Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Legal Corner - October 2021

"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: Court rule updates, SCAO form updates, legislative activity, and published opinion summaries have been published here with permission from the Michigan Judicial Institute’s “IMPACT” publication.

ADM/COURT RULE UPDATES

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) RESPONSE – RESCISSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND AMENDMENT OF COURT RULES AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

On July 26, 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court entered ADM File No. 2020-08, rescinding Administrative Order Nos. 2020-1, 2020-6, 2020-9, 2020-13, 2020-14, 2020-19, and 2020-21, and amending MCR 2.002, MCR 2.107, MCR 2.305, MCR 2.407, MCR 2.506, MCR 2.621, MCR 3.904, MCR 6.006, MCR 6.106, MCR 6.425, MCR 8.110, MCR 9.112, MCR 9.115, MCR 9.221, and Administrative Order No. 2020-17, to “largely reflect the substantive provisions of the remaining administrative orders adopted by the Court during the COVID-19 pandemic”—“[m]any of the orders have been rescinded or expired by their own terms,” and “[i]n this order, the Court rescinds all remaining active administrative orders entered during the pandemic except for the order regarding procedures specific to landlord/tenant actions (AO No. 2020-17, which is slightly modified . . . to reflect other rescissions)[.]” Staff Comment to ADM File No. 2020-08, issued July 26, 2021. Additional information about the judicial branch’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak is available here.

Issued: 07/26/2021

Comment Period Expiration: 11/01/2021

PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (PII) – EFFECTIVE DATE OF COURT RULE AMENDMENTS AND COURT FORM REVISIONS

On June 30, 2021, the Michigan Supreme Court extended the effective date of court rule amendments [to MCR 1.109 and MCR 8.119] regarding PII from July 1, 2021, until January 1, 2022, “to allow for additional programming changes and other changes required by trial courts and court users to implement the rule changes.” ADM File No. 2017-28; ADM File No. 2020-26. The Michigan Supreme Court also extended the effective date of earlier orders amending Administrative Order No. 1999-4 (Establishment of Michigan Trial Court Records Management Standards) from July 1, 2021, until January 1, 2022. ADM File No. 2017-28/ADM File No. 2020-26. As a result of the extensions, the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) revised MC 97, Protected Personal Identifying Information, MC 97a, Addendum to Protected Personal Identifying Information, and MC 97b, Protected Personal Identifying Information (Child Protective Proceedings). See the July 2, 2021 SCAO Memorandum for a brief explanation of the changes and a copy of the forms. “Previous versions may be used until December 31, 2021, if language regarding the nonpublic status of the document is redacted (or simply crossed off).” Id. For additional information, see the June 30, 2021 SCAO Memorandum, Amendment of Court Rules Regarding Personal Identifying [Information] Extended to January 1, 2022; the July 2, 2021 SCAO Memorandum, Extension of Effective Date of PII Court Rules; the PII webpage, Privacy in the Courts: Protecting Personal Identifying Information; and a Frequently Asked Questions document.



COURT FORM UPDATES

COURT FORM CREATION – REQUEST FOR E-SERVICE BY MIFILE

The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has created MC 507, Request for e-Service by MiFILE, “to assist courts to provide individuals with a legal interest in a case to request e-service through MiFILE.” See the March 24, 2021 SCAO Memorandum for a copy and a brief explanation of the form.

COURT FORM REVISIONS – MIFILE ACCOMMODATIONS

The State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has revised various FOC and MC forms, primarily including formatting changes to accommodate the MiFILE system, as well as other changes supported by law. Note: “[i]f a form is used by the court through a JIS case management system, you will receive a separate notice from JIS regarding the release of the form”; “[u]ntil then, please use the current version posted to the One Court of Justice website.” See the July 13, 2021 SCAO Memorandum for a brief explanation of the changes and a copy of the forms.


