2005 House Bill 5267 (Establish joint custody presumption )

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

Introduced by Rep. Leslie Mortimer on October 6, 2005, to establish that in a custody dispute between parents, a court must order joint custody unless it determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child; or unless the parent moves outside the school district and is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption. In that case, the court must order that the parents submit to mediation to determine a custody agreement that maximizes both parents' ability to participate equally in a relationship with their child while accommodating the child's school schedule.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on October 6, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Leslie Mortimer on October 6, 2005. New Comment

1) It's a great bill!! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 29, 2008]
Please, pass it!!

Reply New Comment

Line

2) Paternity slaves are innocent [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2007]
Paternity law have to be voted on for child rights
but ,people like Paula Roberts a lawyer for CLASP
who stated--what the father trying to say he doesn't want anything to do with child,after DNA test.

Well here a Question for Paula--Whats the Mother
trying to say or do to child, lied to child,fraud
and do more harm. NON-biological men should NOT be another mans PATERNITY SLAVE. If mother would told
the truth in first place,children wouldNOT suffer,
and real father would pay,thereby NO one is harmed.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Question about the wording. [by Anonymous Citizen on October 19, 2007]
I dont undrstand the SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL verbage.
This seems vauge to me. I do however completely support the spirit of this bill. I know several fathers, including myself and my children, who have been short changed by the leagal system.

Reply New Comment

Line

4) joint bond of love for both parents [by Anonymous Citizen on October 8, 2007]
NO matter what they say or do VISIT those kids,beg,plead,trick what ever it takes.
Even if you have to work,as janitor,live close to
your children,request Sunday off,visit your kids.
warning,warning will robinson. Judges need to follow laws,protect your rights and childs rights to visits that they so much need that loving bond.
NEVER SIGN NOTHING AWAY.DONOT LET THEM TAKE RIGHTS
MONTOYA V BEBENSEE 1988 761
do not let unethical therpists who donot follow the ethics codes emotional abuse our children, or your rights as parents,or rights of your babys.

gee,why hasn't this paternity 4147 paternity 2007
pass yet,how about now.
AND i VOTE YES TOO ON grandparents who adopt a
grandchild,maternal or paternal in 1st degree ,eitherside 1stdeg. shall have right, can visit.
to be added to adoption code laws. childrightlaws
Reply New Comment

Line

5) screwed [by Anonymous Citizen on June 25, 2007]
Judges that have no clue of whats really going on in their courtrooms or ignore it are part of the rubber stamping custody/support machine problem! And the FOC figures everything is OTAY as long as the money is pouring in! How much $, billions and billions is why the don't want to stop this money making machine! The interest these monies generate in a interest bearing general fund is mind blowing and pays huge salaries to FOC employees personal cars and other bennis.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) For The Children [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2007]
People and lovers of their children, grand children and step children, UNITE!!! Help pass the bill!! Call your local representative,senator TODAY!

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HEAR OUR CRY!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Please Pass [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2007]
The objective data is in and supports HB5267; joint custody in the best interest of everyone involved and allows parents and children to make the most out of a difficult situation by removing a bitter point of divorce. More importantly, children can get the best of both their parent's worlds.

Thank you for voting yes on HB5267.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Joint Custody!! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2007]
This would and will fix most of the problems with the friend of the court also known as "the enemy of the family" It is about time that both mothers and fathers get EQUAL rights to their children!
Reply New Comment

Line

9) H B 2567 DAD"S LOVE TOO [by Anonymous Citizen on February 25, 2008]
Why do the judges think Dad's aren't equal to Mom'S? come on pass equal 50/50 shared parenting. Children need Dad too. A Dad living in the same school district should have HIS children wit him as much as Mom does 3 blocks away. pass HB # 5267
Reply New Comment

Line

10) save the children [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2006]
The Representatives of Michigan have the chance to change the lives of our children. Anyone who does not vote in favor of this bill does not know what it is like to be a parent. It would be a blessing to all when this bill passes.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Typecast [by Anonymous Citizen on November 30, 2006]
Thank you !

Please support. I am in joint custody and it cost me thousands of dollars to prove my interest in being an active, loving father and to convince courts joint custody was child's best interest.

After four years my child is confident, loving, bonded child to both parents.

Had this been the norm four years ago, those dollars spent in litigation would have been better spent on investing in my child's education or paying for that new roof I need.

Thank you again !

Next steps; amending FOC to be accountable. Establishing 'change of circumstance' definitions and forcing judges to make a formal determination on change of circumstance prior to investigating a change in custody.

