MICHIGAN COURT
OF APPEALS DECISIONS
Weaver v. Giffels,
opinion of the Court of Appeals, released November 10, 2016. (Docket No.
327844). In determing whether a child is residing with a parent on a full-time
basis for the purpose of contining child support, the custody and parenting
time order is irrelevant because the order no longer applies to an 18-year-old;
rather, full-time basis refers to the child’s physical presence at the child
support recipient’s residence combined with the child’s intent to reside there
permanently.
Curtis v. Norman,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released September 13, 2016.
(Docket No. 332477) The mother’s established
custodial environment was not destroyed despite her recent arrest and 30 day
incarceration when the six-year-old child continued to look to the mother for
basic guidance and necessities, and the mother is actively working on treating
her use of alcohol.
Dilts v. Dilts,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released September 22, 2016.
(Docket No. 332230). The statute does not place a time limit on the trial
court’s right to review a matter that has been submitted to a referee and the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by conducting a de novo hearing on the
threshold question of whether there was a substantial change in circumstances
where proceeding with the referee’s finding could have caused unnecessary
further proceedings in the case.
Vial v. Flowers,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released September 22, 2016.
(Docket No. 332549). Parties’ mediation
agreement on custody and parenting time was binding under court eule, even
though the defendant changed her mind before the hearing, as it adhered to the
requirements that it be put in writing and signed by the parties; howeverremand
was necessary because the trial court failed to make an independent examination
of the best-interest factors before entering the agreement as an order.
Sherman
v. Sherman,
unpublished opinion of the court of appeals, released October 6, 2016. (Docket
No. 331622). When an established custodial environment existed with both
parents the trial court correctly applied the clear and convincing evidence
standard in determining whether to change custody.
Bowman
v. Bowman,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 10, 2016. (Docket
No. 331870). When mother filed for custody in Georgia before father filed in
Michigan and neither Georgia nor Michigan qualified under the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the trial court determined that substantial
evidence was available in Georgia concerning the children and properly determined
that Georgia could exercise jurisdiction but erred by declining to exercise
jurisdiction without first communicating with the Georgia court to determine
whether that court believed Michigan should exercise jurisdiction.
Exline v. Silver,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 13, 2016. (Docket
No. 327797). Trial court erred in failing to consider Defendant’s rental
profits (and gains from sale) and monetary value of numerous perks in the
calculation of his income, finding that the list of perks in the MCSF is
“nonexclusive.”
Corbin v. Boulton,
unpublished opinion of the court of appeals, released October 13, 2016. (Docket
No. 332049). The change in custody, which granted the Defendant sole physical
custody of the child, was justified because the child had an established a
custodial environment with the Defendant, while the plaintiff’s parenting time
was infrequent, varied, and short in duration.
Anderson
v. Anderson,
unpublished opinion of the court of appeals, released November 1, 2016. (Docket
No. 329133).The trial court erred by making findings on only the contested best
interest factors when changing parenting time that altered the child’s established
custodial environment equating to a custody change requiring findings under all
of the best interest factors.
Underhill v. Underhill,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released November 1, 2016. (Docket
No. 331897). When there were safety concerns for the child the court could
properly extend the mother’s parenting time through the completion of its
custody hearing without making findings commensurate with a change in
custody.
Thaxton v. Blanchard,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 6, 2016. (Docket
No. 327545). The upward modification of child support was justified because the
plaintiff substantially underreported her income; the income was correctly
recalculated by comparing the plaintiff’s bank statements and tax returns, as
well as accounting for business expense deductions.
Donajkowski v. McGrath,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 8, 2016. (Docket
No. 332941). Isolated behavioral incidences of disobedience attributed to
becoming a teenager and former use of corporal discipline which plaintiff
agreed to discontinue were not a substantial change of circumstances sufficient
to justify a change in custody.
Bowling v. McCarrick,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 13, 2016. (Docket
No. 331583). Trial court erred when it referred the motion to change custody to
the friend of the court for a conciliation conference before answering the threshold question of whether there was a proper
cause or a change in circumstances.
Ashmore v. Ashmore, unpublished
opinion of the court of appeals, released December 15, 2016. (Docket No.
333440).The trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on
defendant’s disputed allegation that there was a substantial change in
circumstances, when the trial court determined that the allegations and
preliminary evidence did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances
sufficient to change custody.
Waterman v. Waterman,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 15, 2016.
(Docket No. 332537). In determining the defendant’s income for purposes of
child support, the arbitrator properly scrutinized defendant’s tax returns and
added back deductions from his business that included flow-through income and
depreciation expenses.