Legislative Activity

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM LEGISLATION – LICENSE SUSPENSION FOR SUPPORT OR PARENTING TIME VIOLATIONS

Effective October 1, 2021, 2020 PA 379 amended the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act, MCL 552.601 et seq., to provide that for a Friend of the Court case, a payer’s driver’s license may be suspended if both of the circumstances in MCL 552.628(1) are true and the court has conducted an ability to pay assessment and determined that the payer has an ability to pay the support but is willfully not making his or her support payments, and the Friend of the Court determines that no other sanction would be effective in assuring regular payments on the support obligation and regular payments on the arrearage. MCL 552.628(2). See also the October 1, 2021, Friend of the Court Bureau memorandum, Driver’s License Suspension for Support or Parenting Time Violations.


PUBLISHED OPINIONS

CHILD CUSTODY ACT (CCA) – NATURAL PARENT

The CCA “is equitable in nature and must be liberally construed and applied to establish promptly the rights of the child and the rights and duties of the parties involved.” LeFever v Matthews, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, “[p]laintiff and defendant, both women,” “decided to have children together using plaintiff’s eggs, fertilized by a sperm donor, and implanted in defendant’s womb,” and “[t]he in vitro fertilization resulted in defendant’s pregnancy with the twins.” Id. at ___. While “[t]he term ‘natural parent’ is not defined by the [CCA],” “the term ‘natural parent’ is elastic enough to include defendant, who, although she has no genetic connection to the twins, is related to them by birth rather than through marriage.” Id. at ___. Accordingly, “[t]he trial court erred when it concluded that defendant is not a ‘natural parent’ under the CCA because she lacks a genetic link to the twins that she carried through gestation and birthed.” Id. at ___.

CHILD CUSTODY – MODIFICATION

“[A] party seeking to modify an existing child custody order must first establish proper cause or a change of circumstances,” specifically, “a significant circumstance regarding one or more of the best interest factors that has the potential for a significant effect on the well-being of the child or children whose custody is at issue.” Merecki v Merecki, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “The only evidence presented by plaintiff that occurred after the entry of the [most recent] custody order [granting sole legal and physical custody of the children to defendant] were the three letters authored by [a court-appointed counselor]” which “noted improvement in the relationship between plaintiff and the children”; however, “the improvement in the relationship between the children and plaintiff was not of such magnitude that it has had a significant effect on the well-being of the children.” Id. at ___. On the record, there was not “evidence of a proper cause or a change in circumstances sufficient to justify the trial court’s reconsideration of legal custody[.]” Id. at ___. Moreover, the trial court erred in “bifurcat[ing] physical and legal custody, denying a hearing on one and referring the other to facilitation” because the “requisite standard for changing physical custody and legal custody” are indistinguishable. Id. at ___.

CUSTODIANSHIP OF PASSPORT – UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT (UCAPA) AND CHILD CUSTODY ACT (CCA) CONSIDERATIONS

The defendant in this case “implies that the trial court should have sua sponte considered provisions of the UCAPA, and in so doing the best-interest factors set forth in [the CCA], prior to awarding custody of the child’s passport to plaintiff.” Kostreva v Kostreva, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2021). “[A] court’s authority to invoke the UCAPA arises when there is evidence establishing a credible risk of abduction of the child”; however, in this case, defendant “does not assert that plaintiff ever attempted any actual abduction in the sense of parental kidnapping[.]” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Because the record does not reveal any evidence establishing a credible risk of abduction of the child, the trial court did not commit clear legal error for not having sua sponte invoked the UCAPA during the proceedings below.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks omitted). Under the CCA, “an order that does not modify parenting time need not follow from an evidentiary best-interest hearing.” Id. at ___. In this case, “because which of the parties has custody of their daughter’s passport has no direct bearing on the daughter’s custodial environment, or on any existing order’s provisions for how much parenting time either parent is to have, including whether and when it is exercised, . . . the trial court did not commit a clear legal error, or palpably abuse its discretion, by changing the custodianship of the child’s passport from defendant to plaintiff without first determining that proper cause or changed circumstances warranted revisiting the issue.” Id. at ___.