After four years I've found myself back in court trying to protect my son from being moved out of the country with the FOC supporting the mother's request for change of custody. Outrageous that FOC actually supports moving a flourishing child out of US and there is nothing I can do about it.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) 5267 [by John Elliott on September 26, 2006]
This is a make sense bill thats a win for everyone.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) It is a long time coming [by Anonymous Citizen on September 26, 2006]
I have been fighting for the "right" to be able to raise my child since her birth. The current system IS flawed and it is very biased. I never wronged my X, but she still holds all the cards. I just want what is best for my child and what I believe is best for her is to be raised by both of her parets. THIS NEEDS TO BECOME LAW PERIOD!
Reply New Comment

Line

14) I'm scared [by Anonymous Citizen on September 26, 2006]
I am a father who everyday is scared for my children. i have three kids my oldest is my i guess you say stepson. to me he is my son...my girlfriend was married and it didnt work. she left wanting only for the fighting to stop.she was wanting the best when she foolishly went to a lawyer with her ex husband and was told that they would have joint custody but untill she got on her feet. physical custody would remain with his father because he stayed in the family home that his parents owned. he promised when u get on your feet we will have him 50/50 she agreed. it has been nothing but a emotional rollercoaster he has used his physical custody to torture her,me and more importantly our two outher children who we have to explain to why they cant see brother.we have done everything this man has asked for just to keep our son with us week for week. but any time we dont do as her ex says he tortures us. this is hard for all of us.we pay about 400.oo dollars a month in child support yet we have him half the time as long as we do as we r told by her ex. this is nothing compared to what we would pay. just to know that we can not again be told no you cant have him next week because i dont like you today. please someone open your eyes and realize this is a much bigger picture than it sometimes looks. it hurts to see my childrens mother cry night after night because she is scared of her ex and of his familys money. they constantly tell her they will buy the best lawyer money can buy when we ask for our end of the bargin to be honered. we just want whats best for our children. and that is joint physical custody ppppppppplllllleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssseeee
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Children's Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on October 27, 2006]
According to Parenting Agreements children have certain inalienable rights...both parties (parents) are supposed to work together to ensure that their children's rights/needs are met. However, courts are consistently deciding that Mothers will be the Custodial Parent w/o any investigation proving that the fathers in these cases are unfit. In addition to these findings the courts tie money and time together, so that if "extra" time is allowed to the non-custodial parent the custodial parent loses money. By doing this it is pretty well ensured that there will be no agreement b/w the parties and the custodial parent has a very clear motive for preventing the other parent from having time w/ their joint-children. This bill needs to pass. It is so simple, eliminate the power, eliminate the financial "GAIN", and the children will go where they are wanted and loved. True motives will come to light and happiness will ensue.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) I'm scared [by Anonymous Citizen on September 26, 2006]
I am a father who everyday is scared for my children. i have three kids my oldest is my i guess you say stepson. to me he is my son...my girlfriend was married and it didnt work. she left wanting only for the fighting to stop.she was wanting the best when she foolishly went to a lawyer with her ex husband and was told that they would have joint custody but untill she got on her feet. physical custody would remain with his father because he stayed in the family home that his parents owned. he promised when u get on your feet we will have him 50/50 she agreed. it has been nothing but a emotional rollercoaster he has used his physical custody to torture her,me and more importantly our two outher children who we have to explain to why they cant see brother.we have done everything this man has asked for just to keep our son with us week for week. but any time we dont do as her ex says he tortures us. this is hard for all of us.we pay about 400.oo dollars a month in child support yet we have him half the time as long as we do as we r told by her ex. this is nothing compared to what we would pay. just to know that we can not again be told no you can have him next week because i dont like you today. please someone open your eyes and realize this is a much bigger picture than it sometimes looks. it hurts to see my childrens mother cry night after night because she is scared of her ex and of his familys money. they constantly tell her they will buy the best lawyer money can buy when we ask for our end of the bargin to be honered. we just want wats best for our children. and that is joint physical custody ppppppppplllllleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaassssssssseeee
Reply New Comment

Line

17) another request for substantial equal presumption [by Anonymous Citizen on July 23, 2006]
Several people nationwide are requesting presumptions for substantially equal custody through Title IV-D welfare. This is a great idea and if this passes Michigan will be in compliance when HB5267 passes!

www.laryholland.org/serendipity/archives/281-Requesting-Change-Its-a-Matter-of-Adminstration-and-Legislation.html
Reply New Comment

Line

18) I.C. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2006]
The Friend of the Court system is definitely not set up to help children or families. It's just another means for the government to capitolize on the shortcomings of the citizens. Divorce is very unfortunate, but the trick begins at marriage. Marriage under the laws of the land are cooked; marriage under God is sacred! The governmental system has many hidden agendas that obviously are not recognized by the poeple who sign up for them. Ex: By signing that beautiful marriage certificate, you are subjecting yourself, and your family to the jurusdiction and tricks of the FOC that (unfortunately) inevitably lie ahead.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Morally Right or Morally Bankrupt? [by laryholland on July 10, 2006]
To the Editor: (Detroit Free Press)

The Friend of the Court system budget is derived from Michigan's voluntary participation with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Why is this program so overburdened was not even asked in Jack Kresnak's July 7th article.

Title IV-D Welfare and the Friend of the Court Welfare Services lack necessary eligibility requirements to control program size. The FOC free-for-all spending program is overburdened because it is focused on generating revenue for the State of Michigan by increasing participation as opposed to creating a balanced safety-net for only NEEDY families.

How can a State Agency (DHS) that is receiving 66 percent reimbursement of program costs by the Federal Government be so overburdened is obvious. The FOC is too busy trying to force participation of the wealthy and middle-class (driving up participation numbers) because each participant means more revenue for the State and not to Needy families.

Don't confuse liberal welfare propaganda with investigative reporting.

