Search This Blog

Friday, December 24, 2010

Changing Child Support in 2011

Now that Michigan and the US Supreme Courts are looking at the issue of felony child support laws I think that it may be time to push for real change in the system. Most of us believe that income based child support formulas, interests, fees and adjustments are all a big problem in the system. We also believe that jailing parents for not being able to pay the bloated support is stupid and unconstitutional and needs to be eliminated. So, going forward, we need to look at proving to our elected officials and the public that changing the system towards an actual child rearing cost formula with there being an emphasis on equal custody rights is the right thing to do. Also we should also look at agreeing that those parents who do not support their children in any way should be considered negligent and possibly face punishment under those grounds but not contempt of court.

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

 

Friday, December 17, 2010

The Child-Documentary film on Michigan for Parental Rights

Protecting from abuse of the child welfare system

 

Dennis Lawren…

Dennis Lawrence

Dennis Lawrence has invited you to the event 'The Child-Documentary film' on Michigan for Parental Rights!

 

Citizens for Parental Rights will be showing this film. It would be a good idea for all of us to preview it and get this film showed elsewhere. Please RSVP

The Child-Documentary film

Time: December 20, 2010 from 7pm to 9pm
Location: WKTV Studios
Organized By: Citizens for Parental Rights

Event Description:
We are convinced that those who see this film will be compelled to respond to the desperate need to protect children by preserving parental rights through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

RSVP by email to
falseallegations@mail.com

Video Trailer

 

See more details and RSVP on Michigan for Parental Rights:

http://miparentalrights.ning.com/events/event/show?id=4534672%3AEvent%3A2360&xgi=2jQqKNQ1SHjxFT&xg_source=msg_invite_event

About Michigan for Parental Rights

Meet-up location for those in Michigan to bond togather on child welfare issues

Michigan for Parental Rights

70 members
144 photos
29 videos

14 discussions
34 Events
25 blog posts

 

To control which emails you receive on Michigan for Parental Rights, click here

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

MI: Action on Constitutionality of Felony Non-Payment of Child Support


   The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to appeal the conviction of felony non-support and the defense of inability to pay.  Previously case law held that the inability to pay was not a defense. 
   Also, it is interesting to note that Justice Young was the lone dissenting opinion.
   Here is the Court's order:

Order
November 30, 2010
141513
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 141513
COA: 297182
Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH
SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the
June 4, 2010 order of
the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties
shall address:
(1) whether the rule of People v
Adams, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding that
inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony
non-support under MCL 750.165
— is an incorrect reading of the statute or unconstitutional, see
Port Huron v Jenkinson,
77 Mich 414 (1889); (2) whether the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied the
defendant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea; and (3)
whether the trial court
erred when it adopted the child support arrearage amount that had
been determined by
family court as the restitution to be imposed in this criminal
case, or whether the
defendant waived that issue.
We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the
Court together
with the cases of People v Likine
(Docket No. 141154) and People v Parks
(Docket No.
141181) at such future session of the Court as the cases are ready
for submission. Each
side will have 30 minutes for oral argument.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting
Attorneys
Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.
Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this
case may move the Court
for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
YOUNG, J.
(dissenting).

Brian Downs 616.874.8662

Cases heard before the MSC court proceed in a very orderly manner. The
briefs will be available online and oral argument will be scheduled
perhaps a month in advance through this web page:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/msc_orals.htm

Posted by: "Dan" dandiebolt@yahoo.com   dandiebolt  Wed Dec 1, 2010 12:30 pm (PST)



I would be interested in working on an amicus brief project for this case either in terms or shopping around for lead attorney, legal research, writing the brief, aggregating or  submitting the brief etc.

Here is the case history:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=141513&inqtype=sdoc&yr=0&yr=0&SubmitBtn=Search

We would need someone to gather up copies of the trial and appellate court documents for background. The trial court is in Muskegon and the record has probably been sent to Lansing already.

I think the MSC is looking in part at Port Huron v Jenkinson case which their order references which was recently raised in an amicus brief before the same court in this case:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/clerk/11-10/140603/140603-Amicus-Doe.pdf

It is well-established that "[n]o legislative or municipal body has the power to impose the duty of performing an act upon any person which it is impossible for him to perform, and then make his non-performance of such duty a crime." Port Huron v Jenkinson, 77 Mich 414 (1889)

So if the trial court disallowed the defense of inability to pay and the MSC agreed Jenkinson applied that there might be a remand to allow the defense of inability to pay to be heard. The error below would have been that the court refused to allow a defense but since there is probably nothing in the record supporting the defense this remand would be with out any consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the inability to pay defense.