EX PARTE ORDER – IMPERFECT COMPLIANCE

MCR 3.207 governs ex parte orders—“the existence of avenues for obtaining ex parte orders results from the recognition that sometimes a party presents a court with a bona fide emergency compelling the court to issue an order without waiting for normal adversarial processes to play themselves out and thus that a court entertaining a petition prompted by such unusual pressures should be at liberty to recognize the principle . . . that sound procedure often requires discretion to exact or excuse compliance with strict rules[.]” Kostreva v Kostreva, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2021) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, it was undisputed that plaintiff’s emergency motion to travel out of the country with the parties’ child for a family funeral “was neither itself verified nor accompanied by an affidavit, thereby failing to satisfy MCR 3.207(B)(1), and that plaintiff’s proposed order, and thus the order the court entered, did not include the notice provisions spelled out under MCR 3.207(B)(5).” Kostreva, ___ Mich App at ___. “In affirming the decision to grant the ex parte order, the trial court [acknowledged] plaintiff’s failure to observe some of the particulars of MCR 3.207(B)”; however, “plaintiff’s failures to comply perfectly with the dictates of MCR 3.207(B) were largely time pressures resulting from defendant’s refusal to cooperate with plaintiff, and because defendant has not shown that he suffered any prejudice as a consequence of those procedural irregularities, the trial court reasonably overlooked the imperfect compliance with MCR 3.207(B) and proceeded with the case.” Kostreva, ___ Mich App 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.

Soltes (deceased) & Soltes & Tesorero v Laroche, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 15, 2021 (Docket No. 354411). When the court found the defendant had created an environment in which the child did not want to disappoint defendant by showing affection for plaintiff’s family, the court did not err when it did not interview the child concerning the child’s preference.

Bolo v McMichael, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 15, 2021 (Docket No. 355382). When the parties agreed the children should be vaccinated but disagreed on timing and when defendant alleged the plaintiff concealed one of the children’s head injuries but plaintiff had told defendant the child wasn’t feeling well, the defendant did not prove that these issues had a significant effect on the children’s well-being to warrant granting defendant sole legal custody.

Davis v Turner, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 15, 2021 (Docket No. 355500). The trial court erred by changing the child’s custody without first considering the child custody factors and if proper cause existed to change the established custodial environment. 

Alpert v Alpert, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 15, 2021 (Docket No. 351435). The trial court failed to make findings of fact to support property division, the award and amount of spousal support, and the income upon which it based child support.

Fort v Fort, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 22, 2021 (Docket No. 351568). When plaintiff had been a stay-at-home parent for the majority of the parties’ 14-year marriage, had only earned about $6,000 in operating her start-up business the prior tax year, testified that she could work at an entry-level job, but no testimony was offered regarding what she could earn or if employment was available, the trial court did not err in finding that her income was “nominal” and failing to impute additional income when not all potential income factors under 2017 MCSF 2.01(G)(2) were addressed.

Pitt v Paschke, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 22, 2021 (Docket No. 354206). In considering the plaintiff’s motion to modify parenting time, the court should have considered whether the plaintiff alleged facts that – while not sufficient to warrant modifying custody – demonstrated that modifying parenting time was in the child’s best interests. 

Soddy v Soddy, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 29, 2021 (Docket No. 355212). The Court of Appeals found that the referee’s determination that child custody factor (d) regarding “the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity” weighed in favor of plaintiff because, while she had moved homes, she remained in the same neighborhood with the same family unit as compared to the instability of defendant continuing to live in the marital home but introducing his girlfriend and her children to the household, and the girlfriend had engaged in criminal activity involving the care of her children.

Kapsokavithis v Kapsokavithis, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 13, 2021 (Docket No. 355579). The instances in which plaintiff failed to comply with pandemic safety measures occurred only occasionally rather than consistently, and these instances did not have a significant effect on the well-being of the children and did not materially change the conditions surrounding the custody of the children.

Roe v Gray, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 13, 2021 (Docket No. 355636). The trial court erred in denying the defendant/father’s motion to revoke his paternity of two of the parties’ children in a divorce action without first ordering genetic testing and, if necessary, making a determination whether revocation would be in the children’s best interests.

