Stand Up Today

Elections have come and gone!

2010-11-05T13:39:00.001-07:00

Well the elections have come and gone... As the election cycle is over consider what have you contributed to the campaigns that have won. I don't mean money, I certainly don't mean campaigning for them, but do your candidates and governmental agencies truly hear what is that they should be doing? How are you involved in your own personal communities to help enforce the compact between the people and the state? I only ask this because many people that I speak with aren't really sure where our government should be heading in an objective light, instead half the country repeats the rhetoric and the other half fights the rhetoric. This means that both our citizenry and our government have a long-overdue need for true patriotic education. Take the time to read the State and Federal Constitutions that are applicable to you, your legislatures, your courts, and all other government officials.

As we come quickly up on the year 2011, what is it that you wish to accomplish for your community? Remember a country is built from the bottom up and with the strongest foundation comes the strongest country. The government cannot do what we should do for ourselves.

FairTax Movement Launched

2010-02-05T19:59:00.000-08:00

Some of you may have followed on http://laryholland.com that the new Fair Tax Movement was launched. If you have suggestions, submit them through the site at http://www.fairtaxmovement.com.

The FairTax Movement is a site dedicated to encouraging an alternative tax reform structure that reduces government bureaucracy, invasive government practices, and increases government transparency.

This is just one of the many new launches occurring in 2010. Elections and issues are going to be highly contested and the fair tax, parental rights, and a number of other issues should be on the forefront of everyone's minds.

Actual Costs of Raising Child: Federal and State Child Support Guidelines

2009-05-04T20:45:00.000-07:00

I wanted to take a moment and review Title 45 Sec 302.56 with you, which is part of the Title IV-D program. Title IV-D is a voluntary program that states may opt-in for federal grants and incentive funds for the operation of child support enforcement and paternity establishment programs. Please note that if a state fails to comply with a federal mandate, that it may be grounds for the state to lose federal funding or be forced to pay back portions of already received funding.

Federal Mandates require that State Child Support Guidelines be reviewed periodically, and upon that review that state guidelines must "consider economic data on the actual costs of raising children."

TITLE 45 -- Public Welfare CHAPTER III -- OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT Part 302 -- STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Title 45 §302.56 Guidelines for setting child support awards.

(h) As part of the review of a State’s guidelines required under paragraph (e) of this section, a State must consider economic data on the cost of raising children and analyze case data, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the application of, and deviations from, the guidelines. The analysis of the data must be used in the State’s review of the guidelines to ensure that deviations from the guidelines are limited.

For those of you that are monitoring your state's implementation of child support guidelines, the USDA regularly produces a report on the ACTUAL COSTS OF RAISING A CHILD IN SINGLE PARENT AND TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HOUSEHOLDS.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/ExpendituresonChildrenbyFamilies.htm

You can view the historical data on raising children back to 1995. Further, since both parents have to maintain their own housing, you could strip this number from the actual cost of raising the child, and then divide the remaining total by two (for two parents) and that would be each parents' equal share for the actual cost of raising a child. You will find it is likely lower than what most child support guidelines are. You should raise this point, since the data is openly available.

Feel free to share your findings with me on this issues.

Parental Rights Amendment Supplemental Issues

2009-04-29T06:33:00.000-07:00

There has been some basic confusion about the differences between the Parental Rights Amendment and how it might need to be altered regarding gender issues and also how some groups are relating it improperly to "equal custody" organizations.

My general thoughts that I am placing here so I won't have to keep retyping it, let me know what you think, are as follows:

---------

Parental Rights should be the steeple of child-custody disputes, but because an invasive, intrusive, and otherwise subjective standard for custody determinations has been allowed, parental rights remain under attack regardless to gender and not just on the international front lines. After reviewing Farnsworth v. Farnsworth the Court found, “a court cannot overlook or disregard that the best interests standard is subject to the overriding recognition that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.” Parental Rights are being set aside for a ambiguous and subjective notion called "the best interests standard" contrary to common sense and partly because people are not focusing on that god-given superior Natural right. In fact, because of the relaxed effort on making parental rights the most important issue, it allows the most fundamental and natural right to be whittled down in divorce, custody, child protective services, medical notification/versus parental notification, access to school records, home schooling, and more. These group of lobbies are a growing number, because government is "upsetting the balance of government authority versus parental authority" replacing governmental perferences over parental determination. Something that seems to be slipping the minds of organizations everywhere.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is much greater than just the treaty. In fact, it will affect many areas of concern in domestic law as well, but more importantly again it brings the focus to parental rights being protected. This will also give way to raising the standard of parental rights instead of continuing the slide and then crying foul that we don't have equal parenting rights. Equal parenting rights being a minor issue to the superior parental rights issue, because we need to at least recognize a right to be able to be reconcile to equality in an adversarial proceeding. Right now, people have succumbed to the propaganda of the BIC fictitious "standard."

We invited Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum as well as other key conservative groups to speak on these issues, ironically Nancy Schaefer is part of the Georgia Eagle Forum, and they are both in full support of US Rep. Hoekstra's upcoming amendment. I too, am behind this amendment 100%. Phyllis also agrees with the points regarding Single Issue Lobbying Organizations versus Multi Issue Lobbying Organizations getting the job done. Any SILO is easy to come under attack from opposition and should consider merging, supporting, or supplementing MILO efforts, especially where economic support is weak in specific SILO areas. I am focusing efforts on as many of the MILOs that come together on this one federal issue, because it is the first of three that will be introduced this year and will gain the support of some of the largest women's conservative groups and more, because this is no longer a gender issue.

If referencing the "gender and marital status" do you mean "without regard to gender and marital status," I think that would just be used to attract glbt lobbies, which doesn't interest any of the major conservative groups. That would have to be carefully clarified, and probably not in a public forum until the language was set.

I strongly support the efforts of Nancy Schaeffer, Phyllis Schlafly, US Representative Pete Hoekstra, the Home School Legal Defense Association, and many others in both the domestic and international aspects of the Parental Rights Amendment. It gives us something strong to talk to the media about, to educate families about, and to implement a base policy that "Parental Rights Should Be Respected and Protected By All." Of course that means parents, government, and more should respect, and the government to enforce equal rights, which will take the courts out of micromanaging and revenue generating and put them back into the role of independent while limiting their direct involvement in the family. This is step one to other key legislation that will bring us closer to EQUAL parenting where two parents both are demanding their time to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their own children.

While I agree that the United Nations CRC is checkmate, I believe the Parental Rights Amendment is much much larger than the International issue, including child protective services, and many other domestic intrusion areas. Just as our parental rights have been whittled, we too shall reverse the damage by whittling back at them their authority to minimize the importance of family and the relationships between both parents and their child(ren).

US Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum Discuss Parental Rights on Get Your Justice Live

Helping Parents and the Courts Make Better Decisions Regarding Custody and Divorce!

2009-04-28T06:01:00.000-07:00

Save Our Kids! Mike Mastracci, Esq. and Get Your Justice Live Provide Alternative to Family Court

If you know someone who is separated or divorced and struggling with co-parenting issues make sure that they check out this free 6 week internet radio series called "Save-Our-Kids!" Learn about collaborative law and the alternatives to the current family law court system. Tuesdays at 8PM (6 Week Tele-Seminar Series)

http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/595-SAVE-OUR-KIDS!-Mike-Mast
racci,-Esq.-and-Get-Your-Justice-Live-Provide-Alternative-to-Family-Court.ht
ml

Baltimore, MD. Attorney Mike Mastracci has said it thousands of times, "Stop Fighting Over the Kids: Resolving Day-to-Day Custody Conflict in Divorce Situations" and it is sound advice that has many attorneys scratching their heads at the simplicity of it all. With the help of Lary Holland, Host and Producer of Get Your Justice Live™, Mike Mastracci is able to deliver a message that just might save thousands of kids, judges, and professionals from being forced into the middle of heated courtroom proceedings between separating parents that have children.

Help Redistribute Get Your Justice Live

2009-03-08T20:02:00.001-07:00

We need your help in raising the distribution and reach of the official Get Your Justice Live show. It is easy. You can help with myspace blogs, myspace comments, blogger blogs, email, and more just like to the right.

Click here to get it

New Resources for Non Profits

2008-12-15T18:30:00.001-08:00

Here are a variety of resources for those nonprofits that still haven't gotten everything underway when raising awareness about our parental rights. We discussed these tools on Get Off The Bench on one of the Monday Night Free Advocacy Calls. These tools have their definite uses and the resources listed have many funding opportunities for your organization as well, whether it be technical help, grants from private foundations, or marketing donations.

Using Twitter as a messaging alert system for your organization. Coordinate instantanoues rallies, protests, demonstrations or even mass coordinate telephone calls with your contact list. Instantly notify via sms, email, and other methods at a single click of a button.
http://www.twitter.com

POWWOWNOW - Create a local telephone conference with web board for free to discuss your important issues in a community forum. Start a parental alienation support group, divorce support group, or other group designed for peer support and advocacy. Everyone can do one.
http://www.powwownow.com

Organizers DB will help you keep track of donors, volunteers, and email lists for your nonprofit organization. This application is completely free for your organization.
http://www.organizersdb.org

Grassroots ~ their mission is to "adopt" 10,000 nonprofit organizations with the intention of providing around $10,000 per year of services to each organization for FREE. Sign up and get your benefits.
http://www.grassroots.org/

Learn How to Build Your Nonprofits Brand in Eight Words or Less
http://www.gettingattention.org/nonprofit_tagline_report.html

Non Profit Guides for grants writing and proposals.
http://www.npguides.org/

The 3 Effective tools Article that will help your nonprofit organization excel.
http://www.help4nonprofits.com/NP_Mktg_3EffectiveTools_Article.htm

Introduction to Community Engagement
http://www.help4nonprofits.com/NP_Mktg_Marketing-vs-CommunityEngagement_Art.htm

The 3 Most Effective Tools for Community Engagement
http://www.help4nonprofits.com/NP_Mktg_3EffectiveTools_Article.htm

Friend Raising versus fundraising.
http://www.help4nonprofits.com/FriendRaisingBook.htm

Story About Building Relationships
http://www.help4nonprofits.com/ToM-204.htm

Not Your Dad's Divorce
http://www.newsweek.com/id/174790

Non Profit Organizational Assessment Tool Volunteer Management
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/nonprofits/management/assess7.cfm

You can spread the word about Get Your Justice Live: The Nation's Most Popular Family Court Talk Show

2008-12-02T18:24:00.000-08:00

You can add the item to the left very easily to your blog, myspace, and other websites by using "code."

I have the code that you need listed at this website address so you can simply cut and paste it into your comments, blog posts, and more!

If you have any questions... Just let us know. You can also post comments to this entry with where you are promoting the show. We look forward to growing with you in fighting the system.

Children Need Both Parents: Parental Rights and Due Process

2008-11-25T19:59:00.000-08:00

I took some time to compile a website called "Children Need Both Parents" because I am tired of the government intruding into everyone's personal lives at the invitation of one parent. I am not discounting domestic violence and a multitude of other factors and allegations that require criminal government intervention. I am however, setting an objective standard that leads the way to protecting the parent-child relationship and working towards "co-equality" of competing parental interests. Raising evidence standards before a parent's relationship with their own child is diminished through no criminal act is a necessity.

Check it out:
http://www.childrenneedbothparents.net

It includes information linking to Professor Donald Hubin's "Parental Rights and Due Process," a solid proposed State Constitutional Amendment to Protect Parental Rights, and a Federal Constitutional Amendment proposal for the same. There are also links indicating the benefits of two parent involvement throughout the site and sample language to introduce in your own states. We have to limit government intrusion where one parent attempts to usurp the other parent's role in their child's lives.

Parental Rights must be respected and protected, and government must not intrude and assist in the usurpation any longer. Parents are co-equal unless a steep evidentiary standard is employed to intrude, but that has not been the practice in CPS, Child Custody, Child Support, or Divorce cases where parents are encouraged to destroy each other in a winner take all battle sometimes to the death.

Google: Family Court is a Deadly Business; Guess what, I wrote it. Check it out and see what is really happening across America. Be sure to tell people, like your family members, legislators, and even local officials about what is happening everywhere.

Freedom of Information Act Links

2008-11-10T16:34:00.000-08:00

I have compiled some useful resources on Freedom of Information Act Laws, Anti-Slapp (Anti- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), and other informative links that will help citizens stamp out government corruption by having the tools necessary to get at critical information not otherwise known to the general public. This helps keep government in the sunshine for all the public to see. Do your part and file one today, you might even be able to do it for FREE.

Listen to the various discussions on this episode of the Get Off The Bench Advocacy Call. It's free and it is to help you and your organizations.

The National Security Archive
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/nsa/foia/resources.html

United States Department of Justice FOIA Information Website
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/index.html

Public Citizen Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
http://www.citizen.org/litigation/free%5Finfo/

State by State Freedom of Information Act Laws
http://www.foiadvocates.com/records.html

How to Make a Freedom of Information Act Request
http://www.foiadvocates.com/howto.html

How to Get FOIA Fee Waivers
http://www.foiadvocates.com/fees.html

Citizen Access Project
http://www.citizenaccess.org/

Searchable Information Sources (all 50 states) Citizen Access Project
http://www.citizenaccess.org/search.html

Project on Government Oversight
http://www.pogo.org/

Report Corruption on Project on Government Oversight
http://www.pogo.org/report-corruption/

Society of Professional Journalists Foia Information and Anti-Slapp Lawsuit Issues
http://www.spj.org/foi.asp

The National Archives for Records Managers Website (Government training and guidelines site for maintaining records, master this and master getting more access to information no matter where it is in the government bureaucracies.)
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/

Federal Records Officers - Complete Federal List
http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/agency/officers-lists.html

Is it really our ex’s fault?