Michigan IV-D
Memorandum (Office of Child Support)
2016-040 (Dec. 29, 2016) Hague Maintenance Convention
Case-Processing Forms
This
IV-D Memorandum describes when certain Convention forms should be used and how
to determine which forms should be used for a given country. It also explains
terminology differences between U.S. child support cases and Convention cases.
2016-039 (Dec. 5, 2016) Revised Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Requirements and Requests to Third-Party Verification of Employment (VOE)
Providers
This
IV-D Memorandum discusses the guidance provided in the federal Office of Child
Support Enforcement (OCSE) Dear Colleague Letter (DCL)-16-01, Guidance about
Third-Party Verification of Employment Providers. DCL-16-01 explains that a
2015 amendment to section 604 of the FCRA removed the requirement that child
support agencies give 10 days’ notice to the non-custodial parent (NCP) before
requesting consumer information that will be used for enforcing a child support
order.
2016-038 (Dec. 1, 2016) Changes and Clarifications to the
Calculation of the Arrears Case Percentage and Support Order Percentage
Performance Measures
Since
the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 2016 (October 1, 2015), OCS and other IV-D
staff have identified the need for clarifications and several system
corrections to two of the federal IV-D performance incentive factors. OCS
recognizes that IV-D staff continue to have questions regarding the calculation
of federal performance measures.
2016-037 (Nov. 29, 2016) Arrears Management Program (AMP), Payment
Plans, and Arrears Adjustment Reason Codes
This
IV-D Memorandum provides an assessment of Arrears Management Program (AMP)
strategies (also known as arrears management strategies) and discusses changes
to the administrative procedures for AMP strategies. It also explains several
enhancements in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) 9.3
Release (December 2, 2016) that will support the changes in administrative
procedures for the AMP strategies.
2016-036 (Nov. 21, 2016) New FOC Interactive Voice Response (IVR)
System Information and Related Updates
The
new FOC IVR provides one toll-free number for customers to call to access child
support case information over the telephone. Counties began transitioning to
the new FOC IVR in September 2016, and the transition will be completed in
November 2016. This IV-D Memorandum announces revisions to child support
policy, forms, and websites to reflect the transition to the new FOC IVR.
2016-035 (Nov. 28, 2016) Implementing the 2017 Michigan Child
Support Formula (MCSF) and Transitioning National Medical Support Notice (NMSN)
Processing to the NMSN Processing Unit
This
IV-D Memorandum explains changes to child support policy to incorporate the
2017 MCSF. OCS first announced the transition from the 2013 MCSF to the 2017
MCSF to IV-D staff in IV-D Memorandum 2016-032.
2016-034 (Nov. 28, 2016) Revisions to the Federal Tax Refund
Offset (FTRO) Fraud Process and the FMS Offset Notice
This IV-D Memorandum describes the impact of an enhancement in the
Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) 9.3 Release (December 2,
2016) that will automatically release potentially fraudulent receipts after six
months.
2016-033 (Oct. 14, 2016) Introduction of a State-Specific Welcome
Page on the Child Support Portal, and Enhancements to Two Existing Portal
Applications
This
IV-D Memorandum announces the upcoming implementation of the Office of Child
Support Enforcement’s (OCSE’s) state-specific Welcome page on the Child Support
Portal.
2016-032 (Oct. 18, 2016) Mandatory Usage of the MiChildSupport
Calculator for IV-D Workers and Necessary Preparations for the 2017 Michigan
Child Support Formula (MCSF) Revisions
This
IV-D Memorandum provides advance notice of upcoming changes that will affect
the support determination processes (order establishment, court-referred
support investigations, and review and modification) in PA and FOC offices.
2016-031 (Oct. 14, 2016) Announcement of the Availability of IV-D
Funding for the Establishment of Custody/Parenting Time, and the Program
Leadership Group (PLG) Policy Statement Regarding Parenting Time
This IV-D
Memorandum announces the availability of IV-D funding for the establishment of
custody and parenting time provisions with a first-established child support
order. It
also provides direction to IV-D staff about the use of IV-D funds for the
establishment of custody and parenting time provisions in initial child support
orders.
2016-030 (Oct. 4, 2016) Introduction of Michigan IV-D Child
Support Manual Section 4.03, “Agency Complaints”
This
IV-D Memorandum introduces Section 4.03, “Agency Complaints,” of the Michigan
IV-D Child Support Manual. This section incorporates existing policy on
agency complaints, including policy from Action Transmittal (AT) 2003-006, Agency
Complaint Signatures.
