Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on April 5, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

This is a step in the right direction (TRUE EQALITY) keep up the good work and put parents together back in charge of best interest of there children (Douglas Richardson)

If BOTH parents are fit, demand that they both reside in the same school district so that they CAN be equal parents. Equal parenting should be the norm. Children need BOTH parents, not one who gets to see them a few days a month. This generation has lost faith and trust in people and is a direct result of the court system only allowing one parent to be constantly in their lives. In some cases, it is the wrong parent!! Keep fighting for EQUAL parenting. It is our future!

My sister just lost her husband of 35 years to a sudden heart attack at age 62.My 14 year old son was not allowed to participate in paying his respects and being of comfort to his Aunt Mary in the loss of Uncle Ted because of the control and alienation that too often occurs between families of divorce and a lack of enforcement and family friendly judges and family courts.You can't legislate morality,character and the insistence for people to do the right thing,but we should have a equal parenting mindset as the rule to what is best for children.A lack of addressing this chronic problem will only lead to continued social ills. This legislation SHOULD be non partisn.

Oakland County Friend of Court Ignores Law and Hurts Kids The Oakland County Friend of the Court is harming children by ignoring Michigan law by mixing mediation investigation, and referee duties in the family counselor position. Children are harmed in two ways. Firstly, family counselors, who are not lawyers, make custody recommendations based on statements and evidence gathered without the conventional courtroom safeguards in violation of the Friend of the Court Act and other laws. Parents can make false allegations or offer false evidence without any consequences. Oakland County FOC should not make custody decisions based on which parent can lie the best. Secondly, parents are not given the opportunity for meaningful and confidential mediation, but rather are thrust into a combative atmosphere. The law requires the FOC to offer voluntary neutral and confidential mediators, because studies and common sense say that if the parents can make a rational agreement, it's probably the best option for them and their kids. Instead, family counselors make snap judgments and stick kids into cookie cutter custody arrangements such as "liberal and reasonable parenting time", when that may or may not be what's best them or their parents. An original job description from Oakland County as well as my amateur legal analysis (I am a concerned citizen; not a lawyer) are available below. More information is available at the Oakland County Friend of the Court website here (another amateur legal analysis is available): http://www.oakgov.com/foc/ ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: XXX To: XXXX Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:51:40 PM Subject: Re: [XXX] Anyone looking for a job? I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise, but in my lay person's opinion, the position listed violates the following Michigan Court Rules and Michigan Law in the following ways: Firstly, I doubt that a direct hire is legal here. The Friend of the Court Act 552.513 Domestic relations mediation, says in part: (1) The office shall provide, either directly or by contract, domestic relations mediation to assist the parties in settling voluntarily a dispute concerning child custody or parenting time that arises in a friend of the court case. Parties shall not be required to meet with a domestic relations mediator. The service may be provided directly by the office only if such a service is in place on July 1, 1983, if the service is not available from a private source, or if the court can demonstrate that providing the service within the friend of the court office is cost beneficial. Any expansion of existing services provided by the court on July 1, 1983 shall be provided by an individual meeting the domestic relations mediator minimum qualifications listed under subsection (4). Counseling is obviously available from many private sources in Oakland County. I doubt that the court has a study on file showing that the service within the FOC office is beneficial, particularly one conducted by an independent party. This family counselor "provides mediation". However, he or she also "conducts investigations". By mixing the investigative and the mediation duties, the Oakland County FOC appears to force parties to meet with family counselors, and thus with mediators, in apparent violation of the paragraph above. Paragraphs 2 and 3 make this more clear, by requiring strict confidentiality from mediators: (2) If an agreement is reached by the parties through domestic relations mediation, a consent order incorporating the agreement shall be prepared by an employee of the office who is a member of the state bar of Michigan; under section 22, by a member of the state bar of Michigan; or by the attorney for 1 of the parties. The consent order shall be provided to, and shall be entered by, the court. If no agreement is reached, then there is no consent order, and the counselor, who is probably not a member of the state bar, can't work with the member of the state bar or either attorney to draw up the agreement. However, this family counselor (mediator) "prepares written recommendations regarding custody, parenting time and related matters for review and determination by a Friend of the Court Referee and/or a Family Division Judge." Mediators should never do that! It violates confidentiality. Even if they were to communicate with anyone, they should only communicate with a member of the state bar or an attorney - not the court directly, yet that's exactly what the job description says that they do! (3) Except as provided in subsection (2), a communication between a domestic relations mediator and a party to a domestic relations mediation is confidential. The secrecy of the communication shall be preserved inviolate as a privileged communication. The communication shall not be admitted in evidence in any proceedings. The same protection shall be given to communications