Proposed SCAO-Approved Court Forms

The following forms and issues will be presented to the Michigan Court Forms Committee at its upcoming meeting and are published for a 30-day comment period to elicit input for discussion by the committee. All comments received during the comment period will be included in the committee's agenda materials and mailed to committee members two weeks before the scheduled meeting.

Proposals for Criminal Work Group
Proposals for General Civil and Miscellaneous Work Group
Proposals for Domestic Relations Work Group

The 2012 meeting schedule of the work groups of the Michigan Court Forms Committee is as follows:

• Adoption Work Group - Thursday, February 23, 2012 ** No meeting in 2012
• Criminal Work Group - Thursday, March 1, 2012
• General Civil and Miscellaneous Work Group - Thursday, March 8, 2012
• Domestic Relations Work Group (including Friend of the Court) - Thursday, March 15, 2012
• Civil Infractions, Other Civil, and Summary Proceedings Work Group - Thursday, March 22, 2012 ** No meeting in 2012
• Estates and Trusts Work Group - Wednesday, September 5, 2012 ** RESCHEDULED
• Mental Health/Commitment Work Group - Thursday, September 13, 2012
• Child Protective Proceedings and Juvenile Guardianship Work Group - Thursday, September 20, 2012
• Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Protective Proceedings Work Group - Thursday, September 27, 2012
• Delinquency, Designated, Minor Personal Protection and Traffic/Ordinance Work Group - Thursday, October 4, 2012

Comments may be made by mailing a written letter to SCAO-Approved Court Forms at PO Box 30048, Lansing, Michigan 48909 or by sending an e-mail to CourtFormsInfo@courts.mi.gov. Inquiries may be made by telephoning the Forms Unit at 517-373-4864.

Proposals for March, 2012

Proposals for Criminal Work Group
          Published January 18, 2012
          Comment Period Expires February 17, 2012

MC 230, Motion and Order to Show Cause: It has been suggested this form be revised for accuracy and clarity. The following changes have been proposed: (1) change item 5 to say:
"□ you should not be held in    □ civil    □ criminal    contempt for failure to comply with the order of this court as follows __________________________________.” (2) delete “for the reasons stated in the motion” at the end of item 5 and, as a result, add periods at the end of each checkbox option in item 5 (checkboxes after “to show cause why …”). See the current form.

MC 399, Motion for Reinstatement of Bond and Order: This new form was approved by the committee in March 2011 but the SCAO tabled the form’s development because concerns arose regarding its accuracy and design. The form is intended for use in situations where the court has entered a Judgment after Bond Forfeiture (MC 238), the bond company has paid, the defendant is later apprehended within the statutory one-year time frame, and the bond company files a motion for the return of the money paid pursuant to the judgment. Although approved by the committee last year, the form was held for further review because the SCAO did not believe it encompasses all the statutory provisions, specifically those relating to MCL 765.28. The SCAO notes that, when the forms committee recommended the development of this form last year, it did not have the benefit of considering MCL 765.28 because the statute was brought to light after the committee meeting. Also, the SCAO notes that the form does not necessarily comply with the design of other forms. Therefore, the form should be reviewed to ensure it includes all the required statutory elements and conforms with the design of other court forms. See the 2011 meeting minutes. See the draft form.

MC 200, Information, Felony: It has been suggested that this form be revised to include information from MCL 764.1c(1)(b) about “endorsing” the complaint. MCL 764.1c(1)(b) provides an option of  “endorsing on the complaint a finding of reasonable cause and a direction to take the accused before a magistrate of the judicial district in which the offense is charged to have been committed.”  This information/language is not on the form and must be handwritten by the court, which takes time. It is suggested that the option (1)(b) language should be preprinted on the form to expedite these cases. Also, it is asserted that the Michigan State Police does not like the courts doing option (1)(a) – “issue a warrant as provided in section 1b of this chapter” – because, if the person is already in custody, there is no need to issue a warrant for arrest. Should the language from MCL 764.1c(1)(b) be added to and/or preprinted on this form? See the current form.