Lary Holland
(Submitted July 8, 2006)
Reply New Comment

Line

20) I don't know why this doesn't pass... [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2006]
Hey. You know, I am a member of this fight (billsarena.com) and I would like to ask, "Why doesn't this pass? It makes sense! What about the kids?"
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Joint custody [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2006]
Divorce and custody issues do not affect me personally but I work with the children of divorce every day. Every day I see kids who are hungry for their fathers but are being denied them either due to custody rulings or because Mom and Dad can't seem to realize that you should love your children more than you hate each other and should do what is in the best interests of the kids. The girls I teach with solid, respectable fathers in their lives are so much happier and make much better decisions when it comes to respecting themselves and choosing what type of boy they date. The boys I teach with solid, respectable fathers are less angry at the world and more confident. Unless one parent is unfit, custody should be equal and I wish you good luck in passing this bill. It is absolutely heartbreaking to have a kid sobbing in your classroom because he/she desperately wants to see Dad but isn't allowed to.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Fathers Rights need help [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2006]
I feel that the State of Michigan does very little to ensure children have a right to the non custodial father. I believe this bill is a start. But we need to make stiffer penalties for parents that deny non custodial parents visitation!
Reply New Comment

Line

23) we do have a right [by Anonymous Citizen on June 21, 2006]
to access to the non-custodial parent.

we also have the responsibility to keep the child support payments coming.

if we don't go to FOC hearings, we never get heard, maybe the DON'T WANT to hear from us, but if we don't even try, we prove the spouse right who is standing there saying that we are worthless.

child custody and FOC issues are the ONLY place with no gender equality. every time we don't hold up our end of the bargain, we provide proof positive that the system SHOULDN'T CHANGE.

it's your child too. you need to either get involved with the child directly, or be prepared to get involved with the FOC system.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) This is an excellent bill [by Anonymous Citizen on June 13, 2006]
This needs to become law. It's high time we address the unjust system we have here in Michigan.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Sick of court [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2006]
Joint custody?what a joke.If you stay within so many miles from your ex until child is 18?What if you lose your job?you lose the child too.Because it's 50/50 and you might have to move.It should matter to the court who was at fault in the marriage break up,it should matter who wanted out.The kids didn't ask for this and maybe the ex didn't either.It was forced on them.Men need to stand up and fight for their children,they have the right to pay support.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Maybe some help! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 13, 2006]
I do know that the group Fathers-4-Justice is about to announce their national launch in Columbus Ohio on Saturday June 17 with a big rally. Chapters are forming all over the USA as we speak to fight against the present system and its abuses. I know NY has had a bill like this sitting for over 12 years tied up in committee hearings and that is how they prevent them from getting through! The politicians don't want to seem to be against it since so many voters are for the idea so they have a few anonymous members keep it tied up and then they all come out ans say they are for it but can't vote for it until it comes out.

Best I can say is to organize against them and lobby hard. www.f4j.us is a good start and maybe if enough stand up things can begin to change.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) i thought i would jump in here... [by suppressed american on June 1, 2006]
for a quickie. in the state of michigan you MUST know it's all about money !!!! the courts don't care about you, your spouse, or your kids !!! the name of the PROBLEM, IS FRIEND OF THE COURT. HENCE, THE NAME !!! IT'S NOT THE FRIEND OF THE MOTHER, it's not the friend of the father, it's not even the friend of the child. it's the friend of the court. plain and simple. the state of michigan can not make any money if everyone is getting along. they must throw out the power they have to make you dependant on them to help you thru this. you pay money, the stae gets involved, the hole thing goes sour, and you are in their clutches. now it is not up to you anymore. the state will take care of you and yours, even if you don't want it. ther are alot of people in jail for back child support, maybe because they lost their job or the plant closed down. it doesn't matter !!! we are going to throw you in jail!!!! you can't pay support, you don't havea job ANYMORE. let's see... now we have you !!! welcome to the state of michigan !!! we have no jobs, but, jenny's buddies will make sure you pay anyway. think about it. where eles but michigan and russia can things like this happen.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) DOA [by Anonymous Citizen on May 24, 2006]
It is hard to imagine a BILL that deserves more PUBLIC DEBATE than this one; yet 8 months after being introduced it is stuck in committee. I tried my own legislator and he answered with a vague its being debated answer. How shall I say this......No it isn't. What can we do as parents to INCREASE public awareness? This is being killed quietly, slowly and surely as we live and breath. I am a father, a business owner, a college graduate and an honest man. I am about ready to revolt, this is sickening.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) HB5270 [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2006]
It is horrible that the government would rather disadvantage children quietly through some falsehoods from interest groups that are being funded with tax payers dollars and other interest groups such as the bar association.

If it takes a village to raise a child, maybe the only way to see that that childs's best interests are be first and foremost is to have the village decide through a civil jury trial. Or, have a public vote on the bill and let the village decide what the best interest of a child of divorce is.