between the parties in the presence of the mediator. Well, if a mediator is conducting an investigation and making recommendations that go before a Referee or Judge, then there is no way that communications with this person can be reasonably considered "confidential". If the State of Michigan didn't make it clear enough that they didn't want mediators to be investigators too, they added MCL 552.515 Section 15, Performance by mediator of certain functions involving party prohibited: An employee of the office who performs domestic relations mediation in a friend of the court case involving a particular party shall not perform referee functions, investigation and recommendation functions, or enforcement functions as to any domestic relations matter involving that party. So a family counselor that "provides mediation" cannot also "conducts investigations". But that's exactly what the advertisement below says the job is! In Oakland County, Family Counselors act as mediators. Family Counselors are assigned to a single team with a given the judge - judge has one mediator who works for him or her. However, MCR 3.216 "Domestic Relations Mediation". It says in part: Rule 3.216 Domestic Relations Mediation (A) Scope and Applicability of Rule, Definitions. (1) All domestic relations cases, as defined in MCL 552.502(h), are subject to mediation under this rule, unless otherwise provided by statute or court rule. (2) Domestic relations mediation is a nonbinding process in which a neutral third party facilitates communication between parties to promote settlement. If the parties so request, and the mediator agrees to do so, the mediator may provide a written recommendation for settlement of any issues that remain unresolved at the conclusion of a mediation proceeding. This procedure, known as evaluative mediation, is governed by subrule (I). ... (B) Mediation Plan. Each trial court that submits domestic relations cases to mediation under this rule shall include in its alternative dispute resolution plan adopted under MCR 2.410(B) provisions governing selection of domestic relations mediators, and for providing parties with information about mediation in the family division as soon as reasonably practical. Look at MCR 2.410, which says in part: (B) ADR Plan. (1) Each trial court that submits cases to ADR processes under this rule shall adopt an ADR plan by local administrative order. The plan must be in writing and available to the public in the ADR clerk's office. (2) At a minimum, the ADR plan must: (a) designate an ADR clerk, who may be the clerk of the court, the court administrator, the assignment clerk, or some other person; (b) if the court refers cases to mediation under MCR 2.411, specify how the list of persons available to serve as mediators will be maintained and the system by which mediators will be assigned from the list under MCR 2.411(B)(3); (c) include provisions for disseminating information about the operation of the court's ADR program to litigants and the public; and If Family Counselors are assigned to a judge (they are - see the Oakland County Friend of the Court web site), then the there is no ADR plan. If Family Counselors are direct hires and permanently assigned, then the ADR clerk can't do his or her job. There is no list of qualified persons. All of the rules regarding mediation are then ignored. Sincerely, XXXX ----- Original Message ---- From: XXXXX To: XXXX Sent: XXX Subject: [XXX] Anyone looking for a job? or better yet, does anyone know why there is a vacancy? Job Order Number: 2498563 Job last updated: October 03, 2006 Company name: OAKLAND COUNTY PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT Product line/service: Services Web site: http://www.oakgov. com Job title: FRIEND OF COURT-FAMILY COUNSELOR CLOSING 10-2-06 Job type: Full Time Hours per week: 40 Job(s) available: 1 Job location: Pontiac Job description: JOB NO: 100933 SALARY: BI-WEEKLY: $1,922-$2,515 DESCRIPTION OF WORK Under general supervision, provides mediation to assist parties in domestic relations matters filed with the Circuit Court in order to voluntarily resolve disputes involving child custody and/or parenting time. Conducts court ordered home investigations and office interviews in order to gather economic and environmental information concerning parties in divorce, separation or paternity proceedings involving minor dependent children. Summarizes and analyzes gathered information and prepares written recommendations regarding custody, parenting time and related matters for review and determination by a Friend of the Court Referee and/or a Family Division Judge. Provides crisis and dispute resolution counseling to educate parents about the effects of separation and divorce and assists them in generating alternative solutions regarding custody and parenting time issues. Additional requirements: MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS At the time of application, applicants must: 1. Possess a Master's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in Psychology, Counseling, Social Work or closely related field; AND 2. Have had at least two (2) years of full time experience in family counseling; AND 3. Possess a valid motor vehicle chauffeur's or operator's license. NOTE: Applicants must bring a valid, unexpired driver?s license in order to be admitted to any portion of the examination/ appointment process. Volunteer experience may be accepted provided it is equivalent in level and scope to the required experience. At the time of application, applicants must have an official transcript sent directly to the Human Resources Department. Applicants will not be certified until such documentation has been received and evaluated CANDIDATES APPOINTED TO ANY POSITION WITH OAKLAND COUNTY MUST, PRIOR TO THE FIRST DAY OF WORK, PROVIDE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED UND Directions to business: WORK LOCATION 1200 North Telegraph Road, Pontiac, MI 48341 Department/etc: Oakland County Circuit Court/Friend of the Court, 230 Elizabeth Lake Rd., Pontiac, MI 48341 Please apply by Phone, by Mail, in person or by Website . Contact: WEB SITE WEB SITE Business name: OAKLAND COUNTY PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT Phone: (248)858-0530 Address: 1200 North Telegraph Road Fax: Pontiac, MI 48341 Email: Web site: http://www.oakgov. com