2008-10-30T14:05:00.001-07:00

The answer is NO and you are about to learn why. It is not Ex-spouses, Ex-Girlfriends, and Ex-Boyfriends that are causing/creating the pain that other parents suffer. It may feel that way because that is the person that is seen as the adversary and who is believed to be in control of the situation. The first thing that has to be noted is that parental alienation, divorce, and separation is not even about YOU or YOUR children... this is about EVERYONE and EVERYONE'S CHILDREN. "It is infinitely more valuable to fight for the rights of others than to fight for your own." It is the government's fault for creating, empowering, and allowing these situations and actions by one fit parent against another fit parent that is crippling the parent-child relationship. In some cases, it is even causing death. (See Family Court is Deadly Business: 2007).

The reality is that the system is completely at fault because it does not respect or protect parental rights (IE: parents are actually competing for the love of their children in selfish ways trying to cut one off from the other in adversarial proceedings, typically without real cause) and further the system does not protect the presumptive co-equal rights of parents. Parents should maintain a co-equal status unless there is proven by clear and convincing (or higher) evidence that one or both parents are unwilling, incapable, or otherwise unfit to be a parent. The subsequent relationship between the parents should have little bearing on the parent-child relationships if the government is protecting that relationship and allowing parents to do their individual jobs. This thinking prevails even when the parents don't like each other because there should be no mechanism to continue adversary proceedings unless there is clear and convincing cause. People work with other people that they do not like in the common work places across America all the time and they are still able to complete their jobs. Parenting is much like a job and that mutual respect should be enforced between co-equal partners/parents.

The issue of co-equality is real and must be established in legislation as the protection mechanism that our government should be involved in. Government is supposed to protect inalienable rights, not enable whiny people to fight back and forth for profit or vengeance... greed/selfishness/emotions encourages people to fight back and forth because the system provides the tools, resources, and arena to do so. If people are not provided the options, there are no options to take. Many would argue there is a reason why co-equality shouldn't exist because their ex did this or that or another thing... THAN PROVE IT WITH A HIGH STANDARD OF EVIDENCE and ensure due process and equal application of the law for ALL. Some want that lower evidence so they can say things without backing them up and get away with it. It is wrong. We must maintain a high evidentiary standard that presumes co-equality and enforces the inalienable parenting right above state ideology to control our children. It is a parent's duty to raise, care, and control the upbringing of their own offspring.

Government is instead sidestepping protecting inalienable rights and moving right in to take care of our children because they derive intense profits for their bureaucracies, without first proving there is a need by a high standard of evidence before intruding. They have parents too wrapped up in shooting at the wrong targets with the wrong bullets while the government collects steep federal incentives while claiming to protect one person or another from some unproven bad force. Government in essence is failing to protect the parent-child relationship, thereby enabling bad parents to continue being bad parents at the expense of an entire generation. The government is failing to punish parents when they are attempting to trample the presumed co-equal rights between fit, caring, and willing parents and instead providing the tools necessary to battle. Parent against parent where the losers are one parent, the children, and the taxpayer is destroying entire generations.

Because the government is failing to protect the co-equal status, parental alienation is allowed to exist. Because many parents want to alienate the alienator rather than be coequal with their former spouses/intimate partners they strive for fighting to the death like many that are wrapped up in their personal cases instead of advocating for the government to protect BOTH parents access to their children. People either want to fit themselves into a victim class to obtain a benefit or fit their ex-partners into a false/bad light in a winner take all philosophy to family court. Instead of making sure their government is creating a truly equal playground where all people are responsible for their own actions and inactions the government is encouraging the deprivation of one parent-child relationships, while being completely subsidized by the nation's taxpayer.

Like the courtroom, many people will choose to bicker and fight continuously over MICROCOSMIC disagreements in communication style in public forums if they are allowed to. This is much like people fighting over differences in parenting styles in the courtroom and trying to impose one parent's will over the other in an effort to control. The name of the game is that parental rights must be respected and protected by all, including the legislatures, the judiciaries, and more importantly all parents.

In the wise words of the Human Torch... "FLAME ON!"

More updates from Lary Holland

2008-10-02T14:18:00.000-07:00

We had Alan Karmin from RADAR on Get Off The Bench Wednesday Night (October 1, 2008) on a very important show exposing the Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and False Allegations Hurting REAL Victims of Domestic Violence.

Alan Karmin: Domestic Violence Awareness Month

Alec Baldwin is at it again and shows up in the Harvard Law Review under the title "Alec Baldwin Takes on Family Family Law. Check it out over at Family Court Reports.

Alec Baldwin Takes on Family Law

Spread the information far and wide and let people know about what is happening in THEIR AMERICA!

First The Raised Your Taxes and Now They Want to Raise Your Children

2008-09-29T10:46:00.000-07:00

First They Raised Your Taxes and Now They Want to Raise Your Children http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/539-First-They-Raise-Your-Taxes-and-Now-They-Want-to-Raise-Your-Children..html

Michigan Equal Parenting Rally: Michigan Legislators Ready to Press The Button http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/538-Michigan-Equal-Parenting-Rally-Legislators-are-Ready-to-Press-the-Button.html

Michigan Legislators and Family Rights Organizations Set to Rally on September 23, 2008 http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/537-Michigan-Legislators-and-Family-Rights-Organizations-Set-to-Rally-Tuesday-September-23,-2008.html

If you want to help out with major action, there is a call to action on the first blog entry above. We need more people to start getting involved with simple action or through contributions to those that are exhausting their resources for the movement. Either take the action or contribute to help us take the action, we make it real simple. It is time to stop waiting for someone else to solve the problem and become part of the solution.

If you don't want to do these tasks today, help me blow out a couple of more fax blasts to all the legislators and their employees, sponsor our telephone campaigns, and assist with mailers to them by pledging a dollar amount to help by sending an email to laryholland@sbcglobal.net and a secure online invoice will be generated for your one time credit card contribution. Be sure to include your pledge amount.

You can also go to our website at http://www.laryholland.com and subscribe for 10.00, 15.00, or 20.00 per month to keep things happening. We need your action or your contribution today. If you want something to happen, you will make it happen. Take the action so I don't have to.

LEE PAS Foundation, DC FESTIVAL 2008 Coverage

2008-08-19T18:04:00.001-07:00

An amazing representation from the LEE PAS FOUNDATION at the DC FESTIVAL 2008. More information to be found at http://www.familycourtreports.com.

Restraining Orders Out of Control

2008-07-28T05:50:00.001-07:00

Forget the 4th amendment. Just fill out a form and the cops will show up by surprise and pull your husband out on the street with only the clothes on his back, forbidden to contact you even directly for at least a week.

read more | digg story

Complaint lodged against family law judge.

2008-06-28T13:33:00.001-07:00

Locating bad judges is the name of the game. Removing them from the bench? Our children and their children will thank you. Kudos are in order for Tim Fittro of Men and Women Against Discrimination in West Virginia. MAWAD files complaint against sitting Family Court Judge for admitting to the legislature that he doesn't follow the laws.

read more | digg story

Other ways to immediately get involved to make a successful civil rights event!

2008-06-25T16:16:00.000-07:00

Other ways to immediately get involved to make a successful civil rights event in Washington DC at Upper Senate Park this year. (August 15 & 16 2008)

1. Watch this website frequently. You will notice “recent posts” on the left hand side of this site on all of the pages. You should view these to determine where you need to spread information to and how to do it. Note that the topic might only say “myspace” and spread the information through myspace. If it says “group” then spread the information to yahoo groups or support groups. Likewise, “media releases” go to general media. Finally, if it is an “official statement” then that answers questions from the top. Spread all the information far and wide.

2. Using social networks is critical. You must send out information from this website so that everyone receives the same information. Sign up at some of the social networks like http://www.friendster.com, http://www.myspace.com, http://www.facebook.com and spread self-authored articles that cover the link www.dcfestival2008.com. You can make all the difference just by getting involved with this. Link into all the forums you have access to!

3. Getting Involved means acting. Talk to everyone about this civil rights issue. Use this site as your resource. Spread information at each of the mini events leading up to the historic DC FESTIVAL 2008.

4. Target any type of site that allows comments about parenting issues, news article sites, and professional organizations. Write your own post and include a link to this website: http://www.dcfestival2008.com. If you have a blog, be sure to add this site and let us know immediately, we will add you to our list of sponsors when we receive your letter of support described in #6 of this list.

5. Plan to attend the event! If you can’t attend, you can pledge a donation via email to dcevents@familycourtreports.com and you will receive a credit card invoice via our secure provider. Send the email with PLEDGE: $#.## in the subject line with the amount you with to pledge. It is that simple and goes a long way if you can’t make the event.

6. Get your letter of support of this national civil rights event faxed whether you are an individual, organization, agency, or association. Support letters should be faxed to 989-764-5920 or emailed with a PDF attachment to dcevents@familycourtreports.com. Address them to “Write to Parent” 5119 Highland Rd. #229 Waterford, MI 48327. Include your endorsement as well as the focus of your organization. 1-2 pages. These will be delivered with our national messages to all of Congress.

7. Contact organizations that you would like to see at the event! Exhibition tables are extremely reasonable and we are accepting registrations via our toll-free line at 800-883-9619. Organizations can also fly their banners behind their table or in front.

8. Contact political candidates and ask them if they support our national event! The best way to determine if you are going to vote for a candidate is if they believe in the same issues. Make your issue a voter issue! Support letters should be faxed to 989-764-5920 or emailed with a PDF attachment to dcevents@familycourtreports.com. Address them to “Write to Parent” 5119 Highland Rd. #229 Waterford, MI 48327.

9. Volunteer to help fill a position. Send an email to dcevents@familycourtreports.com if you have time to help. Positions are available in a variety of areas. Every person extends the reach of our national event. There is something for everyone to do. Start by doing some of the things listed at this site and report back to dcevents@familycourtreports.com.

10. Get connected into other groups, organizations, and agencies and spread the word. Network this website and our issues. Simply send copies of our press releases, myspace posts, and more to groups that believe in limited government and protecting parenthood.

There are many other activities that you can assist with. You can subscribe for our weekly conference calls to discuss the issues at this link! Be sure to select DC FESTIVAL 2008 on the check list for announcements.

Parents Rights Organizations From Across The Nation!

2008-06-21T19:53:00.001-07:00

Oakland County, Michigan ———- Children’s andParent’s Rights organizations from across the nation are scheduled toencroach on Washington DC this August 15 & 16 at the Upper SenatePark. Why? Because government policies do not reflect what is trulybest for children and good parents.

read more | digg story

GET YOUR JUSTICE LIVE is Get Off The Bench: Shows The Real Weapon of Mass Destruction

2008-05-09T19:33:00.001-07:00

Get Your Justice Live is an interactive internet talk radio show that focuses on reforming the judiciary, with a special focus on the anti-family courts within the United States. GET YOUR JUSTICE LIVE EVERY WEDNESDAY (8:00pm) and SUNDAY (8:00pm).

Call In: 724-444-7444 TALKCAST ID: 39517
Do you know a Family Court Judge, CPS employee, or Friend Of The Court Counselor that did something wrong and got away with it? Let us know!

Join Our MySpace.Com Page

Our goal is not to work against the system but to work through it and working together there is power in numbers to make a positive change. Tune in!

TEACHER STUDENT EPIDEMIC

2008-05-04T17:48:00.001-07:00

The great affliction of student namely female teacher having romantic relationships with there student. A lot of those being in Florida.

read more | digg story

Brian Holladay and Drew Baden Prepare for National Summit

2008-04-28T10:52:00.001-07:00

Two Supporters of Equal Parenting prepare for the 2008 National Fatherhood Summit in Grand Rapids, Michigan earlier this year. Fathers-4-Justice and many other awareness groups promote the need for children to have equal access to both fit, willing, and caring parents.

Nationwide Child Support Enforcement Fails Needy Families

2008-04-28T08:09:00.001-07:00

NATIONWIDE		% change from FY 06
Collections Distributed	$24,854,768,488	3.8%
- Current Assistance	$946,283,222	-4.0%
- Former Assistance	$9,469,870,384	2.5%
- Never Assistance	$11,322,297,160	3.2%
- Medicaid Assistance	$3,116,317,722	13.8%
Total Expenditures	$5,593,864,242	0.6%
Cost Effectiveness ($ Change)	$4.73	$0.15
Paternities & Acknowledgements	1,729,141	1.7%
Orders Established	1,177,589	1.6%
Full Time Equivalent Staff	60,104	-0.5%
Total Caseload	15,755,322	-0.6%
- Current Assistance	2,136,693	-8.5%
- Former Assistance	7,194,998	-1.0%
- Never Assistance	6,423,631	2.9%
Net Undistributed Collections	$471,977,847	-2.8%
Arrears Amounts Due	$107,248,465,839	-2.0%

Over participation continues to be a major problem in the nation's child support enforcement program. I have highlighted important sections regarding participation numbers, collections, and undistributed child support. Net Undistributed Collections appears to make up the equivalent of about 50% of the total collections of means tested needy families. These are nationwide numbers. You will see that between former and never assistance, actual needy families are a super minority of this social welfare program.

Adding eligibility requirements into the nation's Title IV-D/Child Support Enforcement Program will benefit needy families and will also constitute a significant savings to the taxpayers at both the federal and state levels. Removing affluent feuding families from the program will also benefit children of those divorce and child custody cases, by emphasizing on the parent-child relationship rather than encouraging bickering and fighting over who is going to receive a check and for how much.

Actual Federal Expenditures Nationwide: $5,593,864,242.00 (Billions)

Estimated State Expenditures Nationwide: $1,845,975,199.86 (Billions)

Taxpayer Expense, not including other social programs and costs of incarcerations is over 7 BILLION DOLLARS!

Collections for ACTUAL MEANS TESTED NEEDY FAMILIES: $946,283,222.00 (Millions) which is less than the State's expenditures on the program nationwide. Why is the federal government getting involved in these cases?

(please note there is no verification to determine if the money was distributed after collection.)