 

 

Action on MI Constitutionality of Child Support


   The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to appeal the conviction of felony non-support and the defense of inability to pay.  Previously case law held that the inability to pay was not a defense. 
   Also, it is interesting to note that Justice Young was the lone dissenting opinion.
   Here is the Court's order:

Order
November 30, 2010
141513
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 141513
COA: 297182
Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH
SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the
June 4, 2010 order of
the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties
shall address:
(1) whether the rule of People v
Adams, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding that
inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony
non-support under MCL 750.165
— is an incorrect reading of the statute or unconstitutional, see
Port Huron v Jenkinson,
77 Mich 414 (1889); (2) whether the trial court abused its
discretion when it denied the
defendant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea; and (3)
whether the trial court
erred when it adopted the child support arrearage amount that had
been determined by
family court as the restitution to be imposed in this criminal
case, or whether the
defendant waived that issue.
We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the
Court together
with the cases of People v Likine
(Docket No. 141154) and People v Parks
(Docket No.
141181) at such future session of the Court as the cases are ready
for submission. Each
side will have 30 minutes for oral argument.
The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting
Attorneys
Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.
Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this
case may move the Court
for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
YOUNG, J.
(dissenting).

Brian Downs 616.874.8662

Cases heard before the MSC court proceed in a very orderly manner. The
briefs will be available online and oral argument will be scheduled
perhaps a month in advance through this web page:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/msc_orals.htm

posted by: "Dan" dandiebolt@yahoo.com   dandiebolt

Wed Dec 1, 2010 12:30 pm (PST)

I would be interested in working on an amicus brief project for this case either in terms or shopping around for lead attorney, legal research, writing the brief, aggregating or  submitting the brief etc.

Here is the case history:

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/resources/asp/viewdocket.asp?casenumber=141513&inqtype=sdoc&yr=0&yr=0&SubmitBtn=Search

We would need someone to gather up copies of the trial and appellate court documents for background. The trial court is in Muskegon and the record has probably been sent to Lansing already.

I think the MSC is looking in part at Port Huron v Jenkinson case which their order references which was recently raised in an amicus brief before the same court in this case:

http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/clerk/11-10/140603/140603-Amicus-Doe.pdf

It is well-established that "[n]o legislative or municipal body has the power to impose the duty of performing an act upon any person which it is impossible for him to perform, and then make his non-performance of such duty a crime." Port Huron v Jenkinson, 77 Mich 414 (1889)

So if the trial court disallowed the defense of inability to pay and the MSC agreed Jenkinson applied that there might be a remand to allow the defense of inability to pay to be heard. The error below would have been that the court refused to allow a defense but since there is probably nothing in the record supporting the defense this remand would be with out any consideration to the strength of the evidence supporting the inability to pay defense.

 

 

Darrick Scott-Farnsworth

Executive Director www.AChildsRight.net www.daddyblogger.com 

Cell 269 209-7144 or Nextel DC ID 130*112*19287

True Conservative: Pro-Life, Liberty and Property

 

Friday, December 10, 2010

Federal Lawsuit filed/ Rally reports & protest for Nov 24/ Your FEEDBACK

=========================================
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
---
Newsletter@kids-right.org
To REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE LIST go to:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter

Good People & People of Faith,

This message has info on:

1. Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit -  filed by attorney Leon Koziol
2. Chicago Rally -- what happened on Oct 23rd.
3. F4J Protest in Ballston Spa, NY - Wednesday, Nov 24, 1100-1300
4. F4J Protest and video - what happened in Ballston Spa, Oct 2nd.
5. Idea of equal parenting going out of style? - William L Spence
6. Your FEEDBACK - always welcome!



1. Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit -  filed by attorney Leon Koziol
----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Jack Frost <fr33j6ck@yahoo.com>

This press release went out a few days ago.  Attorney Leon Koziol
(http://www.LeonKoziol.com/) has been fighting for Fathers Rights for
quite some time. He is a civil Rights attorney that became involved in
his own custody battle and saw first hand what family court and nys
law does to families.


