Parenting time changes

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/custodyguideline.pdf

How many times can the other parent or I ask the court to review custody?
There is no limit to the number of times the court can review custody. However, a parent who is seeking
a custody change has to prove a change in circumstances. If the judge does not find a change in circumstances, after a motion has been filed for a change in custody, he or she may assess costs to the parent
who filed the motion. This is done to prevent parents from filing motions without legitimate reasons. If
there is an established custodial environment, a change of custody may be made only on clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the best interests of the child. If no established custodial environment exists, custody may be changed on a showing of a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed
custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child

 

[anisaerah]

I was reading that earlier. I am just trying to parse out what could possibly be construed as a change of circumstance, I guess. I can't think of any changes in the last 6 months. It's just ridiculous

Is the fact that I offered him more parenting time going to be held against me?

I really cannot afford a lawyer, and if he can keep dragging me in to court, and they won't order him to pay my legal expenses, I'm not sure how I can survive financially, let alone deal with the time off of work

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

For your fun reading:

http://wesuejudges.info/MCOA/2005/Dec1404/20041214_C255386_46_255386.OPN.PDF

http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2002/062502/15446.pdf

I have quite a few more. Read the WHY it was rejected.

http://www.michiganlegalaid.org/library_client/resource.2005-05-29.1117417920074/

 

[anisaerah]

Thank you! That is very informative!

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Be prepared to have a hearing, IF he files, where you would either object or agree with what is presented.

If he files, come back here for help.

 

[gam]

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/custodyguideline.pdf

How many times can the other parent or I ask the court to review custody?
There is no limit to the number of times the court can review custody. However, a parent who is seeking
a custody change has to prove a change in circumstances. If the judge does not find a change in circumstances, after a motion has been filed for a change in custody, he or she may assess costs to the parent
who filed the motion. This is done to prevent parents from filing motions without legitimate reasons. If
there is an established custodial environment, a change of custody may be made only on clear and convincing evidence that the change is in the best interests of the child. If no established custodial environment exists, custody may be changed on a showing of a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed
custodial arrangement is in the best interests of the child

Just so you know I'm not arguing what the law says or the rules the court is suppose to follow. You have posted according to the law in Mi, as well as others.

CJane explained it best to what her and I are saying, she can do that so much better and shorter then I.

What you posted here is correct by law. But there is so much wiggle room, and so much left to the Judge to decide. When they take that to far, yes legally they are in the wrong, but your only recourse is to appeal. Filing fees are huge, and really you need to pay a lawyer to appeal.

My other point is, there is a hearing, there is no one sitting there and reading these filings and go, oh can't hear that, no change of circumstance. The hearing is stamped on by the county clerks office, or FOC at the time the motion was filed. It will be heard.

Very, very common for the courts around my area to take this way to far, and decide some crazy stuff on change of circumstance, if the custodial environment has not been established(just cause you have primary does not mean a custodial environment has been established, it's on this same link you posted). Happens on a regular basis, happened all the time in my daughters case.

Note the part in that where it says no limit to the number of times the court can review custody, that also applies to CS and parenting time. This leaves the court to decide if they review these issues. Really a bunch of crap, as it can be abused by one parent, and it can be abused by a court. Only option you have when that occurs, is to defend filing after filing and to appeal the courts mistakes.

Your broke long before you can file appeals.

 

[mariasusa]

My one thought/advice throughout this thread is; how can dad even TRY to get a job if he has custody of the child during the day?

And I believe I saw that at the last court date, your referee said something similar? And (may remember wrong) you have the same referee each time?

I am no lawyer, not close to it. However, I do know courts like to see both parents supporting the child. I just don't see how dad can be trying to get a job while going out of his way to get the child during the day. That would be my major arguement.

I know dad got off easy re child support. If dad does take you to court for visitation changes...I don't know if you can include in a responsive declaration or if it needs to be a counter motion (probably a counter motion), but you can emphasize your point by motioning that dad be court ordered to seek full-time employment.

 

[anisaerah]

The referee's assistant made the comment that he needed to find a job, when he tried to couch his unemployment as "I can devote ALL my time to our daughter", and tried to make me look like I work too much. The way I see it, ANY single parent working full time with a school aged child is going to need some kind of childcare, no?

We have always had the same referee.