The current system regularly prevents fit and willing parents from having a meaningful role in their children's lives. The bias in Michigan against both fathers and against joint physical custody continues year after year. For example, in 2003 the FOC in Michigan recommended joint physical custody in 2,717 cases, for the mother in 9,842 cases, for the father in 1,783 cases, and for a third party in 128 cases. (See the Friend of the Court Statistical Supplement for 2003 at: www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/reports/summaries.htm#focss) This dismal situation continues year after year: (www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article329.pdf) This will continue so long as the so-called "best interests of the child" standard is used because it "has little basis in science": www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005E8E2-28CA-132F-A8CA83414B7F0000 www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005E8E2-28CA-132F-A8CA83414B7F0000

Below is a copy of a recent grievance that I've files against the Wayne County FOC. Names have been changed but the content is as filed. ______________________________________________ On May 3rd of 2005 I was party to a mediation hearing that later admittedly not handled in a way that is described in literature from the FOC and various other Family court documents. On 12/5/2005 I filed a grievance that was answered on 1/31/2006. In my initial complaint, I mentioned that Mrs. Mediator had refused review of documents that I wanted to use to dispute my ex-wife’s denial of certain relevant incidents. Mrs. Mediator refused these while accusing me of “Trying to make your ex look like a bad mother”. In your response, Mr. FOC explains that all relevant documents are reviewed following the appointment and prior to the recommendation. The documents were not allowed so they most certainly could have not been reviewed. Mrs. Mediator made her recommendation prior to the end of our meeting. This was relayed to us, by Mrs. Mediator, prior to the end of the meeting. Once released, four months later, the recommendation was exactly as stated in the meeting. This recommendation was based on something other than the best interest of our son Tyler. Mrs. Well ignored, minimized or dismissed relevant medical documents, photos and statements presented by me. She dismissed the contents of the photos by stating that there was no way of dating them. Other photos showing open sores on our son’s legs and buttocks were dismissed by Mrs. Mediator when I told her that I had immediately took Tyler in for medical attention. This was done even though my ex wife denied any such occurrence. Instead, I was accused of trying to make her look like a bad mother. A letter from Pediatric Dentist Dr. Jason Golnick states “It was apparent that she did not give the medication as prescribed since she stated that the last dosage administered was at 10pm last night and there was a considerable amount of medication remaining in the bottle. Fortunately, we were able to perform the nerve treatment indicated but it was a difficult procedure under the circumstances.” I was allowed to present a letter from the Dentist explaining failures on the part of my ex, regarding a root canal that our son suffered. Mrs. Mediator dismissed the letter stating that if the dentist thought the child was in danger, that he was obligated to report it. That may be so, but I don’t feel that that reason alone was sufficient to dismiss the contents of the letter. The threats that I made of police intervention in order to get Tyler to the Dentist, was viewed as “sufficient.” The dentist later told me that, because I was there and that there was no question of my abilities as a parent, there was no reason to notify the state. I don’t understand how an adult can have knowledge of a root canal on a two year old and not ask questions. When I complained about my ex failing to get out son to the dentist on numerous occasions, Mrs. Mediator asked me “Well, did you take him to the dentist?” When I responded, yes, she said “That’s all that matters. Again, this is a mediator that accused me of trying to make my ex look like a bad mother. I got the same response from Mrs. Mediator when I mentioned the many missed appointments with our son’s pediatrician. It was obvious to me this was not a hearing based on any procedure but on emotion, personal opinion and or laziness. And I paid for this. Dental photos, records and a letter from the dentist were also dismissed. Mr. FOC