Reply New Comment

Line

30) Its not the 1970's anymore [by dadof2 on April 24, 2006]
Finally a voice of reason in Lansing, and even better yet a politician who is not afraid to do the right thing!!! Thank you Rep. Mortimer!!! I do not understand how anyone with the best interests of the children in this state could oppose this legislation. The state tells us on various billboards on Michigan hiways to step up and be a dad. Maybe we will now be allowed to do just that.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Support HB5267 [by Anonymous Citizen on April 12, 2006]
In the end the best interest of the child is served when that child has equal access to both parents. One day the family is intact and the child has 2 equal parents. A divorce is filed and all of a sudden 1 parent (usually the father) is no longer equal most often because the law now requires BOTH parents agree to joint physical custody or litigation occurs. Rarely, in the heat of the divorce does the mother think JPC is best. My son only has me 42% of the time because I spent over $125,000 (yes for real) to fight for 2 years, and 42% with no joint physical was the best I could do. We meet all the criteria, 2 miles apart, same school district, child would prefer 50/50, no violence or abuse. This kind of injustice doesnt just affect me, it affects oUR son. PLEASE for KIDS SAKE, pass this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) Thank you for posting [by Anonymous Citizen on April 12, 2006]
Thank you for posting your situation, because this is a perfect example of the state needing to make a non-custodial parent to the extreme just to get their cut of federal funding. It is very upsetting to see fit, willing, and competent parents being forced into a lesser role in their children's lives for no reason whatsoever. Please be sure to call your local reps and make sure you have their support in the legislature for ensuring this bill gets passed this legislative session. If they are not going to support the bill, be sure to let us know and we will work to replace the representative in your district.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Raises the standard [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2006]
This bill will raise the standard for dissolution of the family and will give proper recognition to the rights of fit, willing, and able parents.

When it passes it will be a win for the family as a whole and especially for the children spared the bitter custody games that unscrupulous lawyers invent in order to win their cases.

Reply New Comment

Line

34) a friend of mine posted this about why parenting time motions fail [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2006]
RE: Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support Motions Succeed.

After a Friend of the Court Citizen Advisory Committee meeting an
attorney indicated that it seemed that their parenting time motions seem to
fail more frequently than child support motions succeed. This was a
brilliant observation and I wanted to take a quick moment and tell you
why.

For every three dollars ($3.00) that your local court spends on Child
Support Enforcement the court receives two dollars ($2.00) by way of
federal block grant money. Additionally to make up the difference of the
remaining one dollar balance the local courts have been able to use what
is known as federal incentive grants from the federal government, which
has made it possible to “profit” from operating a “successful” child
support enforcement program. An immense gain by the state is to be had
by operating a "successful" child support enforcement program which
means that a child cannot have substantially equal time with both parents.
In order to maximize federal money the states create the appearance of
an absentee parent for purposes of the Child Support Enforcement
welfare program. Successful also means maximizing the number of participants
the state has in its Child Support Enforcement welfare program by
including the middle-class at the sole expense of the U.S. Tax Payer.

See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;
See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments to States”;

In a parenting time conflict, there is disincentive to allow children
to have substantially equal time with their parents because then the
parents do not fit wholly into the above welfare program model as being
absent. The more parenting time provided, typically, child support is
reduced or abated. A reduction in participants is a reduction in the
justification of federal monies to the state. Normally the reduction of
expenditures is encouraged by government but in this case the opposite
holds true because there is a profit derived from the excess influx of
funds. Because of lack of eligibility requirements there is immense waste
in the new Child Support Enforcement Beuracracy. In 2006 alone, 4.2
BILLION of our Social Security Fund, nationally, is being invested into
this program which is a huge disincentive for the states to allow
substantially equal parenting time with both parents.

The huge mass of money out of your social security also is the reason
that the State is so eager to incorporate all the middle-class into
their Child Support Enforcement welfare programs; that means higher support
awards and an appearance of more need for federal money now that there
is widespread expanded group participation.

The new welfare abuser is not the people, but the states who have
shaped their participant numbers to create the appearance of need for a
program that lacks eligibility requirements. The reality is that there are
many fit, willing, and competent parents that are trapped in a welfare
system against their will and they are being prevented from parenting
their children because the state wants to maximize their federal funding
and make them look absent.

Very Truly Yours,
/s/ /s/
Lary Holland
5180 Cedar Lake Rd.
Oscoda, MI 48750
(989) 747-0079 (v)
(989) 764-5920 (f)

Reply New Comment

Line

35) Another excellent reason for voting for HB5267 [by PhilW. on March 16, 2006]
Dear folks:
I have another excellent reason for voting for and supporting HB5267. I recently wrote to Judge Wm. Doherty here in Barry County-he had posted a notice shortly after he was elected to his position-he wanted to hear from people who had problems or issues with our Friend of the Court.
I heard back from him two days ago. I had listed personal concerns and facts that show bias against fathers from the family law court system and our foc in particular. I presented him with facts-the matching federal incentive grants program-and others.
Part of his reply, and I quote: "As a parent myself, I am committed to providing a court system that is fair and impartial. A system that applies the law equitably to all parties." He continues with "I have not witnessed nor would I tolerate any institutional or personal bias." Keep in mind that this man was an attorney for 18 YEARS before becoming a judge. I find his comments incredible and unbelievable. I despise being lied to as well.
If a judge can be this blind, uncaring, and completely unaware of the reality of the situtation, our laws need to be changed now-FOR OUR CHILDREN'S SAKE.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) equal child custody [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2006]
Please support bills that give parents equal rights and custody of their children, regardless of gender. Please support family rights.
Reply New Comment

Line

37) HB 5267 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2006]
This would save millions of children's emotional wounds by having their parents 50/50!!