MC 203, Writ of Habeas Corpus: A court administrator has suggested this form be revised to include a date and time in item 4, so item 3 does not have to be completed. It is asserted that if item 4 is checked, then item 3 also needs to be completed with the date of the hearing – and this is causing some confusion. The SCAO points out that a recent communication from the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) indicates that courts scheduling an IVT “appearance” do not need to use this form. The MDOC communication states: “Writs are not required for videoconferencing. A simple correspondence via email or fax will suffice but should include the court, date, type of proceeding, presiding judge, and case number.” Should the form be revised? See the current form.

New Form, Advice of Rights (Felony Probation Violation Plea): An attorney has suggested this form be developed because CC 291, Advice of Rights (Circuit Court Plea), does not lend itself to use in felony probation violations. It is explained that the rationale behind the form is to ensure the uniformity in the plea-taking process, which thereby protects the due process rights of the probationer and promotes the efficient administration of justice by diminishing the opportunity for error. It is asserted that CC 291 is inappropriate for use in felony probation violations because probation revocation proceedings “deal not with the procedural rights of an accused in a criminal prosecution, but with the more limited due process rights of one who is a probationer because he has been convicted of a crime.” (People v Rial, 399 Mich 431 [1976]) Should a form be developed for this purpose? See the draft form (with drafter's comments) . See CC 291.

DC 213, Advice of Rights and Plea Information: Two versions of this form are currently available: one for arrests before 10/1/03 and one for arrests after 10/1/03. The SCAO believes two versions are no longer necessary and that some courts are not even aware of the older form’s existence. The suggestion is to provide guidance on the back of DC 213 reminding courts that the consequences for arrests made before 10/1/03 are different than for arrests after that date and, if the defendant is arraigned on a crime for which the defendant was arrested before 10/1/03, the court can contact the SCAO for the 2003 version of the form. If this change is made, the old version of the form will no longer be maintained on the SCAO website. Should the old version of the form be removed from the website and guidance provided on the back of DC 213?

A judge has suggested that more detailed information be added on the back of the form regarding collateral consequences. It is also proposed that the chart be redesigned and penalties be added
for various other charges. Should additional information be added to the form? See the draft chart.

A court employee has suggested that a signature line be included for the translator to sign, in order to verify that a translator was present. It is asserted that, while the current language on the form is "legally adequate,” written documentation that a translator was present, evidenced by a signature, will help circumvent future challenges to a guilty plea as having been made without understanding rights before entering the plea. It is asserted this suggestion may be superfluous and repetitive of the court reporter’s record of the proceedings because the court reporter will note the presence of a translator, but it is suggested that a signature line be added anyway, to prevent any future challenges. It is claimed there will be foreseeable challenges in these cases – e.g., OWI guilty pleas on underlying offenses used to establish subsequent offender charges. Therefore, it is asserted that documenting the presence of the translator may be useful. The SCAO notes that the signature of the translator is not required by statute or court rule. Should a signature line be added?

See the current DC 213 .

DC 225, Complaint, Misdemeanor: Similar to MC 200, it has been suggested that this form be revised to include information from MCL 764.1c(1)(b) about “endorsing” the complaint. MCL 764.1c(1)(b) provides an option of  “endorsing on the complaint a finding of reasonable cause and a direction to take the accused before a magistrate of the judicial district in which the offense is charged to have been committed.”  This information/language is not on the form and must be handwritten by the court, which takes time. It is suggested that the option (1)(b) language should be preprinted on the form to expedite these cases. Also, it is asserted that the Michigan State Police does not like the courts doing option (1)(a) – “issue a warrant as provided in section 1b of this chapter” – because, if the person is already in custody, there is no need to issue a warrant for arrest. Should the language from MCL 764.1c(1)(b) be added to and/or preprinted on this form? See the current form.