also writes that Mrs. Mediator stated that a certain comment made by her, “Occurred at a point in the investigation when Mrs. Mediator stated that there appeared not to be enough to support a change in physical custody”. Please correct me if I’m wrong but it is not the job of the mediator to decide custody, its establishment or weather there should be a change in it. I thought the mediator was supposed to make a recommendation based on the “Best interest of the child”. How can this be done when she was busy deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to change custody? The legal physical custody had not yet been decided in our case. In short, my son and I were denied the benefits of the best interest factors, its purpose and its intent. Mrs. Mediator described the conversation between my ex wife and I as confrontational. Yes, I will be confrontational with a person that keeps my child away from me for up to five months at a time, without so much as an attempt at an explanation. I grow increasingly worried when an agency such as the Friend of the Court, does not demand an answer. Mrs. Mediator witnessed my ex wife admitting this and did not think that an explanation was in order. She didn’t even ask for one. One of the best interest factors requires a finding on each parents’ willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent or the child and the parents. Who can best cooperate with the parenting time schedule? At the meeting I presented proof of 4 show cause hearings, all which resulted in make up parenting time to me. To Mrs. Well this seemed insignificant or maybe she would have mentioned it. Does either parent criticize the other parent in front of the child? I have a picture of my son wearing a shirt describing the ethnicity of my wife. My mention of this brought a smirk from Mrs. Mediator that seemed to say that I was being picky or childish. Mrs. Mediator did not inquire. My ex did address the shirt in a deposition hearing held on 11/8/2005. Her response was as follows: Q-Did you purchase a T shirt for Tyler that reads, I have a Puerto Rican grandmother? A-Yes, Gibraltar Trade Center. Q-Did you alter it? A-Yes, I did. Q-What does it say now? A-I have a Puerto Rican stepmother. Q-And who is it referring to? A-Arlene. Q-Why did you do that? A-I thought it was cute. There is no doubt in my mind that my ex would have admitted to this misuse of our son. This is not small and insignificant; this says a bout the character of the offending parent. Mrs. Mediator defended the statement that (her recommendations were followed or accepted by the court), by saying that she stated “most of the time”. This is not true. I didn’t ask what the likelihood was of the acceptance of her recommendation. I stated that I did not agree with her recommendation and that I would still request more time with our son. Her response was “That’s my recommendation and my recommendations are followed 99% of the time”. The statement was made with arrogance and surety and was designed to discourage my contest. Described above was the tone of our meeting. It is my strong belief that an impartial, professional, attentive mediator would have concluded something much different that the recommendation that came from Mrs. Mediator. Mr. FOC has admitted that there were some shortcomings in hearing. Some of these short comings certainly should have brought a different recommendation. I am unfamiliar with your inter-operational policy but there has to be something that can be done. The Friend of the Court process has failed and it is documented. What is your procedure for a correction? Perhaps a letter, from your office, to the Judge explaining the failures with the recommendation of an additional hearing, performed correctly. I’m not sure what the answer is but I look forward to your response and resolution. _________________________________ Mediators have too much power with little or no accountability. Attorneys know the power of a mediation recommendation and the FOC hides behind the "We only make recommendations, the Judge decides." It's a game that's being played and the ones that pay the most are the children. FOC has a difficult task of sorting out the messes and bad decissions made by us adults. My particular situation is extremely unnecessary. My ex-wife is just mean and refuses to see the damage that she is doing to our son. I will continue to fight for and be available to my son. Stronger legislation will put an end to a great many of these tradic stories.

