"The Legal Corner" provides a summary of recent Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals decisions relevant to the child support program, as well as recently released state memoranda.
Editor’s note: SCAO form updates and published opinion summaries have been published here with permission from the Michigan Judicial Institute’s “IMPACT” publication.
COURT FORM UPDATES
COURT FORM REVISION – ORDER TO REMIT PRISONER FUNDS FOR CHILD SUPPORT
The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has revised FOC
112, Order to Remit Prisoner Funds for
Child Support, “to update the address for the Michigan Department of
Corrections.” See the March 1, 2021 SCAO Memorandum, Notice
of Revisions to FOC 112, for a brief
explanation of the changes and a copy of the form with the changes highlighted.
COURT
FORM REVISIONS – UNIFORM CHILD SUPPORT ORDER
The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has revised FOC
10, Uniform Child Support Order; FOC 10a, Uniform
Child Support Order, No Friend of the Court Services;
and FOC 10d, Uniform Child Support Order, Deviation Addendum,
“under 2019 PA 26 and 2019 PA 27, and additional revisions were made to clarify
language regarding health coverage and to remove protected personal identifying
information.” See the November 30, 2020 SCAO Memorandum, Notice of Revisions to FOC 10, FOC 10a, and FOC 10d, for a brief
explanation of the changes and a copy of the forms with the changes
highlighted.
COURT
FORM REVISIONS – E-FILING AND PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has revised FOC 14, Bench Warrant; FOC 84, Order Suspending License; FOC 86, Order Rescinding License Suspension (Child Support/Parenting Time); FOC 90, Notice of Lien; and FOC 92, Notice to Release Lien, “to accommodate use in e-Filing”; “[i]t includes personal identifying information that is protected under MCR 1.109(D)(9).” See the October 29, 2020 SCAO Memorandum, Notice of Revisions to FOC 14, FOC 84, FOC 86, FOC 90, and FOC 92, for a brief explanation of the changes and a copy of the forms with the changes highlighted.
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
MOOTNESS
– CAPABLE-OF-REPETITION-BUT-EVADING-REVIEW EXCEPTION
“An issue is moot when there is not a real controversy, but
merely a hypothetical one”; however, “[w]hen a case presents an issue of public
significance, and disputes involving the issue are likely to recur, yet evade
judicial review . . . it is appropriate to reach the merits of the issue even
when the case is otherwise moot.” In re
Smith, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2021) (quotation marks and
citation omitted). “[W]hen neither parent is adjudicated and the parents share
legal custody, the trial court can resolve a dispute between the parents
involving vaccination using the best-interest factors” and “as
now-presumptively fit parents, respondent-mother and [the child’s father] have
chosen this . . . route”; “[a]ccordingly, there is no claim left . . . to
address in this appeal, and any decision on the now-hypothetical questions
posed by [the Court of Appeals] in [its earlier order] would only serve to
instruct future litigants as to the law in this area.” Id. at
___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). While “the public significance of
childhood vaccines [and] religious objections to them” involve “[i]mportant
questions, likely to recur, albeit with different parties,” “this case does not
present a legal question that is likely to evade judicial review” because “it
is not uncommon for an adjudicated parent to spend considerably longer time
under the trial court’s jurisdiction” and “[i]n those unfortunate cases, the
dispute will not be moot by the time [the Court of Appeals] is able to resolve
it on an expedited basis”; accordingly, “the
‘capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review’ exception should not be invoked on
this record[.]” Id. at ___. The dispute in this case evaded
review “because respondent-mother made sufficient progress in a relatively
short period of time, and the trial court released her and her child from its
jurisdiction”; “[a]ccordingly, this appeal presents . . . merely hypothetical
questions, rather than an actual, justiciable controversy,” and “dismiss[al] .
. . as moot without reaching the merits” is appropriate. Id.
at ___.
UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
Under Michigan court rule, unpublished decisions
are not considered authoritative. They are cited here to illustrate points of
interest for future similar cases.
Miller v Signorelli, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 15,
2020 (Docket Nos. 351951; 353326). When the minor child had been
living in Michigan for several years, defendant-mother was residing in Arizona
without contact with the minor child, and then father died and plaintiff – the
child’s paternal uncle - assumed care of the child in Michigan, although the trial
court in Michigan had a basis for temporary emergency jurisdiction to address
custody and guardianship under UCCJEA, the trial court failed in both matters
when it did not immediately communicate with the Arizona court, which had
issued a prior custody order, to establish the terms of the temporary emergency
jurisdiction and to determine which court is the more appropriate forum to
address these matters in the future.