Proposals for General Civil and Miscellaneous Work Group
          Published January 25, 2012
          Comment Period Expires February 24, 2012

MC 01, Summons and Complaint: A judge has suggested that the phrase “of the issuing court” be added to the officer certificate so it reads:  “I certify that I am a sheriff, deputy sheriff, bailiff, appointed court officer of the issuing court or attorney for a party ….” (new language underlined). The judge asserts that MCL 600.8321 requires process to be served by a court officer appointed by the judges of the court that issued the summons, but proofs are being submitted from court officers who are not from the issuing court. MCL 600.8321 states that, “[c]ivil process in the district court shall be served by a sheriff, deputy sheriff or a court officer appointed by the judges of the court for that purpose, except that officers of the department of state police or ….”  Should this language be added to the form?  See the current form.

MC 06, Notice to Appear: A court employee has proposed that language be added to give advance notice that financial obligations imposed by the court must be paid at the time of assessment, unless the court allows otherwise for good cause shown. Although this language is not required on the form, it is recommended in the trial court collections standards as a means of putting a party on notice to be prepared to pay on the date he or she attends the hearing or trial.  The court employee indicates that these notices are generated in bulk by computer and preprinted language is more cost-effective than stamping the language onto the form by hand. The forms committee actually approved this request at its March 2011 meeting and recommended the following language be added to the form:  “Fines, costs, and other financial obligations imposed by the court must be paid at the time of assessment.”  See the 2011 meeting minutes. However, after the 2011 committee meeting, the revised MC 06 was tabled until 2012 by the SCAO so the committee’s decision to delete the signature line for the notice can be discussed (see below).

The committee should review the appropriateness of item 4, which contains language about issuing a bench warrant for failure to appear in a criminal case. A bench warrant can be issued only when the defendant fails to appear as ordered by the court, and it is asserted that an unsigned notice does not constitute an order of the court. A similar concern was raised by a judge in the 1990s about the authority to issue a bench warrant for failure to appear on this notice rather than an order of the court, and the judge asked the forms committee to change the title of the form to include the term “order” and to add a designation for the judge to sign the form.  The committee declined that request because of the manner in which this form is generated. If it is agreed to retain item 4, the committee needs to determine whether a signature line should remain on the form, and whether that signature line should include a designation for the judge.

See the current form.

Comments Received:
Laura Chafy-Rogers

MC 10, Judgment, Civil: A judge has suggested that this form should more accurately reflect MCL 600.2441, as it pertains to attorney costs.  The judge asserts that pro se litigants often do not recover the costs they are entitled to because there is no appropriate item for these costs, as permitted by MCL 600.2441.  Assessment of attorney fees is authorized only in special situations pursuant to statute and court rule and, in most cases, attorney fees are not authorized.  Therefore, the reference to attorney fees should be replaced by more useful items so that pro se litigants can recoup the costs permitted under MCL 600.2441. The following revisions are proposed: (1) separate the attorney fee section from the costs section because assessment of attorney fees is authorized by statute or court rule only in special situations, (2) add statutory costs pursuant to MCL 600.2441, (3) add an item for "other costs," and (4) add a “cost list” to the form. Should the attorney fee section be separated from the cost section?  Should statutory costs be added?  Should an item for “other costs” be included?  Should a “cost list” be added? See the current form.

MC 16, Motion to Set Aside Order for Installment Payments: It has been suggested that this form be revised to make it clear that an attorney’s signature does not need to be notarized.  However, it may be more appropriate to remove the notarization requirement altogether. This form was designed as an affidavit in 1993 based on a particular interpretation of motion practice under MCR 2.119 and a request to simplify case processing through ex parte motion and supporting affidavit.  The SCAO asserts that an affidavit should be signed by a plaintiff and not a plaintiff's attorney, so if the notarization is retained, it needs to be clear that it is the plaintiff’s signature that is notarized and not the attorney’s signature.  The reason it may be more appropriate to remove the notarization altogether is that the form was changed from an affidavit to a motion in 1997 when the court rule was changed, but removal of the notarization was overlooked.  The SCAO believes that MCR 3.104 no longer appears to require the affidavit because the defendant is given notice that he or she has 14 days after service of the motion to object.  However, if the committee believes general motion practice under MCR 2.119 requires an affidavit, should the form be revised so it is clear that notarization is unnecessary if counsel is signing the form or should the notarization be stricken?
See the current form.