This program would be better off distributing money out of the budget directly to needy families and just get rid of the employees behind the Child Support Enforcement Agency. With Net Undistributed Collections totaling nearly 50% of the amount collected for needy families, one has to wonder how many needy families are indeed being helped by the program.

ABOUT.COM Covers Story of Fathers Pedaling 758 Mi for Kids

2008-04-27T16:34:00.001-07:00

ABOUT.COM Wayne Parker Fatherhood Blog Covers Story of Fathers Pedaling 758 Miles on Bicycles for Children. A Moving and Inspirational Story. Digg! If you support!

read more | digg story

Hunt for Deadbeats is on in Jackson, Michigan

2008-04-21T09:34:00.001-07:00

More than half the money involved in 2007 that was "owed" to parents was forgiven by them, again demonstrating that many individuals involved in the program don't want to be, or otherwise shouldn't be in the program at taxpayer expense. This year about 2/3 of the money that was owed was also forgiven. Read the complete article for more important information that you can learn from this article!

read more | digg story

Lary Holland: Public Concern Over Definition of Father

2008-04-21T07:13:00.001-07:00

Lary Holland

Host and Producer:

Get Off The Bench & Family Court Reports

5199 Highland Rd. Suite 229

Waterford, MI 48327

Hon. Tracey A. Yokich April 9, 2008

40 N. Main St.
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

RE: Public Concern over Definition of Father

Dear Honorable Tracey A. Yokich,

I have some concerns about the operations of the Macomb County Circuit Court and its definitions. You may or may not remember that in 2005-2006 the Macomb County Referees were only providing 4 days to object to referee recommendation/orders, which was not in compliance with court rule.

Through my initiating a Complaint in the form of a Request for Investigation under MCR 8.113 I took action through the State Court Administrator's Office and subsequently directly through Hon. Clifford Taylor's Office with the Supreme Court. My purpose was to ensure that Macomb County would comply with the statutory 7 days for objection and 21 days for request for de novo hearings upon disagreement with Referees.

In July of 2006, Keith Beasley confirmed that the local court would comply with the court rule and adjusted the local court's practice. This I was grateful for, because many people, especially the tremendous number of "pro per" litigants that you publicly acknowledged, were denied a fundamental access to justice by having such reduced time limits to figure out how to lodge their objections.

It was recently brought to my attention when I came across a video of your court room on "youtube," an online public social networking site for videos, that you provide your own personal definition of a father. To my surprise, what you responded to the litigant with is classical gender bias and is unbecoming of a sitting judge. It would appear that you believe that a father should work as many jobs as it takes while mother is allowed to work only one job to provide "roofs" over the heads of the parties' children. In this situation, I actually have been to home of the father and observed a wonderful roof over their head, and where he has been struggling to provide the best possible environment for the children which go unrecognized by your court room. It would appear there is a greater emphasis with your courtroom for income shifting from one household to the other without much evidentiary proof of its necessity, other than to comply with the funding requirements of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

As an expert on Title IV-D of the Social Security (CSE Program), the purpose of the Act was to recuperate the expenses of Title IV-A welfare benefits that the federal government pays to the states, but in the particular case where you lambast the father, he is the individual on Title IV-A (TANF Assistance). Your courtroom has lost site of the best interests of the children in that case and has placed procedural and contractual performances ahead of real judicial discretion. This is unfortunately a very sad day in society where free for all welfare programs like Title IV-D of the Social Security usurp the best interests of the children and allow parents to continue fighting. In the case at hand, both parents should be providing for their own households so they may jointly and equally provide for their own children because both parents are fit, caring, and loving parents. In the situation of a father receiving TANF the court's role should be limited in attempting to carry out contractual performance under Title IV-D as it is directly contrary to the purpose of the act. It is understood for every dollar that is spent on the guise of "child support enforcement" that your local county receives two more dollars. I was integral in ensuring that the financial double-dipping was revoked from the federal statute and it is my goal to remove a significantly larger number of cases from the Title IV-D caseload. This will help judges reclaim real discretion, so that you are not forced to be a cash cow for the local county under the federal program.

I would hope that you take a moment to update your definition of what a father is by referring to many of the numerous resources that are available to you including this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father

This will help you understand the importance that this father plays in his children's life, which has nothing to do with supporting the mother's higher standard of living at all, but rather empowering the children through his continued contact with them. It makes little sense to allow two parents to continue fighting over one of the things that likely led them to the initial break-up, being money and power, and do something that places both parents on equal standing ground and nothing more to fight about.

Creating the appearance of an absent household to allow for these type of income shifts is both unethical and detrimental to the relationship of both parties with their own children and only adds to the tremendous caseload that you are juggling on your docket. Let's solve problems instead of contributing to them.

Sincerely,

Lary Holland

722.26a Joint custody.

(6) Joint custody shall not eliminate the responsibility for child support. Each parent shall be responsible for child support based on the needs of the child and the actual resources of each parent. If a parent would otherwise be unable to maintain adequate housing for the child and the other parent has sufficient resources, the court may order modified support payments for a portion of housing expenses even during a period when the child is not residing in the home of the parent receiving support. An order of joint custody, in and of itself, shall not constitute grounds for modifying a support order.

(7) As used in this section, "joint custody" means an order of the court in which 1 or both of the following is specified:

(a) That the child shall reside alternately for specific periods with each of the parents.

(b) That the parents shall share decision-making authority as to the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child.

Michigan Resources: Self-Help Legal Assistance: Know Your Attorney Before Paying!

2008-02-22T19:18:00.000-08:00

In Michigan it is very valuable to research prospective attorneys before handing over that $1,000.00 - $10,000.00 retainer fees. If you think you will have a highly contentious divorce, custody, child support, or paternity action, you might invest some of your time is seeing if your attorney has any appellate experience regarding your current legal needs. You can view all of the cases an attorney has in Michigan's Court of Appeals.

Don't forget to rate attorneys by following the instructions at this link.

Get Off The Bench Talk Cast! Listen to it while you work!

Attorney Case List
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/public_acl.htm

The attorney case list can be used to research the types of cases that an attorney has experience with at the court of appeals level. The P(Number) is the number assigned to an attorney when accepted into the State Bar of Michigan. The Attorney Name must be in LAST name FIRST name format. You can check the box for "include closed cases" which is always helpful to see how cases were ruled on.

Search Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Opinions by Key Word
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/ts.htm

You can search various opinions from both the Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court opinions by key words and phrases. You can do things like... child custody or parental rights. You can see reasons why orders were overturned, affirmed, or modified.

Michigan Court Rules
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/rules/

These are the Michigan Court rules arranged by Chapter. If you plan on representing yourself in court, you need to plan on understanding the rules of civil procedure (Chapter 2) and then the applicable Chapter for example... Chapter 3.200 for Domestic Relations Actions.

Michigan Rules of Evidence
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/rules/documents/2MichiganRulesOfEvidence.pdf

How can you conduct a trial if you don't understand the Rules of Evidence and how to object or what is admissible / inadmissible.

Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/rules/documents/5MichiganRulesOfProfessionalConduct.pdf

These are the rules of professional conduct for attorneys. These are the rules that THEY must adhere to when representing or advocating for a client. You should know these so you know when you are not being well-represented. Know the rules that attorneys must follow so that when or if they break them, you can take action against them.

The knowledge represented above is invaluable if you plan on self-representation and is only a start for Pro Se Litigants in Michigan. In the past I have published a mini-manual for people that includes Friend of the Court Act, Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act, and other important pieces like the Michigan Constitution. Let me know if there is still a need for such a resource. I will make them available online for you. If you have more questions send me an email at laryholland@familycourtreports.com.

Get Your Justice Live with Get Off The Bench

2008-02-12T19:41:00.001-08:00

Now there is a new interactive talk show designed to expose many of the injustices of the family court system, child protective services, child support enforcement agencies, and officials that have gone wild with the power that they wield. Every Sunday and Wednesday Night you can call in live or listen at http://www.getyourjusticelive.com.

read more | digg story

Lary Holland on House Joint Resolution NN (2008)

2008-02-02T20:52:00.001-08:00

Lary Holland provides a quick information piece on House Joint Resolution NN (2008). Be sure to spread the word and get people contacting their legislators immediately.

Dr. Ron Paul with William Wagener OnSecondThought.Tv

2008-02-02T10:09:00.001-08:00

... just one of the many federal programs where the federal government bribes state governments to comply with their version of public policy. As stated in the video the Title IV-D program sounds like "old fashioned debtor prison" and that the Child Support Enforcement program is "little more or little less than a system of organized crime."

read more | digg story

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and Lary Holland Discuss Equal Parenting in Michigan

2008-01-28T20:00:00.000-08:00

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and Lary Holland of Michigan discuss Equal Parenting at the Farmington Hills League of Women Voters Public Town Hall Meeting on January 28, 2008. Michigan currently suffers from the highest unemployment rate, the highest juvenile life sentence rate, and a significant number of incarcerations all related to the breakdown of the Michigan Family. We are seeking to put the family as nearly back together as possible by minimizing the conflict between parents post-divorce, post separation, and post-paternity. Tune in to GetYourJusticeLive.Com for more details on Michigan House Bill 4564 and the happenings in Family Court around the United States.

2008-01-28T19:42:00.000-08:00

Lary Holland and House Speaker Andy Dillon at the Farmington Hills League of Women Voters Public Townhall Meeting. Discussing House Bill 4564, Michigan's Presumption of Equal Custody Bill, which will place parents on even footing in child custody disputes unless either parent is unfit, unwilling, or incapable of caring for their children.

UPDATE: Andy Dillon and House Democrats: Lawmakers Aim to Cut Deal with Energy Suppliers to Sidestep Voter Approval on Tax Increase

Rep. Jack Hoogendyk and Lary Holland at Americans for Prosperity

2008-01-15T16:44:00.000-08:00

Representative Jack Hoogendyk and Lary Holland discuss shared parenting, part-time legislature, and other issues that have major economic rammifications for Michigan's single-state recession economy.

Lary Holland at Americans For Prosperity

2008-01-15T16:42:00.000-08:00

Scott Tillman, of the Sam Adams Alliance, and Lary Holland, of Family Court Reports, discuss political strategies and concerns for Michigan issues and several campaigns. The Americans for Prosperity event focused on Conservative values with guest speakers ranging from Senator McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Rogers, and more.

More information about the American's for Properity event will be forthcoming over the next several days. The event was a huge success with many quality breakout events and opportunities for networking.

Advocates Decended Onto Grand Rapids, MI.

2008-01-15T16:31:00.000-08:00

Kenyatte, Lary Holland, and Paul Sielski the morning after the National Fatherhood Summit in Grand Rapids, January 4, 2008, planning details for demonstrations that took place later in the afternoon.

For more information on:

Fathers 4 Justice
http://www.f4j.us

Lary Holland
http://www.laryholland.com

Paul Sielski
http://www.sielski.org

For more information on the upcoming Family Preservation Festival simply visit http://www.dcrally2008.com.

2008-01-15T16:25:00.000-08:00

A SPECIAL THANK YOU!

Depicted to the right are Apostle Arthur Bailey and his lovely wife from Abundant Life Ministries in Grand Rapids, MI. Apostle Arthur Bailey sponsored and hosted the National Fatherhood Summit in Grand Rapids, MI.

The National Fatherhood Summit in Grand Rapids, MI was a great success for fathers and families. Speakers and participants traveled from all across the United States to attend the National Fatherhood Summit Event.

The event was organized by Minister Ronald Smith of Children Need Both Parents, Inc and hosted at Abundant Life Ministries.

Originally Reported at Family Court Reports (familycourtreports.com)
http://www.familycourtreports.com/serendipity/archives/457-National-Fatherhood-Summit-2008.html

Lary Holland Speech at the National Fatherhood Summit
http://daddy.typepad.com/daddyblog/2008/01/lary-holland--.html

DaddyBlogger.Com Reports on the National Fatherhood Summit
http://daddy.typepad.com/daddyblog/2008/01/national-fath-1.html

There are many other events that are being scheduled leading up to the August Family Preservation Festival.
http://www.dcrally2008.com

Interview - The End of America

2007-11-19T05:26:00.001-08:00

This is an amazing interview with Naomi Wolfe. I don't always agree with her, but I agree with her letter of warning to young patriots. "The End of the America" is an eye opening interview that everyone that worries about the condition of the United States should indulge and spread.

PAY YOUR TAXES

2007-11-10T19:27:00.001-08:00

PAY YOUR TAXES
Originally uploaded by laryholland@sbcglobal.net

I normally write about the family court system, but since Title IV-D and Title IV-E are both essentially negativistic free for all welfare programs that harm society, let's demonstrate another place that your taxes go with this simple image. Let me know if you agree. I'm interested in hearing from you.

Oh, and one more thing... If you aren't busy on Sunday or Wednesday nights, tune in to GET OFF THE BENCH at http://www.getoffthebench.tv and Get You Justice Live! Broadcasting Live at 8:00pm and 8:30pm Sunday and Wednesday Night..

Friend of the Court Abuses Run Rampid.

2007-11-06T14:51:00.001-08:00

Lary Holland is an expert regarding Title IV-D and the UnFamily Courts of America. Check this video that talks about the Friend of the Court in Michigan and how Representative Brenda Clack has a complete disregard to the family by not encouraging and supporting House Bill 4564, Michigan's Presumption of Equal Custody Bill. Visit laryholland.com

read more | digg story

GET OFF THE BENCH - new interactive talkcast covering family court system.

2007-10-13T20:58:00.001-07:00

Get Off The Bench, with hosts Lary Holland and Bob Norton every Wednesday (8:30pm) and Sunday Night (8:00pm) Archived shows are available and cover many of the topics that the media refuse to cover or fail to adequately cover about the dysfunctional family court system. Be sure to tune in at http://www.getoffthebench.tv and listen to the real news!

read more | digg story

GET OFF THE BENCH IS NOW IN SESSION. Tune in now to get your justice!