Blain v Ehlert & Lippenga, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 13, 2021 (Docket No. 352973). Given putative father Lippenga’s newly discovered evidence, which could not have been found before the acknowledgment of parentage was signed, and the fact that plaintiff and defendant believed Lippenga to be the child’s biological father at the time they signed the acknowledgment of parentage, Lippenga’s assertions of newly discovered evidence and misrepresentation were sufficient to support his action for revocation.

Brickey v Brickey, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 20, 2021 (Docket No. 355116). When the testimony of both parties revealed that plaintiff was involved in the child’s education and extracurricular activities and, although the parties disputed its appropriateness, had provided discipline and guidance to the child for the past several years, the trial court erred in not finding an established custodial environment with both parents, but the error was harmless because clear and convincing evidence supported the court’s ultimate custody decision.

Lorenz v Lorenz, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 20, 2021 (Docket No. 355973). Although plaintiff and the children left Germany and returned to Michigan, the children had lived in Germany for at least six consecutive months before the Michigan proceeding commenced, and because one of the parties (the defendant) still lived there, it remained the children’s home state under the UCCJEA.

Martinez v Carley, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 27, 2021 (Docket No. 355092). Although defendant had earlier raised the same issues in his unsuccessful 2019 motion to modify the 2014 custody order, the trial court was not limited in considering only events occurring since that motion in ruling on defendant’s 2020 motion but could consider any evidence between the 2014 order and the 2020 motion. 

Brady v Heck, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 10, 2021 (Docket No. 355417). Because the court determined none of the best interests factors weighed in favor of defendant and several factors weighed in favor of plaintiff, the court erred in finding that changing the child’s established custodial environment in favor of increased custody with defendant was in the child’s best interests, and because the trial court did not explicitly hold that defendant had proven by clear and convincing evidence that a change in the established custodial environment was in the child’s best interests or reference the applicable evidentiary standard or allocation of the burden of proof, it appears that the trial court’s error was premised on a misapplication of the law.

Lech v Lech, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 10, 2021 (Docket No. 355632). When the court, following an evidentiary hearing, grants a temporary order, the moving party must show proper cause or change of circumstances to modify the order, as opposed to a temporary order entered without an evidentiary hearing.

Brown v Fletcher, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 17, 2021 (Docket No. 353214).  The court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on the best interest factors in the Revocation of Paternity Act, and it was proper for the court to find the best interests factors did not favor setting aside the Acknowledgment of Parentage when the defendant had acted as the child’s father for over 10 years and the child looked to the defendant as her father despite the fact there was evidence the defendant and plaintiff knew he was not the child’s father.  

Medina v Medrano, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 17, 2021 (Docket No. 354958). The court erred by not considering the child’s preference, but because the other factors overwhelmingly supported the court’s decision, this error was harmless.  

Miller v Miller, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 17, 2021 (Docket No. 354995. The circuit court’s finding was proper in granting defendant’s motion to change custody when it found both parties desired the child’s improvement, but: plaintiff disparaged defendant and discussed adult issues and court proceedings with the child; plaintiff deprived or interfered with defendant’s parenting time; defendant sought court intervention to compel tutoring and therapy for the child; plaintiff had ignored advice from medical professionals when they did not share her views on the proper treatment of the child; and plaintiff delayed establishing a therapist for the child.

Taylor v Ungaro, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 17, 2021 (Docket No. 355930). The court could find that the best interests of the child would be served by maintaining custody with a party who has a pre-existing relationship with the child when the child only sees the other parent for a few weeks out of the year.

Masters v Masters, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 24, 2021 (Docket No. 355290). The case was remanded to the trial court because mother’s action in fleeing to Canada with the child likely disrupted the child’s living and educational environments and hindered her ability to establish a meaningful parent-child relationship with her father, which constituted a change in circumstances. Accordingly, on remand the court must determine whether the father’s requested change of custody would alter the child’s established custodial environment and proceed without the mother introducing evidence regarding the child’s best interests if the mother is absent from the proceedings.

Harrison v Jenkins, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 1, 2021 (Docket No. 354584). Although the trial court incorrectly found that the children did not have an established custodial environment (ECE) with either party when the evidence was clear that the children had an ECE with both parents, no remand was necessary because the court did not change the ECE, meaning only a preponderance of the evidence was needed to support its decision.