Pass this law! It's our reps that need to save the children, not what is best for the State Budget. Think of the kids for once...its free to pass this bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

38) This law will better the budget [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2006]
This law will actually improve the budget because the foc bureacracy which has grown too quickly with little direction and no eligibility requirements for their services will be able to focus their efforts on a more directed effort instead of being spread too thin across too many cases they should not be involved in. An overwhelming amount of waste has gone into the beuracracy that was hastily advanced to take advantage of the federal nipple. Substantially equal parenting of children will remove the involvement of this welfare program and improve the budget and their performance of services to low income families.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) A great necessity [by PhilW. on March 10, 2006]
House Bill 5267 is needed by all of us. Children and parents suffering from divorce need this to become a reality in 2006. Anyone who would not support this common sense movement is out of touch with family values.

Parents who divorce do not divorce their children!!! Why the family law courts in this state and others see fit to make visitors out of parents defies all logic, common sense, and all values of morality and decency.

Please write and call your reps. and senators and educate them, and pressure them to do the right thing. Many other states are doing this also. We are not alone. Don't get frustrated. Don't give up. We are fighting FOR OUR CHILDREN!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

40) What God gave us, government took away. [by Michael_Saxton on March 9, 2006]
Passing HB5267 will return to parents what God gave them. It takes a man and a woman to create a child, a sperm and an egg, an X and Y chromosone. It takes Mom and Dad to raise them. Granting sole custody to one parent implies that geography is more important than two loving and nuturing parents. Read the statistics on the effect of having one parent removed from a childs life.

When I found out I was going to be a father I was estatic. Things went fine for awhile, then Mom quit her job and got on medicade. In come the courts, before our child is even born. After a little research I discover that because we arn't married I'm going to be asked to sign an affidavit of paternity, relinquishing all of my parental rights, except the right to pay child support. The stage is set for a fight. The courts intrusion into our lives has created more conflict than anything we could have done ourselves.

HB5267 is THE most important legislation pending today! Our children are our future, they need both parents.

THE BEST PARENT IS BOTH PARENTS
Reply New Comment

Line

41) I.C. [by Anonymous Citizen on July 17, 2006]
I should have read this first. You apparently experienced first hand a trick of the government.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Me too! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 26, 2006]
I also found out that by signing an affidavit of parentage I waived all my rights, to custody, paternity testing, and agreeing to pay support. And that I was solely responsible for paying back medicaid for the birth of my daughters, while the mother was responsible for none of the debt. Who wouldn't sign a document when they are in the hospital living with their mother and beaming proud to be a father, not knowing that when the tough times come you have waived all your rights and agree to give the mother sole custody just so the kids can have your last name. How unfair. I did get joint physical custody, with me having the kids the standard every other weekend, and one other weekend night and every other wednesday overnight so as not to disrupt the girls "schedule" and was still ordered to pay child support as if their mother had full custody. The mediator failed to give me any summertime custody therefore I didn't qualify for shared economic responsibity. When I complained and asked for another hearing I was told to send in another 100 dollars, and was given my summertime but was told to get my deserved shared economic responsibility I would have to pay more money for a modification to support. I have already paid 3000 to a lawyer to get me joint custody with 25% of the parenting time. What a crock the current system is.
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Absolutely correct, Mike [by PhilW. on March 10, 2006]
Why do courts get involved in matters like this? Because one of the parents is either unfit or unwilling, and/or may be pressured into the wrong viewpoint of family matters. The courts are unfit to tell anyone who will raise their kids and how they will be raised.

My daughters are mine-not the courts. They had no right to turn me into a payer of bills and a visitor in their lives. Until we stop them, regain our rights, they will do this again and again to thousands of others. This has to stop-NOW.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) Please Support Bill No. 5267 - JOINT CUSTODY [by Anonymous Citizen on March 9, 2006]

As a Michigan voter, I strongly urge you to to support Michigan House Bill 4664 and/or any other Parental Parity Bill.

Children need and deserve the love and care of both parents, and no government is more capable than they are to care for their children.

The current system turns most fathers into paychecks, is riddled with injustices, and ignores the needs of children and their fathers to grow and be together.

I love my son, and I know that what is best for him is to enjoy the approximately equal time getting love and attention from both his mother and I. As a modern father, I am directly involved in every aspect of his daily life.

However, the Friend of the Court has a strong financial disincentive to award equal parenting time. They are funded through a federal matching funds of 54 cents for each dollar they collect in child support, and child support payments are based on a formula involving the income of the mother, the income of the father, and the number of nights a child spends with each. Equal parenting time hurts the bottom line of the Friend of the Court, so it's very rarely awarded. Most commonly, the mother is awarded custody, and the father is given parenting time on alternate weekends. This arrangement maximizes child support payments, which helps the Michigan Friend of the Court collect more in federal incentive grants, but it hurts children, who miss out on much of the love that their fathers want to give.

The Michigan Friend of the Court received $24 Million in federal incentive grants in 2004, and each Friend of the Court employee brings in $1 million in support, generating revenues of $540,000 each. In Wayne County, one of six Friend of the Court Referees in effect makes custody decisions, normally in less than 30 minutes. While the referee is paid a salary, it's easy for a referee to understand that if he or she keeps awarding joint custody, someone in his or her office is going to be out of a job - quite possibly himself or herself.