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

I am in full support of this initiative and also the comments of DougDante. I would only modify his comments to include other FOC across the State. From one two-hour interview, the FOC makes a recommendation on the the next 18 years of your child's life. I've gone through two FOC evalutions. I've been exercising joint custody for four years; volunteer at child's school 3x a week and take ever opportunity to be with my child regardless of parenting schedule. The most recent evaluation is because the mother wants to move to another country, where her boyfriend resides. The FOC concluded that based on a separate interview with the mother's boyfriend; the country had a better school system and safer community. The mother-child bond can not be overlooked and since the father is still single; it's preferred that the child live in a 'traditional' family. At the time of the interview, the mother was pregnant with her boyfriend's child.....(traditional?). Current schedule; I have my child 1/2 the time and typically spend time with him 28 out of 30 days a month. I take every opportunity to be completely involved with my child. FOC recommendation; 48 hours two weekends a month. I can also travel to his new country once a month and exercise parenting time from hotel room. In the summer, I would get my child for 6 weeks. I had a second opinion completed by a psychologist, that concluded the child should remain in my custody if the mother decides to move. I'm waiting for a court date....but it amazes me how FOC based it's conclusions on hearsay and obvious gender biases without any fear of reprecutions.

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

This bill ensures that children have equal access to both of their loving parents. They, and not the state, are what's best for the children.

I only wish that this legislation had come long ago. Now I'm afraid it's too late for my step-daughter. Thanks to FOC, my step-daughter has been mentally and emotionally abused by her "more fit" mother for 15 years. She has denied "liberal visitation" to her father and even fought to have my step-daughter spend more time to be around her grandma who was dieing of cancer. Now my step-daughter is suffering from depression and is currently taking anti-depressiants (chemical parenting) regardless of FDA warnings against this as well as her fathers objection. The "family" court system is driven by one thing: maxium matching Federal dollars through Title IVD funding. If they truely cared about the "best interest of the child" then they would not CREATE the "abscent parent" in a greedy attempt to enforce child support to get these funds. The "family" court has given more parental rights to the FOC employees and Judges than the biological parents. EVERY decision they make are based on their own personal ajenda and bias and not on the law. If we continue to allow this violation of Cival rights for financial gain as well as for special interests, then we will continue to breed generations of dysfunctinal adults. It may be too late for my step-daughter, but I hope that we can stop this trend before society completely falls apart.