 

[gam]

The referee's assistant made the comment that he needed to find a job, when he tried to couch his unemployment as "I can devote ALL my time to our daughter", and tried to make me look like I work too much. The way I see it, ANY single parent working full time with a school aged child is going to need some kind of childcare, no?

We have always had the same referee.

This same Ref lowered his Child Support and you said this Ref would not impute him. This here is a problem.

What did the ex do for a living? Mi has a lack of job openings, based on his former work and skills, are there job openings out there for him?

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2008MCSFmanual.pdf
Deviation

1.04 Deviation from the Formula
1.04(A) When applying the formula would lead to an unjust or inappropriate result, the court may exercise its discretion, and, on a case-by-case basis, deviate from the formula and determine a more appropriate support amount. Deviations cannot be based solely on disagreement with the policies embodied in the formula.
See: MCL 552.605, Ghidotti v Barber, 459 Mich 189 (1998), and Burba v Burba, 461 Mich 637 (2000).
1.04(B) When a court decides to deviate, it should still follow the formula except for the provisions that create an unjust or inappropriate result in that case.
(1) When entering an order that deviates from the child support formula, the court must record (a) its reasons for finding that the formula would produce an unjust or inappropriate result, as well as (b) the information required by MCL 552.605(2).
Burba v Burba, 461 Mich 637, 644-45 (2000).
(2) Friend of the court recommendations that deviate from the formula must comply with the requirements in MCL 552.505(1).
1.04(C) Agreements to Deviate
MCL 552.605(3) permits the court to enter orders that deviate from the formula based on an agreement of the parties, so long as the court also satisfies all the requirements of
MCL 552.605(2).
1.04(D) In exercising its discretion to deviate, the court may consider any factor that it determines is relevant.
1.04(E) Deviation Factors
Strict application of the formula may produce an unjust or inappropriate result in a case when any of the following situations occur:
(1) The child has special needs.
(2) The child has extraordinary educational expenses.
(3) A parent is a minor.
(4) The child’s residence income is below the threshold to qualify for public assistance, and at least one parent has sufficient income to pay additional support that will raise the child’s standard of living above the public assistance threshold.
(5) A parent has a reduction in the income available to support a child due to
extraordinary levels of jointly accumulated debt.
(6) The court awards property in lieu of support for the benefit of the child (§4.03).
(7) A parent is incarcerated with minimal or no income or assets.
(8) A parent has incurred, or is likely to incur, extraordinary medical expenses for either that parent or a dependent.
(9) A parent earns an income of a magnitude not fully taken into consideration by the formula.
(10) A parent receives bonus income in varying amounts or at irregular intervals.
(11) Someone other than the parent can supply reasonable and appropriate health care coverage.
(12) A parent provides substantially all the support for a stepchild, and the stepchild’s parents earn no income and are unable to earn income.
(13) A child earns an extraordinary income.
(14) The court orders a parent to pay taxes, mortgage installments, home insurance premiums, telephone or utility bills, etc. before entry of a final judgment or order.
(15) A parent must pay significant amounts of restitution, fines, fees, or costs associated with that parent’s conviction or incarceration for a crime other than those related to failing to support children, or a crime against a child in the current case or that child’s sibling, other parent, or custodian.
(16) A parent makes payments to a bankruptcy plan or has debt discharged, when either significantly impacts the monies that parent has available to pay support.
(17) A parent provides a substantial amount of a child’s day-time care and directly contributes toward a significantly greater share of the child’s costs than those reflected by the overnights used to calculate the offset for parental time.
(18) Any other factor the court deems relevant to the best interests of a child.