And the Friend of the Court is responding to its financial incentives, and ignoring the needs of children and families. In one case, the FOC knowingly charged child support to a man based on a clerical error for 3 years, and refused to stop until he contacted a local TV station. In another, the Friend of the Court refused to pay a mother money that it had collected from the father's tax return, because the parents had agreed to handle further child support privately. Another father is complaining that he hasn't seen his daughter in months. His ex-wife won't answer her phone and is never home when he's supposed to see his daughter, and the Friend of the Court won't respond to his pleas. In another, the Friend of the Court knowingly ordered that a father pay twice for his daughter's day care (he could have used that money for her college!). In another, a man who is not the father of a child is paying support to the child's actual biological father. These types behaviors have triggered a class action lawsuit against the Wayne County Friend of the Court.

The Michigan Friend of the Court.should be putting the needs of children first, but it seems that they are putting their needs first, by focusing on maximizing their revenue, rather than maximizing the welfare of children.

A law mandating that the default custody arrangement be for equal and joint custody unless there is compelling evidence that either party is unfit is in my son's best interest, and the best interests of most children. No referee or judge, even one without a financial incentive to rule one way or the other, can make a decision in less than 30 minutes to substantially exclude one loving and fit parent or another from their lives. Current law effectively leaves little or no room for a middle ground, and gives referees a strong financial incentive to rule in favor of the mother.

All fit parents sacrifice for their children. Referees need to respect fit parents, stay out of the way, and allow those parents to love and care for their children.

Reply New Comment

Line

45) 2001 (Previous) Rebuttable Presumption Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on March 9, 2006]
HB4664 - was a Rebuttable Presumption Bill introduced in 2001.

Introduced by Rep. Andrew Raczkowski on April 24, 2001, to establish a rebuttable presumption in child custody disputes that joint custody is in the best interest of the child. If a parent seeks to rebut the presumption, the court would presume that the "best interest of the child" factors listed in the state Child Custody Act would apply evenly to each parent, unless proven otherwise. Such proof would include, but not be limited to, things like child abuse or domestic violence. If parents could not agree to a shared parenting plan, the court would be required to impose one which gives each parent specific and substantially equal periods of custody. If one parent refused to cooperate with the other on parenting decisions for no good reason, a court could award sole custody to the other parent.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) Time to wake up [by newlight on March 8, 2006]
The F.O.C. reminds me of a robot that decided to take over its own decision-base and become a dangerous monster destroying the world. In its infancy, I suppose it's motive were good; and controlled by the people, but as it grew and became more powerful, its mission has become completely independent of what is really good for the a family unit.

Most people today don't really understand the underlying reasoning its destruction keeps on growing. In 1982 Francis Schaeffer spoke to a church group and if you were to view this message today you would call this man a prophet. Tyranny was mentioned several times in his speech 24 years ago and the founding fathers warned a free people of the same danger.

In the industry of law (where the tyranny is) those really concerned for the “best interest of the child” should be compensated on reconciliations not divorce. But then it would slow the gravy train down and bring the politics back to the people, and fathers back to their children.

FOC has become an arm of tyranny in America today, a very important arm. FOC is an arm to destroy middle class, and split apart families. FOC, the arm whose mission is to bring a once free nation to its knees to government dependence, called socialism.

The reward to the FOC is financial and employee growth. For every dollar the FOC collects, they are federally reimbursed high percentages back to run their agencies. This not only goes against any better social interest for the country's future, but it is also blatant "conflict of interest" and failure of the equal protection clause in the rights of each parent.

The equal parenting bill, if drafted correctly and passed could bring an uppercut blow to the socialistic view of the FOC, by removing their strength, the financial incentive and bring back to the family the 85% of fathers who have lost their constitutional right to parent.

What did this kind of consistent court decision in reality do to the best interest of the child? Well all one has to do is a little research to see that every aspect of children’s healthy development is on a very slippery slope, spiraling downward. Their health habits, educational habits, crime habits, social habits, mental habits, and spiritual habits all trending in a negative social epidemic, because the once healthy habit of dad being a dad has been rewritten as dad being a deadbeat dad. I am sure you have heard the saying that if you say a lie enough times, to those asleep it appears to be the truth.

Let’s not be fooled any longer. It’s time to bring back the best interest of every child, BOTH PARENTS, equally parenting.

Reply New Comment

Line

47) This would be GREAT for KIDS [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2006]
This should be the NORM for every state!

Why when a divorce happens is one person bitter and then they use a child to get back at the other parent, by denial of time - dragging the other to court for MORE MONEY. False allegations - lies and more lies. And to top it off - the Judges beleive it!

This is an issue about children who did not ASK to be brought into this world, but they were. They did not ask to have one parent so ate up with hate - to push the other parent out of their lives out of SPITE, but they were.

I am a child of divorce and the courts SAY - they are looking out for the best interest of the children - the best interest is MAKING them stay in their lives, be a parent - be active.

I hope this passes - I no longer what the courts and state involved in our lives.

They have people claiming to doing a job - the only job Wayne County FOC employee's do - is CASH THEIR CHECKS!