   "In what may be described as the most sweeping challenge to date
   upon our nation's draconian child control laws surrounding Title
   IV-D of the Social Security Act, New York Civil Rights Advocate
   Leon R. Koziol, J.D. has filed a comprehensive test case in United
   States District Court in Albany, New York. Named in the action are
   judicial and law enforcement officials, including New York's Chief
   Justice and Unified Court System. The lawsuit, served upon select
   parties this week, takes aim at “custody” and “child support” laws
   which alienate children from their parents as part of a government
   money generating scheme. A 39 page, 24 count civil complaint sets
   forth the manner in which lawyers and forensic agents feed off of
   manufactured controversies in domestic relations courts to harm
   parent-child relations and the financial stability of mainstream
   households. According to Koziol, it is a process which is harming
   the productivity of an entire nation."


See the link for the entire complaint.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42942978/Koziol-Files-Federal-Court-Civil-Rights-Lawsuit-NYS-Chief-Justice-Others-Named


2. Chicago Rally -- what happened on Oct 23rd.
---------------------------------------------
Submitted by: John F <f4j.john@yahoo.com>

It rained all morning, we had about 12 - 13 people. 4 groups
together. The rain cleared up around noon. I spent alot of time
contacting the media, to have no one show up. So I will be making a
youtube video I am sure. I would like to send in a story to the media
as well, I just do not have that much time right now.

I have a court case to get ready for which takes away my time right
now. I have some pictures on my facebook page.  It was a great spot
for a rally though. A lot of horns honking!


3. F4J Protest in Ballston Spa, NY - Wednesday, Nov 24, 1100-1300
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Jack Frost <fr33j6ck@yahoo.com>

Not to be deterred by the heavy handed response [from a prior protest
detailed below] we have a protest scheduled for this Wednesday at
11:00AM-1:00PM.  This is the first midweek protest we are doing in
Ballston Spa, NY, usually I do them on the weekend because I'm
working.

It will be at the corner of route 50 and West High street. Anyone
interested in participating please contact me. cell: 518-321-9928,
home: 518-693-6315, email: fr33j6ck@yahoo.com.

I am also quite active on facebook. Feel free to do a friend request.
http://www.facebook.com/j6ckfr0st

In Solidarity,
John (Jack) Frost

Fathers 4 Justice - Leadership Council New York Chapter.

861 North Hudson Ave.
PO BOX 801
Stillwater, NY 12170


4. F4J Protest and video - what happened in Ballston Spa, Oct 2nd.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Jack Frost <fr33j6ck@yahoo.com>

Here is a video I put together of the last protest Oct. 2nd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXMt9MxTYeE

This was the first protest where I had a police presence. I was in the
street handing out Fathers4Justice business cards. I was not
interrupting traffic and the public was very supportive. I even
received 17 dollars in donations although that was not my purpose. My
purpose was to bring awareness to the injustice that happens in Family
Court especially to Fathers and the relationship with their children.

A eventually got out of the road as was requested by the Ballston Spa
policeman. I moved to the other side of the street to continue my
protest on the sidewalk.  I saw the Ballston Spa policeman pull up
very fast and he was shouting into the mike of his radio. I thought
this was a little over the top for a one man, one grandmother
protest(she was the one taking the pictures, she is in her 60's).  I
got some pics of me protesting right next to his vehicle. After a
short time a trooper driving very fast pulled up on the other side of
the parking lot and then yet another trooper showed up.

The accompanying video is a little tongue-n-check at the heavy handed
response from the local Ballston Spa policeman and the troopers who
were called for backup. Kind of reminds me of how fathers are treated
like criminals in family court. Loving fathers are not criminals.

All the police stayed until the protest was over. You can see the
Ballston Spa policemen taking down my license plate. I later learned
he was after my name and address as I got the 911 recordings. The
troopers never asked me for identification and I certainly wasn't
hiding it. More unnecessary heavy handedness - the war against loving
fathers continues beyond the court room as we all know.


5. Idea of equal parenting going out of style? - William L Spence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: William L Spence <wls@redshift.com>

Is the idea of equal parenting going out of style?

There have always been some fathers who hold that patriarchy is the
natural condition of the family and father sole custody when the
parents break up is always the the best arrangement for children, but
I think I've been seeing a new trend among fathers in which equal
joint custody is ridiculed and fighting hard in court to win full
custody is urged.

The claim that's being made is that there's no family court gender
bias and that by bringing forth quantities of `evidence' embarrassing
to the mother, and tampering with court appointed evaluators, a father
can reliably win in court.  Other than instruction to give it
lip-service, little is said about what's good for the child: defeating
the ex' gets the entire emphasis.