HB 4564 needs to be passed because the best interests of children are served when they have 2 active and involved parents. Under existing family law the court system promotes conflict between parents by providing: 1) vast rewards for winning. 2) vast consequences for losing. These unequal outcomes are necessary to promote conflict over the issues and to financially support the lawyers to the direct financial detriment of the families involved, and by virtue of parentage, the children involved. After the fact, when the parents are financially and emotionally destroyed and can no longer keep a well paying job then the government turns around and says that money matters, and they start enforcement services. It then becomes a game of beating the deadbeat horses, not for welfare of the child(ren), but for the welfare of the bureaucracy, for every dollar spent by the state pulls two dollars from the feds. Government can never care for children like the real parents do. With the thousands or tens of thousands of cases per worker they don't even have time to properly look at evidence, much less interview the children and form proper opinions. The stakes are so high that even people of ordinarily reasonable character have been coached to perjure themselves for personal gain. It is a waste of taxpayer money to pretend to do our children proper justice. The ONLY fair and best alternative for children is to put the burden of proof of unfitness upon the requesting party. Until that claim is proven we must set a presumption of JOINT and EQUAL custody to allow the parents to work together for the interests of the children they BOTH care about. This precedent will change the face of divorce in Michigan to a more friendly face, and without the incentives to win, parents will be more likely to work out a better plan for the kids, and be more likely to resolve their differences and go on as happier well-adjusted individuals that will provide a better home for the children of Michigan. Ed Kempen

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

I agree with this bill completely. Also FOC/circuit rulings need to be modified, if the determination of FOC and the subsequent ruling says parentaal time should be denied until X, Y, and Z, happens, then there should be an automatic review of the case, within 30 days, with an automatic adjustment to 50/50 unless that hearing takes place. I also feel it's time to review privatizing FOC, I have yet to see them actually DO anything, all they do is blame the rulings on the Judge (who is rubber-stamping their "recomendation", or some computer or department half way across the state. Let's subcontract the job of FOC to a private company, and pay them based on performance standards.

can we get a re-count? Jenny, You are a disgrace to all women...

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

Michigan children deserve better! Michigan children deserve Michigan House Bill 4564. It is a child's right to EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents. Equal Parenting has been proven: 1)Better adjusted children 2)Reduced crime and gang involvement 3)Lower divorce rates 4)Decrease extended and expensive custody battles 5)More cooperation between parents in the long-term Please consider helping with the following event: daddyblogger dot com Please be sure to also attend the August 18th 2007 Washington, D.C. Rally

1)When both parents can prove they were "equal" parents during the relationship/marriage, only then should joint custody be considered. A large percentage of fathers couldn't tell you their child's pediatrician's name, or even their teacher's. 2)Being bounced around half the time one place and half another is extremely difficult and detremental to children. Children need stability. 3)This bill will be a great excuse for more non-custodial parents to get out of their child support obligations, which is why I suspect so many fathers support it in the first place. 4)What is truly needed are more efforts in co parenting. It's the adults who need to get their acts together. Don't punish the children by making their lives unstable. There are many good fathers out there, and many not so great mothers, but this bill goes too far. Truly protecting children means giving them one stable home with whichever parent they were most nurtured by.

In the absense of one stable two parent houshold you must have 2 stable one parent housholds

The real problem is that there is a judiciary in Michigan that believes it is independent of scrutiny from the legislature and the citizens' they represent. The legislature needs to place a "check" on the family courts, since they have run amuck with their so-called "judicial discretion." All that "discretion" has warranted thus far is an increase in revenue for the government (i.e. Title IV-D), poor decisions based solely upon anecdotal testimony, an increase in children's isolation from one of their parents, and ever-expanding government agencies (the most effete being the Friend of the Court). Change is needed. Currently, Michigan is operating under a government-sponsered kidnapping program. They come into your home, take one's child away, and extort individuals in order for one to have occasional access to one's own child(ren).

Van Buren County Friend of the Court is the most ineffective, sexist, harmful organization I've ever come in contact with. They inflated my income to three times its actual in order to confiscate more than 50% of my income. They threaten me with jail time and fines for any reasons my ex-spouse can invent. They are a government organization that just keeps on growing and spreading more harm to children and families in Van Buren County. I think these employees and the imbecilic director actually believe they're accomplishing good things for people. It's delusional! What's worse, Van Buren County doesn't have a Citizen's Council to hear any complaints. The FOC regulates itself. To anyone who resides in Van Buren County and is considering a divorce/custody action, please save yourself the grief. They will not help you or your children, they will hurt you and your children, and rationalize it all as "the best interests of the children". OPT OUT OF FRIEND OF THE COURT SERVICES.