2007-10-01T15:03:00.001-07:00

GET OFF THE BENCH is a new, interactive, talk internet show that exposes the court employees, judges, cps workers, and other government employees that are involved in playing the family law court game. You can download archived shows, listen live Wednesdays and Sundays at 8:00pm, or participate by logging in today. Tune in now to get your justice!

read more | digg story

I love you both Esilanna and Lary! From Dad.

2007-08-25T19:22:00.000-07:00

Here is a tribute to my two children, Esilanna and Lary. They are both loved and missed by the entire family. I love you both kids, from Dad.

Mounting Accountability Problems With Child Support Programs: Data Stolen

2007-07-30T11:49:00.001-07:00

Yuba County scrambled this week to contact 70,000 people whose names and personal information were on a laptop computer stolen from the new Child Support Services office in Linda. County officials said the stolen laptop contained Social Security numbers, birth dates, driver’s license numbers and other private information on 70,000 people+.If these program administrators cannot even protect some bits of data on their computer systems, why would we allow them make recommendations regarding the best interests of our own children? It's time to reign in these out of control free for all welfare programs and return the money back to the taxpayers that have been misled by these "child support" enforcement bureacracies.

read more | digg story

Child Support Clerk Charged With Embezzlement: program needs oversight

2007-07-29T08:43:00.001-07:00

The program is already stealing from taxpayers by forcing the inclusion of the middle-class and upper-class families in to the program but now there is definitely an upward trend associated with theft from the program itself by the County cooperative contract employees demonstrating a need for citizen oversight.

read more | digg story

Apology given for child-support error

2007-07-29T08:41:00.001-07:00

More mistakes by the child support enforcement program employees. This one has a positive outcome, but many do not.

read more | digg story

Request to Michigan Representative Brenda Clack: Bring House Bill 4564 Up!

2007-07-19T00:28:00.001-07:00

Michigan needs a presumption of equal custody because it is fair for taxpayers, parents, and children. A presumption of equal custody eliminates the necessity of parents to feud over parenting time and children because there will no longer be an enabling negative family law policy supporting back and forth fighting over the children.

read more | digg story

What's Brenda Clack's Reasoning: Discussion on Equal Parenting and Abuses

2007-07-17T09:32:00.001-07:00

Casual discussion on the Friend of the Court abuse of power, equal parenting, and how Representative Brenda Clack is holding Michigan's House Bill 4564 (presumption of equal custody) hostage in Committee. This is the second of several pieces with Studio 1714 in the Beautiful East Side of Flint, Michigan.

read more | digg story

Lary Holland Explains How Federal Grants Obstruct Equal Parenting

2007-07-15T07:54:00.001-07:00

Lary Holland Explains How Federal Grants Obstruct Equal Parenting Initiatives Around the Country. Programs that focus on the greedy instead of the needy are the culprit.

read more | digg story

The Flint City Council: Equal Parenting Will Strengthen the Communities

2007-07-09T18:51:00.001-07:00

Brian Downs and Lary Holland presented to the regularly Flint City Council Meeting and were invited back to discuss critical issues surrounding Equal Parenting and how it affects the City's long-term health and growth. The Council Regular Meeting was July 9, 2007 and the speakers were gladly welcomed back.

read more | digg story

Lary Holland on Equal Parenting: Studio 1714 Covers Critical Issues

2007-07-09T08:48:00.001-07:00

Studio 1714, from Flint's beautiful East Side, Covers Critical Issues regarding Michigan's policy over the family, equal parenting, House Bill 4564, and how Representative Brenda Clack is currently holding up Michigan's Presumption of Equal Custody Bill. The critical issues are exposed in this 9 minute interview from Flint.

read more | digg story

How To Flush the Michigan Friend of the Court Out of Your Life!

2007-07-08T17:11:00.001-07:00

How to Flush the Friend of the Court Out of your Life by preventing your case from being entered as a foc/welfare case, stopping your case once it starts out as a foc/welfare case, and what to do if they continue forcing you to participate in the friend of the court welfare program against your will. By Lary Holland.

read more | digg story

Title IV-D Program Serves the Greedy Not the Needy: Child Support Fraud

2007-07-06T19:36:00.001-07:00

A Gas Station Owner is out over $15,000.00 for fraudulent unpaid child support debit card transactions but more importantly a total of approximately $82,0000.00 of money was spent without pin number verification. The Morning Star published a story called "Fraudulent Support Spree" on July 4, 2007. Check out http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity !

read more | digg story

Has the Friend of the Court Attempted to Extort Money From You?

2007-06-20T19:11:00.001-07:00

Has Michigan's Friend of the Court staff attempted to threaten and extort money or assets from you? Check this link to see if they have met the definition of Michigan's law regarding Extortion.

read more | digg story

Lary Holland Logs onto Squidoo: Fed Funding Obstructs Equal Parenting!

2007-06-09T10:07:00.001-07:00

Lary Holland logs onto Squidoo.Com and explains how Federal Title IV funding obstructs equal parenting and rewards the many states for breaking families apart.

read more | digg story

Child Support Workers Routinely Violate Privacy of Clients

2007-05-22T20:13:00.001-07:00

For some employees at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue with access to tax and child support data, the temptation to check up on former spouses, contentious neighbors, or real estate agents who rubbed them the wrong way is too hard to overcome.

read more | digg story

Father Reunited With Daughter! In Case You Missed It!

2007-05-10T19:53:00.001-07:00

A father was reunited after a year and a half with his daughter after the mother took off with the child. Watch the whole story by visiting the link. Lary Hollandhttp://www.laryholland.com

read more | digg story

HB 4564 ACTION ALERT by Radical Feminists!

2007-05-08T20:14:00.001-07:00

Looks like the National Organization for Women is trying to motivate and protect a cash cow for themselves and try and maintain an unbridled domination in child custody disputes instead of doing what is right for children. NOW takes a stance against children having equal access to both parents. Just say NO to NOW!

read more | digg story

The Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Welfare Reform

2007-05-04T23:21:00.000-07:00

The Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Welfare Reform
The purpose of the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Welfare Reform is very simple: "To reestablish the program as a safety-net for those that need it most" and to prevent States from forcing the inclusion of already self-sufficient and affluent families into State run welfare programs at the expense of the U.S. and local taxpayers.

Preventing the States from using Title IV-D welfare to generate revenues is essential for program success and is required for States to focus on providing a safety-net for needy families. Improved administration and legislation that limits Title IV-D incentives for increasing the number of broken homes will keep over participation problems from plaguing Title IV-D and allow States to focus on needy families.

Read on more about this and other important issues surrounding the Child Support Enforcement Services Program sponsored by the federal government by clicking on to: http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/356-Lary-Holland-On-Title-IV-D-Child-Support-Enforcement.html

Channel 3 in Nashville, Tennessee Blindly Supporting Government Propaganda

2007-04-14T16:10:00.001-07:00

Supporting budget cuts will improve the availability of services for child support enforcement to low-income families, since the current focus of the programs is on revenue generation for the state not on collections for lower-income needy families. Visit the story to see what questions and answers Channel 3 aren't offering for its viewers.

read more | digg story

Guest Op-Ed for IowaPolitics.Com: Who Should Pay For Child Support Services

2007-04-12T11:42:00.001-07:00

Would you pay for services that you don't receive? Just last week Sen. Chuck Grassley sought guidance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding Iowa's child support enforcement program and how best to address a new fee requirement within the federal guidelines of how the state's child support enforcement program is to operate.

read more | digg story

Michigan House Bill 4564 Help protect a child's right to EQUAL time!

2007-04-11T04:27:00.001-07:00

Michigan children deserve better! A Child's Right: EQUAL time with BOTH fit parents! Support shared parenting.

read more | digg story

Identity Theft: Opt Out of Family Court Services Before it Happens to YOU!

2007-03-30T05:14:00.000-07:00

If poor service delivery wasn't enough of a reason to opt out of free Family Court Welfare Services, Title IV Part D programs and child support services, then how about saving a thousand or more dollars and being secured against identity theft? Child Support customers in at least three states have already experienced serious breaches in their personal information, including social security numbers being compromised and potentially handed over to hackers that might want to steal identities in the last few months alone.

Read More At AssociatedContent Read More at LaryHolland.Com

Gladwin County Friend of the Court...Failing the Needy

2007-03-21T05:43:00.001-07:00

The Gladwin County Record published a letter to the editor yesterday questioning, among other things, "Does the Friend of the Court or the judge ever wonder how the mother is taking care of the kids?" The quick answer is no. Read on for more information.

read more | digg story

Identity Theft: Opt Out of Family Court Services Before It Happens To You!

2007-03-14T21:00:00.001-07:00

Child Support customers in at least three states have already experienced serious breaches in their personal information, including social security numbers being compromised and potentially handed over to hackers that might want to steal identities in the last few months alone.

read more | digg story

Any Dad

2007-03-10T07:15:00.001-08:00

A Divorced Dad goes to see his kids for a day of fun. But then... (Check Out this excellent video at CurrenTV.com and cast your green light) What is described in the video reflects what is happening in so many cases of separation, child custody, and divorce.

read more | digg story

Child Support Worker Arrested In Bribery Scheme

2007-03-09T08:05:00.001-08:00

According to Local6.Com another Child Support Worker was arrested, this time in Florida for bribing individuals that were involved with child support cases. Just last month another Child Support Worker embezzled a quarter of amillion dollars in Child Support Enforcement money in California. (Links in original article to video and priors)

read more | digg story

Susan Borovich Responds: Still Promoting the Slave Trade

2007-03-03T09:41:00.001-08:00

Susan Borovich, Director of the St. Clair County Friend of the Court, wants to make you think that she is helping fathers by promoting a program that forces specific performance under a court order as a result of an accruing debt, or risk sitting in jail. This program forces individuals into welfare programs without any compensation or sit in jail!

read more | digg story

Fathers-4-Justice™ U.S. Toledo Ohio Jan 2007

2007-02-24T13:52:00.001-08:00

Here is some video from a Fathers-4-Justice rally in Ohio this year. More and more groups are taking a stand for their children to have equal access to both parents.

Michigan has Growing Legal Problems: New ACLU Suit

2007-02-23T03:51:00.001-08:00

Michigan is one of only eight states that provide no funding to counties for legal aid to the poor. Even though the Public Defenders aren't funded, Michigan is quick to fund its' Friend of the Court operations, including the 45% over-participation that shouldn't even be in the program in the first place.

read more | digg story

"Venga a Michigan" - Not on My Dime!

2007-02-17T15:56:00.001-08:00

"Venga a Michigan" - Not on My Dime!In response to Jennifer Granholm's plan to bring in more immigrant workers at the expense of State residents: "no en mi moneda de diez centavos" - Not on my dime, Jennifer Granholm.

read more | digg story

Want to reduce poverty? Lower those tax rates.

2007-02-16T07:25:00.001-08:00

A recent study shows that the states with the highest tax rates are failing in the fight against poverty. The states with the lowest tax rates are reducing poverty. Take Colorado. It reduced its childhood poverty rate by almost 27 percent. Meanwhile, Rhode Island's childhood poverty rate increased by almost the same amount.

read more | digg story

Robert Pedersen, Co-Founder of A Child's Right, mentioned in the Liberator!

2007-02-15T16:12:00.001-08:00

Robert Pedersen, Co-Founder of A Child's Right, mentioned in the Washington, D.C. based newspaper "The Liberator".The Liberator is a Washington, D.C. based newspaper that is considered to be "the authority" on shared parenting all across the United States. It is published by the ACFC and has a readership estimated at close to 30,000.

read more | digg story

Granholm Wants More of Your Cash: Guest Column Written for MichiganDemocrat

2007-02-15T09:03:00.001-08:00

Jennifer Granholm, Michigan's Democrat Governor, has a plan, to take more of your money. Her plan is not to cut government employees like Chrysler's estimated 13,000 cuts to stay solvent, but rather just to tax you more. Holland says cut Friend of the Court Services by half and shift focus of the program back to aid for needy families.

read more | digg story

Hawaii's Child Support Raises Serious Questions About Focus

2007-02-14T07:46:00.001-08:00

The State is obviously overburdened with trying to provide service to the additional 45% caseload that is estimated at being families 150% over the poverty level before even receiving the services. The State should focus on those that actually need services instead of trying to compete for more federal money.

read more | digg story

Judge Rules: It's against the law to shoot father in the back over support.

2007-02-13T11:36:00.001-08:00

A Federal District Court Judge ruled that it is against the law for an officer to shoot a father in the back for a misdemeanor child support charge. More evidence of a program that is lacking sufficient adminstrative and legal controls, where even the officers have become the executioners of the corrupted legal system.

read more | digg story

The Welfare State: Shredding Society

2007-02-13T08:05:00.001-08:00

Government programs have not only created dependency, but have allowed people to escape the social norms that were the result of centuries of successful social behavior. The welfare state put in place a series of incentives that broke people free of the restraints of personal discipline. Before the advent of the full-blown welfare state, an out of

read more | digg story

The Welfare State: Shredding Society

2007-02-13T07:59:00.001-08:00

Friend of the Court Problems? There is a new service!

2007-02-03T12:37:00.000-08:00

Looks like another breath of fresh air for people that are having problems with Michigan's Friend of the Court. I received a copy of a press release today that indicated there were new online services available, free of charge, for people that are having problems with the various Michigan/County Friend of the Court Offices. I have attached the complete press release below:

-------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Problems with the friend of the court?Earlier last month, a new independent online service was made available to people who are experiencing problems with any of Michigan’s friends of the court and their offices across the state.

This free service was created to increase awareness, and to give more people a stronger voice in sharing their friend of the court experiences with others from anywhere in the world.

The service, available online at http://www.focproblems.com/, provides people with information on the friend of the court and contains an anonymous online community forum where people can register to discuss any difficulties they are having with their county’s friend of the court.

Registration is free and completely anonymous, and only a valid e-mail address is required to use the community forum services of the website.

