"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 FORMS
Court Form Revision – Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Enforcement Act Affidavit
The State Court Administrative
Office (SCAO) has revised MC 416, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Enforcement Act Affidavit; “[t]he juvenile and probate court captions have been
added to the form to accommodate use of the form in neglect, abuse, dependency,
guardianship, and termination of parental rights cases under MCL 722.1209(1).”
See the July 5, 2022 SCAO Memorandum for a brief explanation of the change and
a copy of the form with the change highlighted.
Court Form Revision –
This Memorandum lists SCAO-approved
court forms revised by the SCAO and the Domestic Relations Court Forms
Committee. An explanation of the changes
to each form is provided, along with instructions on use of previously approved
versions and a copy of the form with the changes highlighted. Translated forms will be available at a later
date.
If 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.
Until then, please use the current version posted to the One Court of
Justice website.
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
Divorce – Public Availability of
Complaint
Beginning
October 1, 2022, 2022 PA 175 added a provision to Chapter 84 (Of Divorce) of
the Revised Statutes of 1846, MCL 552.1 et seq., to provide that a complaint
for divorce filed with the court shall not be made available to the public
until the proof of service has been filed with the court. MCL 552.6a(1).
However, entities administering or providing certain services under the federal
Social Security Act may access a nonpublic complaint. MCL 552.6a(2). See the
September 29, 2022 State Court Administrative Office Memorandum for more
information.
PUBLISHED OPINIONS
Child Custody – Motion for Change of Domicile
“A motion for a change of domicile essentially requires a four-step approach.” Safdar v Aziz, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, defendant moved for a change of domicile so she could relocate with the child to Pakistan. Id. at ___. Defendant did not need to satisfy the first step because the parties already live more than 100 miles apart. Id. at ___. Regarding the second step, “if the factors support a change in domicile, then the trial court must then determine whether an established custodial environment exists.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). In the five years since the child was an infant, plaintiff “and the child have forged a relationship marked by security, stability, and permanence,” and “[h]is testimony supported the finding that he provides care, love, and guidance appropriate to the child’s age and needs”; accordingly, “the trial court’s findings regarding the existence of an established custodial environment were not against the great weight of the evidence.” Id. at ___. Regarding the third step, “if an established custodial environment exists, the trial court must then determine whether the change of domicile would modify or alter that established custodial environment.” Id. at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). In light of “the practical realities of the time and expense associated with international travel between the United States and Pakistan,” and the fact that “the exercise of parenting time by videoconferencing would be severely hindered by the nine-hour time difference between the two countries,” the trial court’s finding “that the proposed move to Pakistan would alter the child’s established custodial environment with [plaintiff] was not against the great weight of the evidence.” Id. at ___. “Finally, if, and only if, the trial court finds that a change of domicile would modify or alter the child’s established custodial environment must the trial court determine whether the change in domicile would be in the child’s best interests by considering whether the best-interest factors in MCL 722.23 have been established by clear and convincing evidence.” Safdar, ___ Mich App at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he trial court’s findings regarding the challenged best-interest factors were not against the great weight of the evidence” where “the trial court found factors [MCL 722.23(j) and MCL 722.23(l)] favored [plaintiff], while the remaining factors were either neutral or inapplicable.” Safdar, ___ Mich App at ___. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that defendant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed moved to Pakistan was in the child’s best interests, and properly denied defendant’s motion for a change of domicile. Id. at ___.
