michigan child custody survey report

Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

Michigan Child Custody Survey Report05/28/08Doug [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Michigan Child Custody Survey Report

Summary

Many respondents reported irregularities when selecting “other”. See report.

32% of respondents did not, or believed that they did not, meet with a mediator (MCL 552.513)

42% of respondents meeting with a mediator who was an employee of the FOC felt that he or she also provided other domestic relations services (MCL 552.515)

78% of respondents who met with a mediator were not aware prior to the meeting that it was voluntary (MCL 552.515)

82% of respondents who met with a mediator felt that he or she did not act with "honesty, integrity, and impartiality"

85% of respondents who met with a mediator felt that he or she was not a neutral third party. (MCR 3.216)

89% of respondents who met with a mediator felt that he or she did not facilitate communication between parties to promote settlement (MCR 3.216)

4% of respondents reported that the recommended order was for substantially equal physical and legal custody for the mother and father

94% of respondents reported that referees either issued no report, issued a report that was substantially identical to that of the custody evaluator, or took other actions with the same effect. (MCL 552.507)

0% of respondents who requested de novo hearings reported that judges made a different conclusion on de novo review

Note: Answers of concern are marked in shades of red, answers of potential concern are marked in shades of gray, and answers that are not of concern are marked in shades of blue.


Responses

6

15We did not meet with a mediator 16

2Our mediator was a contractor 7

5Sum 51

Was the mediator an contractor? If not, and if the mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, was the reason "if the service is not available from a private source, or if the court can demonstrate that providing the service within the friend of the court office is cost beneficial." If the latter, how did the court demonstrate cost effectiveness? (Friend of the Court Act Section 13, Paragraph 1)

I don't know whether the mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court or notOur mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court and I am not aware of why a contractor was not used

Our mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, but mediation by contract is not cost effective in our area

Our mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, but private mediation is not available in our area

Was Mediator a Contractor?

I don't know whether the media tor wa s a n employee of the Friend of the Court or notOur media tor wa s a n em-ployee of the Friend of the Court a nd I a m not a wa re of why a contra ctor wa s not usedWe did not meet with a media torOur media tor wa s a n em-ployee of the Friend of the Court, but media tion by con-tra ct is not cost effective in our a reaOur media tor wa s a con-tra ctorOur media tor wa s a n em-ployee of the Friend of the Court, but priva te media tion is not a va ila ble in our a rea


Responses

No 19We did not meet with a mediator 18Yes 14Sum 51

If the mediator is an employee of the friend of the court, did you feel that the mediator did also "perform referee functions, investigation and recommendation functions, or enforcement functions as to any domestic relations matter involving that party"? (Friend of the Court Act Section 15)

Mediator and Other?

NoWe did not meet with a mediatorYes


Responses


Did you feel before beginning mediation that you could voluntarily refuse mediation? (Friend of the Court Act Section 13, Paragraph 1)

Voluntarily Refuse Mediat ion?



Did the mediator act with "honesty, integrity, and impartiality?" Responses


Honesty, Integrity, and Impart iality?



Responses


Did you feel that the mediator was "a neutral third party"? (Michigan Court Rule 3.216)

Neutral Third Party?



Responses


Did you feel that the mediator "facilitate[d] communication between parties to promote settlement"? (Michigan Court Rule 3.216)

Promote Communicat ion and Set t lement?



Responses

no custody evaluator was involved 11

2

5

2

19

2the custody evaluator recommended physical custody by a third party 0

2other 8Sum 51

How did your custody evaluator (aka Family Counselor aka Conciliator) recommend custody be handled in your case?

the custody evaluator recommended sole physical and legal custody for the fatherthe custody evaluator recommended sole physical and legal custody for the motherthe custody evaluator recommended sole physical custody for the father, joint legal custodythe custody evaluator recommended sole physical custody for the mother, joint legal custodythe custody evaluator recommended substantially equal physical and legal custody for the mother and father

the custody evaluator simply recommended our previously agreed upon custody arrangement

Custody Recommendat ion?

no custody evaluator was involved

the custody evaluator recommended sole physical and legal custody for the fatherthe custody evaluator recommended sole physical and legal custody for the motherthe custody evaluator recommended sole physical custody for the father, joint legal custodythe custody evaluator recommended sole physical custody for the mother, joint le-gal custody

the custody evaluator recommended sub-stantial ly equal phys-ical and legal custody for the mother and fa-therthe custody evaluator recommended phys-ical custody by a third partythe custody evaluator simply recommend-ed our previously agreed upon custody arrangementother


Other:

joint legal and physical but father still limited visitationmajority physical custody to motherrecommended PAS counseling

How did your custody evaluator (aka Family Counselor aka Conciliator) recommend custody be handled in your case?