If you have questions or are having problems with the friend of the court, please visit http://www.focproblems.com/; or for more information, please contact the website administrator at: info@focproblems.com.

Title IV-D Welfare Agency Exposed By Former Employee

2007-01-24T16:30:00.000-08:00

Michigan's Title IV-D Welfare Agency, known as the "Friend of the Court", has been fully exposed in FRIEND OF THE COURT ENEMY OF THE FAMILY. Written by Carol Rhodes, a former Friend of the Court investigator and enforcement officer discusses actual cases that she was involved with to expose the lies of the system and it's mode of operation.

You can hear her recent interview here. where she discusses with Richar Farr, of Krights Radio, and Robert Pedersen, of A Child Right, the details of how the various States use our children as a way to get bonus money from the Federal Government.

Other Resources:

Overview of Title IV-D Services: Click Here
How Federal Funding Drives Judicial Discretion... Click Here
Requesting Change: It's a Matter of Administration and Legislation: Click Here
The Weekly Standard Indicts CSE Title IV-D Welfare Program: Click Here
Will Democrats Actually Reduce Our Deficit? Click Here

America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version

2007-01-13T15:00:00.000-08:00

Please visit http://www.freedomtofascism.com to purchase the DVD.

This is the "Director's Final Cut" authorized version of Aaron Russo's documentary, America: Freedom To Fascism (AFTF). It is being uploaded to Google Video for the first time during the evening of October 19-20th, 2006. Aaron has listened to everyone's feedback - volunteers, students, lovers of freedom & liberty, young and old alike - and, true to his word, he is putting this up "for free" on Google Video knowing that the hour has come for Americans to either be awakened to restore the Republic or be swept aside by the dark global forces of fascism that seeks to enslave mankind.

AFTF's main focus comes in a statement with six very simple words: SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM!!

After viewing the movie, please be sure to visit http://www.freedomtofascism.com where you will soon be able to view a much higher quality "pay per view" Internet version of AFTF, buy the DVD and sign up as an affiliate to sell/distribute DVDs to others.

We also urge everyone to be sure to sign up as volunteer, register for email alerts and tell your family, friends and neighbors about this groundbreaking movie.

New Court Targets Federal Tax Monies Not Delays

2006-12-31T08:27:00.000-08:00

The Palladium-Item serving the Greater Richmond, IN area released an article Titled "New Court Targets Case Delays" which I couldn't help but respectfully disagree with. The new court targets Federal Tax Monies Not Delays.

Asking questions and determining the facts are both essential skills necessary of our reporters to maintain an INFORMED public. An informed public is also essential in monitoring the size and actions of various governmental agencies, legislative bodies, and our judiciary. What we have in this article is the propaganda of big government that is preserving itself instead of solving problems. Why? Because it is more profitable to address symptoms than it is to resolve problems and each of our government officials wants some job security.

The number one question that was overlooked is why there is a "logjam of cases flowing through county courts." Why are there so many cases of family breakdown and crime in the County courts? Instead of managing higher caseloads, we need to look towards creating again an economic advantage to employment and marriage versus crime and separate welfare maintenance.

The fact that court officials hear cases more quickly, will only increase the caseloads and cause a substantial rise in Title IV-D welfare services. When federal funding is cut, the local tax payers will again be footing the bill directly from their property taxes instead of through their income withholding. This program currently is beneficial to the Counties because the higher the number of open cases that they can prove some form of action was taken (whether positive or negative) the more Federal Tax Payer money the County will receive through the State participation grant until the federal funding is cut.

Mike Shipman actually states "there are families out there dependent upon this money to survive" which sounds good but is known as a fluff statement. Show me the statistics, Mr. Shipman, on the number of people that are dying as a result of not receiving their welfare checks. Give me a break and back up the statement Mr. Shipman. You sound like the typical government official that says... if tax payers don't give us more money then the first things we will cut are police and fire and people will die.

Staci Terry states that there are 5000 open cases at any one time in the County... The reality is this, in 2007 there will be a noticeable increase in open cases because Title IV-D is an unchecked welfare spending program which pays for higher caseloads. Wayne County will immediately and automatically move ALL new and old cases into the program to bolster their numbers in an effort to welch more federal tax dollars from the U.S. Tax Payers. The more open cases that the County can handle, the more U.S. Tax Payer money they will receive from the Title IV-D Welfare program.

Wayne County Commissioners support the program because they have just joined the ranks of other counties that have figured out that the destruction of families and the inclusion of middle and upper-class families into a free for all spending program will turn each $1.00 bill they have into $3.00 and allow a significant expansion of government over families. In essence the people will no longer control the purse strings of government over family at the local level.

Judge Darrin Dolehanty is excited because the Title IV-D Welfare program is a true partnership between the judiciary, the county, and the state and federal governments. It turns the Judiciary into a partner for a money machine and rewards the government bodies for rushing to judgement with a predetermined outcome. Each case the judiciary rubberstamps as an order the more money the bureacracy makes as a whole. Good job on eroding the independence of the judiciary and turning it from an impartial system to a partner in the Title IV-D "cooperative."

Dolenhanty also says they "don't plan to ask the taxpayers for a penny" which is pretty funny considering that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, where the county is getting paid from, is 100% U.S. Taxpayer money as appropriated each year by Congress. In Fiscal Year 2006 Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 (that's right 4.2 BILLION DOLLARS) of your tax dollars for these programs. Wayne County wants as much of that as they possibly can get, which means setting up an assembly line of divorcing and separating families to include in their reporting numbers to the State and Federal Government. (See: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/022806SSAndCustody.html)

In essence this new program will in large part be comprised of middle and upper-class citizens being thrust into this new welfare program at Tax Payer Expense. When federal funding is again cut on this disastrous program local Wayne County residents will be footing the bill for a free for all welfare spending program that includes a large percentage of people that should not qualify for such services.

This program doesn't save tax payers, it costs them. It's only a matter of time before Indiana files for a Title IV-A pass-thru waiver that will remove the requirement of repaying back welfare services and allow people to collect BOTH child support and a welfare check to "improve their lifestyles." Wake up Wayne County and say no to Title IV-D welfare services by requesting to OPT OUT because you better believe that your local government will "automatically" place you in the program because they get a piece of the pie.

Do a Google Search for "Title IV-D Welfare" and see how many people are sick of footing the bill for unrestricted welfare programs that do nothing but increase the public's burden to support big government. Let's all stand up and end this silliness today.

Citizens are going to see more phony courts and tribunals setup to rubberstamp out your civil rights over the next several years. Reigning in big government spending and shrinking governmental bureacracies is essential to maintain control over the government, otherwise WE THE PEOPLE will be nothing more than a myth. Look to actually solve social problems instead of encourage them through free for all welfare spending programs.

John Milford: Commissioner for a New Welfare System

2006-12-30T19:00:00.000-08:00

In a guest column on Tuesday, December 26, 2006 in the Chronicle Tribune John Milford writes about how his offices are going to be receiving more money. All they have to do is get more child support orders, perform more collection activities, and drag cases out further.

After reading this guest column I was very concerned that it sounded like more government propaganda centered on a greedy bureacracy that strives to justify its own existence by attaching to supposed good deeds that supposedly can only exist if the bureacracy exists.

Lets point out the most important thing about Title IV-D. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is 100% funded by the US tax payers as appropriated each year by Congress. In Fiscal Year 2006, Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 ( 4.2 billion dollars) for the states that operate programs in accordance with federal guidelines.

What is more peculiar is that Mr. Milford alleges that less taxpayer -funded assistance is needed when non-custodial parents "fulfill their financial obligation." His statement is unsupported by the facts when the very program that Mr. Milford is supporting is a $4.2billion dollar tax bill to U.S. tax payers. The program could be interpreted as a free for all spending program. See http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/022806SSAndCustody.html

Mr. Milford also admits that the court and Grant County receive "increased incentive payments" as an award (reward) for "its collection efforts." Naturally Mr. Milford would support a program that results in more money in the bureacracy's pockets that pays his wages. The larger they grow the more U.S. Tax Payer Money they receive! This exposes a large conflict of interest in the program, the very fact that judges' and commissioners 'offices financially benefit from their decisions creates a biased court that will ultimately impair the judicial system's requirement to remain impartial.

In essence this new program will in large part be comprised of middle and upper-class citizens being thrust into this new welfare program at Tax Payer Expense. When federal funding is again cut on this disastrous program local Grant County residents will be footing the bill for a free for all welfare spending program that includes a large percentage of people that should not qualify for such services.

This program doesn't save tax payers, it costs them. It's only a matter of time before Indiana files for a Title IV-A pass-thru waiver that will remove the requirement of repaying back welfare services and allow people to collect BOTH child support and a welfare check to "improve their lifestyles." Wake up Grant County and say no to Title IV-D welfare services by requesting to OPT OUT because you better believe that your local government will "automatically" place you in the program because they get a piece of the pie.

Do a Google Search for "Title IV-D Welfare" and see how many people are sick of footing the bill for unrestricted welfare programs that do nothing but increase the public's burden to support big government. Let's all stand up and end this silliness today.

--------------------
Additional References
--------------------
Michigan
Indiana
Title IV-D
Welfare
Friend of the Court
http://www.fightfoc.com
http://www.removethesepeople.com
http://www.laryholland.com

Democrats Looking to Repeal Sections of BDRA 2005

2006-07-11T11:01:00.000-07:00

Stand Up Today
I wrote the newly sworn in Secretary of the Treasury and the Asst. Secretary Mark Warshawsky today regarding President Bush's remarks on cutting entitlement programs to protect our Social Security.

July 11, 2006

Secretary Henry Paulson VIA FACSIMILE
Office of the Treasurer
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 2134
Washington, DC 20220

RE: Democrats seeking to undo Budget Deficit Reduction Act counter productive to stated goals this morning of reducing entitlements.

Dear Secretary Paulson,

Congratulations on your success, becoming the 74th Secretary of the Treasury. I watched this morning President Bushs statements concerning economic policy and reigning in entitlement programs to save our Social Security Fund.

Democrats are working to repeal portions of the Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 2005; in particular they are trying to expand funding for Title IV-D welfare services under the Social Security Act that was previously reduced. This program is unique in that it does not have any eligibility requirements to match Title IV-A (means testing). The States are abusing this program as a tool to create revenue for their States instead of a safety-net for needy families. This program also puts States at odds with each other in trying to force the inclusion of all divorcing families into Title IV-D welfare programs, including the wealthy and middle-class, to drive up participation numbers and thereby obtaining additional reimbursements from the federal government.

We need to cap spending on this program, add eligibility requirements for determined needy families, and save the tax-payers billions of dollars on bloated State Democrat sponsored family management at the expense of public trust.
Congratulations on your success and I look forward to providing any additional information that you may need.

Very Truly Yours,

Lary Holland

Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support Motions Succeed.

2006-03-16T15:47:00.000-08:00

TO EDITOR/STAFF WRITER:

RE: Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support Motions Succeed.

After a Friend of the Court Citizen Advisory Committee meeting an
attorney indicated that it seemed that their parenting time motions seem to
fail more frequently than child support motions succeed. This was a
brilliant observation and I wanted to take a quick moment and tell you
why.

For every three dollars ($3.00) that your local court spends on Child
Support Enforcement the court receives two dollars ($2.00) by way of
federal block grant money. Additionally to make up the difference of the
remaining one dollar balance the local courts have been able to use what
is known as federal incentive grants from the federal government, which
has made it possible to “profit” from operating a “successful” child
support enforcement program. An immense gain by the state is to be had
by operating a "successful" child support enforcement program which
means that a child cannot have substantially equal time with both parents.
In order to maximize federal money the states create the appearance of
an absentee parent for purposes of the Child Support Enforcement
welfare program. Successful also means maximizing the number of participants
the state has in its Child Support Enforcement welfare program by
including the middle-class at the sole expense of the U.S. Tax Payer.

See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;
See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments to States”;

In a parenting time conflict, there is disincentive to allow children
to have substantially equal time with their parents because then the
parents do not fit wholly into the above welfare program model as being
absent. The more parenting time provided, typically, child support is
reduced or abated. A reduction in participants is a reduction in the
justification of federal monies to the state. Normally the reduction of
expenditures is encouraged by government but in this case the opposite
holds true because there is a profit derived from the excess influx of
funds. Because of lack of eligibility requirements there is immense waste
in the new Child Support Enforcement Beuracracy. In 2006 alone, 4.2
BILLION of our Social Security Fund, nationally, is being invested into
this program which is a huge disincentive for the states to allow
substantially equal parenting time with both parents.

The huge mass of money out of your social security also is the reason
that the State is so eager to incorporate all the middle-class into
their Child Support Enforcement welfare programs; that means higher support
awards and an appearance of more need for federal money now that there
is widespread expanded group participation.

The new welfare abuser is not the people, but the states who have
shaped their participant numbers to create the appearance of need for a
program that lacks eligibility requirements. The reality is that there are
many fit, willing, and competent parents that are trapped in a welfare
system against their will and they are being prevented from parenting
their children because the state wants to maximize their federal funding
and make them look absent.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ /s/

Lary Holland
5180 Cedar Lake Rd.
Oscoda, MI 48750
(989) 747-0079 (v)
(989) 764-5920 (f)

How Federal Welfare Funding Drives Judicial Discretion in Child-Custody Determinations and Domestic Relations Matters.

2006-02-20T16:29:00.000-08:00

Social Security, Welfare, and Child Support Enforcement
How federal welfare funding drives judicial discretion in child-custody determinations and domestic relations matters.

By Lary Holland and Jason Bottomley
February 2006

Introduction
There is a growing pandemic in this country where the very fabric of our society, the family, is being attacked and destroyed. Our children are systematically being torn away from willing and capable parents who want to be involved in parenting their children. Families are systematically being torn apart instead of being helped when they turn to the states' family courts to solve domestic relations disputes. This document demonstrates an attempt to trace this problem back to its source.

