Guidelines - Income -

Also in Laffin V Laffin:

“This application is being provided as a service and is not supported by SCAO

MCL 552.605, Section 5, Paragraph 2:

Considerations for Orders with Multiple Children (and Multiple

Considerations for Orders with Multiple Payments

“The goal in interpreting a federal statute is to give effect to the intent of

For the purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by noncustodial

"2.01(B) The objective of determining net income is to establish, as accurately as

"2.01(G) Potential Income

Such minimum standards include, but are not limited to:

Considerations for Motions To Modify Support

Michigan Court Rules: Chapter 2: Civil Procedure

If my total contributions to the welfare of my children (withholding, medical premiums, etc) is

The rules that may be relevant include:

Rule 2.116 Summary Disposition

Macomb County Department of Social Services v Westerman