display caucus pdf

8/14/2019 Display Caucus PDF

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/display-caucus-pdf 1/5

- House Republican Policy Office (517) 373-3100 -

Bill: Friend of the Court Package - Attempts to streamline and improvedelivery of services within Friend of the Court.

Advisor: Fred Schaible, 3-5004, Elizabeth Garcia 3-5168

Date: November 4, 2009

Committee: Families and Children's Services

BILL ANALYSIS

SHORT SUMMARY:

• This package of bills is intended to streamline and improve delivery of services within the Friend of theCourt.

ISSUE / PROBLEM: • In 2002, in response to concerns expressed by individual counties and Friend of the Court (FOC)

offices who were experiencing significant reductions in state funding for services, Supreme CourJustice Maura Corrigan requested that the FOCs do the following:

o

Identify unfunded mandated services provided by the FOC offices.o Prepare suggestions for streamlining procedures.o Submit any ideas for improving the utilization of resources.

• Subsequently, during the FY 2006 state budget discussions, Senator Hardiman also requested that theFOC review their operations and make recommendations for improvements.

• On October 20, 2006, as a result of a joint work group between the FOC Association and the StateCourt Administrative Office (SCAO), a comprehensive report with recommendations for improvingefficiency and client services was submitted to the Governor, Supreme Court Chief Justice Taylor andLegislative leadership.

• Since that time, Senator Jansen, Senator Hardiman, the FOC Association, SCAO, the Supreme Courtand individuals from their respective staffs collaborated to place the recommendations in the report intothis package of bills.

BILL CONTENT: SB 99 (Jansen) amends the Friends of the Court Act to:

• The H-2 does require the FOC to enforce spousal support.

• Replace the current Domestic Relations Mediation with alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to assistparties in resolving child custody or parenting time disputes.

o ADR would occur pursuant to a plan that would have to be approved by the chief judge and theSCAO.

o ADR would allow mediation services to be tailored to an individual county’s needs andresources.

o Certain qualifications would be required for those providing ADR. • Amend the definition of “recipient of support” to include counties.

o This would allow child support payments to be assigned to the county when the child is incounty-funded foster care. • Require the FOC to enforce spousal support only when in conjunction with a child support order filed

after April 1, 2009.o There is no federal funding provided to enforce spousal support unless there is a child support

order attached to the case. o The FOC would be permitted to provide spousal support services after April 1, 2009, but would

not be required to provide such services. • Require FOC to only conduct child custody or parenting time investigations if the court finds there has

been a substantial change in circumstances.




o The FOC would also be permitted to charge the parties for no more than the actual cost of theinvestigation and making the report and recommendation, except in cases of financial hardshipor indigence.

• Require FOC to make forms available to individuals, who do not have legal council that will assist themin making or responding to a motion for a payment plan.

• Clarify that the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) is responsible for the centralized receipt anddisbursement of support and fees.

• Allow SCAO to establish a minimum threshold for the enforcement of uninsured medical expenses. o This would help reduce the amount of time spent enforcing each and every co-pay that a party

incurs. SCAO policy will ensure that if the minimum threshold is not met before the time periodfor enforcement expires, the FOC must initiate enforcement.

• Eliminates the requirement for the FOC to meet with the parties during a child support investigation. o The FOC currently applies a child support formula mechanically and this does not require them

to meet with the parties. • Eliminate the specific data collection requirements for each local FOC and instead require them to

compile data as required by the FOC bureau. • Tie-bar this bill to HBs 5501 & 5502.

SB 100 (Jansen) amends the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act to:

• The H-1 revises child support enforcement and surcharge effective date.

•

Add labor union to the definition of "source of income". o This would require a labor union that assigns a member to a particular job to forward the income

withholding notice to that member’s actual employer to allow child support to be collected in amore timely fashion.

• Revise the notification requirements for each child support order to include the following: o Notice that an order for dependent health care coverage takes effect immediately and a national

medical support notice will be sent to both parents’ current and subsequent employers andinsurers if appropriate.

o Each party must provide the FOC with a single address for all notices and papers to be served. o Allow the FOC to stop sending mail to an address where mail was returned as undeliverable.

The bill provides that a party waives his or her right to receive notice until properlysubmitting a change of address to the FOC.

•

Include new language stating that if a person fails to comply with a child support order or any of therequirements pertaining to that order, the court may impose a fee on that person.o This fee would be set by Supreme Court Rule or SCAO policy.

• Provide that in a child support enforcement proceeding, a report, record, or information from the SDU isprima facie authentic and may be admitted into evidence without extrinsic evidence of authenticity.

• Eliminate the automatic assessment of a surcharge.o Instead the court will be allowed to order a surcharge if it determines there is a willful failure to

pay support.o This will allow the court to determine on a case-by-case basis whether the sanction is

warranted. • Clarify that a child support order that continues beyond the 18 th birthday will end on the last day of a

specified month, and not on the actual graduation date from high school.

o This will eliminate the need for prorating the last month of support • Simplify payment plan requirements for arrearages to afford judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis.• Require income withholding notices to direct the employer to also withhold enough money to cover any

fines, costs, and/or sanctions that have been assessed to the child support payer.o This will allow collection of monies the legislature has previously mandated.

• Limit the total amount of income withheld by an employer to 50% of the payer’s disposable earnings. o Previously, this was done on a case by case basis and could have gone as high as 65% of the

earnings. • Instruct that a payer shall receive a mailed notice before a lien may be perfected or levied against rea

and personal property for encumbrance or seizure if an arrearage accrues.