The topics and issues being discussed are quite complex because of the nature of the multiple welfare programs created within Title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA); so the authors have attempted to provide a simplified overview of how federal welfare funding motivates the state family court judges to remove a willful parent and create high child support orders.

The authors have spent a tremendous amount of time researching external economic factors that they believe drive judicial discretion and influence professional judgment in domestic relations matters. Through their research and experience, the authors have concluded that a relationship exists between the federal funding of state welfare programs and the determinations made by state family court judges presiding over child-custody and domestic relations matters. They believe that it is this relationship that de-emphasizes the importance of sharing parental responsibility, and instead emphasizes a manufactured public policy concerned only on the financial obligations of one parent - rather than on the real interests of the children involved.

The authors have also concluded that, while this relationship has successfully been masked behind what is commonly termed "the best interests of the child," the federal funding created within the Social Security Act provides clear monetary incentives to states that have a high-occurrence of one-parent households, where a child has the majority of access to only one of their parents. The authors believe that this "best interests of the child" standard is loosely subjective, gives unlimited discretion to state family court judges, and ultimately leaves a tremendous amount of room for abuse.

In simplest terms: State family courts are forcibly depriving children's access to a parent because it is a source of revenue for the states - and because they can.

Social Security Covers Welfare
The most basic component of the federal welfare system was originally created by the Social Security Act with the intent of providing assistance to families in which the parent who financially supported the family was absent due to death, or where a disability prevented that parent from providing for the family. Unfortunately, the welfare system has shifted away from providing assistance to needy families into a system of entitlement and abuse by both the state and the welfare recipient.

Welfare programs are a combined effort between federal and state government. Federal welfare programs impose voluntary guidelines on the states and provide block grant funding for compliance. These block grants similarly resemble how the states' are granted federal funding for enacting motorcycle-helmet and motor vehicle seat-belt legislation or risk losing substantial federal highway repair dollars. States are not required to participate in the federal welfare programs created within Social Security; state participation is strictly voluntary - but by not participating, the state is turning down extremely large sums of federal money.

Title IV (four) of the Social Security Act consists of four parts (A, B, D, and E) and provides for the annual appropriation of block grant funding to subsidize the operation of various state-level welfare programs as outlined in each part of the title as long as the states are compliant to the federal guidelines.

Title IV, Part A (or IV-A) is the most widely recognized welfare program, and is referred to as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

Formerly known as AFDC, the TANF welfare program imposes federal guidelines to which all states must adhere in order to receive billions of dollars in federal block grant funding. This money is only available to a state when that state fully or substantially complies with these federally imposed guidelines. The complying individual states can use the money they receive to pay for the administration of their own programs, and to provide cash assistance to "needy" families pursuant to the federal guidelines.

The type of program described in Title IV-A is referred to as an “entitlement” program at both the state and welfare recipient level because it entitles the complying states to receive blocks of grant money, and it entitles the recipients who qualify to receive a certain amount of money as well.

Eligibility Requirements in Title IV-A (TANF) Exclude the Middle-Class
Eligibility must be proven in order to receive services and cash assistance through the IV-A TANF welfare program. The eligibility requirement, which uses income level as an indicator to demonstrate need, limits program participation to families with dependent children that show an actual need for income assistance. Not every person is eligible to receive cash assistance benefits and services through the TANF welfare program, and sometimes eligibility is limited to only the children of "needy" families.

Paternity establishment is one requirement, except in limited circumstances, that determines continuing eligibility of benefits to a recipient. If paternity is not already established or paternity is not actively being sought by the recipient, the recipient’s portion of any cash assistance is reduced or even completely discontinued. If paternity is successfully established, the recipient is required to surrender and assign to the state any child support benefits established by court order.

Other eligibility requirements provide restrictions to the duration of Title IV-A benefits to 5 years and mandatory requirements for recipients to participate in certain work activities. Also, if the recipient is an un-emancipated minor with a child, the minor must be involved in schooling and be under the supervision of a responsible adult.

Welfare Reform
In the eyes of many, including Congress, the IV-A TANF welfare program has been widely abused since its inception. People have been known to alter their living conditions to fit the eligibility requirements in order to receive the cash assistance offered by the program. Abuse has prompted Congress to reform the entire Title IV welfare system by modifying the federal guidelines, changing how the states operate welfare programs - including who is eligible and for how long benefits may be received.

The federal Title IV-D program makes large sums of grant money available to the states through the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In Fiscal Year 2006, Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) for the states that operate programs in accordance with federal guidelines.

Child Support Enforcement is a Welfare Program
The purpose for the creation of the IV-D welfare program was to recover allegedly "lost" taxpayer money being spent by the federal government on needy families under Title IV-A (TANF). The intent of Congress was to slow the drain that the Title IV-A (TANF) cash assistance program had on the budget. The presumption was that single mothers with a high incidence of out-of-wedlock births was the proximate cause of the rising welfare expenditures. Congress attempted to shift the financial burden from their own budget to a parent who abandoned the family.

The result of Congress' intention was the creation of Title IV-D federally mandated guidelines, incentive block grants, and performance based grants being made available to the states for their operation of federally compliant programs. States that would comply with the federal guidelines made it a priority to collect money (termed as "child support") from willfully absent parents who had abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The goal was twofold: To reimburse the expense of providing public assistance to children who had been willfully abandoned by a parent (and thus forced to become dependent on public assistance to satisfy basic needs), and to ensure continued financial support from willfully absent parents with children that were at risk of requiring public assistance if they didn’t receive support (to prevent them from requiring public assistance to satisfy basic needs).

In essence, the federal guidelines wanted the states to function as collection agencies, recovering financial support from parents who had willfully abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The result, however, was different from the intent and has caused the state welfare programs to adjust their environment to have a greater need, which has caused the program to collect from willing parents that would ordinarily provide a loving environment for their children absent a court order limiting a parent's involvement. Despite the original intent of the IV-D welfare program, it now provides an incentive for the states to use their family courts to produce forcibly absent parents in order to increase the states' IV-D welfare caseload.

Nonexistent Eligibility Requirements for IV-D Welfare Isolates Children from Willing Parents
There are no limitations for participation, or eligibility requirements for recipients of the Title IV-D welfare program. This lack of eligibility requirements has been used to trap otherwise willing and fit parents, particularly of the middle-class, into participating in this program for the purpose of increasing federal reporting numbers. The forced inclusion of the middle-class maximizes the federal block grants being allocated for the operation of each state's Title IV-D welfare program. The Title IV-D welfare model isolates children from an otherwise willing custodian.

The lack of any eligibility requirements for Title IV-D welfare services has caused exponential growth within this welfare program as well as in private “professional” sectors. In fact, an entire industry has evolved from the creation of the federal CSE program, which will be discussed later in this document. This entire private industry generates even more money from involvement in domestic relations disputes - turning a delicate private family matter into a money-maker for both the private and public sectors.

The lack of any eligibility requirements gives a huge financial incentive to every state to include middle-class divorcing parents, and to isolate a child from an otherwise willing and fit parent. By including the middle-class, state family courts and associated state agencies have expanded the operation of their Title IV-D welfare programs well beyond needy families. This lack of eligibility has led to the near complete inclusion of the middle-class, which has given a benefit to the state of larger child support awards to be collected from an otherwise willing and fit parent. The result is that children are being isolated from physical contact with a willing parent in lieu of financial gains enjoyed by the other parent, and by the state - all through the issuance of a court order.

The states have resorted to forcing parents involved in domestic relations matters into the welfare system either as wards of the state or as welfare recipients, whether or not either parent has actually willfully abandoned the child or requires public assistance. After the parents are included into the operating Title IV-D welfare program, one parent is then groomed into a role of non-custodial or forcibly absent parent. A court order is then issued against the now absent parent to pay child support through a state disbursement unit to the other parent who may or may not be equipped financially to run their own household in the first place - despite the other parent's ability to maintain an intact loving and caring household.

Inclusion of Middle-Class into Welfare = More Federal Funding
The exponential inclusion of the middle-class into the state operated Title IV-D Welfare System has facilitated and furthered a perceived need for increased funding from the federal government to the states. Because there is an overwhelming majority of middle-class parents that have child support automatically withheld from their paychecks, there is the appearance of a tremendously successful state run Title IV-D welfare program - and it causes even more federal incentive payments and reimbursement funding to be received by the states.

Even amidst cutbacks by the federal government for entitlement block grants and restrictions on the use federal incentive dollars as matching funds, the states' standing remains to gain billions in funding by including more and more of the middle-class in their welfare programs.

To be more specific: We believe that Title IV welfare programs actually encourage the diminishment of parents' roles in the lives of their children, and that these programs actually provide financial incentives for the breakup of the family - which is incidentally the exact opposite of the purpose of Title IV in reducing family dependence on government and encouraging safe and stable families.

The consequence of how and why the states receive federal funding is providing financial incentives to the state, its agencies, its human services professionals, and its family courts in general to create court-ordered child-support paying absentee parents wherever it can, and by whatever means available. The states' manufacturing of non-custodial parents maximizes incoming federal and state revenue redistribution. Similar to those who were accused of abusing the Title IV-A welfare program, which prompted reform, the states are now modifying their own environment in order to receive more federal money.

Creating Non-Custodian = More Child Support = More Federal Funding
Title IV created incentives for the states that were intended to reduce the occurrence of single parent households; however these incentives have caused an exact opposite result. Instead of looking to Congressional intent, one only needs to look at the results.

State family court judges, agencies, and both public and private professionals now have a pecuniary interest in establishing single-parent households in which the majority of a child’s time is limited by court order to be spent with only one parent. There is now a disincentive for a child to be equally placed with both parents where those parents share equal responsibilities while maintaining their own homes and lifestyles. If the state family courts do not produce an absent or “non-custodial” parent through their orders, the courts would effectively exempt the state (and any associated professional beneficiaries) from receiving the billions of dollars in federal funding which is offered through compliance with federally imposed welfare guidelines.

Federal Funding: A Working Perspective
The U.S. Tax Payer is solely supporting the middle-class's inclusion in the Title IV-D program because there is no reimbursement to welfare. For Fiscal Year 2006, Congress has appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) from the collection of federal and Social Security taxes solely to fund the operations of federally compliant state IV-D welfare programs. Despite a commonly held public misconception that child support enforcement activities are funded by the people within the system, the fact is that this welfare program is funded with the money that comes from the U.S. Taxpayer in the form of federal and Social Security taxes.

The federal funding is based on the reported needs of the multitude of federal and state bureaucracies operating within the IV-D welfare program. The need is further amplified by increasing the number of forced absentee parents being generated from the family courts each year.

In fact, an entire national special interest lobby comprised of judges’ associations; national child support enforcement associations (representing both private and public sectors); state bar associations; labor unions representing government employees; social workers associations; and everyone else with a stake in the multi-billion-dollar industry that the Title IV-D welfare program has created, exists solely to ensure that the current annual flow of federal funding into the states continues increasingly and remains uninterrupted.

The U.S. tax payer is supporting two-thirds of the federal expenditures associated with the inclusion of the middle-class in the operation of the state Title IV-D programs. The remaining one-third of the expenses for the inclusion of the middle-class is left up to the state and local governments - which again, is paid for with taxpayer money. The bottom line is that the federal, state, and local governments are footing the bill with our tax dollars for the inclusion of the middle-class in the state operated Title IV-D welfare program.

Federal Reimbursement Funding
Out of the total $4.2 Billion appropriated by Congress for the operation of federally compliant state Title IV-D welfare program, there exists unchecked federal reimbursement funding to the states for the following: 66% of the costs of their Child Support Enforcement (CSE) operational activities (which range all the way down to the activities of each of the states’ county prosecutors in domestic relations and paternity cases); 80% of the states’ costs related to the improvement of technology as related to CSE activities; and, most recently changed to 66% from 90% for the costs of genetic DNA testing in paternity establishment cases.

Reimbursement funding has no performance standards or requirements, so even the most ill-performing state operated IV-D welfare programs still get federally reimbursed for their lackluster and ineffective operations.

The massive federal funding available to the states have led judicial discretion, government agencies, and professionals to establish that it is now in the “best interests of the child” to limit the child's involvement with one of their own otherwise willing, capable, and available parents.

In essence, the more cases involving Title IV-D welfare services that a court can create, the more operational expenses it will endure, and the more federal funding it will be able to pursue and receive as a reward for undermining a child's involvement with one of their own parents.

Performance Based Federal Incentive Funding
Title IV-D also provides performance-based federal incentive funding to the states based on certain criteria that is used to measure the states' performance of certain program functions.

Incentive funding comes from the total funding appropriated by Congress for the operation of the CSE program ($4.2 Billion). The total incentive funding available to the states is a fixed amount per fiscal year. For FY2006, the total available incentive funding is $458,000,000; and each participating state competes for a share of this total.

Each state competes based on their performance measure of the following criteria:

· The paternity establishment performance level.
· The support order performance level.
· The current payment performance level.
· The arrearage performance level.
· The cost-effectiveness performance level.

The more support orders that are issued and the higher orders are, by including the middle-class, the more of a perceived need is created for increased enforcement. Increased perceived need for enforcement provides for increased justification of program expansion, which in-turn provides for the perceived need for expansion of increased enforcement measures. The more enforcement measures that can be taken and the more serious the penalties are for resisting excessive monetary awards, the better chances are that the court-created absentee parent will pay even increased or incorrect amounts to avoid enforcement penalties like jail and license suspension. The more that court-created absentee parents pay to avoid jail or to prevent the suspension of the professional licenses that may be needed to maintain their livelihood, the less support goes into arrearage - which makes it appear that the states are performing more efficiently. The more effective the state looks, the increased chances that a state has to receive a higher portion of incentive funding.

Conclusion
As Robert Burns once wrote in “To a Mouse”:

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley” (which is popularly misquoted as: The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray).

