CHILDS RIGHTS ARE GREATER THAN THE PARENTS!

Child’s rights greater than parents, says the child: love me ,feed me , cloth me, pay your child support !

GOOD MORNING FLINT !
____________________
Date 02/09/08
By Terry Bankert
Posted full article first to Flint Talk THEN summarized, for discussion,
also posted to: Full article at Google blog Good Morning Flint, http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/ with citations. also posted to MLIVE Flint JOURNAL Flint Community blogs, Flint Citizen, Craigs list, Face Book, My Space and . Please circulate and post freely. Do you have suggestions for other sites to post to. Recent BANKERT VLOGG on :Mediation #1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnHdn-Ilu0E ______________________
On Saturday 2/9/08 { today} on WFLT 1420 am radio on the show " Know the Law" I will discuss child support in Michigan. 9:00 am UNTIL 9:30 am.

This is a call in program where your family law question will be answer by calling 810-239-5733.
The topics today will be mediation and child support.


We talked about mediation last week. If there is a couple out there that would like to work togeter to resolve you family issues with dignity and respect please consider calling me for an appointment at 235-1970.
______________________
In a case called Laffin 477 Mich 941 11-29-06

YOU CANNOT BARGAIN AWAY THE CHILD SUPPORT DUE TO YOUR CHILDREN

The mother and father bargained away their children's right to child support. The "deal" that the parents agreed on is unusual... It provides that if the father is ordered to pay any child support in the future, the obligation must be satisfied entirely from the mother's alimony. Nice try that didn’t work..

The trial court, which would be like the Genesee County Family Court, this case is from out side Genesee County, has enforced that agreement and defendant has appealed to us. The local judge, in denying the mother's motion for child support, advised her of the parties' agreement, any further motions attacking the judgment of divorce "may result in sanctions being assessed against her."

This Michigan Supreme Court said it should examine the matter carefully rather than deny leave to appeal. As it pertains to child support, the parties' agreement may well be in violation of public policy.

The Court will not enforce an agreement if it violates public policy.It then decided the agreement in this case would be contrary to public policy if it left the parties' three children without support and rendered them public charges.

WHY?

Existing relevant Michigan law on this issue provides
Biological parents have an inherent obligation to support their children.

A biological parent must support a minor child unless a court of competent jurisdiction modifies or terminates the obligation or the child is emancipated. MCL 722.3.

The purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of a child. Evink, supra at 176. The parents of a child are not permitted to bargain away a child's right to receive adequate support. Id.

This Court has stated that it has "a dim view of agreements purporting to sign away the rights of a child, particularly when the result of such an agreement may be that the child becomes a public charge . . . ." Van Laar v Rozema, 94 Mich App 619, 624; 288 NW2d 667 (1980).


MEDIATION / ARBITRATION OF CHILD CUSTODY WILL STILL REQUIRE THE LOCAL COURT TO REVIEW THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.


In a case called Harvey 470 Mich 186, 680 NW2d 835 06/09/2004
Two daughters were born during the parties' marriage, one in 1994 and the other in 1996. In February 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce with the Family Division of the Oakland Circuit Court. A variety of issues were disputed, including custody of the children.

Instead of proceeding directly to trial, the parties opted for a form of alternative dispute resolution. On May 15, 2001, the circuit court entered a consent order, approved by both parties' counsel, for binding arbitration. Its object was to resolve all property matters 3 and provide for an evidentiary hearing and binding decision by the friend of the court referee regarding custody, parenting time, and child support issues. The order stated that the referee's decision could not be reviewed by the circuit court:

The Court of Appeals SAID OH NO YOU DON’T AND vacated the circuit court's order and remanded the case for a hearing de novo.


ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE REOLUTION DOE NOT RELIEVE THE COURT OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Regardless of the type of alternative dispute resolution that parties use, the Child Custody Act 1 requires the circuit court to determine independently what custodial placement is in the best interests of the children.

I. BACKGROUND
Following a hearing, the friend of the court submitted findings to the circuit court with a recommended order awarding legal and physical custody of the children solely to defendant. Plaintiff filed timely written objections to the order.

The circuit court entered the recommended order, over plaintiff's objection, changing the existing custodial arrangement. The court denied her motion for an evidentiary hearing de novo and refused to set aside the order when defendant argued that the parties' stipulation restricted its authority to review the order.

B. Appellate Court Proceedings

Plaintiff appealed as of right. The Court of Appeals vacated the custody order and remanded for a hearing de novo in the circuit court.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals acknowledged:
that the Child Custody Act governs all child custody disputes and gives the circuit court continuing jurisdiction over custody proceedings. MCL 722.26.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION DOES NOT RELIEVE THE JUDGES OF THE RESPONSIBLITY TO KNOW YOUR CASE AND PROETECT YOUR CHILDREN BY MAKING A FORMAL BEST INTEREST ANALYSIS AND RULING.

