Friend Of the Court Surrealism

[antonin]

I had my FOC hearing today. As you may recall, I was to receive a reduction in CS
That was calculated to be reduced "not less than 200.00 per week or 80% of the Friend of the Court Guidelines amount as calculated based upon Defendant's income and sole physical custody to the Plaintiff." When I began 50?50 custody.

As I listened to the referee go through the calculations, everything sounded right. After the hearing, I realized the referee had made the following errors:

1) He counted mother's alimony as her income. (I believe the phrase above "as calculated based upon Defendant's income" means that only my income will be used and EX will be treated as she has no income.

2) He did not apply the "not less than 200.00 per week or 80% of the Friend of the Court Guidelines" provision to the calculation: he used the full guidelines amount.

I got a 97.00 a month reduction based on his calculations. My support changes from 1007.00 a month to 910.00.

The result is that he made an error both against my EX and I. I am not sure what the actually dollar amount is. I will have to run the FOC software Monday when I get to work, but I believe I am paying 100.00 a more a month than I should according to the referee's calculations.

BUT HERE'S THE REAL ISSUE: in the course of the proceeding, I realized that I had not filed a Motion to Change Parenting Time. My lawyer (you have stated elsewhere that you believe some of the things he did could be considered malpractice) did not advise me to file a Motion To Change Parenting Time when I began alternating weekly custody in Oct. (And he certainly knew I was doing it).

The referee brought up the fact that a Motion to Change Parenting Time was not filed. Now, here is where I think the guy gave me a break. He said rather than have me file a Motion to Change parenting Time; he was going to place the recommendation that parenting time be alternated weekly in his recommendation to modify the support order so I would not have to file a Motion To Change Parenting Time.

He could have been a jerk and made me file the Motion .This would have placed me in a bad situation: the EX would have received the Motion and realized that she could cause me some real hell by objecting. I realize she can still object to the Motion as written, but the referee's recommendation to alternate weekly parenting time is worded in such a way as though it seems he is just verifying what has been happening since October.

The Ex does not use an attorney anymore, so she'll just look for the $$$$$ amount of the reduction and that will be it. Of course some clerk might catch the referee's error on the alimony and compute the CS as though she had no income, which would result in no reduction for me.

1) Should I just let the referee's recommendation become an order and do another Motion to Modify Child Support later to correct his errors? I do not want to jeopardize the fact that he allowed me to get away without filing a Motion to Change Parenting Time.
2) Will the fact that he made mathematical errors negate his recommendation to alternate weekly custody in his original order?
Is my analysis indicated in  "1)", above accurate concerning the use of EX's income in CS calculations?

[joni]

I would sit tight and see what the judge does with the recommendation.  I doubt though that the clerk will catch the error.  I'm surprised they gave you a reduction at all, it's only supposed to be reduced if the amount is more than 10% of the current obligation and yours was only 9.6%....granted on the wrong amount.

If this all flies, the $1200 more a year you're paying is certainly less than atty fees to file for the change in parenting time.  But wouldn't that wash anyway if you didn't include the alimony so wouldn't that be six of one, half a dozen of another so the difference is really nominal?

If it hits the fan, then you can request the review of his calculation.  I would hang onto every word that he says regarding the parenting time and then file for a change and use his recommendation as evidence.

I hate Michigan.

[antonin]

I hate Michigan, too.

You may recall that my divorce decree provided that if I move within 20 miles of the mother, then the parenting time would be 50/50. That's what it says. I do not think that I should even have to file for a change in parenting time. This is an implementation of the divorce decree.

If the referee's recommendation goes, the parenting time will be written in the new order, so i won't have to file. This was a referee (mini judge), not a custody evaluator. If those bastrads make me file for a change in parenting time, it's clear to me that they are just tring to provoke a confrontation betweeen my EX and I: they will give her the idea she can object. S***! This means in the eyes of the court, I still have visitation the 3rd, 4th, and 5th weekends, doesn't it and she could enforce it, right? That no good, bottom-feeding scum-sucker of an attorney of mine!

I also presented referee with a signed, sworn affadavit from the EX stating we had been doing 50/50 since October. That helped. I hope this does not turn into a nightmare, I lost my house, filed BK and a million other scarifices to do 50?50. I drive 130 mi. RT each day to and from work.


PS: I just re-read the hearing results: if no one objects within 21 days, the referee's recommendation automatically becomes a court order with no effort on my part. In fact, the pending order was generated at the hearing and is attached to the rec.

The first item on his pending order reads:

"That the parties shall exercise parenting time with the minor child, XXXXX,
on an alternating weekly basis, with the exchange of the child occurring XXXXXXX."

Also, he may of calulated correctly (excepting adding the alimony). I will know for sure tommorow when I get to work and can run the Guidlin software.  

Anyway, I am sure I handled this hearing better than my incompetent attorney
who would've charged me 1500.00 at least.
The fact that he did the caluclations based on the new parenting time arrangement demonstrates they are acknowledging the 50/50, right?