Mr. Burns’ concept seems to be applicable to Congress’ intentions in Title IV-D as the intentions sound good, but the result actually undermines the stated purpose of Title IV welfare services.

The U.S. Tax Payer, including the poor, is currently footing the bill for the inclusion of the middle-class into state operated Title IV-D welfare programs because of the lack of eligibility requirements in the federally imposed guidelines. In order to strengthen families, and to better meet the goals of Title IV, it is imperative for eligibility requirements to be included in the federal guidelines to the states. Without eligibility requirements, states will continue to have an incentive to limit children's involvement with an otherwise willing, caring, loving, and fit parent.

The states are currently undermining the purposes of Congress' Title IV-A which is to keep families together. It's a commonly held belief that "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Congress' intent may have been well-meaning, but the result has created another welfare abuser... the states.

Michigan Has a History of Fraud By Looney Judges, Prosecutors, and FOCs

2006-02-11T08:41:00.000-08:00

This article portrays a system in Michigan that is bent on covering up its mistakes. This happens routinely in family courts where there is a rush to judgment on particular components of cases so that the final blow is swift and sharp. Kent County Friend employees are quite familiar with these types of processes.

Twenty Years In Prison For Having Sex With His Wife
--by Phyllis Schlafly, Feb. 8, 2006 ----------------------------

William J. Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years for having sex with his wife Linda. In 1986, he became the first man in Genesee County convicted of the new Michigan crime called spousal rape.

Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. Hetherington was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, received a National Defense Service Medal, and had no police record of any sort.

The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years but, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years (twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Twenty years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason "prisoner denies the offense."

Hetherington has, indeed, always maintained his innocence. It was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he said it was consensual sex, she said it was rape. The judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.

No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Apparently what persuaded the jury to convict was the testimony of two police officers that they had observed tape marks on Linda's face.

The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... his histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."

The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer.

For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case.

At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first degree murder" and falsely accused him of beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship, and observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from the feminists.

Linda walked away with custody of their three daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.

Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, a volunteer attorney, Jeff Feldman, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage, and the prosecution had never disclosed them to the defense.

The photographs were then examined by a forensic photographer in Miami, John Valor, using all modern techniques. Valor's four-page notarized report detailed his impressive expertise, including service as the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial-killer Ted Bundy.

Valor's sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 stated that the pictures of Linda showed absolutely no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, and that marks would have been clearly visible if there had been any. If a government witness gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but Hetherington didn't get it.

Years later, a completely unsolicited letter was sent to the parole board by Melissa Anne Suchy, who had been employed by Linda as a babysitter. Suchy's letter is hearsay, but it has the ring of authenticity.

Suchy wrote that Linda told her she made up the story about rape because she was then pregnant with the baby of her boyfriend, and he pushed her to press rape charges, saying that she would have to "get rid of Hetherington or he wouldn't take care of the baby."

Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.

Almost everyone who reads the record of what happened to William Hetherington concludes that he was unjustly accused, unjustly convicted, unjustly sentenced, unjustly denied his due process and appeal rights, unjustly denied a new trial based on physical evidence of inaccurate testimony by government witnesses, and unjustly denied parole.

A good man's life has been sacrificed, and three children have been denied their father, by the malicious feminists who have lobbied for laws that punish spousal rape just like stranger rape and deny a man the right to cross-examine his accuser. They have created a judicial system where the woman must always be believed even though she has no evidence, and the man is always guilty.

Eagle Forum • PO Box 618 • Alton, IL 62002 • phone: 618-462-5415 • fax: 618-462-8909 • eagle@eagleforum.org

Read this article online:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/feb06/06-02-08.html

Man can sue ex-wife's lawyer, court rules

2006-02-10T22:22:00.000-08:00

This article is very interesting, although the circumstances and jurisdiction are slightly different in my case, there is undoubtedly liability of my ex's attorney for his actions in my domestic relations matter.

Man can sue ex-wife's lawyer, court rules
KIRK MAKIN - JUSTICE REPORTERTuesday, February 22, 2005

A lawsuit that accuses a Toronto lawyer of counselling her client to fabricate evidence in a bitter divorce contest should be allowed to proceed to trial, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

The litigant -- Andrew Lawrence -- alleges that he was wrongly imprisoned for almost 10 days after his estranged wife, Carol Lawrence, made up several stories about him assaulting her, including attacking her with a hot iron and a set of keys.
His lawsuit says that family lawyer Theresa MacLean advised Ms. Lawrence to make up stories of domestic abuse to enhance her divorce claims to their marital home and children.

Mr. Lawrence was ultimately acquitted on April 24, 2003, of nine of the 10 criminal charges against him. He was convicted of breaching his bail conditions by placing a phone call to his estranged wife -- which he admitted.

After his trial, Mr. Lawrence launched his lawsuit, alleging that Ms. MacLean acted "with reckless disregard for the truth and consequences" of her conduct. It was thrown out last year by an Ontario Superior Court judge on the basis that the allegations did not constitute "a reasonable cause of action."

However, in a 2-1 ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal reinstated the lawsuit. It said the allegations are "arguably capable of implicating" Ms. MacLean in false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and civil conspiracy.

"I almost fainted when I heard about the decision," Mr. Lawrence said in an interview. He said that Ms. MacLean "can make life as difficult as she wants during a divorce -- that's fine and dandy. But when you counsel another person to commit a crime, you can't hide under the banner of being a lawyer."

Mr. Lawrence's lawyer, Joseph Markin, said the case will ring true for many men being prosecuted for domestic abuse. Police are required to automatically lay charges when wives allege abuse, he said yesterday, which makes it a useful tool in divorce proceedings.

"It would be intolerable if a lawyer could do that," Mr. Markin said.
Neither Ms. MacLean nor her co-counsel on the case, Carolyn MacLean, returned phone calls yesterday.

Ms. Lawrence alleged that her husband pinned her against a wall on May 15, 2001, plugged in an iron and held it close to her face once it had heated up. On another occasion, she said, he threw a set of keys at her, causing a bad cut.

She also alleged that in a separate attack in late 2000, an enraged Mr. Lawrence threw her to the floor and injured her neck. In yet another incident, he allegedly pushed her onto a bed and then tossed her onto their bedroom floor.

The judge at Mr. Lawrence's trial had numerous problems with the Crown's evidence. He was suspicious about Ms. Lawrence's lack of scarring from the iron incident and the fact that she did not struggle with her husband. "She appears to have survived that incident without any obvious scar, cut, bruise or other injury," the judge said. "The description begs belief."

The trial judge also found it disturbing that the dates Ms. Lawrence supplied for some of incidents varied substantially. He said the complainant struck him as a resolute character who was not easily controlled by others.

"She impressed me as someone of obvious competence and courage," the judge said. "She is not the submissive, controlled spouse she would have us accept. She is capable, under stress and duress, in my view, of concocting scenarios."

Fired from his job at a car plant recently, he is living on unemployment insurance. Mr. Lawrence said his wife left him with their three children about a year ago, and he hasn't heard from her in several months.-- JUSTICE REPORTER

© The Globe and Mail. Republished with permission. All Rights Reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or republished or redistributed without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.

When The Poor Go To Court

2006-01-31T18:43:00.000-08:00

U.S. News & World Report(January 23, 2006) had an article entitled When the Poor Go to Court. This article was worth mentioning because the Judicial Activists in Kent County routinely are sending indigents and poor people to jail for debts they cannot pay.

The actions by elitist Judicial officers in Kent County is part of what appears to be a public policy that is aimed to help transform this State into one large Welfare drain of federal incentive payments to make up for its bloated family courts, employees, and social workers. Kent County's attempt to keep paying for anti-family policies and much larger than necessary government programs.

Just like the article says ... many people, if they do get a public defender, receive one who "doesn't have the time, resources, or interest to provide effective representation" which I experienced first hand watching many people be sent straight to jail with little to no questioning from the Judge or the public defender of the charges or ability to pay for excessive debts. I had to take over for mine who was non chalantly stating that she did not know what I wanted. Not too mention I didn't even get her name. The critical component remains if it is even "constitutional to jail him [people] for debts he [they] couldn't pay" in the first place. A debt is a debt, regardless of how the Judicial welfare activists try to twist it in an effort to extort money not from individuals, but their families.

Removing the Judicial officers that are perpetrating these offenses against our State's poor and sometimes ignorant is necessary and essential. Several people have begun programs aimed at removing the Judicial officers or reforming bloated programs that use fear policy; Some examples are http://www.removethesepeople.org and http://www.fixthefoc.com and many others. People are finally understanding that the tactics of rogue elitist Judicial officers have gone well beyond their intended purpose all in the name of making money from the destruction of our families.

Kent County Continues Monitoring of Michigan Residents

2006-01-18T23:55:00.000-08:00

Well Kent County continues their monitoring of people that are fighting for the right to be in their children's lives. Earlier today, what appeared to be an attempt to infiltrate a Family Rights Online Support Group, using false pretenses.

Melissa DeBoer (depicted in the picture), an employee of Kent County Sheriff's Department utilized a VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection through Grand Rapids based Calvary Church to attempt to gain access to a Family Rights Online Support Group. When asked why she was not providing the information required to participate in the group by the moderators she replied "Right now, I can't give you my case number, I am going through something awful with my child. I am only trying to protect her."

Kent County (Grand Rapids, MI) is notorious for attempting to infiltrate peaceful assemblies, but has certainly taken a new approach in attempting to gain access to online support groups to monitor the activities of families. Kent County is engaged in the practice of using fear to short circuit debate, suppress evidence, and drive their special interest public social welfare policies forward profiting from the destruction of our families.

Other Stories involving Kent County's attempts to infiltrate peaceful groups:
Civil Liberties
LibertyPost
Kent County Monitoring Internet Activities of Michigan Residents

People with more information involving Kent County's position toward our First Amendment Rights should contact Lary Holland @ lary.holland@micustody.org. Lary Holland has called for the removal from office many of the officials that are encouraging and carrying out a socialist welfare agenda using Title IV-D of the United States Social Security Act to draw in millions of dollars from the Federal Government and Tax Payers at the expense of families.

Complaints About the Michigan Domestic Relations Legal System

2006-01-06T20:29:00.000-08:00

COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS LEGAL SYSTEM

The Michigan Domestic Relations Legal system is atrocious because it thrives on the destruction and break-ups of the core family structure.

The Friend of the Court, the Judges, and attorneys that are involved all benefit from your current disastrous situation. Some of these officials receive an incentive payment to collect money from you, others have high fees they charge you, while others have their retirement funds paid by the very system that you are now involved in. Its a big industry for alot of people, which means there is alot of room for abuse. How do you defend yourself and make others aware of the abuses that will likely occur? You read this document and know your rights. You have the right to file grievances, appeals, and complaints regarding certain officials' behaviors and by not following through, you are acknowledging the corrupt system is indeed ok. Stand up today folks.

How Do I File a Complaint Against the FOC?

If you have a complaint about the FOC operations or employees, you can bring it to the Friend of the Court by letter or phone call. Michigan law also provides a grievance procedure a party can use when they have a complaint about FOC operations or employees. A grievance may not be used to disagree with a decision of a Judge or a FOC recommendation. Be sure to only use the telephone to complain if you want them to not count it or acknowledge. Always conduct your grievances in writing.

It is very helpful to know the actual statutory job duties of the Friend of the Court so you can match up their misconduct directly to a failure to perform a specific duty. You can view the duties by clicking here. (excerpt from the Friend of the Court Act of 1982)

Another section of the Friend of the Court Act that you will want to print and be familiar with is the MCLA 552.505.

You can file a grievance in two ways:
By filing a grievance form, which you can obtain at the FOC office or
By stating your concerns in writing to the FOC in which you clearly identify your letter as a grievance. You can download the State Court Administrator's Office form which is referred to as FOC 1a. It is available free online, since many of the Friend of the Court offices hide these forms and make you ask for them. If this happens to you, look at the duties listed at the above statute and file a grievance against them for making you ask for the form.

The Friend of the Court must investigate and answer your grievance within 30 days or notify you why a response is not possible within that time. It is very important that if you do not receive a response within 30 days, file another grievance naming the Friend of the Court (the actual person) on the next grievance for not doing his/her job again.

If you are not satisfied with the Friend of the Court's response to your grievance, you can file a further grievance, in writing, with the Chief Circuit Court Judge within 30 days of the response.

Be sure to visit FOCINFO.COM & FIXTHEFOC.COM. You should also email your grievances and statements to the two sites just mentioned. They are keeping track of various Friend of the Court issues that are raised by the people and do not work for the State of Michigan.

It is very important to follow up with this next step, especially if it pertains to an employee within the court. The more grievances filed against persons that are not doing their jobs, the more likely they are either going to be replaced or removed entirely.

The Chief Circuit Court Judge must investigate and answer your grievance within 30 days or notify you of the reason for the delay.
The FOC grievance procedure ends with the response of either the Friend of the Court or if a further grievance is filed, the Chief Circuit Court Judge.

If you also have a Grievance with the general operations of the Friend of the Court office make sure you file an additional grievance with the local Citizen's Advisory Committee if one is available. The "CAC" is not available in all Counties, but even if there is not one, file a second grievance always regarding office operations if you have a problem with an employee, afterall the employee is part of the office operations... RIGHT?

How Do I File A Complaint About My Court Orders ?

Court orders are not covered under the FOC grievance procedure. Contact your attorney to discuss your legal options, such as a motion for re-hearing or an appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

You can view the current Michigan Courts Rules at the Michigan Courts website. Go there and check it out. You can also find your way to the Court of Appeals to obtain forms if you need them.

How Do I File a Complaint About The Conduct Of The Judge or the Referee?

