High Income Child Support

In 1988, the federal Family Support Act required all states to enact presumptive child support "guidelines" in order to preserve federal funding on a variety of family-oriented programs.  Since then, Michigan has adopted the Michigan Child Support Formula.

In response to the Act, some states adopted support formulas that "top-out" for high earners.  Here in Michigan, for example, child support can only be calculated for an annual income of $422,916 or less.

In addition, the MCSF takes away most of the court's discretion in setting child support.  Absent compelling factors, support is determined through a straight-forward application of the MCSF.

In the case of some high-earning families, litigants have cried foul, asserting that when a parent earns millions of dollars, his children should share in that wealth.  This is particularly the case where the high income is short-lived; like with most professional athletes.

Like Michigan, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming all use a straight formulaic approach [with a cap] to the calculation of child support.  Other states utilize a percentage approach where the child support obligation just keeps going up; keeping pace with the parent's high income.

Recognizing this problem, some states have specific statutes that address high income households.  These statutes usually provide the family court judge with some good old-fashioned "discretion" to determine the child support obligation in accord with the "best interests of the child."

But what really is in the best interests of little "Richie Rich"?  Some of life's best lessons are learned with less, not more.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Remembering September 11th, 2001

I remember driving to Detroit for a child support hearing the morning of Tuesday, 09/11/2001.  I was just about downtown on I-75, when the "Imus in the Morning" show reported an odd story about a "commuter" plane that had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

The matter was being reported in those early moments as an errant plane.  The discussion was about near misses that happen more than we realize.

As Don Imus described what he was seeing on the video monitors, his entire radio show crew erupted when the second jet struck the South Tower.  I slammed my fist into the empty passenger seat of my car, shouting in disbelief.  Along with the rest of the country, I knew instantly what was unfolding in New York was no accident.

By the time I parked my car, cleared security at the Penobscot Building, and made it up to the 9th floor to the Wayne County Friend of the Court, the Pentagon had been struck by another jet and everyone was talking about being under attack.

Everyone's plans changed that day.  Some people were saying that yet another hijacked jet was heading due West toward Cleveland and Detroit.

The FOC hearing room was packed with people associated with more than a dozen cases.  Thinking I would be trapped there all morning, I started to worry about what was happening in New York and Washington D.C.  My brother Terrance lived in Manhattan back then; was he ok?  Could I even find out?

Waiting for the Referee to take the bench, I tried Terrance's cell; no answer.  I tried a second call; this time Verizon did not even make the connection.

By a stroke of luck, my case was called first.  Just as we completed our arguments and received our ruling from the Referee, two Wayne County Sheriffs announced that the Penobscot Building was closing and instructed us to vacate in an orderly but immediate fashion.  Mine was the only case called on the docket that day.

Back on the street, all the intersections were choked with vehicles like it was 5:00 on a Friday afternoon; folks were literally fleeing the downtown area.  So this is what it feels like to be under attack in America.

Later, I found out my brother Terrance had plans to play tennis at courts located near the World Trade Center that morning; they cancelled their plans due to some puddles from a rain storm that lingered on the courts.

Thinking back on it now, while I stood there chirping to the Referee about eliminating my client's child support obligation for children that DNA results said were not even his, those heroes from Flight 93 wrestled control of their jet, executing some major league damage control from which every citizen in this country has benefitted.

In my mind at least, I have always held the belief that Flight 93 was destined for the Capitol Rotunda. We still have our beloved Capitol, the very soul of Democracy, thanks to those men and women on Flight 93.

Now, let's make it count people; we've got to make it count...

http://www.waterfordlegal.com/

info@waterfordlegal.com

Fab Five Continues to Disappoint UM Fans

For all their hype, the men behind the Fab Five continue to disappoint fans, supporters and alumni of the University of Michigan.

First it was Chris Webber's phantom time-out vs North Carolina in the 1993 Final Four game.  Then the premature abandonment of the University of Michigan Basketball Program by the headliners of the group, Webber and Jalen Rose.  Next, the final four banners were removed from Chrysler Arena due to the Ed Martin booster scandal.

This month, it's two criminal convictions right here in Oakland County; one for Jalen Rose, who's doing 20-days in the Oakland County Jail on a sentence from 48th District Judge Kim Small; the other is for charges of felony child support against Jimmy King.  According to the Michigan Attorney General, King owes nearly $18,000 in child support arrears.  He was arrested in Detroit.