Vannatter v Vannatter, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 1, 2021 (Docket No. 355388). The court could properly find that a change in domicile had the capacity to improve the parent and children’s quality of life when: although earning a dollar less per hour, the father’s new job was a supervisory position with the capacity for increases; the stepmother would double her income; both would have vacation time allowing opportunity for family vacations; and that with the wage increases and lower cost of living in Arkansas, the family could purchase a home. 

Muschegian v Esparza, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 15, 2021 (Docket No. 353146). Because the parties were able to cooperate and make important decisions about their children together, the trial court erred in failing to grant them joint legal custody despite the factors weighing in favor of awarding sole physical custody to the father.  

Hilyard v Johnston, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 29, 2021 (Docket No. 354721).  Where the defendant’s sole action in Michigan was registering the judgment to oppose plaintiff moving the children to Mexico, it did not amount to transacting business in Michigan sufficient for Michigan to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant.

Casey v Vervoort, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 29, 2021 (Docket No. 355056). Where the mother had been evicted from her residence, was unresponsive, and had failed to pick up the child from the father, the trial court properly entered an order temporarily changing custody pending a full hearing without first engaging in a full best interests analysis when presented evidence of a threat of imminent harm to the child.  

Karungi v Ejalu, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 19, 2021 (Docket No. 351165). In a custody dispute between an unmarried couple where the court was faced with determining custody of the couple’s in vitro fertilization embryos, the court did not err when it did not uphold the alleged agreement, because if a written agreement existed, it only addressed donation of semen and not its use “related to medical care or treatment,” which would need to be in writing to comply with the statute of frauds.

Buckhannon v Singleton, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 19, 2021 (Docket No. 354801). The court did not improperly consider a change in the mother’s custody order during the pendency of a child protection case. Despite making progress in her case service plan, the court did not err in granting the father – in whose placement the child had been for a period of over two years – sole legal and physical custody.  

Johnson v Johnson, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 19, 2021 (Docket No. 355724). The fact that plaintiff’s new husband was abusive implicated: child custody factor (b) because the plaintiff could not give the children guidance when she failed to recognize the toxic environment in her home; factor (d) because her marital home was not a satisfactory environment for her or the children; factor (e) because she had not filed for divorce at the time of the hearing and had recently expressed ambivalence about divorcing her abuser, indicating instability and lack of permanence; and factor (l) because the trial court was not convinced at the time of the hearing that plaintiff had fully extricated herself from the toxic home environment she and the children endured.

Inman v Inman, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 19, 2021 (Docket No. 356046). Concerning child custody factor (d), “the length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity,” the trial court did not err when it expressed significant concerns about: (1) uprooting the minor child from the Livingston County area so that the plaintiff could pursue her dating relationship when she did not seriously consider the possibility of her boyfriend moving instead to maintain some stability for the child; and (2) that plaintiff made a habit of leaving the child with third parties overnight during her parenting time.

Shipley v Shipley, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 26, 2021 (Docket No. 355726). The initial custody order contemplated the children traveling between Missouri and Michigan and intended for the children to live primarily in Missouri in the parties’ marital home where they were born and raised and attended school, but those circumstances no longer existed when the father moved from Missouri to California, uprooting their established lives and relationships. The difference in travel, the children starting their fourth year of school in Michigan, and the children being comfortable and well-adjusted to their home in Michigan with an established routine, activities, and friends, together constituted a proper cause or change in circumstances to change custody.

 

FRIEND OF THE COURT BUREAU MEMORANDA

(October 1, 2021) Driver’s License Suspension for Support or Parenting Time Violations

This memorandum provides information concerning recent changes to the law that modify prior State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) materials regarding license suspension for support or parenting time violations. Effective October 1, 2021, the license suspension law (MCL 552.628) changed the requirements for suspending a parent’s driver’s license. The requirements for suspending an occupational, recreational, or sporting license remain the same.