MC 19, Request and Order to Seize Property: An attorney has recommended this form be modified for use by both plaintiffs and defendants. The attorney claims that the form should account for situations where a defendant (by counterclaim, case evaluation sanctions, or other order of the court) obtains a judgment against a plaintiff. While the form can currently be modified by the user for this purpose, the attorney asserts that clerks might not accept the form if it has been modified in this manner. The following suggestions have been made: (1) allow the submitting attorney to check an appropriate box (□  Plaintiff    □  Defendant) throughout the form  or  (2) insert a field to identify the judgment creditor and the judgment debtor, then use those references throughout the form instead of "plaintiff” and “defendant.” The committee should note there is no court rule similar to MCR 3.101 that defines the plaintiff in postjudgment collection through seizure of property as the judgment creditor (which can be either the plaintiff or the defendant in the case).  Even so, should the form be revised to reflect that the judgment creditor can be either the plaintiff or the defendant? See the current form.

MC 31, Case Evaluation Notice: MCR 2.403 has been amended, effective May 1, 2012. Accordingly, the "Responsibilities” section on the back of this form should be revised. It is suggested the language be modified as follows:

"In accordance with MCR 2.403, you are required to do the following:

1.  Within __________________, each party must send to the  □ ADR clerk
                Time
□ ___________________________ a check in the amount of $___________________
   Specify
made payable to _________________________________________________________.

2.  A person entitled to a fee waiver under MCR 2.002 is entitled to a waiver of fees under this rule.

3. Unless otherwise provided in the notice of hearing, at least 14 days before the hearing each party shall serve a copy of the case evaluation summary and supporting documents in accordance with MCR 2.107 and file a proof of service and three copies of a case evaluation summary and supporting documents with the ADR clerk. The case evaluation summary shall consist of a concise summary setting forth that party’s factual and legal position on issues presented by the action. Except as permitted by the court, the summary shall not exceed 20 pages double spaced, exclusive of attachments. Quotations and footnotes may be single spaced. At least one-inch margins must be used, and printing shall not be smaller than 12-point font. See MCR 2.403(I).

EACH FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE AND SERVE THE MATERIALS IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND EACH SUBSEQUENT FILING OF SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING SUBJECTS THE OFFENDING ATTORNEY OR PARTY TO A $150 PENALTY to be paid as follows:

….”

See the current form.

MC 52, Request and Writ for Garnishment (Income Tax Refund/Credit): It is suggested that the distribution at the top of this form be reviewed for accuracy. First, it is proposed the distribution be changed to reflect that the defendant gets Part 1 (with both defendant’s and plaintiff’s social security number blocked out) or else create a new Part 3 for the defendant that blocks out the plaintiff’s social security number but not the defendant’s social security number. Second, it is requested that the committee discuss why the court should get the original copy when there is nothing in court rule or statute that requires this. Instead, it is asserted that perhaps the Department of Treasury should get the original copy with the complete social security number. It is also claimed that, in order to protect people from identity theft, the social security numbers should not be on the copies that are mailed. However, the SCAO is unsure how Treasury can process these claims if the social security number is not on the mailed copy of the form. Should the distribution be changed? The committee should note that, if changes are made, MC 12, Request and Writ for Garnishment (Periodic), and MC 13, Request and Writ for Garnishment (Nonperiodic), should be modified as well.

It is proposed that the language in the gray box at the top of the form be reviewed for
grammatical accuracy, as well as the language in item 2, line 3. It is asserted that the language in the gray box should say, “…mail to:” and the language in line 3 of item 2 should say, “The total amount of postjudgment payments made and credits to date is:” Should this change be made?