The domestic relations arbitration act permits parties to agree to binding arbitration of child custody disputes. It contains numerous protections for them, including mandatory prearbitration disclosures and detailed procedural requirements. MCL 600.5072. The [Page 190] parties can seek circuit court review of the arbitration award. MCL 600.5080 specifically addresses awards concerning child custody:

IN THIS CASE THE PARTIES, THEIR LAWYER, DID NOT COMPLETE ALL THE FORMALITIES REQUIRED BY THE ARBITRATION ACT.

The Court of Appeals concluded that, under either statute, the parties were entitled to have the circuit court review the custody determination. For this reason, it held, "an agreement for a binding decision in a domestic-relations matter with no right of review in the court, as in this case, is without statutory support under either scheme."

The Court then determined that the parties had not complied with the detailed procedural requirements of the domestic relations arbitration act.

LATER THE SUPREME COURT SAID DIFFERENTLY

WE KNOW
The child custody act promotes the Best interest of the children....
The act makes clear that the best interests of the child control the resolution of a custody dispute between parents, as gauged by the factors set forth at
MCL 722.23. MCL 722.25(1).

It places an affirmative obligation on the circuit court to "declare the child's inherent rights and establish the rights and duties as to the child's custody, support, and parenting time in accordance with this act" whenever the court is required to adjudicate an action "involving dispute of a minor child's custody." MCL 722.24(1); Van, supra at 328. Taken together, these statutory provisions impose on the trial court the duty to ensure that the resolution of any custody dispute is in the best interests of the child.

THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT TAKES CONTROL AND TELLS US WHAT THE LAW REALLY IS.

It is irrelevant that the parties did not have a "valid agreement for binding arbitration or an otherwise valid waiver of procedural requirements . . . ." 257 Mich App 292. The Child Custody Act required the circuit court to determine the best interests of the children before entering an order resolving the custody dispute.

Our holding should not be interpreted, where the parties have agreed to a custody arrangement, to require the court to conduct a hearing or otherwise engage in intensive fact-finding. See MCL 552.513(2) and 600.5080(1). Our requirement under such circum- [Page 193] stances is that the court satisfy itself concerning the best interests of the children. When the court signs the order, it indicates that it has done so. A judge signs an order only after profound deliberation and in the exercise of the judge's traditional broad discretion. See Greene v Greene, 357 Mich 196, 202; 98 NW2d 519 (1959).

However, the deference due parties' negotiated agreements does not diminish the court's obligation to examine the best interest factors and make the child's best interests paramount. MCL 722.25(1). Nothing in the Child Custody Act gives parents or any other party the power to exclude the legislatively mandated "best interests" factors from the court's deliberations once a custody dispute reaches the court.

Furthermore, neither the Friend of the Court Act nor the domestic relations arbitration act relieves the circuit court of its duty to review a custody arrangement once the issue of a child's custody reaches the bench. The Friend of the Court Act states that the circuit court "shall" hold a hearing de novo to review a friend of the court recommendation if either party objects to that recommendation in writing within twenty-one days. MCL 552.507(5).

CONCLUSION
The Michigan Supreme Court said "We agree with the Court of Appeals that parties cannot stipulate to circumvent the authority of the circuit court in determining the custody of children. In making its determination, the court must consider the best interests of the children. Child custody determinations or agreements are not binding until entered by court order.

The Court of Appeals judgment in favor of plaintiff, remanding this case to the Family Division of the Oakland Circuit Court for a hearing de novo is affirmed, but for a reason different from that stated by that Court. MCR 7.302(G)(1).
-
THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING!

See "Mr. Untouchable" a documentary on the true life of Nicky Barnes a story of walking the wrong path, business,excess,greed,and revenge. Flint Institute of Arts Sat [today] 7:30 pm and Sunday 2 pm $6.00. Lynn an I wnt last night. This is the best movie house in Genesee County.


TODAY 2/9/08 DEMOCRATIC TOWN HALL MEETING! 11 am to 12:30 UAW REGION 1C on Atherton Rd near Van Slyke in Flint.


TOPICS: Pending legislatio on jury of your peers, expungement of criminal records, upcoming Supreme Court races and Judicial elections. Soul Food lunch provided.FREE FOOD, FREE

FOOD, FREE FOOD!!!!!
Sponsored by the Genesee County Black Caucus and the Genesee County Democratic Party. Everyone in Genesee County is invited!! ASK the question. How di the MichgigaN PRIMARY GET SO MESSED UP. If you support Obama ask if you will gbvet any representation for you position or have the Super Delegate stolen the election from Obama to give to Hillary?



—end---
JOIN THE FLINT AREA INTERNET MOVEMENT, HERE ARE SUGGESTIONS;

FLINT BLOG CENTRAL http://www.mlive.com/blogs/flint/index.ssf

FLINT DISCUSSION CENTRAL http://www.flinttalk.com/viewforum.php?f=2

Posted here by Terry Bankert 2/9/08 http://attorneybankert.com/ 36622

Sphere: Related Content