(April 21, 2021) Guidance for Child Support Cases Relating to the American Rescue Plan

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) is effective March 11, 2021. This document summarizes what the ARP does by topic (stimulus advance credit payments, child tax credit, etc.) and includes considerations and commentary to help FOCs determine how to address the effects on child support and enforcement.

 

MICHIGAN IV-D MEMORANDUMS (OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT)

2021-021 (September 3, 2021) Updates to Section 4.20, “Support Recommendations and Order Entry,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual and Updates to the Obligation End Date and Emancipation Letter

This IV-D Memorandum announces updates implemented with the MiCSES 10.9 Release on September 10, 2021 that will allow users of the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) Calculator and the public Calculator to determine the obligation end date for child support obligations, including those with post-majority support.

This IV-D Memorandum also announces new options for IV-D offices to generate the Emancipation Notification Letter (FEN803). Additionally, the process for MiCSES to generate the FEN803 will be updated to include medical support when MiCSES identifies eligible obligations. There will be no changes to the language or format of the FEN803.

This IV-D Memorandum also discusses updates to:

  • The Order Preparation and Entry (OPRE) screen, including impacts to the Member Demographics (DEMO) screen and the Uniform Child Support Order (USO); and
  • The Calculation Results (CALCRSLT) template.

OCS has revised Section 4.20, “Support Recommendations and Order Entry,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual to include the calculation of obligation end dates using the MiCSES Calculator and the public Calculator. It also includes updates to the process for IV-D offices to generate the FEN803.

2021-020 (August 9, 2021) Contract Performance Standards (CPS) Updates

Effective date: CPS report changes will be effective August 13, 2021. CPS evaluation changes will be effective October 1, 2021.

The extension of the IV-D Program Cooperative Reimbursement Program (CRP) agreement that will take effect on October 1, 2021 has resulted in changes to the Contract Performance Standards Training Measures. OCS has updated Section 1.25, “Contract Performance Standards (CPS),” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual to reflect these changes. Also, OCS has created two new templates that will allow IV-D offices to request training approval and track attendance in training sessions.

This IV-D Memorandum introduces changes made to the Contract Performance Standards Training Measures Report – Annual (PM-103) and obsoletes the Contract Performance Standards Training Measures Report – Biennial (PM-104). Additionally, this memorandum:

  • Announces changes being made in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) 10.8.2 Release (August 13, 2021) that will result in minor updates to the IV-D Child Support Contract Performance Standard Detail Report (PM-101) and the IV-D Child Support Contract Performance Standard Improvement Report (PM-102);
  • Announces the addition of a subsection in Section 1.25 that addresses historical anomalies within the CPS evaluation process; and
  • Communicates OCS’s expectation that CPS evaluation will resume for fiscal year (FY) 2022 performance. FY 2022 will begin on October 1, 2021, and the evaluation will begin after the conclusion of the FY (September 30, 2022).

2021-019 (August 6, 2021) Revision to the Notice Regarding Health Care Coverage (FEN308)

The revised Notice Regarding Health Care Coverage was implemented in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) on August 11, 2021.

2021-018 (July 15, 2021) Confidential Email Encryption Methods

This IV-D Memorandum announces additional methods IV-D staff may use to encrypt confidential emails. MDHHS has developed an encryption process, referred to as MiEncrypt, that OCS, AG, and state-managed IV-D staff may use to send encrypted Microsoft 365 Outlook emails. For SCAO and county-managed offices, IT administrators may set up a Microsoft 365 Outlook email encryption method through the Microsoft Office 365 Message Encryption functionality.

This memorandum explains requirements for:

  • Using MiEncrypt in Microsoft 365 Outlook for SOM offices sending encrypted emails outside the SOM network;
  • Using Microsoft 365 Outlook or other email software for email encryption in SCAO and county-managed offices; and
  • Training that IV-D staff must review before using Microsoft 365 Outlook to send encrypted emails.

Section 1.10 of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual will be updated to include information on the new email encryption methods in a future revision.

