Michigan's Friend Of The Court; Involvement With "Child Support Awareness Month"

One of the first actions by a family law court once divorce papers for a couple with children have been filed is to schedule a conciliation conference with your local FOC.

Your local FOC staff will be only too kind to make you well aware of child support!!

In this meeting, the FOC conciliator/investigator is required, under Michigan law (MCL 552.505(g)) to "investigate all relevant facts...regarding child custody or parenting time, or both..."

Do they?

Absolutely not.

What the FOC WILL investigate is whatever they wish to.  They will listen to whomever they wish to (usually the mother), and ignore and silence whomever they wish to (usually the father). They will happily take the word of others who benefit and profit from this abusive system, including psychologists, social workers, and others who do not know you or your children, and who all claim to know "what is best" for your children.

Your local FOC is also required, under MCL 552.505(b), to "inform each party to the domestic relations matter that, unless one of the parties is required to participate in the Title IV-D child support program, they may direct the office of the friend of the court to close the (FOC) case".

Do they?

Nope. 

Your FOC conciliator has to choose one parent to be the custodial, the other (about 85% of the time the father) will be the non-custodial. 

Why?

If this is not done, no Title IV-D money will be forthcoming to that county and the state from that divorce/custody action.  Obviously, if the couple knows about the FOC "opt-out", they may choose that option, leaving the FOC staff with no profit from that custody action.

In my personal case, the conciliator told me "that's very annoying"  when I tried to inject facts and the truth into the conversation.  She also added, several times, "that doesn't matter".  The conciliator in the case did NOT investigate all of the relevant facts.  In fact, she investigated NONE of the facts or the issues I brought up.

I have personally spoken with other, amicably divorcing couples with children, who entered their conciliation with an agreed upon parenting plan and details, including support, only to have the plans ignored and tossed out by the FOC with the words "someone HAS to pay child support". In two of these cases, the parents had agreed that there would be NO child support exchanged between them. When they walked out, both fathers had been made a non-custodial and told to pay up.

Is this gender bias against the father?

Sure it is. 

You can file a grievance against your FOC staff for "gender bias", and they will simply say it was not.  That is the end of that issue, as far as the FOC is concerned.

Michigan family law court judges routinely "rubber stamp" their FOC recommendations.

Their bottom line?

Michigan's family law court system cares not about any child suffering from a divorce situation. They do care about how much profit they can rake in from that case.  They do care about forcing one parent from the life of that child, because that brings in money!!  They do care about limiting the time the child has with one of his or her parents, because that increases the Title IV-D funds coming in.

Therefore, if an essentially needed and common sense piece of legislation such as House Bill 4564, The Equal Parenting Bill was passed, this would seriously curtail the federal funds coming in from custody cases.

Michigan's family court judges, FOC staff members, plus all the family law attorneys and others who profit from the destruction of our families can't  have that now, can they?  They would all rather increase the anger and the tension between divorcing couples with children, increase the litigation time, and maximise the litigation and federal incentive fund dollars flowing to all those involved.

Your local FOC staff has no interest in dealing with matters of "denial of parenting time". Again, the more time a child is with the non-custodial parent, the fewer the dollars that come in to the system.

Your local FOC will make a fit, willing, and able parent into a mere visitor in the lives of his children, and may even be so kind as to back-date the order for you, so you will owe hundreds or even thousands of dollars when you leave your conciliation.  You may even be a felon already!!

Divorced non-custodials, you will be made very well "aware" of child support!!

A Father Of Two.

Friend of the court enemy of the family: Surviving the child support system and divorce racket

"It's billions of dollars.  It's far beyond what the mafia ever did."

Comments

[Nick]

Not hard to find FOC horror stories here in Michigan. It's all a shambles going back a generation and it's only getting worse the last few years.

Thanks for the spotlight and the updates.

--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com

[Jason Gillman]

Surprise surprise! I had experience with the FOC beginning in the late 80s. I would be surprised if anything has changed. In my case, the FOC became involved as soon as the divorce papers were filed.

A prior arrangement agreed to by my soon to be ex was replaced, after the "urging" of FOC officials with a claim to child support from me. Never mind the fact I was taking care of the kids 5 of the 7 day week. I was able to fend off the forced payments after the ex failed twice to provide some documents the court requested. Without the money, the mother decided to start a life elsewhere

Bottom line is the FOC was only happy when I asked after 3 years of the mother's absence with no visits, to have child support assessed. That is their function, their SOLE reason for existence. Get MONEY. It was my impression that they didn't even like when I forgave the entire $54,000 owed to me a few years ago.

[Doug Dante]

Here are some strategies that may help when a custody evaluator is ignoring the facts. Basically, document, document, document.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2561734/Some-Thoughts-on-Child-Custody-Hearings

[Joe]

FOC in Ottawa County actually gave me 50% parenting time joint physical and joint legal once the divorce was filed. After the soon to be ex appealed the judge ruled that since she was fired from her job and living at home with her parents she would get more time. I lost 7 days a month because I have a job. Thank you Michigan!