Did not come up but she told me that if it does, she will recommend physical custody to the mom.foc conducted a conciliation hearing, mother physical joint legali never had any knowledge period of any kind of arraingments until all was said and done

We did not have an evaluator" but the Dept. of Human Services recomended the children be "placed" with us


Responses

1other 13The referee made no report 29

6Yes, the referee made an independent report 2Sum 51

Did your referee "Make a written, signed report to the court containing a summary of testimony given, a statement of findings, and a recommended order; or make a statement of findings on the record and submit a recommended order." (MCL 522.507 Section 7 (2) (c)) ?

The referee made a report including a different custody recommendation than that recommended by the custody evaluator

Yes, and the report was substantially identical to the one generated by the custody evaluator

Referee Report?

The referee made a report including a different custody recommendation than that recom-mended by the cus-tody evaluatorotherThe referee made no reportYes, and the report was substantial ly identical to the one generated by the custody evaluatorYes, the referee made an inde-pendent report


Other:

I'm not sureno other hearing other than that in Q.7no refereenot sureReferee made a report but lost/destroyed all the evidence testimony tapes

The referee made no reportUNKNOWNunknown

Did your referee "Make a written, signed report to the court containing a summary of testimony given, a statement of findings, and a recommended order; or make a statement of findings on the record and submit a recommended order." (MCL 522.507 Section 7 (2) (c)) ?

i know nothing of a referee and there was never an investigation on anything other than income

referee was very partial toward mother and left out anything that made dad look good because Im just as good a parent really.she submitted a recommended order but no summary of testimony or a statement of findingsthe concilliators report went directly to the judge for the order.


Responses

I made no request 33

3

1other 14

0

0Sum 51

Did you ask the judge for a de novo hearing? If so, how was the de novo review conducted and what was the outcome of that review review? (MCL 522.507 Section 7 (4)) ?

The judge conducted a de novo review and came to the same conclusion without holding a hearingThe judge conducted a de novo review with a hearing and came to the same conclusion

The judge conducted a de novo review and came to a different conclusion without holding a hearingThe judge conducted a de novo review with a hearing and came to the a different conclusion


Judge's De Novo Hearing?

I made no requestThe judge con-ducted a de novo review and came to the same conclu-sion without holding a hearingThe judge con-ducted a de novo review with a hear-ing and came to the same conclusion

otherThe judge con-ducted a de novo review and came to a different conclu-sion without holding a hearingThe judge con-ducted a de novo review with a hear-ing and came to the a different conclu-sion


Other:

custody decided at trial

I didn't know I could

I made no request

judge had hearing and NEVER made a ruling

Not sure what this is.Original order was slightly modified.the judge called the next case

Did you ask the judge for a de novo hearing? If so, how was the de novo review conducted and what was the outcome of that review review? (MCL 522.507 Section 7 (4)) ?

i did not know of de novo and never heard of it even with a lawyer

I don't know what a de novo hearing is

I requested but was not granted a denovo hearing from judge

Judge held a half hearted review and left in the middle of the trial when we were presenting my case with still 3 more hours left to present the case as per his own trial schedule. Judge rubber stamped custody evaluators recommendation even though evidence pointed out that the evaluator was committing fraud by hiding information about children being beaten by the motherJudge terminated my parental rights so as to allow my ex-wife to move to Arizona.Made no request. I was clueless at the time and my attorney pressured me to settle.

The Judge frequently rubber stamped without consideration the foc recommendations throughout the case.

michigan child custody survey report

Documents

media tor wa

de novo review

de novo hearing

joint legal custody

review review

recommend custody

legal custody

employ ee