2021-017 (July 14, 2021) Updates to Section 3.15, “Addresses,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual and Updates to the National Change of Address (NCOA) Process for Locate Purposes

This IV-D Memorandum announces the following updates to Section 3.15, “Addresses”:

  • Addition of the Billing Coupon (DHS-1259) as a means for payers to submit a change in their mailing or residential address in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES);
  • Revisions related to the National Change of Address (NCOA) submittal process, including clarification on how the process partially satisfies federal locate requirements; and
  • Clarification that IV-D workers with the ability to validate and update mailing and residential addresses over the telephone include Michigan State Disbursement Unit (MiSDU) staff members.

Section 3.15 also incorporates content from several frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding addresses.

2021-016 (July 13, 2021) Implementation of the New IV-D Federal Performance Factor Dashboard and Visual Reports

This IV-D Memorandum discusses the new IV-D federal performance factor dashboard and visual reports that OCS implemented on February 16, 2021. These data visualizations replace the Michigan Child Support Program dashboards that existed within Business Objects since 2014. The new data visualizations are based in Microsoft Power BI. These data visualizations will improve understanding and communication of child support data, which will lead to faster, more informed data-driven decision making.

2021-015 (July 12, 2021) Civil Contempt – Data Collection and Prioritization Tools for “Ability to Pay” Screening and Other IV-D Purposes

This IV-D Memorandum introduces updated policy and tools for screening a payer’s ability to pay before pursuing civil contempt as a support enforcement action. Some of these tools, such as new data collection and aggregation, will also assist IV-D staff with other IV-D functions such as order establishment or review and modification.

This memorandum describes revisions to policy in Section 6.39, “Civil Contempt (Show Cause),” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual.

This memorandum also discusses revisions to the Ability to Pay Worksheet – Payee (FEN14X) and Ability to Pay Worksheet – Payer (FEN14Y) and the new Ability to Pay Worksheet – Payer (Populated) (FEN14Z).

The Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) 10.8.1 Release on July 16, 2021 implemented these new and revised forms as well as changes to MiCSES screens. Screen updates include additional data aggregation on the Contempt Ability to Pay Screening (CAPS) screen and new fields on the Member Demographics (DEMO) screen for documenting information not previously recorded in MiCSES.

In addition to the form and system changes, this memorandum and Section 6.39 describe the new Civil Contempt Screening Prioritization Report (SR-00-12) available through the Self-Service Reporting (SSR) function within Business Objects’ Web Intelligence application, implemented in the July 16, 2021 DSA Release.

This memorandum introduces Exhibit 6.39E1, SR-00-12 Civil Contempt Screening Prioritization Report – Scoring Criteria and Calculations, which provides detailed information and examples regarding the scoring and calculations in the SR-00-12 report.

Lastly, this memorandum informs IV-D staff that civil contempt screening will be an enforcement action that is counted toward the Contract Performance Standards.

2021-014 (June 10, 2021) Michigan State Disbursement Unit (MiSDU) Live Chat Feature

This IV-D Memorandum announces the implementation of the new MiSDU Live Chat feature on the MiSDU website, launched on June 22, 2021.

2021-013 (June 7, 2021) Child Tax Credit and Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (RSDI) Dependent Benefits Updates

This IV-D Memorandum describes updates to IV-D staff procedures for documenting and calculating the Child Tax Credit which was initially increased in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The American Rescue Plan of 2021 increased the Child Tax Credit and Child Dependent Care Tax Credit for the 2021 tax year. The Friend of the Court Bureau within the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) provided additional guidance for the American Rescue Plan in its Administrative Memorandum (ADM) 2021-02.

This IV-D memorandum also describes how IV-D workers will document certain factors pertaining to the calculation of Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (RSDI) dependent benefits in child support obligations. This process was recently clarified in the 2021 Michigan Child Support Formula (MCSF).

Additionally, this memorandum discusses revisions to the:

  • Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) Calculator and the public Calculator;
  • Yearly Calculation Factors (GMCF) screen; and
  • Calculation Results (CALCRSLT) Template.

These updates were implemented with the MiCSES 10.8 Release on June 11, 2021.