Both men are currently detained in the OCJ.

Attorney General Bill Schuette was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, "when it comes to child support, no matter who you are, you have to play by the rules."

It's a shame that these men have never played by the rules; it's a shame that they continue to cast a pall over the University of Michigan.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

SCOTUS: No Right to Attorney in Child Support Civil Contempt Proceeding

As the High Court's term comes to an end this week, SCOTUS is issuing opinions by the day.  One of those announced this week was the South Carolina case involving a father's contempt proceeding for failure to pay his child support.

The case, Turner v Rogers, involved a series of contempt proceedings conducted in the family court.  Father failed to pay his support, so he was repeatedly jailed, once for a 12-month stint.  Neither father nor mother were represented by counsel in the proceedings.

The case wound its way through the South Carolina court system.  By the time the case arrived at the SCOTUS, Turner had long-completed his 12-month stint in the county jail.

SCOTUS, in reversing his conviction, nevertheless held that a person involved in civil contempt hearings, as a matter of Due Process, was not entitled to an attorney.  The reasons for this are because the opposing party is not the state but rather, the mother of the children.  Also, the High Court found that in such proceedings, Due Process is satisfied by providing the support payor with a form to elicit financial information, providing him notice of a hearing, and by conducting a brief hearing on the payor's finances relative to his obligation.

In this case, Turner's conviction was reversed (even though he completed his jail stint) because he was not provided with a financial disclosure form, was not provided an attorney, and the family court erred by failing to make relevant factual findings that father was able to make the support payments when it found him in contempt.  Basic stuff.

Here is a piece of scholarly criticism of this SCOTUS decision in the blog Concurring Opinions that has already shown up in the blogosphere.

Bottom line: pay your child support obligations.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

  

Michigan Supreme Court Affirms Father's Child Support Obligation Even When Parental Rights Terminated

There has been some buzz among family law practitioners this week concerning the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in the DHS vs Beck case.

Earlier this year, we posted on the Michigan Court of Appeals decision that held a father, whose chronic drugging resulted in the complete neglect of his children and termination of his parental rights, nevertheless remained obligated to pay child support for his two children.  The published Court of Appeals decision was just affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court.

This case arose from the Oakland County Family Court; it was Judge Martha Anderson that initially terminated Mr. Beck's parental rights while also affirming his obligation to pay child support.  Both parents had been abusing drugs so their two children were placed with grandparents.  For her part, the mother  got straight, and otherwise complied with a DHS parenting plan; she now has the children.

The Supreme Court's Beck decision is remarkable in that it is the first decision to be issued by the Court in the current term.  Also, although the decision affirms the holding of the Court of Appeals, it does so on grounds different then those relied on by the intermediate appellate court.

The father in Beck did not appeal the termination of his parental rights; only the family court's ruling that he remained obligated to pay support for his children.  On appeal, the father argued that he was denied due process because he was arbitrarily deprived of his property (i.e. his support payments).  Like the intermediate appellate court, the Supreme Court was not convinced, ruling that the father failed to articulate how, exactly, his due process rights were implicated.

One of the issues to arise in the Beck case was that the parental termination provisions of the Juvenile Code are silent as to the corresponding "parental responsibilities".

The Court analyzed the rights and duties implicated by a family court's decision to terminate parental rights while continuing to obligate support payments.  Michigan common law has long established a minor child's right to support from both parents.  The appellate courts also recognized a parent's right to the "companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children."

In affirming the Court of appeals, the Supreme Court not only separated parental "rights" enumerated in the juvenile code, from the duties set out in the Child Custody Act, it also held that parental rights contained in the Custody Act were distinct and thus independent from the duties created by that same Act.

Of note in the dicta of the Court of Appeal's decision was an express acknowledgment of the current "times of difficult financial circumstances."  The Beck panel realized that in such difficult economic times, public policy is served by not shifting all support and maintenance obligations onto the custodial parent or, in some cases, the state.

This is the right decision.  If getting high is more important to a father than parenting, the rest of us should not have to pick-up the slack for that father and supply public benefits for such a man's children.  He should pay as well, even if he can no longer see his children.

Such are the choices we make in life.

info@clarkstonlegal.com

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/