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

Our Constitution is all about equality & justice yet family courts operate outside of it. Show me a law any where that says judges are the best parents in the world. Fact is best interest is very subjecttive and statistics show kids are better off with equal access to both parents. Still the "family court cartel" intrudes on the rights of the parents just to make profit.

If one of the parents or the STATE can not prove that one of the parents is "UNFIT" the presumption of the court should be that both are fit and equal with equal rights. It is high time to look at the financial incentive to break familys up and favor one parent over the other. Also this "Best Interest of the Child Standard" is to vague and is being misused. Judges are not even required to put in the court record the reason for their decision to favor one of the parents over the other and the reason is there is no logicial reason to favor one fit parent over the other. If in consideration of the circumstances the State would not take a child from a parent that is married why should they take equal assess from a divorcing parent lacking the same standard of review. This treats the rights of both the children and the parents of a divorced family differently. There is much wrong with our "Family Courts" and it time for some political leadership and meaningful change. Are we as a society looking our for the best interest of the "DIVORCE and LEGAL INDUSTRY or are we looking out for children and citizens that are supposed to have equal rights. The information (data) is there now it is time for the elected officials to make a long overdue change. In a nation were all sexes and even gay partners are treated with respect its time to look at the what we are doing to fathers and some mothers whose only 'CRIME" was to divorce. I pay to god you see the plight of the people who have voted to have you represent them.

I can attest to the fact that equal parenting equals better communication and cooperation between the parents in the long run. My ex acted like the queen of England while I didn't have equal parenting. She issued orders, with no discussion allowed, and if I even asked a clarification question it was taken as an insult to the 'queen'. I was offered 'crumbs' from her table - take it or leave it. Went back to court and my son talked to the judge in chambers and I got 6 more days a month and real equal shared parenting. The 6 additional days and rearranging the schedule resulted in alternating weeks. She pouted for a couple of months, but finally came around and now we can finally talk about issues regarding our son in a peaceful manner and on equal footing. Equal parenting prevents one parent from being able to use the child as a weapon to club the other parent with. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out!

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

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

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

The time has come for Michigan to reverse decades of family destructive statutes and policies that have installed a swollen, corrosive,and robotic bureaucracy that systemically abuses children. HB 4564 is a first step to a bright future for Michigan families and their children and for the overall well-being of our State and its economy. The Child Custody Act of 1970 asserts that "the best interests of the child" must be determined by the State when relationship problems lead Mom and Dad to parent apart. In practice, this means that judges, DHS bureaucrats, Friend of the Court personnel, social workers, police agencies and other criminal enforcement professionals, mental health and health care professionals and attorneys must decide the best "interests of the child" rather than a childs own parents. This is not only preposterous, it is cruel and insane. Common sense and reams of child research suggest that children do best when Mom and Dad decide what is best for them whether they parent them together or apart. The system argues that parental disagreement mandates that the State intervene to care for and decide what is best for the child. This makes no sense developmentally for the children, nor interpersonally for the parents, nor logically and economically for the State. This approach clearly violates the US Constitution. When parents cannot agree, it is up to them to resolve their differences. When clear and convincing evidence shows that the well being of a child is threatened by parental conflict, the state should mandate that the parents select a way to resolve their impasse. Parents could negotiate a resolution themselves or seek assistance from other family, friends, clergy or a variety of professionals including from family mediation specialists. For indigent families, the State would assist in the costs. Other families would figure it out on thier own. In custody matters, this would call for the parents to develop a comprehensive parenting plan that addresses the daily routine, unexpected circumstances, the growth of the children and inevitable future disagreements. HB 4564 provides Michigan a vital solution to a State whose broken family infrastructure has helped to ruin its institutions and its economy. So why is Rep. Brenda Clack, Chairman of Families and Children's Services Committee, whose Flint constituents so need family relief, preventing this promising bill from coming before her committee for a vote? The time has come for politicians of all parties, if they are Americans, to recognize that having family relationships is an inalienable human right and that loving and caring for one's children is a fundamental liberty no State may violate. Let no State abuse a child by removing his or her Mom or Dad without meeting a high standard of evidence that a parent can no longer act in the best interest of his or her child. Michael T. Ross, MD President Family Rights Coalition of Michigan www.frcmi.org 248 561 7272