Campbell v Vanderhoeven, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 22,
2020 (Docket No. 351864). Defendant’s motion to change custody and
parenting time reiterated the parties’ ongoing dispute regarding the child’s
medical conditions and presented related questions about education, which are
issues parties who share joint legal custody must attempt to agree on before
seeking court involvement.
Kuiper v Kuiper, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 29,
2020 (Docket No. 352789). When the trial court entered the default
judgment of divorce, it erred by failing to make specific findings of fact and
conclusions of law concerning the established custodial environment and
relevant factors regarding custody and parenting time under MCL 722.23(g) and
MCL 722.27a.
Wood v Goodale, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 29,
2020 (Docket No. 352634). In a defaulted paternity case wherein the
mother was granted sole legal and physical custody with reasonable parenting
time for father, because the facts alleged in father’s later motion for
modification of custody and parenting time failed to establish the threshold
requirement of proper cause or a material change in circumstances to warrant a
reexamination of the previous custody order, the trial court did not err by
denying father’s motion for lacking “a factual basis set to revisit the issue
of custody.”
Gafford v Gafford, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released October 29,
2020 (Docket Nos. 350078; 350371). Although the trial court’s
findings were sufficient to support that mother’s new husband’s past history of
domestic violence against her constituted proper cause or change in
circumstances under the Vodvarka or Shade standard, the trial court committed legal error by changing
parenting time and failing to make a determination regarding whether an
established custodial environment existed and therefore what burden of proof
applies to the best-interests analysis.
Shupe v Shupe, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released November 12,
2020 (Docket No. 353186). Although the trial court first granted
defendant’s motion regarding parenting time, which effectively amounted to a
change in custody, it quickly held an emergency evidentiary hearing on the
matter of custody and found that the child’s severe tardiness to school
amounted to clear and convincing evidence supporting a change of custody.
Schaible v Angerbrandt, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released November 19,
2020 (Docket No. 350228). When the plaintiff continuously attempted
to press CPS complaints regarding defendant’s alleged sexual abuse, which resulted
in the child being forced to participate in several investigations, forensic
interviews, and rectal examinations, and she had sewn a GPS tracking device
into the child’s clothing, and considering the decline in the child’s demeanor
during the course of the investigations and subsequent improvement after he
began to reside with defendant on a full-time basis, the trial court did not
err by finding a change of circumstances and proper cause to reconsider the
parties’ custody arrangement or in its assessment of the best-interest factors
and award of sole legal and physical custody of the child to defendant.
Shaw v Shaw,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 10, 2020 (Docket
No. 352851). The state court presiding over the divorce proceedings
properly concluded that it did not have the authority to grant the relief
requested by defendant because custody issues were in the hands of the tribal
courts presiding over the child-protective proceedings.
Elkony v Abououf, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 10, 2020
(Docket No. 352810). Although the parties had submitted a consent
order for joint legal custody of the minor child and unsupervised parenting
time with defendant shortly before their divorce trial, the trial court did not
err when it held an evidentiary hearing to determine the child’s best interests
and found that defendant’s ongoing record of domestic violence and stalking
behavior against plaintiff, as well as evidence of his abuse of the child,
supported awarding sole legal and physical custody to plaintiff and limiting
defendant’s access to supervised parenting time, as unsupervised time would
endanger the child’s physical, mental, and emotional health.
Sturdavent v Spencer, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 10,
2020 (Docket No. 351428). The trial court did not err when it had
already suspended the defendant’s child support obligation beginning the date
that he had notified the FOC of his incarceration. The remaining arrearage
remained collectible and enforceable, even if the FOC had sent a notice of case
closure, specifically because the Friend of the Court Act provides that
“closure of a friend of the court case does not release a party from the
party’s obligations imposed in the underlying domestic relations matter.” MCL
552.505a(5).
Giordana v Giordana, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 17,
2020 (Docket No. 354050). In this custody matter, with contested
factual issues before the court of whether plaintiff committed physical abuse
of any of the children and whether defendant was coaching the children to make
false accusations against plaintiff, the trial court had sufficient offer of
proof to warrant an evidentiary hearing to determine whether defendant could
establish proper cause or change in circumstances.