The cases that are exhibited as successes supporting this point of
view all involve mothers who were clearly unfit to parent, and in
which it appears the child protective agency going against the mother
had much more to do with the result in court than the father's
cleverness or aggressiveness.  Nevertheless the approach and
`understanding' of how family court operates offered, is appealing to
many fathers with a much broader variety of types of cases, and
despite the fact that most are in fact not readily receiving sole
custody or even orders giving them anything approaching equal amounts
of parenting time or decision making power.

A notable segment among them are fathers who's child was conceived in
a very casual relationship or one-night stand with the mother, who
then complain that the mother's pattern of frequent changes of
romantic partner should disqualify them as parents, and who expect to
receive sole custody immediately upon establishing a steady
relationship with or marrying another woman, even with a desultory
record of contact with the child.


6. Your FEEDBACK - always welcome!
----------------------------------


--- Thea Artis <f4vahr@yahoo.com>

> Thirty years ago--when the laws we hate were proposed, men like us
> sat around and said “that doesn't affect me”, and “I've got time
> constraints” and “I don't want to get involved.” Look at where we
> are now.

> What will our grandsons say about us thirty years from now?


--- George Piskor <gwpiskor@sympatico.ca>

> You have nothing to apologize for in terms of being quiet for a
> while.

> Count your blessings that you had your son for six weeks, and that
> there is light for you at the end of the tunnel in terms of expiring
> “court-managed” time.

> I suspect your new understanding of the realities of risk will also
> serve to decrease some of your frustration with the pace of the
> movement, as well as perhaps providing you with an appreciation that
> risk comes in many flavors of action , not all of which are
> immediately apparent. Additionally, risk exposure is not the only
> yardstick by which to measure progress.



--- Lorie NABA <lorie-morphis@clearwire.net>

> The easy and safe path" for judges, lawyers, child welfare workers
> kidnapping, enslavement of "cute and adoptable" innocent children.
> The destruction of good capable parents, siblings, and families.
     
> Your lack of action pales compared to their acts of aggression,
> John.  Sometimes endurance is all that is required.  God hates a
> divorce.  He sees how people are exploited in connection with it.
     
> Yours truly, Lorie Morphis (Naba) -- mother to Hayley Rose Morphis
> and Kelsey Serene Morphis, children abducted by Oregon DHS 2001.
> aka adopted names Hayley Lynn Sands, age 12, and Kelsey Marie Sands,
> age 11.  Last known whereabouts Cottage Grove, Oregon Last contact
> 2005.


--- Brian Kelley <kelley01@visi.com>   http://www.allaboutfam.org/

> I believe we have spoken on the phone once. I too am humbled by my
> failings and realize now how much more GOD wanted out of my marriage
> and relationships and that because I didn't follow his word, that my
> life took turns including pain and anguish that I could have saved
> myself if I would have listened and not done my own thing. If I
> would have honored Christ, I would not be in a situation to where my
> children are born from two different women and now I am in agonizing
> pain over this divorce which I have also caused. I believe if I
> would have stewarded my marriage better I wouldn't be here. However I
> cant do anything about the past, only focus on the future.


--- mtcicero0@yahoo.com

> Family codes should be revamped to provide parents recourse and
> substantially diminish judicial discretion.  Judges should
> adjudicate parenting plans submitted by parents and order the one
> providing for the more equitable allocation of parenting time,
> unless the other parent can show the parent cannot carry out the
> duties the plan would assign them, or that the plan lacks
> comprehensiveness.

> Meaningful appeals of the core aspects of custody orders---based on
> arguable points of law and standards whose meeting or failure to be
> met can be decided by the application of concrete tests---would be
> enabled.

> There would be no court ordered custody evaluations or guardian ad
> litem or special master appointments unless parental incompetence is
> shown, in which case they would be by motion of a representative of
> the state other than the judge, as in dependency court.  Parents,
> however, certainly could consult expert therapists in devising and
> defending their parenting plans.


--- Dillon


> the Lake County CPS revoked my parental rights and adopted my son.
> i thought i was going to be able to fight them but no use.  can you
> take me off you mailing list.  no one has any rights in this
> adoption scheme.

I got your message and VERY sorry to hear what happened to you and
your child.  I can't imagine anything worse for you or him, and I hope
you will not just walk away and affirm the great indignity by which
you have both been treated.

What happened to you is any parent's worst nightmare.  I don't know
how anyone deals with it.  Pardon me if I challenge you to try a
little more.  You are welcome to post your story to our Hall of Shame,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/shame.htm

As long as our goal is "beating" them -- well, you are never sure if
you will succeed or if it is worth the effort and sacrifice.