Imputing

2.01(G) Potential Income
When a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, or has an unexercised ability to earn, income includes the potential income that parent could earn, subject to that parent’s actual ability.
(1) The amount of potential income imputed should be sufficient to bring that parent’s income up to the level it would have been if the parent had not voluntarily reduced or waived income.
(a) The amount of potential income imputed (1) should not exceed the level it
would have been if there was no reduction in income, (2) not be based on more than a 40 hour work week, and (3) not include potential overtime or shift premiums.
(b) Imputation is not appropriate where an individual is employed full time (35 or more hours per week) but has chosen to cease working additional hours (such as leaving a second job or refusing overtime). But actual earnings for overtime, second job, and shift premiums are considered income.§2.01(C)(1).
(2) Use relevant factors both to determine whether the parent in question has an actual ability to earn and a reasonable likelihood of earning the potential income. To figure the amount of potential income that parent could earn, consider the following:
(a) Prior employment experience and history, including reasons for any
termination or changes in employment.
(b) Educational level and any special skills or training.
(c) Physical and mental disabilities that may affect a parent’s ability to obtain or maintain gainful employment.
(d) Availability for work (exclude periods when a parent could not work or seek work, e.g., hospitalization, incarceration, debilitating illness, etc.).
(e) Availability of opportunities to work in the local geographical area.
(f) The prevailing wage rates in the local geographical area.
(g) Diligence exercised in seeking appropriate employment.
(h) Evidence that the parent in question is able to earn the imputed income.
(i) Personal history, including present marital status and present means of support.
(j) The presence of the parties’ children in the parent's home and its impact on that parent’s earnings.
(k) Whether there has been a significant reduction in income compared to the
period that preceded the filing of the initial complaint or the motion for
modification.
(3) Imputation of potential income should account for the additional costs associated with earning the potential income such as child care and taxes that a parent would pay on the imputed income.
(4) The court makes the final determination whether imputing a potential income is appropriate in a particular case.

This is why that objection is so crucial, you could have objected because the Ref deviated and didn't impute. Worth a shot to see if a Judge feels the same. Plust there are rules they need to follow in deviations, that is listed in the deviation part, I suggest you look that one up. Now that you didn't object and it became a Child support order, your back to square one and the court now thinks you were ok with what the Ref did.

 

[anisaerah]

I have another question. If our court orders (custody and child support)do not speak as to who is responsible for child care costs, can I assume that we are each responsible for the child care expenses that are incurred during our respective parenting times?

He wants me to pay for childcare he doesn't even use!

 

[gam]

If the CS court order does not have anything assigned for childcare, then you both pay for childcare on your own time.

However either of you can file to have that modified, it can be added to the child support formula. The amount each would pay is based on the same percentage that uncovered medical is split. So it is not in Mi split 50/50 if it is part of a child support order. It's split based on the child support formula percentage, he who makes more will have the higher percentage for both uncovered medical and childcare.

Keep in mind if he takes this to court, you can have included any childcare you use on your time.

All this can be found in the Michigan Child Support Formula Manual.
http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2008MCSFmanual.pdf

 

[anisaerah]

That's what I thought. When he was working full time, part of his child support was specified as for child care, but they reduced it because of his unemployment without using a formula.

Apparently, I am "bleeding him dry" because he's currently obligated to pay $180 a month for current child support and $10 a month on his $1800 arrearage.

His seasonal part-time job just ended. Most of the time, he was not using the childcare I have been paying for, anyhow, but he's upset with me now that I have explained to him that I am tapped out and cannot help him with that expense any longer (I actually thought I had to, because that's how it had been in the past, when he lived out of state, until I realized both the support order and the custody order did not say anything about child care.)

I talked to his sister today, and she was livid. She couldn't believe I'd been paying for childcare for his parenting time all of these months. He'd been complaining to her about how expensive things were with our daughter, and she assumed childcare costs were a big part of it!

 

[anisaerah]

a few more questions, but about child support

State of: Michigan

This is about child support, not custody, but I was not sure if I am allowed to start a new thread, so I am adding it to this one.

My ex-husband has been paying off his arrears over the last couple of years, in addition to a reduced rate of child support that he was able to finagle because he has a lawyer, and I cannot afford one. With the income tax refund interception last month, he finally paid it all off. Now he is only paying the reduced amount he asked for two years ago when he was not working and was on unemployment. (when he was still paying off his arrears it was just under 300 a month total)
I contacted him and offered to sit down and settle for a reasonable amount now that he is working (he refuses to tell me how much he is making or whether it is full time, but his federal tax refund was just under $600) and the arrears are paid off, but he got angry and told me that I "don't want to open Pandora's box"- apparently, he is under the impression that since my boyfriend (who has stayed at my apartment 3-4 days a week for the last 4 years or so; my ex has been aware and has never had a problem with it, at least that he has mentioned to me or in court) has moved in with me, this will reduce his support.