Day v Alexander, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 17,
2020 (Docket No. 351320). The trial court erred when it imputed
potential income to defendant, referencing the “historical context of the case”
and an unspecified amount of “normative hourly wage,” but failing to articulate
how each of the imputation factors in the 2017
MCSF 2.01(G)(2) applied to the defendant for purposes of finding an actual
ability and a reasonable likelihood of earning the imputed potential income, or
that any specific factor did not apply.
Brown v Brown, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released December 22,
2020 (Docket No. 352767). The trial court committed clear legal
error when it conflated defendant’s motion for a change in custody and
plaintiff’s motion for change of domicile by placing the burden of proof on
mother for both motions rather than addressing the matters separately and
requiring defendant to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard before
granting him joint legal custody.
Egan v Egan, unpublished
opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 14, 2021 (Docket No. 353909).
Although the final order granting plaintiff’s motion to change the
minor children’s school district did decrease defendant’s overall amount of
parenting time, because it also increased his overnight parenting time and
extended parenting time during the summer, it did not alter the children’s
established custodial environment with him.
Steele v Steele, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 14,
2021 (Docket No. 351272). In this legal and physical custody matter,
the trial court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that it was in
the child’s best interests to alter the established custodial environment by
awarding sole custody to plaintiff, based upon defendant’s refusal to
participate in the court process or provide requested medical documentation of
her mental health condition, her extreme reactions to relatively commonplace
interactions, her defamations of plaintiff on social media, her use of the
minor child to attempt to raise monetary donations, and her change in living
situation including advertising on the internet for a roommate.
Lowell v Jackson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 21,
2021 (Docket No. 354815). The trial court erred in abating arrears
defendant owed to plaintiff, reasoning that the children residing with
defendant for a number of years constituted “overwhelming equitable grounds.” Pursuant
to MCL
552.603(2) and Malone, 279 Mich App at 286-289, equity is not a permissible
basis for retroactively modifying child support orders.
Stawski v Stawski, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 21,
2021 (Docket No. 353277). The trial court, by executing the
referee’s recommended order to change custody, properly exercised its authority
under MCR 3.215(G)(3) to give the recommended order interim effect.
Guzak v Oppenheim, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 21,
2021 (Docket Nos. 349751; 350909; 353913). “In determining full-time
enrollment in a school district under this section or a school district’s
full-time equated membership under the state school aid act of 1979 . . . for a
pupil enrolled in a postsecondary institution under this act, the pupil’s
enrollment in both the school district and the postsecondary institution must
be counted as enrollment in the school district and a pupil is not considered
to be enrolled in a school district less than full-time solely because of the
effect of the pupil’s postsecondary enrollment, including necessary travel
time, on the number of class hours provided by the school district to the
pupil.” MCL 388.514(13).
Faulkner v Cruz, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 28,
2021 (Docket No. 353906). The trial court’s finding that defendant’s
behavior also constituted a change of circumstances was proper because the
record indicates that defendant’s behavior, which likely materially changed
“the conditions surrounding custody of the child[ren]” and significantly affected
the children’s well-being, started occurring after the October 25, 2019 custody
order when the children were diagnosed with two new medical conditions, they
were removed from school in Ohio, and defendant failed to discuss either of
those matters with plaintiff
Woolever v Woolever, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released January 28,
2021 (Docket No. 351007). When the trial court awarded plaintiff
$10,000 in retroactive child support without explanation for how $10,000 was
selected, this attempt to achieve an “equitable compromise” was improper
because the mandatory criteria for deviation from the child support formula in MCL
552.605(2) were not followed.
Gleason v Gleason, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released February 4,
2021 (Docket No. 352811). Although the change of domicile granted to
plaintiff decreased the amount of defendant’s parenting time during the school
year, the new parenting time schedule allows defendant to maintain regular
contact with the child sufficient to preserve and foster the parental
relationship through parenting time two weekends per month, summers, rotating
holidays, and virtual contact at any time.
Moore v Duke,
unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released February 11, 2021 (Docket
No. 354575). When evaluating the appropriateness of parenting time
and reintroduction to a parent who has been absent for as long as four years, the
Child Custody Act of 1970, MCL 722.21 et seq., and
more specifically MCL 722.27a(3) governs the analysis of whether parenting time
would endanger the child’s physical, mental, or emotional health, and MCL
712A.19b(3)(a)(ii), related to the termination
of parental rights justification due to parental desertion, does not apply.