The updates described above originally included adding functionality to both Calculators that would allow IV-D workers to include the Qualified Business Income Deduction (QBID) when estimating taxes. Since QBID impacts so few calculations and would have required very complex changes to implement, OCS and SCAO decided not to pursue it. When parents want to claim the QBID, IV-D workers will require them to provide their tax documentation and enter their actual tax data for the calculation

2021-012 (May 7, 2021) Statewide Implementation of the IRS Background Investigation Requirements and Introduction of Section 1.13, “Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Background Investigation Requirements,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual

This IV-D Memorandum discusses the statewide implementation and timeline for the IRS background investigation process for current and prospective IV-D staff. This IV-D Memorandum also announces the publication of Section 1.13, “Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Background Investigation Requirements,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual. This policy provides the IRS background investigation process and actions that IV-D offices must take to comply with the background investigation requirements for prospective and current IV-D staff.

Section 1.13 replaces and obsoletes existing policy from IV-D Memorandum 2020-006, Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s) Background Investigation Requirements: Local Office Preparation Encouraged and IV-D Memorandum 2021-001, Pilot for Statewide Implementation of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS’s) Background Investigation Requirements.

Section 1.13 includes exhibits that IV-D offices will use in the background investigation process for both current and prospective IV-D staff. This IV-D Memorandum also includes exhibits that IV-D offices will use in the background investigation process for current IV-D staff. This memorandum also announces revisions to user access security forms.

2021-011 (May 3, 2021) Federal Child Support Portal Updates and Related Federal Tax Refund Offset (FTRO) Updates

This IV-D Memorandum announces several updates to the federal Child Support Portal (Portal). These updates include the addition of the following applications:

  • Customer Inquiry State Response (CISR); and
  • State Profile Administration.

The updates also include enhancements to the following Portal applications:

  • Electronic Document Exchange (EDE); and
  • Federal Collections and Enforcement (FCE).

This memorandum also announces enhancements to the Portal Welcome page and the removal of the e-IWO application from the Portal.

In addition, this IV-D Memorandum announces federal tax refund offset (FTRO) accounting changes and updates to the FTRO schedule. It also introduces the FTRO pending reversal report, which is available on the Portal.

2021-010 (April 29, 2021) Criteria for IV-D Reimbursement of Paternity Disestablishment Activities and Introduction of Section 4.06, “Paternity Disestablishment,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual

This IV-D Memorandum introduces Section 4.06, “Paternity Disestablishment,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual. Section 4.06 provides policy regarding IV-D services to disestablish paternity under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA). It discusses required case criteria to qualify for IV-D disestablishment services and IV-D-reimbursable and non-reimbursable RPA activities.

This IV-D Memorandum also introduces two exhibits created to assist IV-D staff in the implementation of policy in Section 4.06:

  • Exhibit 4.06E1, Additional Questions and Answers Regarding Section 4.06, “Paternity Disestablishment”; and
  • Exhibit 4.06E2, Criteria for IV-D Reimbursement of Genetic Testing in Actions Under the Revocation of Paternity Act (RPA).

Section 4.06 replaces and obsoletes IV-D Memorandum 2012-026, Revocation of Paternity Act and Exhibit 2012-026E1, RPA Letter.

2021-009 (March 31, 2021) OCS Forms With Updated Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Letterhead, MDHHS Nondiscrimination Statement, and OCS Contact Information

This IV-D Memorandum announces OCS’s revision of nine non-MiCSES-generated forms that contain MDHHS letterhead. OCS has changed the letterhead on these forms to reflect the new MDHHS director and the revised MDHHS nondiscrimination statement. Several forms also have an updated OCS address and phone number in the footer.

2021-008 (April 2, 2021) Implementation of the New Child Support Help Desk; Program Technology Capacity

This IV-D Memorandum announces the implementation of the new Child Support Help Desk and associated changes. The transition from the DTMB-managed MiCSES Help Desk to the OCS-managed Child Support Help Desk was complete on April 13, 2021. This memorandum also discusses the child support program’s information technology capacity and reminds IV-D staff about efforts to increase ticket visibility.

Posted by at
Labels: , ,