- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Public Act 193 of 2009
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen (R) on January 28, 2009, to revise the procedures and penalties for delinquent child support payers. See Senate Fiscal Agency analysis for details.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on January 28, 2009.
- Reported to the Senate on February 3, 2009, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered in the Senate on February 5, 2009, to establish revised timetables and effective dates for various provisions in the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 5, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on January 28, 2009.
- Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on February 10, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on February 10, 2009.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on February 10, 2009.
- Reported in the House on November 4, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on December 16, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 16, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Opsommer (R) on December 16, 2009, to strip out a provision giving law enforcement the authority to render inoperable the vehicle of delinnquent child support payer fails to respond to a court "show cause" order. This would be done using a "Denver boot" or by other means. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on December 16, 2009.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on February 10, 2009.
- Passed 98 to 7 in the House on December 16, 2009, to revise the procedures and penalties for delinquent child support payers. See Senate Fiscal Agency analysis for details.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 17, 2009. Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on December 17, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 28, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 100 (Revise child custody, support, and parenting time procedures ) by DougDante on February 5, 2009
SB 100, introduced by Michigan Senator Jansen
a part of the package SB 99-106, are a reintroduction of Senate bills
from last session that failed to clear the house on the final day of
the 2007-2008 session. According to Robert Kerr, they once again sailed through the Senate as quickly as possible without dissent or debate.
I think SB 100, in particular, may allow local courts to steal child support from children,
to misappropriate taxpayer money from federal and state taxpayers, and to sidestep federal limits on collections.
http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2009-SB-0100
Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
any time the federal government gives money to states to collect child
support, the money collected must first go to the children (excluding
minor fees and welfare paybacks). See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-Request
(search for "disbursement")
Federal law
also mandates that money is to be collected and disbursed by a central
disbursement unit, to ensure that the disbursement rules are followed.
Certain limited use of local collections is allowed, so long as
technological means are used to track the payments as much as possible.
I believe that SB 100 may allow local courts to violates federal law when it says "An office of the friend of the court
shall may continue to receive and disburse support and
fees."
Having secured this combined support and fees, the local court is then free under this proposed Michigan,
although not federal, law to scoop away any amount it declares as fees
and disburse it itself, then send the remainder to the MiSDU as child
support. I believe that this is a violation of federal law, and an
inappropriate change to the child support collections power of the state. More below.
The
federal government also requires certain income limitations be
respected with regards to all collections, including 45%-50% for child
support, and up to a maximum of 60%-65% for child support and past due
child support. (The lower number is for parents who have other
families which they are supporting)
SB 100 sets a
maximum of 50% of the payer's disposable earnings for child support and
past due child support in Paragraph 7, but only for garnishment, not
for "any process" as in federal law. Also note that 50% exceeds the
federal maximum for a married parent with a different family and no
arrears of 45%. Otherwise, collection of support and past due support,
although not fees, is either at or below the federal limit.
Then
SB 100 creates a new collection mechanism for arrears, saying that the
limit must be "reasonable". While arrears is never defined in the law,
the mechanism is not explained, and it does include "fees".
Note
that some local courts may be violating federal law right now by
garnishing 65% and then exceeding federal limits by requiring that
parents pay additional arrears to the court by check.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-Request
(Search for "Macomb")
It
is presumably by check that the courts will collect arrears, which
again appears to violate federal law, as electronic and better
technological means are clearly available, and are not being used here
as federal law requires they be used.
The limit on this is "reasonable", not 60-65% Depending on how the court of appeals rules,
this could mean that the local office can collect any amount of money
that it can get the parent to agree to and which it deems reasonable,
even if that means that it violates the limits that the state of
Michigan agreed to when it took federal taxpayer money for child
support collections.
Because higher and higher levels of
collections create more and more non-compliance, this means more work
for the local FOCs in enforcing those collections. More work means
more federal tax dollars for that work. This effectively means that
the federal taxpayers are paying for a level of enforcement to which
they never agreed, and are paying too much. If the money collected
then doesn't go to the children, as the federal government requires,
the federal taxpayers are then paying too much to collect money for an
unlawful purpose, which may be a theft of federal taxpayer money. See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives
Furthermore,
contempt powers allow the court to jail any parent who fails to pay
"reasonable" arrears. This means that once a parent fails to comply,
the court can say "agree to this or we throw you in jail." This could
mean that the court may adopt the "magic fountain" theory which
effectively promotes collective punishment
by jailing the parent until his/her own parents or other loved ones are
forced to pay for him/her, and to do so repeatedly to collect as much
money as possible. See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/946361/When-Might-a-Parent-Have-a-Case-For-Malicious-Prosecution
It
also means that, once the local court has secured the combined child
support and fees, it could violate the federal disbursement rules and
steal the money that, under federal law, must be given to the children,
and spend it on fees instead.
Fees certainly include any charges
that the court may make itself, including the new charges for
conducting custody investigations, as well as charges for LGALs
(Lawyer-Guardian Ad Litems), who sometimes may contribute substantial
money and time to local political figures, including the judges, or to
required payments of the other party's lawyer. There are obvious financial conflicts of interest here.
I
also believe that under SB 100 or one of the other acts SB 99-106, when
personal property is seized to pay past due support or fees it is
transfered from the MiSDU to the local court for disbursement. This is
deeply disturbing, and could lead to some very unscrupulous behavior.
For
exmample, Alicia and Barry divorce. Alicia is given custody of their
daughter Candice and they share the home as an asset. Several
counselors and lawyers are assigned to the case and legal bills total
$40,000. The court orders Barry to pay the legal bills as fees. Barry
looses his job. Barry falls behind on child support. The court
secures an order to sell Barry's assets, including his 1/2 of the house
where Alicia and Candice live. The court sells the home at at discount
for $80,000, throws out Alicia and Candice, giving Alicia's $40,000 for
her 1/2 of the house. While under federal law, Barry's $40,000 of the
home should go to Alicia as Candice's custodial parent,
the judge instead decides to pay the court, counselors, and other
lawyers involved that $40,000. Alicia and Candice are forced to move
from their home, and Candice, a child who is supposed to benefit from
child support, looses out. Those lawyers and counselors receiving
$40,000 from the sale of the family home are quite happy, and begin
focusing on another family. Their house is worth more, so word goes
around to "make sure" that they get all of the legal services that they
need.
All of this is done while the court is being paid by
federal and state taxpayers to collect child support for Candice, and
is done in violation of federal law, effectively making it a theft of
federal taxpayer dollars and possibly state taxpayer dollars too.
That's
why I'm opposed to SB 100, and I hope that you will oppose it too. SB
99-106 also contain similar distasteful provisions, which I reviewed
when they were introduced in the 2007-2008 session, I urge you to
oppose them too.
Reply
This seems to be a good faith effort to bring some improvement to a thankless task.
Reply
Introduced in the Senate on January 28, 2009
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