But it is fully in your power to demonstrate to yourself, to your son,
and to others how much you love your son and what a great injustice
was done.  I guess you have been on the list for a while, I encourage
you to take a look at NonViolent Action again.

Regarding "they terminated your rights?"  Is that an oxymoron?  How
can they terminate something they never had control over?  Was the
black's right to freedom "terminated" because they were kept as
slaves?

I know taking action can be difficult, especially the sacrifice
required.  But as far as the present system goes, we are victims of
our own timidity -- this guy says it well.

Submitted by: Eric Tarkington <etarking@ooadvocate.com>

    It is amazing how docile people are! They will actually allow the
    government to take their children and/or decide which parental
    rights they keep. It is rare that the government has to use even
    the threat of force - people comply with having their hearts
    ripped out, just because they think they should. It's the 21st
    century, people! Join an equal parenting group! You are not the
    government's little dog, and they have no right to snatch your
    "puppies" when they feel like it.

    They are violating you and your children through you, and if you
    are not a criminal you are much better for your children than any
    government. Your natural commitment to your children is the
    awesome power that keeps the human race going. Respect yourself!
    Stand up and fight for your parental rights, which are the best
    protection of your children's best interests.  There is only one
    other person who has an equal right to parent your children. Work
    things out with him or her, and keep the government out of it.

Even if you think it is too late for yourself.  If you would like to help
others, let me know.

<<no response>>

-- 
                                                            John Murtari
____________________________________________________________________
Coordinator                                        AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org         A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
(315) 944-0999(x-211)             http://www.AKidsRight.Org/

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Federal Takeover of Michigan DHS Averted By Deal With Gov.-Elect Synder

detnews.com 


 

December 7, 2010

http://detnews.com/article/20101207/METRO/12070385

Deal averts request for fed control of Mich. child welfare system

CATHERINE JUN
The Detroit News

Detroit — A child advocacy group backed away from plans to seek a federal takeover of Michigan's child welfare system after a federal judge said she received assurances from Gov.-elect Rick Snyder that his incoming administration will make fixing the Department of Human Services a top priority.

Children's Rights, a New York-based agency, had announced earlier today that it planned to file a motion of contempt Wednesday in federal court in Detroit and ask the judge to appoint a receiver for Human Services, the agency that oversees foster care and adoption. The agency cited a progress report publicized today that showed the state was failing to comply with court-mandated reforms.

Instead, after a meeting in chambers this afternoon with U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds, attorneys for Children's Rights agreed to meet again with DHS officials in late January — after Snyder takes office — to devise a plan to get reforms on track.

"We have every confidence that they see how urgent this is," said Sara Bartosz, senior staff attorney for Children's Rights. She added, though, that she has not ruled out seeking federal intervention in the future, if necessary. "That option is out there if the system doesn't improve."

This is the latest development in the department's court-ordered overhaul of its foster care system. The department has been under court watch since the settlement of a lawsuit in July 2008 filed by the New York group, which alleged the state's system was endangering the lives of children.

Before the scheduled 2 p.m. court hearing, the New York agency had issued a statement saying it planned to seek receivership for the department, citing a court-appointed monitor's report that showed the department failed to adequately reduce high caseloads for caseworkers as well as recruit and retain enough foster homes.

The 200-page report, covering Oct. 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010, charges that DHS failed to: Ensure that new caseworkers were adequately trained before they became responsible for children and families.

Ensure that adequate staff was assigned to conduct timely and thorough child abuse and neglect investigations.

Recruit, retain and license enough foster homes and those of relative care providers.

Court-appointed monitor Kevin Ryan, of the New Jersey-based Public Catalyst Group, submitted the report to Judge Edmunds at the hearing.

According to the report, Ryan also found data-keeping and mathematical errors in state records, including how the state counts the number of children in its care. The state delayed the recording of adoption finalizations in some cases by as much as 225 days.

"Child welfare managers and staff across Michigan, in both the private and public sector, are working very hard, but their best efforts are often undone by poor planning and a lack of adequate coordination," the report stated.

This is the third update since the settlement, and comes 1½ years after reforms began. The settlement contained a five-year plan the state agreed to enact.

This is the final report before Rick Snyder takes over as governor next month. It's possible that new management will be tapped at DHS.

Anticipating the court hearing, the Michigan Department of Human Services issued a news release this morning highlighting what it says are improvements within the department.