MCL 712.10(1) “sets forth the
Legislature’s intent for a child to be born before a petition for custody can
be filed under the SDNL”; accordingly, “a husband’s complaint for divorce filed
before a child is born that seeks custody of the unborn child, contingent upon
the results of DNA testing, [cannot] constitute a timely ‘petition’ for custody
filed by a ‘nonsurrendering parent’ under MCL 712.10(1).” In re Baby Boy Doe,
___ Mich ___, ___ (2022), rev’g in part and vacating in part In re Baby Boy
Doe, ___ Mich App ___ (2021). In this case, in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court held that because petitioner’s complaint for
divorce “was filed before [the child] was born and was not served on [the
child’s] mother until after [the child] had been surrendered,” accordingly,
“[t]he complaint was untimely and did not satisfy the requirements of MCL
712.10(1) because it was filed before [the child’s] birth.” In re Baby Boy Doe,
___ Mich at ___. Moreover, “[a]ssuming petitioner could have taken some
postbirth action to satisfy the statutory requirements or invoke the SDNL’s
protections for alleged nonsurrendering parents in the [circuit court], he did
not do so,” nor did he “file a separate petition for custody under the SDNL.”
Id. at ___.
Child Custody – De
Novo Hearing
“Under MCL 552.507(4), if a party timely objects to a referee’s recommendation, the trial court shall hold a de novo hearing”; “MCR 3.215(F)(2) governs the conduct of the judicial hearing[.]” Butters v Butters, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022) (quotation marks omitted). In this case, the referee granted defendant’s motion for a change in custody, and the trial court affirmed the referee’s recommended order and denied plaintiff’s request for a de novo hearing based on formatting violations and “on the grounds that the parties had a full opportunity to present their arguments to the referee, plaintiff had not identified any new evidence or witnesses that had not been available at the referee hearing, and that, after review of the record, [it] found no errors in the referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. at ___. “Plaintiff’s formatting violations were not a proper basis for denying plaintiff’s objection and request for a de novo hearing”—while MCR 1.109 “allows the clerk of the court to reject a filing on the basis of formatting errors,” “[t]hat did not occur in this case, and the rule does not give additional authority to the court to reject a party’s objections on the basis of formatting errors after the clerk has accepted the document for filing.” Butters, ___ Mich App at ___. Further, “because plaintiff filed timely objections to the referee’s recommended opinion and order and asked for a judicial hearing, she was entitled to a live hearing at which she could present evidence, subject to the trial court’s reasonable restrictions.” Id. at ___. “The trial court was permitted to render its decision on the basis of the referee’s record, but it was required by statute and court rule to allow the parties to appear and present evidence, subject to certain restrictions”; accordingly, “[f]ailure to provide such a hearing constituted clear legal error.” Id. at ___.
Child Custody – Parenting-Time Bond
“MCL 722.27a(9)(g) provides that a parenting-time order may contain any reasonable terms or conditions that facilitate the orderly and meaningful exercise of parenting time, including that a party post a bond to assure compliance with a parenting time order.” Butters v Butters, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022) (quotation marks omitted). “To protect the rights of parents and their children, a ‘reasonable’ term or condition intended to facilitate parenting time, including a bond, must take into account individual circumstances, including a parent’s ability to meet the bond requirements”; “[t]his calculation should include a determination of whether a parent’s inability or difficulty in posting a bond would preclude a parent’s ability to engage in parenting time.” Id. at ___. In this case, the referee ordered plaintiff to post a $15,000 bond with the court to assure future compliance with court orders; however, vacating the order was necessary because it “was not accompanied by any analysis of plaintiff’s income, the reasons supporting a bond as opposed to other methods of ensuring compliance with court orders, or plaintiff’s ability to post a $15,000 bond.” Id. at ___.
“The jurisdiction of a divorce court is strictly statutory
and limited to determining the rights and obligations between the husband and
wife, to the exclusion of third parties,” with a limited fraud exception;
accordingly, “when a person other than the husband or wife claims an interest in
divorce proceedings, intervention is not permitted, and the third-party
claimant must rely on other proceedings to pursue the claim.” Zalewski v
Zalewski, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022) (cleaned up). In this case, the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) moved for reconsideration of the
trial court’s spousal support order directing transfer of essentially all of
defendant’s assets and income to plaintiff, so that defendant would qualify for
Medicaid benefits to cover his nursing home care. Id. at ___. However,
“[p]laintiff and defendant were the only proper parties in this action for
separate maintenance,” and “[t]here was no suggestion that DHHS conspired with
either party to defraud the other, so DHHS’s involvement in this case does not
fall within the narrow fraud exception for third-party joinder.” Id. at ___.