• Create an administrative process for suspending a payer’s license (occupational, driver’s, recreationaor sporting, or any combination thereof).

o Current law permits FOC to petition the court for an order to suspend a payer’s license. Thischange would streamline this process and ease the burden on the court system.

• Permit law enforcement agencies to “boot” vehicles of individuals who are not paying court orderedchild support.

• Allow the court to order a jail alternative program for individuals who do not pay child support. • Tie-bar to HB 5503.

HB 5501 (Valentine) amends the Child Custody Act of 1970 to:

• Replace references to domestic relations mediation with alternative dispute resolution.• Tie-bar to SB 99.

HB 5503 (Kurtz) amends the Michigan Vehicle Code to:

• The H-1 aligns procedures for re-instating driver's licenses more closely with Secretary of Stateprocedures.

• Require the Secretary of State, upon notification from a Friend of the Court office, to immediatelysuspend the driver's license of a licensee who has failed to appear for a hearing, comply with arepayment plan or respond to a license suspension notice.

• Instruct that the suspension stays in effect until all of the following occur: •

The person obtains a certificate from FOC showing that they are in compliance and providesthat certificate to the Secretary of State within 10 days of its issuance. • The person pays the Circuit Court Clerk the $45 driver license clearance fee. • The person also pays the reinstatement fee imposed by the Secretary of State.

• Specify that unless a person's license is otherwise suspended, revoked or invalid, that once they satisfythe requirements above their driver's license is reinstated immediately.

• The Secretary of State must reissue the license within 30 days. • Allow an individual to present the certificate mentioned above to a law enforcement officer and to

require the officer not to issue a citation for driving on a suspended license if the certificate was issuedwithin the previous ten days.

• Direct that the $45 fee collected by the Circuit Court Clerk to be directed in the following ways: • $15 to the Secretary of State. This money shall be deposited in the General Fund to help defray

the expense of processing the suspensions and reinstatements laid out in this bill. • $30 to the Treasurer of the county. The county Treasurer shall deposit this money into the

County Friend of the Court Fund. • Tie-bar to SB 100.

SB 5504 (Womack) amends the Revised Judicature Act of 1961 to:

• The H-1 removes references to HAL for record retention and changes those responsibility to theDepartment of Natural Resources.

• Clarify that statutory records retention and reproduction provisions apply to records filed with the courtand maintained by the Clerk or Register.

• This clarification is intended to permit SCAO to provide for record maintenance standards foFOC offices and to facilitate FOC record imaging initiatives.

• Redirect $10 of the custody, support or parenting time final judgment/order fee from the state benchwarrant enforcement fund to counties for use by the FOC in enhancing enforcement of bench warrants.

• This codifies current practice.• Shift the $2/month service fee paid by the payer of support and used to fund FOC custody and

parenting time enforcement activities into the non-Title IV-D services fee fund.• This is not a fee increase. The overall fee will remain $3.50/month• The intent is to remove the monthly service fee provisions from the separate domestic relations

laws (i.e. Divorce, Family Support Act, Paternity Act, etc.) and have the fee authorization in onelocation for consistency purposes.

• Tie-bar to SB 105, 106 & 107.




HB 5502 (Liss) amends the Office of Child Support (OCS) Act to:

• Require OCS to coordinate through the Friend of the Court Bureau regarding the provisions of title IV-Dservices provided by the FOC.

• Include language consistent with the Family Support Act and the Paternity Act regarding theapportionment of confinement expenses.

• Update the tax offset provision to recognize the current requirements of federal regulation whichprovide for automatic referral rather than case by case referral by the FOC.

• Repeal language concerning the now defunct amnesty program.• Tie-bar to SB 99.

SB 105 (Scott) amends the divorce law to:

• The H-1 tie-bars to HB 5504.

• Eliminate the $2 per month service fee which is being moved to the Revised Judicature Act in HB 5501.

SB 106 (Jacobs) amends the Paternity Act to:

• The H-1 tie-bars to HB 5502 & 5504.

• Provide consistency with the Family Support Act concerning the apportionment of confinemenexpenses.

• Repeal reference to the $2 fee which has been moved to the Revised Judicature Act in HB 5501.

• Tie-bar to HBs 5501 & 5503.

SB 107 (Hardiman) amends the Family Support Act to:• The H-1 tie-bars to HB 5502 & 5504 and SB 106.

• Require that a complaint and summons be served to the non-custodial parent of the children andspouse of the petitioner as directed by court rules.

• Provide consistency with the Paternity Act concerning confinement expenses and abatement • Clarify that an initial family support order is retroactive only to the date that the complaint for support

was filed except under certain circumstances.

Arguments in Support: o Attempts to improve the Friend of the Court and child support collection process in Michigan.

o Represents years of review and collaboration between all parties to reach a consensus.

Arguments in Opposition: o None given.

POSITIONS: SUPPORT: SCAO, Office of Child Support (DHS), Friend of the Court Association, Family Law Section(State Bar), MI Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Michigan Association of Counties.OPPOSED: NEUTRAL:

COMMITTEE VOTE: HB 5501 & 5502; SB 99, 100, 105, 106 & 107

YES: Valentine (Chair), Womack, Liss, Neumann, Slavens, KURTZ (MIN VC), MOORE, PAVLOV. NO: PASS: MCMILLIN.ABSENT:

COMMITTEE VOTE: HB 5503 & 5504 YES: Valentine (Chair), Womack, Liss, Neumann, Slavens, KURTZ (MIN VC), PAVLOV. NO: PASS: MCMILLIN, MOORE.ABSENT:

display caucus pdf

Documents