Krieg v Krieg, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released February 11,
2021 (Docket No. 350466). Although the change in plaintiff’s overnights
– from 52 to 163, 111 more overnights per year – did amount to a change in
custody, plaintiff met his burden of proof under the threshold of clear and
convincing evidence because the best interest factors were neutral besides MCL
722.23 factor j, the willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a
relationship between the child and the other parent, weighing in favor of
plaintiff due to several pieces of evidence.
Lindsay v Brassfield, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released March 11, 2021
(Docket No. 354805). When the child suffered from mental health
issues related to substantial changes in her life, and both parents wanted to
move the child to a new city and school district, the trial court properly
denied both plaintiff’s request for change in legal residence and defendant’s
request for sole physical custody.
Heusser v Heusser, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released March 11, 2021
(Docket No. 354343). Although plaintiff had spent more time
providing homeschooling for the youngest minor child and an established
custodial environment was found to exist only with her, an award of joint legal
and physical custody was appropriate because both parties had notably shown a
capacity and disposition to provide love, affection, and guidance, and there
was evidence that plaintiff had discouraged defendant’s relationship with the minor
child.
Amidon v Clark, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released March 11, 2021
(Docket No. 353888). In this case, neither Michigan nor Texas
qualified as the children’s home state pursuant to UCCJEA, MCL 722.1201(1)(a)
because the children had lived in Texas for over two years but had lived in
Michigan with plaintiff for the 27 days before the commencement of the action
and the parties had severed all connections with Texas; however, the trial
court appropriately found that it had jurisdiction because the parties had “significant
connections” with the state other than mere physical presence pursuant to MCL 722.1201(1)(b)(i), and substantial evidence existed concerning the
children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships in Michigan
as required under MCL 722.1201(b)(ii).
Shook & Thomas v Mikulenas, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released March 18, 2021
(Docket No. 354455). The trial court erred when it granted
grandparenting time without first questioning defendant’s fitness as a parent
and without then requiring the intervening grandparent to rebut by a
preponderance of the evidence the fit-parent presumption that defendant’s
decision to deny or limit the grandparent’s time with the children did not
create a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental, physical, or
emotional health.
FRIEND OF THE COURT BUREAU (FOCB) MEMORANDA
(February 11, 2021) Securing and Processing Bonds for Child Support Payments
SCAO developed this memorandum to help FOC offices follow
proper procedures for securing and processing bonds to secure future support
payments. This administrative memorandum supersedes Michigan Bond and Lien
Guideline FAQ 2007-01, Using Cash Bonds to Secure Future Child Support.
MICHIGAN IV-D MEMORANDUMS (OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT)
2021-007 (March 26, 2021) Update
on the OCS Community Advisory Council and the New Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion (DEI) Page on mi-support
In February 2020, OCS published IV-D Memorandum 2020-003,
which provided information on OCS’s future use of an Equity Impact Assessment
Tool and discussed plans for an OCS Community Advisory Council. Since that
publication, OCS has created the Community Advisory Council and begun meetings
with council participants. This IV-D Memorandum provides an update on the
Council’s membership and charter, and its participation in the IV-D policy
review process. It also announces the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
page that will be created on mi-support. OCS continues its important work
toward becoming an anti-racist organization and bringing equity to child
support programs and practices. This memorandum reminds IV-D staff of available
web-based training regarding the identification of systemic racism.
2021-006 (March 24, 2021) Revised
Federal Income Withholding Notice (IWN) and Updates to Section 6.03, “Income
Withholding,” of the Michigan IV-D Child
Support Manual
This IV-D Memorandum announces revisions to the federal IWN
and updates to policy to reflect the changes to the federal IWN. OCS has
incorporated the federal IWN changes in the following forms: Income Withholding for Support (FEN058, included in the
FEN58X and FEN58Y); Income Withholding for
Support – One-Time Order/Notice for Lump Sum Payment (FEN58A); and Income Withholding for Support – Termination of IWO
(FEN58D). The updated forms will be available in the Michigan Child Support
Enforcement System (MiCSES) on April 1, 2021. OCS has also revised policy in
Section 6.03, “Income Withholding,” of the Michigan IV-D Child
Support Manual related to the federal IWN updates.