“Rather, DHHS moved for reconsideration of the support order on the basis that
it improperly placed the financial burden of defendant’s long-term care on
DHHS.” Id. at ___. “Like any other person claiming to be adversely affected by
the support order, DHHS had to pursue a remedy through means other than
involvement in the divorce proceedings.” Id. at ___. In sum, “[t]he trial court
did not abuse its discretion by denying reconsideration on DHHS’s motion
because DHHS could not be joined as a party to the separate maintenance action,
nor could its rights be adjudicated in that action.” Id. at ___.
Parental Rights
Restoration Act (PRRA) – Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Petitioner
“[S]o long as a minor is physically present in a particular
county, and regardless of her place of residence, the circuit court has
jurisdiction to consider a petition brought under the PRRA”—“[i]t is clear in
context that the Legislature envisioned two circumstances where a minor could
seek a waiver of parental consent in a particular county: (1) where the minor
resides in that county, or (2) where the minor ‘is found’ in that county.” In
re AST, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2022). In this case, “[p]etitioner seeks a waiver
of parental consent to an abortion under the [PRRA],” and “[t]he circuit court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because petitioner
resides outside of Michigan.” Id. at ___. The Court of Appeals reversed the
circuit court’s order dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction and
remanded to the circuit court to “follow the procedures of the PRRA to
determine whether a waiver is appropriate.” Id. at ___ (citation omitted).
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.
Pascoe
v Pascoe, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 14,
2022 (Docket #356477). The trial court did not err when “there is no legal
authority that stands for the proposition that a court must consider bonuses or
other employment benefits in addition to base salary when examining income in
relation to awarding spousal support.”
Kolailat
v. McKennett, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April
14, 2022 (Docket #357248). The plaintiff cannot assert a claim to custody based
upon ownership rights in sperm used to impregnate a child.
Mosey
v. Mosey, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 21,
2022 (Docket #357312). The trial court did not err by awarding custody to the
plaintiff when the defendant’s only contention was that the statutory
requirements were designed to protect abused spouses and not based on a
challenge to the trial court’s evaluation of the factors.
Telehowski
v. Telehowski, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April
21, 2022 (Docket #357521; 357528). The trial court failed to make a finding for
proper cause or change of circumstances before holding a hearing to reevaluate
the best interest factors; however, this was harmless error. It was clear that
the defendant was unwilling to facilitate any relationship between the
plaintiff and the child.
Sattler
v. Tarjeft, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 21,
2022 (Docket #358163; 358164). The defendant-father assumed job
responsibilities in obtaining employment and that cannot be held against him in
determining custody.
Malofy-Medwed
v. Perry, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 21,
2022 (Docket #358702). The trial court did not make findings concerning whether
a substantial change in circumstances existed before considering a change in
custody which required reversing the decision.
Barnett
v. Barnett, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 28,
2022 (Docket #354668). The court held that the arbitrator correctly awarded
Child Support for only up until the Child graduated because the child was no
longer a minor.
Haslam
v. Haslam, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 28,
2022 (Docket #357830). The fact that the child missed significant time from
online classes combined with the parties’ continued bickering and inability to
work together was proper cause to consider a change in custody.
Wilson
v. Garrett, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released April 28,
2022 (Docket #358398). The trial court did not err when it required the parties
to provide electronic copies of exhibits rather than screensharing them at the
hearing and discouraged (but did not prohibit) the parties from calling
additional witnesses whose testimony would be cumulative of that the parties
provided.
Halstead
v. Halstead, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 5,
2022 (Docket #358181). Trial courts are not absolutely prohibited from
considering legal custody when a party only requests a change in physical
custody; however, the court erred in doing so when it did not find proper cause
to visit the issue related to the child’s interests rather than the adults’
interests and where the trial court did not find an established custodial
environment even though the defendant had been exercising nearly exclusively
legal custody.