The Judicial Tenure Commission was created to review grievances about alleged misconduct of a Judge. Anyone who has serious concerns about the conduct of a Judge or a Referee can contact:

Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
3034 West Grand Blvd.
Suite 8-450
Detroit, MI 48202
Phone: (313) 875-5110 or Fax: (313) 875-5154
www.judicialtenure@mi.courts.gov

This email address should be used to make general contact with the Commission office, and is not directed to any individual. The confidentiality of Internet transmissions via e-mail cannot be assured. Therefore, please do not use e-mail to forward information concerning complaints or grievances to the Commission, to assist in preserving the confidential nature of our investigations.

Complaints concerning your court orders should not be sent to the Judicial Tenure Commission. The Judicial Tenure Commission is not an appellate court and cannot change the content of a court order.

The Judicial Tenure Commission is going to look for certain key phrases, which involve not your existing matter but the Judge's behavior. Compare the Judge's behavior with their Code of Ethics.

To view the "Complaint Process" click here.

WHAT ARE POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR ACTION AGAINST A JUDGE?A judge is subject to censure, suspension with or without pay, retirement, or removal for conduct including, but not limited to:

a) Conviction of a felony;

b) Physical or mental disability that prevents the performance of judicial duties;

c) Misconduct in office;

d) Persistent failure to perform judicial duties;

e) Habitual intemperance (i.e., abuse of alcohol);

f) Conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice; or

g) Conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Rules of Professional Conduct, whether it occurred before or after the individual became a judge or was related to judicial office.

WHAT IS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE?Misconduct in office includes, but is not limited to:

a) Persistent incompetence in the performance of judicial duties;

b) Persistent neglect in the timely performance of judicial duties;

c) Persistent failure to treat persons fairly and courteously;

d) Treatment of a person unfairly or discourteously because of the person's race, gender, or other protected personal characteristic;

e) Misuse of judicial office for personal advantage or gain, or for the advantage or gain of another; or

f) Failure to cooperate with a reasonable request made by the Commission in its investigation of a judge.

How Do I File A Complaint About My Attorney?

The Attorney Grievance Commission was created to investigate alleged misconduct of Michigan attorneys. Anyone who has serious concerns about the behavior of an attorney can contact:

Attorney Grievance Commission
243 West Congress, Suite 256
Marquette Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 961-6585 or www.agcmi.com

Michigan residents might have relief from "friend of the court" right around the corner...

2005-12-30T17:42:00.000-08:00

Relief for Michigan residents with open Domestic Relations suits (child custody, paternity, or divorce) may have some hope yet. A group claiming the name Michigan Parents for Justice have set out and created a website called http://www.fochelp.com, that according to their website, "has been established to gather information and provide information for the purpose of making your case with the FOC and/or the Family Courts easier." This group is one of a growing number of sites providing services and information to the public on how to deal with the Friend of the Courts here in Michigan. This could be a big relief to Michigan residents who often times complain about the questionable practices of the "friend of the court" and don't know what to do next, especially since many parents involved in these cases have had their income garnished and can't afford a competent attorney. At least one site has an answer and that is to file grievances and let the Michigan Legislature know just how problematic to the public that the "foc" is. If you have an open Domestic Relations case be sure to stop by their website at http://www.fochelp.com as well as others groups that are providing these valuable services.

The Parochial Parody... Michigan Family Courts.

2005-11-27T11:55:00.000-08:00

As I was thumbing through a well-known text known as Burton's Legal Thesaurus; 3rd Edition I ran across two very common words that had a slew of appropriate replacements for describing many person's encounters with "Family Law" in Michigan. Even moreso with people describing their experiences with the Kent County Friend of the Court. The arbitrary decisions of these courts and the flawed processes that they implement to carry out their predetermined outcomes, can be described as both "parochial" in nature and a "parody."

Parochial, adjective. biased, dogmatic, fanatical, hidebound, illiberal, insular, intolerant, jaundiced, limited, literal, narrow, narrow-minded, one-sided, opinionated, opinionative, orthodox, parochialis, partial, partisan, predisposed, prejudiced, prepossessed, provincial, regional, restricted to small area, restricted to small scope, sectarian, small-minded, unbending, uncatholic, unimaginative, unliberal, untolerating.

Parody, noun. amphigory, apery, buffoonery, burlesque, caricature, cartoon, comical representation, distortion, exaggeration, farce, imitation, lampoon, ludicrous imitation, mime, mimicry, mockery, mummery, pasquinade, ridicula imitatio, ridicule, satire, squib, travesty.

One could certainly apply many of the words interchangeably with a recent hearing before a Kent County Circuit Court Referee, whereas the parochial and amphigory proceedings were a mere mockery of common sense and justice.

The appearance of process, for the sake of some already predetermined outcome, is not process at all. Let me know your thoughts on appropriate words concerning the various Judge's that use their foc staff to achieve arbitrary and unsupported rulings.

What are Court Watchers?

2005-11-24T22:55:00.000-08:00

Court Watchers are the eyes and ears of the public that observe and report the (mis) conduct of various Judicial Officers. In family law, the practice of court watching extends to include the monitoring of “Referees” and other “officers and employees” that have judicial influence. Court Watchers are concerned wit h how courts are responding to various social issues that have come into view of the Judicial system and aim to report their observations to the public.

Existing Court Watching programs monitor anything from audibility of proceedings to the behavior of court personnel as well as alleged misconduct and gender bias in the courts. The premise of most community programs is that while judges, jurors, and court personnel want to do the right thing, having residents, and citizens evaluating court proceedings encourages impartiality for parties involved in court cases and holds courts accountable to the communities they serve when those officials act in a arbitrary or unethical manner.

Court Watchers get involved when there are documented allegations of misconduct by court officials within a particular case or when there is moderate dissent about a particular official and his/her exercise of authority in an arbitrary fashion. Once Court Watchers get involved, the concern of how officers of the court perform their duty in upholding their Oaths to protect the Federal and State Constitution comes into view. Questions such as “Has Due Process been served in this hearing?” become valid questions to the Court Watchers, who many times have been exposed to adequate number of hearings to provide solid documentary evidence to the major questions that either support or rebuke allegations of (mis) conduct.

If you would like to get involved with a Michigan Court Watching program in your community, please contact us at courtwatchers@micustody.org. If you would like file a public complaint against an official and would like to provide documentary evidence to support your claims, please send your complete information to judicialcomplaint@micustody.org.

Kent County Friend of the Court/ Michigan Friend of the Court. The Incompetency, the Conflict, and Removing the Pork.

2005-11-16T16:31:00.000-08:00

Many people have questioned the competency of the friend of the court [offices]/[employees] located around the state of Michigan. This is not a problem that affects only one person, but a serious problem that has affected many families involved in Domestic Relations matters involving their children and other private affairs of dissolving couples. The foc works diligenty to secure their own and their employer's interests first. I have seen countless complaints, countless negative articles, and have had my own experiences specifically. I know I have certainly questioned the competency of the Kent County friend of the court and their employer, the 17th Judicial Circuit since their disastrous involvement in my case, resulting from a "consent" order where I was trapped awaiting a promised foc investigation that was over a YEAR LATE and a continuous assault of contempt and other actions from Judge Steven M. Pestka, Attorney Peter Walsh, the foc, and now Judge G. Patrick Hillary, to place an unfair advantage against me and causing my children to remain in a city that was foreign to them. These people serve themselves in the name of our children.

I would encourage you to read my NOW pending Motion to Suspend Automatic Enforcement and Strike All Proceedings [involving the foc] in my case that Judge G. Patrick Hillary adjourned on Oct. 28, 2005 against my will and to my belief, improperly. This clearly shows a collaborative effort between the Judge and the foc to interfere with my other pending matters! This is not a suprise because the foc is the employee and the Judicial Circuit is the employer, and they are looking out for each other. Click here for the Motion and here for the Order and then look at my subsequent letter requesting reconsideration on the Judge's action. Needless to say the Judge did not respond and further collaborated against me by issuing a new Order to Show Cause after the last one had been Stayed. The excess Pork needs to be removed, I am trying to do my part.

THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Here is a short and simple fact. "The friend of the court is an employee of the circuit in the judicial circuit served by the friend of the court" _MCLA 552.503(4).

The friend of the court, as an agent or employee of the judges in your case, owes its primary fiduciary duties to its employer, which is not "the people." The friend of the court has a duty of loyalty and a duty to provide information to the judges involved with your case. Many people have eluded to misconduct of the various friend of the courts located throughout Michigan and, as a matter of fact, I BELIEVE THEM! The friend of the court wants its employer and its own office to receive operational money in the form of Federal Incentive Payments provided by our Federal Government. This means the higher and more support orders that a particular County has achieved and collects on, the more money that their County receives as a direct result. Both Federal Code and Michigan Statute lay out the "incentive programs." Title 42 USC 666 and MCLA 400.18a respectively.

Under sec. 6 of the Friend of the Court Act of 1982, ..."the friend of the court is only required to perform activities under this act or the support and parenting time enforcement act when a party in that case has requested title IV-D services." Most people do not even know what a Title IV-D service is, or that the friend of the court is really an employee obligated to the Judicial circuit in which it serves, but yet everyone unless they have fought like hell practically has an open "foc case" running side by side with their Family Court proceedings. This is an outright ploy to affect performance numbers and achieve more money for the County. The more open cases, the more money they are involved with regarding parents, the more money they are awarded for performance. Simple math, get everyone in the program, then claim that they are so successful, even the majority of people have no idea how to get out from underneath the "Automatic Enforcement" and "shakedown Extortion" tactics that the foc is engaged in to get your money. The most common shakedown method is for the foc to incarcerate you when you have no money, knowing that friends and family, frantic and not knowing what is happening, will "bail you out" of jail. In fact, the foc many times forces people to borrow more and more money or face a shakedown.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

What can you do? Help me help you. Attempt to opt-out, attempt to file Motions to Disqualify, and file grievances against the various foc staff that are engaged in shakedown processes. File Judicial Tenure Complaints against the Judges and Referees when they blatantly disregard the court rules, the statutues, and the Constitution they are charged with upholding. Send me copies of these efforts and the results. I am currently compiling a comprehensive list of employees that are engaged in these behaviors as it was found out that some of your grievances would be returned to you and not reported in the annual reports to the legislature. If you want your grievances and statements aired, simply send me an email to laryholland@sbcglobal.net and I will provide you with a fax number and/or a mailing address and procedure to get your grievances and stories heard. The friend of the court, despite their obvious conflict of interests, proceed with shaking down individuals that don't understand their rights, they pray on you. Let us air our grievances to the legislature and to the public and prevent these administrative processes from taking away our rights. Stand Up Today by not letting these derelict employees of the court grow to an administrative agency, costing the tax-payers and families millions. Stand Up Today by learning more about your rights and how the friend of the court frequently violates your rights and use your children and your fears against you to shake you down, so they can justify their own jobs and get more money for their County.

Are you going to let them do this to you?

2005-11-12T08:46:00.000-08:00

Kent County Circuit Court and its staff are monitoring
Internet activities of Michigan residents.

Title: Kent County Circuit Court and its staff are
monitoring Internet activities of Michigan residents.
Release Date: 2005-11-12 00:42:48
Summary: Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Kent County
Circuit Court and Kent County friend of the court
(foc) are monitoring Internet activities of
individuals involved in family court cases within
their jurisdiction or that are speaking out against them.
For_Immediate_Release:

PRESS RELEASE: Kent County Circuit Court and friend of
the court staff monitoring Internet Activities of
Michigan residents.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Grand Rapids, Michigan. The
Kent County Circuit Court and Kent County friend of
the court (foc) staff have been monitoring Internet
activities of individuals involved in family court
cases within their jurisdiction as well as court
reform activities.

“The Kent County foc, employed by the Kent County
Circuit Court bench, is working to protect what they
believe their employer’s interests are. The Kent
County foc is essentially taking their marching orders
apparently from the bench and providing information to
the bench behind the scenes. The conduct of these
officials has led me to believe they act unethically
in discharging their duties” states Lary Holland.
Holland is an individual involved in a domestic
relations case involving his two children and has been
outspoken to the operating procedures of the Kent
County Circuit Court Family Division, including their
friend of the court operations since late 2003.

Records produced by Holland demonstrated that
officials for the Kent County Family Division have
been monitoring a website accessible at
www.laryholland.org, visiting the website well over
one thousand times in the past few months. Upon
inspection of the address, the website provides
detailed information relating to the domestic
relations matter, the parties, attorneys, and
associated proceedings surrounding his two children.
“It certainly raises serious questions why the court
officials are involved with monitoring the site
[www.laryholland.org] which contains subject matter
pertaining to the case at hand as well as other issues
that have not been resolved yet” states Holland.

Holland indicated a growing number of individual
stories have been directed to him from people
experiencing similar situations , as described in the
website, of possible misconduct by court officials
involved in cases both in Kent County and throughout
Michigan. “Many people just don’t know where to turn
when they are faced with courts that are more
concerned with getting paid then what is best for
children.” Holland was able to demonstrate that there
exists a conflict of interest between State courts and
individuals because for every dollar collected by
courts they receive additional monies from the Federal
government, making child support profitable for State
courts and their foc employees. “It’s how they get
paid. High support orders, high arrearages, and long
delays mean more Federal money to justify their [foc
and judges] existence,” says Holland, when referring
to the various incentive programs established by the
Welfare Reforms of the Clinton years.

“The courts are uncomfortable with people being able
to collectively speak out on issues that can affect
their pockets. Why else would they be monitoring a
website pertaining to their possible misconduct while
being involved with my case?,” states Holland.

For more information pertaining to the Kent County
Family Division, including the friend of the court,
filings in the court, orders, attorneys, and other
information surrounding family issues are available at
www.laryholland.org.

For more details:
To contact the author:
5180 Cedar Lake Rd.
Oscoda, MI 48750
http://www.laryholland.org
989.747.0079

Keywords: Kent County Circuit Court and its staff are
monitoring Internet activities of Michigan residents.

Stand Up Today

2005-10-20T09:00:00.000-07:00

You want to make a difference today? Visit my website at http://www.laryholland.org/ and pass it around to all Michigan fathers.