More children have been adopted from foster care, are receiving better mental health services and have better outcomes overall, DHS Director Ismael Ahmed said in a written statement.

"DHS, in partnership with private agencies and the courts, have made significant strides in the past two years to ensure we're doing our part to help children find safe, loving and stable homes," Ahmed said.

In fact, 3,030 children were adopted from foster care in 2009, more than in any other year, he said.

Other accomplishments include reducing the number of children in foster care and expanding a program that provides in-home services and support to families with children who have serious emotional problems.

The previous report issued in March showed the state was missing significant targets, like sufficiently reducing the number of children aging out of foster care and documenting adequate responses to allegations of abuse or neglect of foster children.

At the time, the human services department was placed on a 30-day watch to get reforms on track.


© Copyright 2010 The Detroit News. All rights reserved.

Error! Filename not specified.  

KFXA FOX 28 :: Top Stories - Double Standard for Dads in Custody Battles?

KFXA FOX 28 :: Top Stories - Double Standard for Dads in Custody Battles?

Monday, December 6, 2010

DMM: Family and Parenting Program

Posted by: "Anthony Rigato" anthonyrigato@yahoo.com   anthonyrigato

Thu Dec 2, 2010 6:54 am (PST)



http://www.dadsandmomsofmichigan.org
 

Family & Parenting
Program One

Beginning

Hello to everyone! I would like to invite you all to attend a new program created by me at the request of Dads
and Moms. I have been elected as the new President of this organization
and will be the facilitator of this program. Please come and join us I
give you a small but significant promise "You will leave with more then you came with "God Bless you  and your family! Tony 248-303-2600
The Scope: A Two Hour program

In this
first of three series, you will be more informed and educated on the values and
challenges of parenting and the relationships between each other and the
children as well other family members. We will help create an awareness of,
rewards and consequences of the potential successes and failures within a
Family. Our program in simple terms is based on: Kids need both Parents

Ø    
The Family Foundation

o       Remembering the Family

o       Parenting vs. Friendship with the Children and the other parent

o       Both Parents commitment to the Children / Family

Ø    
Simple but not always easy, Tools that work

o       How to manage Change

o       How to Identify, Accept and Manage Fear

o       Expectations vs. Reality

This Interactive program includes open discussion and real life
experiences.

$15.00 donation required, all participants leave with their
own workbook and more.

Contact
Dads and Moms for Times & Dates

Location: WATERFORD EAGLES

4761 Highland Rd.

Waterford, Mi. 48328

 

A Problem without a Pro-Active Solution is just a PROBLEM!

 

MSC: Child Support on Trail

> The Michigan Supreme Court yesterday granted leave to appeal the
> conviction of felony non-support and the defense of inability to pay.
> Previously case law held that the inability to pay was not a defense.
> Also, it is interesting to note that Justice Young was the lone
> dissenting opinion.
> Here is the Court's order:
>
> *Order*
>
> November 30, 2010
>
> 141513
>
> PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
>
> Plaintiff-Appellee,
>
> v SC: 141513
>
> COA: 297182
>
> Muskegon CC: 08-056761-FH
>
> SCOTT BENNETT HARRIS,
>
> Defendant-Appellant.
>
> _________________________________________/
>
> On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2010
> order of
>
> the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall
> address:
>
> (1) whether the rule of *People v Adams*, 262 Mich App 89 (2004) — holding
> that
>
> inability to pay is not a defense to the crime of felony non-support under
> MCL 750.165
>
> — is an incorrect reading of the statute or unconstitutional, see *Port
> Huron v Jenkinson*,
>
> 77 Mich 414 (1889); (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion when
> it denied the
>
> defendant’s post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea; and (3) whether
> the trial court
>
> erred when it adopted the child support arrearage amount that had been
> determined by
>
> family court as the restitution to be imposed in this criminal case, or
> whether the
>
> defendant waived that issue.
>
> We further ORDER that this case be argued and submitted to the Court
> together
>
> with the cases of *People v Likine *(Docket No. 141154) and *People v
> Parks *(Docket No.
>
> 141181) at such future session of the Court as the cases are ready for
> submission. Each
>
> side will have 30 minutes for oral argument.
>
> The Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys
>
> Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other
> persons or groups
>
> interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may
> move the Court
>
> for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
>
> YOUNG, J. (*dissenting*).
>
>
>> Brian Downs
> 616.874.8662
--
"If it's Peace that you want, you're gonna find it on a hill, but the
silence you keep is the silence that kills"