See the current MC 52 . See the current MC 12. See the current MC 13.

Comments Received:
Bob Jones

MC 230, Motion and Order to Show Cause: It has been suggested this form be revised for accuracy and clarity. The following changes have been proposed:
   (1) revise item 5 to say:
         “  □ you should not be held in    □ civil    □ criminal    contempt for failure to comply
                with the order of this court as follows __________________________________.”
   (2) delete “for the reasons stated in the motion” at the end of item 5 and, as a result, add
         periods at the end of each checkbox option in item 5 (checkboxes after “to show cause
         why …”).

Should these changes be made? See the current form.

MC 280, Mediation Status Report: It is recommended this form be revised to include the name of the person who filed the final documents. It is suggested that item 3.a. be changed as follows:
" 3.  □ a. settled.   Final documents will be filed with the court on or before ____________________
                                                                                                            Date
by _________________________________.”
     Name
It is asserted that it would be helpful to include this information on the form, in case the person who filed the documents needs to be contacted. Should this information be added? See the current form.

MC 390, Ex Parte Motion to Renew Civil Judgment: The authority for this form has been questioned and the SCAO has requested the committee's insight. The form was developed and approved for use in 2010 and then revised in 2011. See the 2010 meeting minutes. See the 2011 meeting minutes. In particular, there is a question whether Van Reken v. Darden, Neff & Heitsch is valid authority for the form because Van Reken really does not discuss whether a motion to renew a civil judgment should be an ex parte motion or a motion with notice to the other party. Judges sometimes prefer ex parte motions and allow ex parte relief when anticipating that a matter will be uncontested or when a particular type of motion, such as this, is routinely granted. However, the routine practice for an ex parte motion to renew civil judgment does not necessarily connote authority for a court form. An ex parte motion is not normally granted unless there is specific authority for it or there is an emergency situation that warrants the ex parte process. It is asserted this type of motion is not an emergency because the person had 10 years’ notice that the judgment was going to expire. The committee should note that, in addition to Van Reken, a memorandum from the SCAO regarding renewal of judgments was offered as authority for the form.  Are Van Reken and the SCAO memorandum sufficient authority for this form? Should the form remain approved or be deleted? See the current form. See the SCAO memorandum.

MC 502, Notice of Filing of Transcript and Affidavit of Mailing: It is suggested that a third page be included for additional information, such as attorneys’ names, addresses, bar numbers, etc. Currently, the form allows for information about two attorneys. In the alternative, another option is to simply add a note near the “Attorney name and address” fields that states: “Attach additional sheets, if needed.” Should a third page be added to the form? Or should a note be added to instruct the user to attach additional sheets, if needed? See the current form.

CC 377, Petition for Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic)
CC 380, Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic)
CC 377M, Petition for Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Nondomestic)
CC 380M, Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Nondomestic): A law clerk has suggested that a check box be added for prohibiting “assaulting, attacking, beating, or wounding ___________________________.” It is asserted that one of these is sometimes the incident alleged for obtaining a personal protection order. The current forms comply with the statute, MCL 600.2950a, and the statute does not use the terms “assaulting, attacking, beating, or wounding.” (Note: MCL 600.2950 does use these terms, but that statute does not apply to these forms.) The SCAO believes the existing check box for “threatening to kill or physically injury me” suffices. Should the forms be revised as suggested? See the current CC 377, CC 380, CC 377M, CC 380M.

CC 375, Petition for Personal Protection Order (Domestic Relationship)
CC 376, Personal Protection Order (Domestic Relationship)
CC 375M, Petition for Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Domestic Relationship)
CC 376M, Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Domestic Relationship): A law clerk has recommended adding a check box on these forms for prohibiting “posting a message through the use of any medium of communication, including the Internet or a computer or any electronic medium, pursuant to MCL 750.411s.” It is asserted that this language has been added to the nondomestic forms (CC 377, CC 380, CC 377M, and CC 380M) and should also be added to the domestic forms. It is also claimed that there has been an increase in these kinds of cases. The current forms comply with the statute. MCL 600.2950 applies to domestic PPOs, and the statute does not refer to obtaining a PPO for the purpose of prohibiting the posting of a message pursuant to MCL 750.411s. Does the committee interpret the statute differently? If so, should this language be on these forms?