X~
Reply New Comment

Line

48) HB5267 [by Joberdank on March 8, 2006]
This is a must pass bill I feel.
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Time to wake up [by newlight on March 8, 2006]
The F.O.C. reminds me of a robot that decided to take over its own decision-base and become a dangerous monster destroying the world. In its infancy, I suppose it's motive were good; and controlled by the people, but as it grew and became more powerful, its mission has become completely independent of what is really good for the a family unit.

Most people today don't really understand the underlying reasoning its destruction keeps on growing. In 1982 Francis Schaeffer spoke to a church group and if you were to view this message today you would call this man a prophet. Tyranny was mentioned several times in his speech 24 years ago and the founding fathers warned a free people of the same danger.

In the industry of law (where the tyranny is) those really concerned for the “best interest of the child” should be compensated on reconciliations not divorce. But then it would slow the gravy train down and bring the politics back to the people, and fathers back to their children.

FOC has become an arm of tyranny in America today, a very important arm. FOC is an arm to destroy middle class, and split apart families. FOC, the arm whose mission is to bring a once free nation to its knees to government dependence, called socialism.

The reward to the FOC is financial and employee growth. For every dollar the FOC collects, they are federally reimbursed high percentages back to run their agencies. This not only goes against any better social interest for the country's future, but it is also blatant "conflict of interest" and failure of the equal protection clause in the rights of each parent.

The equal parenting bill, if drafted correctly and passed could bring an uppercut blow to the socialistic view of the FOC, by removing their strength, the financial incentive and bring back to the family the 85% of fathers who have lost their constitutional right to parent.

What did this kind of consistent court decision in reality do to the best interest of the child? Well all one has to do is a little research to see that every aspect of children’s healthy development is on a very slippery slope, spiraling downward. Their health habits, educational habits, crime habits, social habits, mental habits, and spiritual habits all trending in a negative social epidemic, because the once healthy habit of dad being a dad has been rewritten as dad being a deadbeat dad. I am sure you have heard the saying that if you say a lie enough times, to those asleep it appears to be the truth.

Let’s not be fooled any longer. It’s time to bring back the best interest of every child, BOTH PARENTS, equally parenting.

Reply New Comment

Line

50) HB 5267 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 4, 2006]
This is my message to my dear Congressman.
The Federal government has done so much wrong to families and fathers during the past three decades.
It has caused so much pain and destruction that it owes a moral debt of gratitude to those of us family members who have survived those years of living dangerously and are here with you to give you moral support to pass this long overdue legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) HB 5267 [by Anonymous Citizen on March 4, 2006]
This is my message to my dear Congressman.
The Federal government has done so much wrong to families and fathers during the past three decades.
It has caused so much pain and destruction that it owes a moral debt of gratitude to those of us family members who have survived those years of living dangerously and are here with you to give you moral support to pass this long overdue legislation.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Equal Opportunity [by laryholland on March 2, 2006]
This bill is a starting point to place back into perspective that both parents should have an equal opportunity to PARENT their children. This also restores in some situations the rights bestowed upon parents as both being custodial in nature and reversing the damage caused in some cases where the State of Michigan has manufactured an absent parent by court order to fit people into the Title IV-D welfare system, which by the way has no eligibility requirements.

HB5267 restores in some cases equal opportunity to children again having access to both parents instead of being used as a tool for financial gain. This important first step to restoring willing parents back into their children's lives is a welcomed reversal of current unfriendly family policy.
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Save the Michigan Economy By Saving Michigan Families [by Anonymous Citizen on March 2, 2006]
HB 5267 will remove the incentives for family break-up and improve the plight of Michigan's children by improvong their chances of having two parents involved in parenting them.

The mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs" that our political candidates are reciting ad nauseum is about 1 millimiter deep. Michigan will have no economic recovery until it fixes the social plight of our families.

The economic tsunami is about to hit Michigan and it will drag down the entire American economy. It's time to focus on repairing the Michigan and American infrastructures. That requires a serious focus on the family, not just the minority of families that appear to be intact, but the increasing majority of broken American families.

Why aren't our leaders talking about this?

HB 5267 is but one small step down the road to fixing Michigan's very deep social and economicd travails.

We need to focus on Detroit. It's plight is a harbinger of what's coming for the rest of the state.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) Families Families Families [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2006]
If you start hearing this mantra, expect the definition of families to change to single parent households. You must be aware when you are reading policy statements that the word families often means custodial parent with children. This is most often used when describing child support being a source of income for families, instead of meaning subsidization to prevent additional welfare roles. Be aware that there should always first be an opportunity for two willing parents to both be custodial parents responsible for the well-being of their children. Children should not be denied the presence of a willing parent, unless there is proof of unfitness.
Reply New Comment

Line

55) help the kids [by Anonymous Citizen on March 1, 2006]
i am product of divorce and saw the devastation that foc wreaked on our family. they provided a level of incompetence that seemed to be encouraged by the courts that ensured the kids would be continually punished for the deeds of the parents. as a kid my mom was made to feel that if she had the kids then she shouldnt need any help i raising them. they made my dad feel that since he didnt get the kids then there was probably a good reason for that and he should feel guilty.
Reply New Comment

Line

56) FOC / Economy [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2006]
The FOC won't be affected too much by this house bill, but keep talking about their incompetence because their interference is widespread, especially when involved with middle-class family breakups. Friend of the Court as an employee of the court has a duty to their employer. That duty is to bring in money so that the State gets more federal incentive money.