Pasupuleti
v. Murdaugh, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 5,
2022 (Docket #358384). Although the child had several different custody
arrangements, she had been in a custodial environment with both parents for the
past 13 to 14 months which constituted an appreciable period of time –
particularly for the life of a three year old.
Purkey
v. Prange, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released May 26,
2022 (Docket #358704). The court did not need to determine defendant’s fitness
as a parent before changing custody and its hearing where the parent’s
testified, were questioned by the court, and allowed to cross-examine each
other was sufficient to allow the change in custody pursuant to the Child Custody
Act.
Golden
v. Ward, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 2, 2022
(Docket #357875; 358428). When the trial court failed to provide any analysis
for imputing income to the defendant, it was necessary to remand the case to
allow the court to make that analysis.
Ambroso
v. Aranda, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 9,
2022 (Docket #358810). The court upheld the trial court’s finding that an
Established Custodial Environment existed with both parties where the child
lived with plaintiff for five years followed by living with defendant for 10
months and there was limited evidence that the child’s established custodial
environment with plaintiff had dissipated over those 10 months.
Waterbury
v. Waterbury, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June
16, 2022 (Docket #357300). The trial court committed clear legal error by
failing to hold a live de novo hearing as opposed to a review of the record and
other documents from the referee hearing.
McGrath
v. Bressette, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June
16, 2022 (Docket #358965). The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial
court to determine whether it had jurisdiction when the parties and their
children were enrolled in a tribe and lived on tribal land, and if it
determined the tribe and state had concurrent jurisdiction, determine which is
the most convenient forum.
Oliver
v. Oliver, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released June 30,
2022 (Docket #359539). Although Plaintiff Mom fed and cared for the minor
children during her weekend visitations, Defendant ensured they were fed,
clothed, prepared for school, disciplined, transported to and from medical
appointments, and afforded their daily needs, while for over a year, Plaintiff
Mom remained aloof with respect to their daily needs, was absent from any
involvement in their academic endeavors, and withhold financial support leading
the court to correctly conclude the children’s established custodial
environment with the mother had eroded to be almost non-existent and that the
children had an established custodial environment with the father only.
Alpert
v. Alpert, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 7,
2022 (Docket #351435). The trial court could correctly determine that it should
not impute additional income to the defendant when she earned approximately
minimum wage at her place of employment, and because of her education and
absence from the workforce for an extended period of time, she lacked the
ability to earn more.
Lorencz-Krell
v. Krell, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released July 21,
2022 (Docket #356764). The court did not err in setting support when it based
the child support on defendant’s actual 2020 income of $105,078.12 and not the
previous 2019 income estimated at $117,000 which included overtime defendant
testified would be unavailable in the future.
Kadhim
v. Al Emara, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August
04, 2022 (Docket # 358961). The trial court concluded that the defendant’s
domestic violence of plaintiff could be considered in favoring plaintiff on
several of the best interest factors.
Callahan
v. Callahan, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August
11, 2022 (Docket # 357443). The trial court could properly order defendant to
pay plaintiff’s attorney fees pursuant to MCR 3.206(D) (the attorney fees and
expenses were incurred because the other party refused to comply with a
previous court order, despite having the ability to comply) when it ordered
that defendant pay plaintiff’s attorney fees, pay for plaintiff’s car repairs,
and pay plaintiff $400 for her snow tires, which defendant had thrown away in
violation of a mutual ex parte restraining order issued by the court and
defendant refused to pay, on three occasions being found in contempt.
Cooper-Keel
v. Cooper-Keel, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
August 11, 2022 (Docket # 359288). The trial court could properly find that
best interest factor b (capacity and disposition “to give the child[ren] love,
affection, and guidance) favored defendant because plaintiff was
“hyper-focused” on the children participating in and excelling at hockey and
that this was having a detrimental effect on them (defendant testified that one
child felt that he could not be himself around plaintiff, that plaintiff did
not listen to him, and that plaintiff was pushing him in a direction that he
did not want to go while not being supportive of what actually interested him)
.