Child support consists of all of the things a parent does to love and nurture a child including assuming responsibility for the costs of doing so. This responsibility falls equally on both parents. If, in the course of loving and nurturing a child and fully meeting one's parental responsibility to that child, a parent legitimately and legally reduces the amount of child support paid to the other parent, this is in the best interest of the child and of the other parent. House Bill 4564 is the Equal Parental Responsibility Bill. It is time both parents share equal responsibility for their children and the State stop using children as pawns in its welfare and social programming agendas.

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

LOL

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

4) Prove it [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2007] 1)When both parents can prove they were "equal" parents during the relationship/marriage, only then should joint custody be considered. A large percentage of fathers couldn't tell you their child's pediatrician's name, or even their teacher's. IF one parent was working to provide for the family, and the other was doing the other things (Dr. visits, etc), how exactly is that ever going to be equal? 2)Being bounced around half the time one place and half another is extremely difficult and detremental to children. Children need stability. Um, is it any better being bounced around every other weekend, or only during the summer, or even less often if the other parent decides to move across the country or across the world? Why not just save the children the trouble have them not see the other parent at at? Maybe make up excuses why the children can't or don't want to see the other parent. Or just move to the other side of the country, where it is more stable. The children need stability. But keeeeep that money coming! 3)This bill will be a great excuse for more non-custodial parents to get out of their child support obligations, which is why I suspect so many fathers support it in the first place. Yes, keep that money coming. Oh yeah, if the parents have roughly equal incomes and equal time with their kids, there WON'T BE any child support obligation. which is why I suspect so many YOU are against it in the first place. 4)What is truly needed are more efforts in co parenting. It's the adults who need to get their acts together. Don't punish the children by making their lives unstable. There are many good fathers out there, and many not so great mothers, but this bill goes too far. Truly protecting children means giving them one stable home with whichever parent they were most nurtured by. That's right, this is a contest to see who can "nurture" the children the best, winner takes all, loser pays. I am a former child victim of this system, I can tell you, I would give anything to be able to go back and have BOTH parents, not just a "parent" and a "visitor".

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

Gold digger? Are you one?

I just emailed (cut and paste) all 110 Michigan House of Representatives for support of this bill. It only took a few minutes and these are the individuals that can get it passed. This is the web page http://house.michigan.gov/replist.asp Please do the same and lets get this passed for the children in this pathetic system called Friend Of the Court!

Unless a parent, Father or Mother, is proven unfit, joint custody should always be the rule. I know women who were given custody of children who should have never been given custody. There were pictures, videos and witnesses, yet the judge awarded custody to the Mother because that is the "norm". Children need BOTH parents; each have a God given responsibility to fulfill. However our government has stripped the responsbility from the Fathers. Example: Divorced parents have 2 sons, 10 and 13. They recently were involved in some trouble in Onsted. Both boys are great kids, attend Church and love their Mother and their Father. However, because the Mother literally decides when the Father sees the boys, he has little to do with them except one or two weekends a month he sees them. So, they get in trouble, the Mother wants the Father to discipline the boys. Why would a Father who gets to see his boys a few hours a month discipline them. How would he? Ground them? Spank them? Yell at them? Boys and Girls need both parents. Boys going into puberty need their Fathers more, not less. Girls going into puberty need their Mothers more, not less. Yet, the "system" seems to award the Mothers everything--most time, money, etc. It's not right. It must be changed. The future of our nation depends on it.

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