2021-005 (March 16, 2021) Options
for Electronic Signatures and Introduction of OneSpan Sign Software
This IV-D Memorandum discusses electronic signatures
(eSignatures) and spotlights a SCAO Friend of the Court Bureau (FOCB)
memorandum, Electronic Signature Options for Friend of the Court Offices.
This IV-D Memorandum also:
·
Provides methods for obtaining
eSignatures from parents on IV-D cases;
·
Introduces OneSpan Sign, the State
of Michigan’s enterprise web-based eSignature software, which is now available
for any IV-D office to use at no cost to the IV-D office;
·
Discusses the pilot and rollout
plan for OneSpan Sign and how to request access to OneSpan Sign;
·
Temporarily relaxes the IV-D email
encryption policy to help obtain eSignatures by email when other options are
not viable; and
·
Stresses the importance of
verifying parents’ identities and obtaining their consent prior to providing
documents to them for eSignature.
In addition, this IV-D Memorandum introduces the following
exhibits: Exhibit 2021-005E1, OneSpan Sign eSignature
Software for Child Support Frequently Asked Questions; and Exhibit
2021-005E2, OneSpan Sign Bulk User Account Request.
OCS encourages each IV-D office to review the FOCB memorandum and this
memorandum, and to use eSignature methods that they find viable to implement.
2021-004 (March 12, 2021)
Audio-Visual Conferencing in the IV-D Program: Approved Use of Zoom
The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS)
Compliance and Data Governance Bureau recently approved the use of Zoom in the
IV-D program. IV-D offices that use Zoom must maintain required security
settings in the application. They are also expected to follow secure practices
when conducting audio-visual conference meetings.
2021-003 (March 8, 2021) Updated
Driver’s License Interface With the Michigan Department of State (MDOS) and
Receipt of New Driver’s License Information
This IV-D Memorandum announces changes in the driver’s
license interface between MDOS and the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System
(MiCSES). In addition, OCS will implement the following changes:
·
Addition of two new endorsement
types for driver’s licenses;
·
Population of new driver’s license
data on Business Objects reports and MiCSES reports;
·
Population of new driver’s license
data on MiCSES screens in the following fields:
o License Type Desc;
o License Description; and
o License Type.
·
Update MiCSES to read the
MDOS/CARS file, which will include an increase in character limits for the Name
field and the License Type field.
OCS will not receive the minor restricted license type after
the MiCSES 10.7 Release because this license type no longer exists. However, it
will remain in MiCSES for historical purposes.
2021-002 (February 11, 2021)
Revisions to Cooperation/Noncooperation Notices to Create User-Friendly
Communications
This IV-D Memorandum announces revisions to the following
IV-D contact letters: Noncooperation Notice
(OCS1252 and OCS1252A); and Cooperation Notice
(OCS1253). OCS has redesigned these letters to include icons, more white space,
and updated language to make the letters easier for recipients of services to
read. In addition, OCS has removed the terms “cooperation” and “noncooperation”
from the letters and explains these concepts in a way that recipients will
better understand. The letters will still be known as the Cooperation
Notice and Noncooperation Notice
in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES); the titles of the
letters will not change.
The revised letters will be available February 18, 2021. The
MiCSES functionality for these letters (e.g., the criteria and triggers for
letter generation) remains unchanged.
The letters encourage recipients to call for assistance if
they have safety concerns for themselves or their child(ren); therefore, this
memorandum discusses actions for IV-D workers to take when they receive these
calls. This memorandum also includes a copy of the Claim of
Good Cause – Child Support (DHS-2168). OCS is publishing the
DHS-2168 with this memorandum so the form will be available on mi-support for
review by IV-D staff. There are no changes to the DHS-2168.
2021-001 (January 12, 2021) Pilot
for Statewide Implementation of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s)
Background Investigation Requirements
This IV-D Memorandum announces a pilot for statewide
implementation of the IRS’s background investigation requirements for
prospective and current IV-D staff. OCS has selected six IV-D offices and some
DTMB staff who work with IV-D data or systems to participate in the pilot. The
pilot began on December 15, 2020 and will continue throughout January 2021. The
pilot participants will take the same actions that IV-D staff will take in the
statewide implementation of the background investigation requirements. The
results of the pilot will be used to enhance the process for statewide
implementation. This memorandum also discusses next steps after the pilot, as
well as recommended actions for IV-D offices to prepare for statewide
implementation.