Barjas
v. Mills, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 11,
2022 (Docket # 360348). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court finding
that proper cause existed to change custody when the record established that
after the 2014 default judgment and initial custody determination (when
defendant had little contact with the child and lived in a different state),
defendant moved back to Michigan to be near the child, was significantly more
involved in her life, and by the time defendant moved to change custody, he was
living near the child with suitable housing, had been engaging in regular parenting
time, had a strong relationship with her, and was intimately involved in her
homeschooling.
Yarde
v. Yarde, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 11,
2022 (Docket # 359309). The trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to
change domicile because there was little evidence that the move would improve
the children’s lives when although it was alleged he would earn more, there was
no evidence the children were lacking for anything and the evidence of earnings
was speculative, and combined with evidence that defendant moved to be closer
to the children and plaintiff did not tell her about his plans, the move was
calculated to frustrate parenting time and that the current relationship
between defendant and the children could not be preserved
Smith
v. Smith, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 18,
2022 (Docket # 360733). Although plaintiff removed the parties’ minor child
from New Jersey to Michigan and gave birth to their second child in Michigan,
New Jersey had already assumed jurisdiction over the custody issues and the
trial court in the Michigan divorce action did not err in finding that none of
the exceptions to allow Michigan to exercise jurisdiction applied.
Mitchell
v. Mitchell, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August
25, 2022 (Docket # 356687). The trial court, on remand from a prior appeal
acted properly when it, clarified and corrected part of its previous order, despite
claims from plaintiff that it should reconsider essentially all its previous
rulings; plaintiff-ex-wife’s remaining arguments were either moot, outside the
scope of remand, barred by the law-of-case-doctrine, or improper collateral
attacks.
Degeer
v. Degeer, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released August 25,
2022 (Docket # 359808). The Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s
determination that defendant’s epilepsy seizure disorder impacted her ability
to parent was not the result of bias because of her epilepsy but rather the
impact it had on her ability to parent.
Terpstra
v. Terpstra, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released
September 08, 2022 (Docket # 360244). Although the children had an established
custodial environment with both parents, the burden of proof to change the
parenting time schedule in effect in the interim order was on the party
advocating for the change (the plaintiff) by clear and convincing evidence and
accordingly the court did not err when it essentially maintained the interim
order.
Whitelock
v. Fowler, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released September
15, 2022 (Docket # 360248). While there may have been reasonable alternatives
to protecting the child who is more vulnerable to illness from dangers
associated with Covid 19, the only alternatives offered for the court’s
consideration involved keeping the child from unvaccinated individuals or from
unmasked individuals and so the court’s order concerning defendant’s conditions
was affirmed.
Palik
v. Palik, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, released September
15, 2022 (Docket # 361100). It was
insufficient for the trial court to find that a set of factors favored neither
or both parents without specifying which factors favored both parents and which
favored neither and the reasons therefore and therefore the case was remanded
to allow the trial court to make the appropriate findings.
FRIEND OF THE COURT BUREAU (FOCB) MEMORANDA
2022-02 (July 1, 2022) Friend of the Court Sample Policy
and Procedure Manual
Pursuant to the Friend of the Court Act, the
State Court Administrative Office’s Friend of the Court Bureau develops and
recommends guidelines for conduct, operations, and procedure of the friend of
the court offices. The Friend of the
Court Bureau has developed a sample friend of the court policy and procedure
manual to assist friend of the court employees and management with achieving
proficiency in monitoring, investigating, and enforcing custody, parenting
time, and support orders, and providing alternative dispute resolution
services. The manual is divided into
chapters. Each chapter contains a set of
policies and procedure. A policy is a
course of action to achieve a desired outcome.