[giggles]

i totally believe that the foc and title iv d can easily falsify paternity test results. im in a situation that would blow alot minds
i am a female trying to help men that are being scamed

[Mike Johnson]

Has anyone ever addressed the FOC and challenged them in court on issues of wage slavery? I'm wondering if an argument can be made here, especially in Kent County?? I keep running across so many men (and some women too believe it or not who are primary wage earners) that are being raked over the coals as if they are being 'harvested'. Given some of the points made by the article, I have to question the underlying intent of the FOC. It is apparent that they have either forgotten, never knew, or don't care who their 'customers' are.

I'm currently in the midst of a divorce where she opted out of the marriage because she found 'greener grass' on the other side of the pasture. I am more than a little dumbfounded by how much support the system is giving her in terms of holding on to full physical custody of the kids, not giving equal voice in court testimony, and of course insuring that she can live in the family home while I attempt in vain to meet the mortgage, the FOC 'extraction', other miscellaneous debts, and the financial load of maintaining another residence......... all while under constant threat of incarceration if I get too far behind. This woman was a university administrator, director of her own department when I met her, events coordinator for a prestigious football fanatical mid-western university when we were married, and now she is doesn't have a degree??...is incapable of working???

I was looking up some information on the 13th Amendment here recently as it relates to issues of 'wage slavery'. Has the ACLU ever taken on a case like this? Does anyone out there know a good ACLU attorney? This kind of rediculousness should not continue to stand.

I heard a story about one guy here recently in a similar situation (good job and being raked over the coals) who was so distraught that he almost OD'd on pain killers. I personally knew of another situation where the guy was tacitly 'evicted' from his house and property which he owned for 14 years after being married to someone for only a year before they divorced. He eventually died of a heart attack before the divorce was final. Of course, there are other stories which are similar out there.

The point is that this is empowering those women (and some men too) with little or no moral compass to take advantage of what would seem (given the stated comments and statistics in the article) like mutually beneficial 'opportunities' presented by the FOC. In the process it is leaving families and the next generation of children in an even worse state than they would have been in otherwise. I can only see it as predatory at this point and destructive to our social infrastructure.

I for one have no intention of being told to ‘pick cotton’ and then succumb to getting ‘beat’ because I didn’t pick enough, even though I'm beyond my sustainable limits. I personally don't see that as an example I want to set for my kids. Injustice should not be tolerated. It should be combatted. For your perusal, I'll include some of the things that I've found to date below.

Anyway, I would be interested in any feedback anyone out there might be able to provide, especially with regard to a good ACLU attorney.

Regards....... Mike

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt13.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slavery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The condition of a slave; the state of entire subjection of one person to the will of another.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A condition of subjection or submission characterized by lack of freedom of action or of will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Society uses the definition of slavery enunciated in 1880 by the High Court of Allahabad in India, which, in substance, is that a person is treated as a slave or is reduced to a condition of slavery if another exercises power or control over that person:

(1) to restrain their personal liberty; and

(2) to dispose of their labor against their will — without lawful authority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WIKIPEDIA

Wage slavery is a term first coined by the Lowell Mill Girls in 1836,[1] though articulated as a concept at least as early as Cicero[2] and elaborated by subsequent thinkers, particularly with the advent of the industrial revolution.[3] It refers to the similarities between owning and renting a person, and denotes a hierarchical social condition in which a person chooses a job within a coerced set of choices (primarily working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or status diminution),[4][5][6][7] which make that "person dependent on wages or a salary for a livelihood,"[8] "esp[ecially] with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from...[wage] labor".[9] Wage slavery, in the libertarian socialist or anarchist usage of the term, is often understood as the absence of:

1. A democratic or anti-authoritarian society, especially with non-hierarchical worker's control of the workplace and the economy as a whole,[10][11][12]

2. Unconditional access to non-exploitative property and a fair share of the basic necessities of life,[13][14] and

3. The ability of persons to have say over economic decisions in proportion to the degree they are affected by those decisions.[15]

In terminology used by some critics of capitalism, statism and various authoritarian systems, wage slavery is the condition under which a person must sell his or her labor power, submitting to the authority of an employer in order to prosper or merely to subsist.[16][17][18]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WIKIPEDIA

Definitions of conditions addressed by Thirteenth Amendment

Peonage[11]

Refers to a person in "debt servitude," or involuntary servitude tied to the payment of a debt. Compulsion to servitude includes the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion to compel a person to work against his or her will.

Involuntary Servitude[12]

Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).

Requiring specific performance as a remedy for breach of personal services contracts has been understood to be a form of involuntary servitude.[13]

Forced Labor[14]

Labor or service obtained by:

· by threats of serious harm or physical restraint;

· by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe they would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if they did not perform such labor or services:

· by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process,

[Rick]

Thanks for all that you are looking into Mike and Giggles. We need to do everything we can to rectify this socially harmful and corrupt support program, and begin perking the ears back up of these money hungry radicals that have become complacent in the system. I'm not on this Earth to bow down farther than I already am. I may not have a wife, but I still have a life....and I'm not trying to let the FOC live it for me.