The FOC does not benefit from two custodial parents, which means that we could expect resistance for what is truly best for our children. IE: Children need both parents presence... equally, when they are willing and fit. The FOC is struggling to justify its existence among widespread complaints of incompetence and a reduction in available federal funding. Two custodial parents will decrease the need for FOC services, allowing for huge savings statewide, and a non-reliance on federal income to support the bloated services.

Our economy will benefit greatly by maintaining two custodial parents because of the decreased need for the Friend of the Court services. The reduction in need of foc services due to maintaining two custodial parents will cut administrative spending and free up money for our children and will save state and federal tax payers millions.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) move [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2006]
It doesnt matter about your rights, the state of Michigan just wants your money. Stop paying taxes to this state and then they will fold.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) A must Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on February 22, 2006]
To Rep. Mortimer, I am happy to read that you see fit to put a bill like this one into law. I am a father of 3 great kids and love them with all my heart. I do have equal time with my kids but still get treated like a second class perant. This is unfair and hard to take because I WANT TO BE THE BEST PARENT I can be. But working with the system we have now does not make it easy. If you would like to contact me to help or to understand more please do. Joesnowskis@hotmail.com
Thank you for you time.
Joe Rodgers
Reply New Comment

Line

59) A must Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on February 22, 2006]
To Rep. Mortimer, I am happy to read that you see fit to put a bill like this one into law. I am a father of 3 great kids and love them with all my heart. I do have equal time with my kids but still get treated like a second class perant. This is unfair and hard to take because I WANT TO BE THE BEST PARENT I can be. But working with the system we have now does not make it easy. If you would like to contact me to help or to understand more please do. Joesnowskis@hotmail.com
Thank you for you time.
Joe Rodgers
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Thank You Rep. Mortimer [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2005]

Having grown up as a child of Divorce, and run through the mill as a result, Then growing on to the mandated future that lies ahead for children from single parent homes due to either divorce, seperation or paternity issues, I can honestly say that this bill is a step in the right direction.

It will not resolve all of the issues involved, but it is a definate step. There are otehr ideas being run your way shortly after the first of the year if they are not already.

It is time to Make Michigan FAMILY Friendly, rather than the drowning pool it has become. Notice there is no gender specific wording within this comment. It is not needed. Draconian laws like the one that HB 5267 amends, do not specifically target one gender. That comes from the courts in pursuit of the almighty federal funding.

It is also twisted into being by those special interest groups who so willingly reap additional financial benefits from such process.

Look at it like this. Michigan is losing jobs fast enough to blow us right back to the depression era. We should be promoting healthy families that raise stable individuals with positive morals and values. To continue the current path, in 10 more years Michigan alone will be comprised of close to 50% of single parent children. I do not need to give you the RECENT Stats, you already have them and have studied them well. Had you not the bill would not have went forward.

It is time to put BOTH parents back into the families of Michigan.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Agreed [by Petri409 on November 30, 2006]
Thank You !

My son is in joint custody for past four years and he is flourishing.

Had this been in place four years ago, it would have saved me thousands that would be better spent on child's education or paying for that new roof I need.

The best part; it no longer biases towards mother's convinience, but focuses on the child's best interest.
Reply New Comment

Line

62) It's so Simple [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2006]
Vote and pass HB5267! Children need both parents-- it’s that simple!

Give me any reason why this bill should not be passed--other than lack of income for State and County employees. Why should the Government be in charge of our children?

If we are smart enough to fill out IRS forms, we are smart enough to know what is best for our children, not a judge, lawyer or any Federal, State, County, City employee. Children need both parents-- it’s that simple!

If our reps do not pass HB5267, that clearly shows their intent is solely based on their “job security”, and not our children, and we should not vote for them next term.

We need our reps to give us the back the power to be parents---50/50 as it should be!

Reply New Comment

Line

63) screwed [by Anonymous Citizen on June 25, 2007]
Wake up crusaders they will never shoot themselves in the wallet! Some soap box judge in Barry County wants input, right I could really hear the empathy in his voice too! Barry county is the most corrupt in the state. I wrote my own bills to Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1980's about the corruption in Barry County, I offered joint custody be the law of the land and thats all I wanted and the FOC couldn't even maintain my court ordered visitation!
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Agreed [by Anonymous Citizen on March 8, 2006]
The maintaining of two custodial parents is fundamental. By creating a non custodial parent when there are two willing parents, there is a discrimination so gross that it creates a deprivation of the most fundamental parental rights. This bill is a test to see if the legislature and our State will continue selling out parents for federal money, or if the state will allow willing parents to continue tending to the custody of their children without state intervention.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) Ms. [by BMonroe on December 13, 2005]
I also believe this is a long overdue beginning to a much needed restructure of our Friend of the Court and Family Law systems.

There is no place for laws that deal with children that are "gender specific" nor should there have ever been! It is outrageous and clearly wrong for anyone to conduct matters concerning children that suggest that one parent is more important than the other and yet our FOC and Family Court judges make that statement nearly every single day!

I should think that this House Bill would pass with flying colors and a new structuring process begin for Family Court and FOC guidelines.

Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site