Regarding CC 376 only, a law clerk has proposed that a check box and line be added as follows:
"□ Other: __________________________.” It is asserted that CC 375 and CC 375M (petitions) have an “Other” check box and line, and therefore the orders should have them as well. In addition, it is noted that CC 376M also has a space for “□ Other: _____________________.” It is claimed that judges often need to write more on the order but there is no available space to do so. The committee should note that, while this may be helpful, there is no available space on CC 376.

Regarding CC 376 only, a court employee has suggested the form be modified because it is confusing to law enforcement and the general public. Specifically, it is recommended that “IT IS ORDERED” be added before item 5 to make it clear that items 1-4 are not the orders of the judge.  It is asserted there needs to be a clear distinction about what part of the form is the order and what part is not. Apparently, an incident occurred where sheriff’s department removed someone from a home because the first check box (item 1) was marked and the sheriff’s department mistakenly thought it was the order from the judge. It is suggested that item 5 be redesigned as follows: “5. IT IS ORDERED,  ____ _______________________________ is prohibited from:” Also, if this form is revised, all the other personal protection orders should be reviewed to see if they need modified in the same manner.

See the current CC 375, CC 376, CC 375M, CC 376M.

CC 379, Motion to Modify, Extend, or Terminate Personal Protection Order
CC 385, Order on Motion to Modify, Extend, or Terminate Personal Protection Order: MCR 3.707 was amended, effective January 1, 2012. The amendment clarifies that the restriction for a respondent to bring a motion to modify or terminate a personal protection order within 14 days after the order enters applies to ex parte personal protection orders only, and does not apply to orders that enter following a full hearing. Also, for a respondent to file a motion to modify or terminate a personal protection order more than 14 days after it is issued, the respondent must show good cause. Therefore, these forms should be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised to indicate that a respondent can file a motion to modify or terminate an ex parte PPO or an ex parte order extending a personal protection order and that any motion otherwise to modify or terminate a PPO by the respondent requires a showing of good cause. See the current CC 379 and CC 385.

All Personal Protection Orders and Instructions: A judge has suggested that the word “contact” in the instructions for all the personal protection orders be changed to “serve with court papers.” It is explained that the instructions indicate to fill in the address where the petitioner can be “contacted” – but “contact” can mean both “serve” and “reach.” Therefore, it is suggested that the word “serve” be used instead of “contact.” Also, it has been proposed that the word “reach” in the entitlement boxes be changed to “serve.” Are these terms confusing and/or inaccurate? Should the PPOs and instructions be changed as suggested? See all the current personal protection forms.

Instructions, CC 380, Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic)
Instructions, CC 380M, Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Nondomestic)
Instructions, CC 396, Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic Sexual Assault)
Instructions, CC 396M, Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Nondomestic Sexual Assault): It is suggested that the following language be added in Section B of the instructions (before “This information will help the policy identify …”):  “The race, sex, and date of birth is required for law enforcement to enter an order on the Law Enforcement Information Network." It is explained this statement should be added to the instructions so it is clear this information is needed to enter an order on LEIN. Should this statement be added? See the current CC 380, CC 380M, CC 396, CC 396M.

Instructions, CC 395, Petition for Personal Protection Order (Nondomestic Sexual Assault)
Instructions, CC 395M, Petition for Personal Protection Order against a Minor (Nondomestic Sexual Assault): A court employee has recommended that the instructions for these forms be revised to indicate that a statement of reasons for requesting specific protections can be attached (as referenced in item E). It is suggested the following instruction be added in Part D of CC 395 and Part C of CC 395M: “You may attach additional sheets that explain the reason why you are requesting the personal protection order and the protections.” Currently, there is nothing on the form or the instructions that allows for comments or reference to the attached documents. The SCAO is uncertain whether this additional instruction is necessary and believes this may be more of a training issue than a forms issue. Is it necessary to explain the reason why the personal protection order is being requested, as well as the protections being requested?