He told me to contact his lawyer, I did, and when I did not hear back after a few weeks, contacted my ex again. He says he refuses to agree to anything, and that he "will support [daughter], not [boyfriend]." His current support obligation is *182 a month*, including childcare and medical expenses(as if that could support *anyone!*). I make about 2100 a month after taxes, and he has her for approximately 110 overnights.(EOW, alternate breaks, half the summer) Childcare runs about 150 a month (after the tax credit is subtracted). I cover nearly all her expenses; he has lived with his parents for nearly the entire time we have been divorced, other than about 6 months total when he lived with girlfriends (one of whom gave my daughter fleas). I am planning on filing for an increase of support, but I am worried he will continue to give them a sob story about how he can't possibly work full-time, and they *will* lower his support further because of the economy. I am trying to convince a family member to lend me the money for an attorney, but so far, that does not look like it will happen. He claims an old friend of his pays for his lawyer. I don't understand how it can not look bad when someone is claiming they cannot afford to support their child, but can afford a lawyer (though i know not to say that in court!).

I am not familiar with the current atmosphere in the courts when it comes to making NCP actually support their children with the economy and unemployment the way it is; if someone who is more familiar (we live in Oakland county) could give me some advice, that would be great.

I used the formula and tables at
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/OfficesPrograms/FOC/Pages/Child-Support-Formula.aspx
to come up with the amount I was willing to settle for (him imputed at full time minimum wage), but after doing some research, the amount I came up with was very different than the calculators at
http://www.miestimator.com/ , http://www.supportstudies.com/MichiganChildSupportCalculator.aspx , and http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/michigan/ (which all gave different amounts for the same numbers inputted).

Is there anyone who has calculated support using the formula who can tell me where I may have gotten my math wrong? Also, it's not clear whether "net income" means income after taxes or not (I assumed that is what it means).

 

[TheGeekess]

State of: Michigan

This is about child support, not custody, but I was not sure if I am allowed to start a new thread, so I am adding it to this one.

My ex-husband has been paying off his arrears over the last couple of years, in addition to a reduced rate of child support that he was able to finagle because he has a lawyer, and I cannot afford one. With the income tax refund interception last month, he finally paid it all off. Now he is only paying the reduced amount he asked for two years ago when he was not working and was on unemployment. (when he was still paying off his arrears it was just under 300 a month total)
I contacted him and offered to sit down and settle for a reasonable amount now that he is working (he refuses to tell me how much he is making or whether it is full time, but his federal tax refund was just under $600) and the arrears are paid off, but he got angry and told me that I "don't want to open Pandora's box"- apparently, he is under the impression that since my boyfriend (who has stayed at my apartment 3-4 days a week for the last 4 years or so; my ex has been aware and has never had a problem with it, at least that he has mentioned to me or in court) has moved in with me, this will reduce his support.

He told me to contact his lawyer, I did, and when I did not hear back after a few weeks, contacted my ex again. He says he refuses to agree to anything, and that he "will support [daughter], not [boyfriend]." His current support obligation is *182 a month*, including childcare and medical expenses(as if that could support *anyone!*). I make about 2100 a month after taxes, and he has her for approximately 110 overnights.(EOW, alternate breaks, half the summer) Childcare runs about 150 a month (after the tax credit is subtracted). I cover nearly all her expenses; he has lived with his parents for nearly the entire time we have been divorced, other than about 6 months total when he lived with girlfriends (one of whom gave my daughter fleas). I am planning on filing for an increase of support, but I am worried he will continue to give them a sob story about how he can't possibly work full-time, and they *will* lower his support further because of the economy. I am trying to convince a family member to lend me the money for an attorney, but so far, that does not look like it will happen. He claims an old friend of his pays for his lawyer. I don't understand how it can not look bad when someone is claiming they cannot afford to support their child, but can afford a lawyer (though i know not to say that in court!).

I am not familiar with the current atmosphere in the courts when it comes to making NCP actually support their children with the economy and unemployment the way it is; if someone who is more familiar (we live in Oakland county) could give me some advice, that would be great.

I used the formula and tables at
http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/SCAO/OfficesPrograms/FOC/Pages/Child-Support-Formula.aspx
to come up with the amount I was willing to settle for (him imputed at full time minimum wage), but after doing some research, the amount I came up with was very different than the calculators at
http://www.miestimator.com/ , http://www.supportstudies.com/MichiganChildSupportCalculator.aspx , and http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/michigan/ (which all gave different amounts for the same numbers inputted).

Is there anyone who has calculated support using the formula who can tell me where I may have gotten my math wrong? Also, it's not clear whether "net income" means income after taxes or not (I assumed that is what it means).

Why not approach the CSEA to enforce child support? That's why they're there.

 

[anisaerah]

I am not sure what you mean... he already has the ordered support deducted from his paycheck.