- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About!
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen (R) on May 12, 2009, to allow a court to base its decision on a petition to revise a child support or custody order on the basis of existing binding arbitration records, unless it finds these insufficient to determine if an award is in the best interests of the child, in which case it may take additional evidence. In essence, the bill would limit the level of court review when parties agree to binding arbitration.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on May 12, 2009.
- Reported in the Senate on January 21, 2010, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on January 21, 2010, 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 Senate on January 21, 2010.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on May 12, 2009.
- Passed 36 to 0 in the Senate on January 21, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on January 21, 2010.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on January 21, 2010.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 568 (Revise child custody and support procedures ) by timothy.frank@toast.net on February 10, 2010Ok. I see this bill, read this bill, and maybe, even, kind of might grasp vaguely the implications of this bill.
This bill is just (yet another) use of the vague, undefined term "best interests of the child". This is (yet another) dictum of state and federal government that state and federal government are capable, justified, necessary, and the right people to "determine the best interests of the child".
Hmph. Since when can, or does, the state know this? And, why do they care at all? What about the responsible adults, those that either willingly or unwillingly created the child?
I tend to agree with the viewpoint stated above, in no uncertain terms, that this is (yet another) power grab against the disparaged parent (usually the father, but not always). By what "means" (financial, social, assisted, public, or private dollars) will the state decide? And by what "means" will the parents be able to counteract the state, and/or the "attacking" parent's attorney?
The bill is bull-dung.
If, and only if, Michigan, and Arizona, change their custody statute to "presumption of joint custody" will all of this nightmare disappear.
Be forwarned, however! Part of the "presumption of joint custody" must be, and should be, that the state or the attacking parent must prove, by statute, not by conjecture, subjective psychological assessments, or personal opinion, that the other parent is unfit. And further, that "unfit" must be statutorily defined very very narrowly. E.g. "drug addiction" "alcoholism" "documented violent acts or arrests" "residency is jail" or some other clear, unambiguous criteria.
I myself, and I'm sure others who've experience the "strong arm" tactics of family law attorneys, can attest to "being forced" to "sign off on this 'agreement'". Ha ha ha, it is an "agreement" only at gun-point. What a sick, twisted joke of an idea ... that "running out of money" in a divorce or custody trial, or being repeatedly attacked with unjustified false accusations and/or orders of protection, or being repeatedly falsely accused of domestic or spousal abuse, or being subjected to bizaare psychological assessments, reports, and public records, is somehow making an "agreement".
I think in no uncertain terms that the state and the federal governments should, and must "butt out" of family court, and restore full discretion of the judge to determine whether or not the parents are "fit" for the job. Give the judiciary the tools to make the system efficient, and cease "micro-managing" them at every step so as to "force" an "ecomonically advantaged outcome" for the mother (usually) or to "maximize her child support at the expense of the father" or to "use the children for the purpose of extortion".
Let's call it what it is.
Good luck, all, and keep up the great work exposing these deviants.
Reply
Hey judge, my wife's boyfriend is beating my kid and he's begging me to let me live with him.
"That's nice. You signed this binding agreement that my agent at the
FOC strong armed you into, you know, when she threatened to 'recommend'
that you only see your kid once a month supervised if you didn't sign
it? Of course, that was off the record. *wink*. I don't have to look
at your evidence. Go away."
Yes, elected members of the Michigan Senate and Michigan House have been notified over and over of evidence of racketeering at the Friend of the Court. They just don't care enough to do anything about it.
Watch Carol Rhodes tell how she and her coworkers did it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24
Reply
Introduced in the Senate on May 12, 2009, to allow a court to base its decision on a petition to revise a child support or custody order on the basis of existing binding arbitration records, unless it finds these insufficient to determine if an award is in the best interests of the child, in which case it may take additional evidence. In essence, the bill would limit the level of court review when parties agree to binding arbitration
The vote was 36 in favor, 0 opposed and 2 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 13 at Senate Journal 0)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
