Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

Michigan Child Custody Survey Report

05/28/08
Doug Dante
DougDante1@yahoo.com

Page 1
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

Michigan Child Custody Survey Report

Summary

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

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

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.

Page 2
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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) Responses

I don't know whether the mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court
or not 6
Our mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court and I am not aware of
why a contractor was not used 15
We did not meet with a mediator 16
Our mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, but mediation by
contract is not cost effective in our area 2
Our mediator was a contractor 7
Our mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, but private mediation
is not available in our area 5
Sum 51

Wa s Med ia tor a Con tra ctor?

I don't know whether the

media tor wa s a n employ ee
of the Friend of the Court or
not
Our media tor wa s a n em-
ploy ee of the Friend of the
Court a nd I a m not a wa re
of why a contra ctor wa s
not us ed
W e did not meet with a
media tor
Our media tor wa s a n em-
ploy ee of the Friend of the
Court, but media tion by con-
tra ct is not cos t effectiv e in
our a rea
Our media tor wa s a con-
tra ctor
Our media tor wa s a n em-
ploy ee of the Friend of the
Court, but priv a te media tion
is not a v a ila ble in our a rea

Page 3
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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) Responses

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

Mediat or and Ot her?

No
We did not
meet with a
mediator
Yes

Page 4
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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

No 25
We did not meet with a mediator 18
Yes 8
Sum 51

Volunt arily Refuse Mediat ion?

No
We did not
m eet with a
m ediator
Yes

Page 5
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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

No 27
We did not meet with a mediator 18
Yes 6
Sum 51

Honest y, Int egrit y, and Impart ialit y?

No
We did not
meet with a
mediator
Yes

Page 6
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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

No 28
We did not meet with a mediator 18
Yes 5
Sum 51

Neut ral Third Part y?

No
We did not
m eet with a
m ediator
Yes

Page 7
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

Did you feel that the mediator "facilitate[d] communication between

parties to promote settlement"? (Michigan Court Rule 3.216) Responses

No 33
We did not meet with a mediator 14
Yes 4
Sum 51

Promot e Communicat ion and Set t lement ?

No
We did not
m eet with a
m ediator
Yes

Page 8
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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

no custody evaluator was involved 11

the custody evaluator recommended sole physical and legal custody for the
father 2
the custody evaluator recommended sole physical and legal custody for the
mother 5
the custody evaluator recommended sole physical custody for the father, joint
legal custody 2
the custody evaluator recommended sole physical custody for the mother, joint
legal custody 19
the custody evaluator recommended substantially equal physical and legal
custody for the mother and father 2
the custody evaluator recommended physical custody by a third party 0
the custody evaluator simply recommended our previously agreed upon custody
arrangement 2
other 8
Sum 51

Custody Recommendat ion?

no custody evaluator the custody evaluator

was involved recommended sub-
stantially equal phys-
ical and legal custody
for the m other and fa-
ther
the custody evaluator the custody evaluator
recommended sole recommended phys-
physical and legal ical custody by a
custody for the father third party
the custody evaluator the custody evaluator
recommended sole sim ply recomm end-
physical and legal ed our previously
custody for the agreed upon custody
m other arrangem ent
the custody evaluator other
recommended sole
physical custody for
the father, joint legal
custody
the custody evaluator
recommended sole
physical custody for
the mother, joint le-
gal custody

Page 9
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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

Other:

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 legal
i never had any knowledge period of any kind of arraingments until all was said
and done
joint legal and physical but father still limited visitation
majority physical custody to mother
recommended PAS counseling
We did not have an evaluator" but the Dept. of Human Services recomended the
children be "placed" with us

Page 10
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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)) ? Responses

The referee made a report including a different custody recommendation than

that recommended by the custody evaluator 1
other 13
The referee made no report 29
Yes, and the report was substantially identical to the one generated by the
custody evaluator 6
Yes, the referee made an independent report 2
Sum 51

Referee Report ?

T he referee m ade a
report including a
different custody
recom mendation
than that recom-
mended by the cus-
tody evaluator
other
T he referee m ade no
report
Yes, and the report
was substantially
identical to the one
generated by the
custody evaluator
Yes, the referee
made an inde-
pendent report

Page 11
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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)) ?

Other:

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

other than income
I'm not sure
no other hearing other than that in Q.7
no referee
not sure
Referee made a report but lost/destroyed all the evidence testimony tapes
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 findings
the concilliators report went directly to the judge for the order.
The referee made no report
UNKNOWN
unknown

Page 12
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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)) ? Responses

I made no request 33
The judge conducted a de novo review and came to the same conclusion
without holding a hearing 3
The judge conducted a de novo review with a hearing and came to the same
conclusion 1
other 14
The judge conducted a de novo review and came to a different conclusion
without holding a hearing 0
The judge conducted a de novo review with a hearing and came to the a
different conclusion 0
Sum 51

Page 13
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

Judge's De Novo Hearing?

I m ade no request other

T he judge con- T he judge con-
ducted a de novo ducted a de novo
review and came to review and came to
the sam e conclu- a different conclu-
sion without holding sion without holding
a hearing a hearing
T he judge con- T he judge con-
ducted a de novo ducted a de novo
review with a hear- review with a hear-
ing and cam e to the ing and cam e to the
same conclusion a different conclu-
sion

Page 14
 Michigan Child Custody Survey Results

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)) ?

Other:

custody decided at trial

i did not know of de novo and never heard of it even with a lawyer
I didn't know I could
I don't know what a de novo hearing is
I made no request
I requested but was not granted a denovo hearing from judge
judge had hearing and NEVER made a ruling

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 mother
Judge 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.
Not sure what this is.
Original order was slightly modified.
the judge called the next case
The Judge frequently rubber stamped without consideration the foc
recommendations throughout the case.

Page 15