Policies within the manual are determined by the Friend of the Court Act
MCL 552.501 and the Support or Parenting Time Enforcement Act. MCL 552. 601.
Michigan Court Rules, and State Court Administrative Office
directives. Procedure are steps taken to
complete the policy objectives. After
each policy and procedure, a space is provided for friend of the court offices
to add their own local processes.
The Sample Policy and Procedure Manual is at: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49e734/siteassets/courtadministration/standardsguidelines/foc/sample_foc_policy_and_procedure_manual.pdf
2022-03 (September 15, 2022) Securing and Processing
Bonds for Child Support Payments
The SCAO developed this memorandum to help FOC
offices follow proper procedures for securing and processing bonds to secure
future support payments. This memorandum
also includes an appendix that provides information that can be given to
financial institutions who are interested in creating accounts to hold and
process monies for future and overdue child support payments. This administrative memorandum supersedes
Michigan Bond and Lien Guideline FAQ 2007-01, Using Cash Bonds to Secure Future
Child Support. This Memorandum replaces
the Securing and Processing Bonds for Child Support Payments Memorandum
2021-01.
MICHIGAN IV-D MEMORANDUMS (OFFICE OF
CHILD SUPPORT)
2022-13
Michigan Works! agencies have been contracted by the Michigan Department
of Labor and Economic Opportunity (LEO) to provide employment assistance and
supportive services to Michigan residents who are unemployed or
underemployed.
This IV-D Memorandum discusses the services that Michigan Works!
provides. It describes training, education and programs offered through
Michigan Works! as well as other state programs that help people obtain
employment. OCS encourages IV-D offices to read this IV-D Memorandum and:
- Identify and contact their regional or local Michigan Works! office; and
- Consult with the appropriate Michigan Works! office to determine ways it can help NCPs who are behind in payments to obtain work and begin paying child support.
2022-12 (August 30, 2022) Updates to Applications in the Federal Child Support Portal
This IV-D Memorandum introduces the new Communication Center application on the federal Child Support Portal (Portal). This application allows IV-D workers to securely communicate and exchange documents with other states, employers, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). OCSE implemented the Communication Center on the Portal for Michigan users in October 2021.1 This IV-D Memorandum also announces that OCSE expanded the functionality for all users of the Electronic Data Exchange (EDE) application.2 The change allows all EDE users to perform the same functions as the EDE Superuser role. OCS has revised Section 3.06, “Federal Child Support Portal,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual to include information on the Communication Center application and the revised EDE user roles. OCS also updated Exhibit 3.06E1, Federal Child Support Portal Implementation Table, to include the Communication Center application.
2022-11
This IV-D Memorandum announces that FOC staff will complete and submit the Request for Central Receipt Adjustment/Suspense Work (DHS-307) in KidSTAR when a county funds a recovery account resulting from a misapplied payment. This process is referred to as “county make whole.”
This IV-D Memorandum also announces a new
email address the FOC will use to request reimbursement of the county-funded
make whole request after a child support payment distributes to the recovery
account debt type. The county make
whole changes discussed in this memorandum update a portion of Michigan IV-D
Action Transmittal (AT) 2005-023, REVISED: Use of State Make Whole Funds.
However, AT 2005-023 is not being obsoleted at this time. OCS will update its
make whole policy in a future revision of the Michigan IV-D Child Support
Manual.
2022-10
This IV-D Memorandum announces updates to the Interstate Notice of Lien
(FEN060). The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) announced
revisions to the Interstate Notice of Lien on August 25, 2021.1 Updates made to
the FEN060 will ensure that the OCS form matches the federal form. The revised
FEN060 will be implemented in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System
(MiCSES) with the Child Support 22.2.1 Release on July 15, 2022.
2022-09
This IV-D Memorandum introduces a new procedure to Section 2.20, “Court
Action Referrals (CARs),” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual regarding
the referral of IV-D cases when a pending divorce action exists. Support
specialists will refer a IV-D case to the FOC instead of the PA when a pending
divorce action exists and support is not ordered.
