For years, I have been battling with the father rights groups to understand that non-custodial parents are parents who have been determined by the court unfit to be granted the right to custody of the child.
Here we have a perfect example to show the child support issue advocates that child support is under the policy aegis of child welfare, being in this case, the Michigan Department of Human Services, and not the Friend of the Court.
The Friend of the Court collects, or rather enforces the orders of the court. The court, judicates the bidding of Michigan child protection policies.
How does Michigan protect its children? By double-dipping, of course!
Let's have some fun with the antics of the Supreme Court's ignorance of the foul administrative opertions in Michigan's child welfare.
First and foremost, the children were made wards of the court. That is just a fancy name for foster care. I do not have the details on the order, as it substantially affects the funding decisions of reimbursement, but, for conversational sake, let's say it is a Title IV-E placement with Targeted Case Management services.
Michigan has been known to order parents to pay for the time a child is in foster care. This has led to many termination of parental rights decisions. By this I mean a child may be placed in foster care for the parents failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child; they are poor. It could be homelessness or it could be the inability to access proper medical care. In any event, it is a catch-22. Your child enters foster care because you are poor, yet you are ordered to pay for the length of stay. If you do not pay for the time the child is in foster care, you fail to comply with the case plan and parent-agency agreement, generating documentation to support the call for TPR.
Ok, the State has been reimbursed under these two funding streams: (Title IV-E and Targeted Case Management). Does the State send back this money to the feds if the parent pays for the foster care stay?
Hell no. Wait, it gets better.
Then, as child support is ordered and to be intercepted, Title IV-D kicks in. Now, you have foster care administrative payments kicking in to refer to Friend of the Court to collect money from a person whom the State has decided has no legal ties to the child.
Absolutely brilliant scheme of double-dipping.
Michigan has ordered many parents whose rights have been terminated to pay child support. Even though the child is adopted out and the new adoptive parents or even foster parents who have the child in adoptive placement are receiving adoption assistance payments, child support operations are in full force.
Where does the child support money go once a child is adopted out from TPR?
Into the blackhole of Michigan's Medicaid fraud scheme. Remember, it's all about maximizing revenue for the State.
Mich. Supreme Court: Loss of parental rights doesn't end support
The Michigan Supreme Court says a loss of parental rights doesn't automatically mean an end to child support.
In a rare unanimous opinion, the court says a father or mother can be ordered to support a child financially even if he or she has no other role. The justices ruled in a case from Oakland County in which Lawrence Beck's parental rights were terminated in 2009.
A judge still required Beck to support two children under the terms of a divorce from his wife.
The Supreme Court said Monday that Michigan law requires financial support unless a judge modifies or terminates the obligation.
Justice Alton Davis did not participate in the 6-0 decision because he reviewed the case when he was a member of the state appeals court.
Michigan Supreme Court Opinion On Child Support In Termination Of Parental Rights