2020-036 (December 30, 2020)
Implementation of the Independent Security Audit Requirement Contained in the
Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) Agreement
ACTION DUE: County-managed offices will
submit an audit report to OCS by September 30, 2022
OCS has updated Section 1.23, “Cooperative Reimbursement
Program (CRP) Agreements (Contracts),” of the Michigan
IV-D Child Support Manual to explain how OCS implements the
Independent Security Audit requirement contained in Section 4.33(b) of the
current (FY 2017) CRP agreement. Section 1.23 also provides guidance related to
the items that must be reviewed in an Independent Security Audit and supporting
documentation for the security standards.
2020-035 (December 22, 2020)
Reconfiguring the Child Support Help Desk and the Transition to a New Call-Tracking
System
This IV-D Memorandum explains plans for reconfiguring the
Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) Help Desk. This
restructuring ultimately will include staffing and managing the Help Desk
within OCS rather than its current staffing within DTMB. OCS and DTMB will
transfer Help Desk tickets from the current call-tracking system (Remedy) to a
new system (Microsoft Dynamics). This IV-D Memorandum explains: expected
benefits of OCS’s staffing of the Child Support Help Desk; plans for transparency
in call and ticket status; the transition to a new Help Desk call-tracking
system; the Dynamics web portal for searching tickets; and plans for future
communication.
2020-034 (December 7, 2020)
Suppression of Employer Information on Forms for Case Members with Family
Violence
This IV-D Memorandum announces updates to Section 1.15,
“Family Violence,” of the Michigan IV-D Child
Support Manual to comply with federal regulations for keeping
identifying information confidential. Section 1.15 has been revised to add an
employer’s name and FEIN as identifying information not to be disclosed when a
case member has: the Family Violence Indicator (FVI) set to “Yes” on the Member Demographics (DEMO) screen; and a Family Violence CD (FV code) that suppresses identifying
information.
As a result of this policy change, OCS will update the
functionality of three Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES)
forms: Calculation Results (CALCRSLT); Notice Regarding Health Care Coverage (FEN308); and Administrative Determination (FEN152). In addition, OCS will
update the functionality of the employer copy of the FEN308 to always display a
member’s Social Security number (SSN), even when family violence is indicated
for a member.
2020-033 (November 16, 2020) New
MiChildSupport Portal Registration and Login Process Through MILogin
This IV-D Memorandum announces updates to Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual Section 1.35,
“MiChildSupport Portal,” regarding the new registration and login process for
web applications within the MiChildSupport Portal. OCS is integrating the
MiChildSupport Portal user registration and login process with the State of
Michigan’s identity management solution, MILogin.
2020-032 (November 13, 2020) Implementing
the 2021 Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF) and MCSF Supplement
This IV-D Memorandum explains revisions to IV-D child support
policy to incorporate updates in the 2021 MCSF and MCSF Supplement. This IV-D
Memorandum also introduces changes to the Michigan Child Support Enforcement
System (MiCSES) Calculator and the public Calculator, as well as the Calculation Results (CALCRSLT) template. These changes will
be implemented with the MiCSES 10.6 Release on December 11, 2020. In addition,
the MiCSES Calculator and public Calculator will begin calculating support
amounts in accordance with the 2021 MCSF on that date.
This IV-D Memorandum also introduces a revised Exhibit
6.06E1, PDF Version of the National Medical Support
Notice (NMSN) (FEN302). OCS published the revised version of the
NMSN in July 2020 and updated the NMSN in Exhibit 6.06E1 with that version.
2020-031 (November 10, 2020)
Michigan State Disbursement Unit (MiSDU) Vendor Transition Information,
Including Revised Forms and Publications
This IV-D Memorandum announces revisions to forms,
publications, websites, and other materials as a result of the transition to a
new vendor for the administration of MiSDU services. The transition to Conduent
State & Local Solutions, Inc. (Conduent) will be complete on November 30, 2020.
This IV-D Memorandum also discusses the Way2Go Card
pre-acquisition disclosure and fee schedule. Content in this IV-D Memorandum
replaces and obsoletes IV-D Memorandum 2019-003, U.S. Bank
ReliaCard Pre-Acquisition Disclosure and Fee Schedule. In addition,
the disclosure insert and frequently asked questions documents are being
obsoleted and replaced.
Additionally, with the transition to the new MiSDU vendor,
IV-D staff will no longer submit the Request for Central Receipt
Adjustment/Suspense Work (DHS-307) by encrypted email.