This IV-D Memorandum also announces updates to Section 2.05, “Referrals
and Applications,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual. Section 2.05
includes a new business process that reflects OCS’s commitment to assisting
custodial parties (CPs) during the IV-D application process when an Online
Child Support Response (e842) form is submitted without enough information to
send a CAR. This process was introduced with the Child Support 22.0.4 Release
on May 13, 2022.
2022-08
This IV-D Memorandum introduces changes to the MiChildSupport Portal in
response to an IRS critical audit finding regarding the handling of FTI.
This memorandum discusses efforts to eliminate FTI in:
- The MiCase Ask a Question feature; and
- The NCP Financial Detail Report that non-custodial parents (NCPs) generate in MiCase.
2022-07 (June 6, 2022) Changes to the Collection of Race and Ethnicity Data to Improve Child Support Services; Updates to Forms
OCS announces updates to the collection of race and ethnicity information
from custodial parties (CPs) and non-custodial parents (NCPs), including
changes to the processes for collecting this information and the types of
information collected. While identity language is ever-evolving, these
enhancements in the collection of race and ethnicity data will allow the
Michigan Child Support Program to better understand outcomes based on identity
and improve services to families. Because terms used to identify race and
ethnicity may change over time, OCS will review these terms and descriptions
periodically and revise them as needed.
This IV-D Memorandum announces updates to the Michigan Child Support
Enforcement System (MiCSES) and revisions to forms to improve the collection of
race and ethnicity data. These changes will be implemented with the Child
Support 22.2 Release on June 10, 2022. The release and this memorandum
introduce changes to the following electronic forms, MiCSES-generated forms,
and printable forms.
2022-06
This IV-D Memorandum announces the following revisions to policy in
Section 3.50, “Case Closure,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual:
- Elimination of the non-custodial parent (NCP) 60-day closure notice when a case is closing for the reason of “Best Interest of Children”; and
- An update to and restarting of the Automatic Closure of Inactive IV-D Cases (ACIC) batch process. These updates will be implemented in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) with the Child Support 22.2 Release on June 10, 2022.1
This memorandum also announces the incorporation of policy from several
previously published Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) into the manual section
and a minor update to Exhibit 3.50E1, Case Closure Matrix.
2022-05
This IV-D Memorandum announces updates to ensure that the NMSN (FEN302) accurately reflects the children identified in the medical support order. With the Child Support 22.2 Release on June 10, 2022,1 the Office of Child Support (OCS) will implement functionality in the Michigan Child Support Enforcement System (MiCSES) to automatically generate:
- An updated NMSN2 when a IV-D worker adds a child to the Medical Order Provisions (MORP)3 screen; and
- The Notice Regarding Health Care Coverage (FEN308) when a IV-D worker removes a child from the MORP screen. IV-D workers will no longer manually generate a revised NMSN whenever a child is added or removed from an order to provide health care coverage.
2022-004 (May 23, 2022) Updates to Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual Section 1.10, “Confidentiality/Security”
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published revisions to its IRS
Publication 10752 on December 10, 2021. These revisions, which include changes
to the federal tax information (FTI) safeguarding requirements, will be
effective on June 10, 2022.3 This IV-D Memorandum announces changes to Section
1.10, “Confidentiality/Security,” of the Michigan IV-D Child Support Manual to
reflect the updated FTI safeguarding requirements.
Additionally, this IV-D Memorandum introduces changes to OCS’s security
incident reporting requirements. OCS has revised Section 1.10 to include these
changes as well as other updates to clarify or revise existing security policy
based on questions and situations that have arisen since the last policy
update. OCS has also revised Section
1.10 to incorporate policy previously published in IV-D Memorandum 2021-018,
Confidential Email Encryption Methods. This publication of Section 1.10
obsoletes IV-D Memorandum 2021-018.