Regarding CC 395M, a court employee has suggested that the following statement be included on the instructions:  “Items with asterisks (*) are required for the police/sheriff to enter the personal protection order into the LEIN and must be completed.” Should this information be on the form? If so, other personal protection orders will need to be reviewed for the same change.

See the current CC 395 and CC 395M.

Proposals for Domestic Relations Work Group
          Published February 1, 2012
          Comment Period Expires March 1, 2012

FOC 1a, Friend of the Court Grievance: It is suggested the following statement in the instructions be revised because it is confusing:  “A judge’s or referee’s decision and an order of the court are not issues to be handled through the grievance procedure.” A litigant has asserted that the average person reading this would assume that “decision and an order of the court” means either an “order of the court” or “a decision that is embodied in the order of the court.” The language in the bolded statement is not from the statute and, therefore, it is suggested the statement be revised as follows: “The following issues cannot be handled through the grievance procedure: 1) a judge’s or referee’s decision or 2) an order of the court.” Should the statement be revised?

A concern has also been raised that the term “office operations” in the instructions is too general. The term is used in MCL 552.526, which says: “(1) A party to a friend of the court case who has a grievance concerning office operations or employees shall utilize the following grievance procedure: … (3) In addition to the grievance procedure provided in subsection (1), a party to a friend of the court case who has a grievance concerning office operations may file, at any time during the proceedings, the grievance in writing with the appropriate citizen advisory committee. …”  Should the term “office operations” be changed?

See the current form.

FOC 65, Motion Regarding Parenting Time: Due to recent changes in the Michigan Child Support Formula, a parenting-time offset is now factored into every order, including some parenting-time orders (when the number of overnights has changed). Therefore, it has been asked whether FOC 65 should be revised to indicate that a change in parenting time may affect support. The committee is asked to consider the following proposals.
(1) Add language at the end of item G in the instructions that says, “If a change in parenting time will affect your support order, you should file a Motion Regarding Support (FOC 50).”
or
(2) Add a provision in item 5 of the form that says, “I ask the court to order that  
□ parenting time      □ parenting time and support        be            □ established        
□ changed       □ made up         as follows:”

Should the form be revised? See the current form.

FOC 10, Uniform Child Support Order
FOC 10a, Uniform Child Support Order, No Friend of the Court Services
FOC 10b, Uniform Spousal Support Order
FOC 10c, Uniform Spousal Support Order, No Friend of the Court Services: A friend of the court referee/attorney has requested that check boxes for “□ Ex Parte  □ Temporary  □  Final” be added to the titles of FOC 10b and FOC 10c to be consistent with FOC 10 and FOC 10a. Currently, the form only has a check box for “ □ Modification” in the title. It is asserted that including the three additional check boxes will help identify the contents of the order for purposes of processing. Should check boxes for “□ Ex Parte □ Temporary  □ Final” be added to the titles of FOC 10b and FOC 10c?

The committee has been asked to discuss the purpose of the following statement at the end of the Uniform Support Orders: “Except as changed in this order, prior provisions remain in effect. Support payable under any prior order is preserved.” This statement has been on the forms since they were first developed 10 years ago and the current language has been on the forms since 2004. The statement is intended to make it clear that all prior provisions continue unless specifically changed by the current order (i.e., all provisions are in one order). The SCAO points out that, over the years, friend of the court offices have presented concerns about the interpretation of the language and exactly what is required. Because of this apparent confusion in friend of the court practice, the language on the form should be reviewed and clarified, if necessary. According to MCR 3.211 (D)(1), “Any provisions regarding child support or spousal support must be prepared on the latest version of the Uniform Support Order ….” (Emphasis added.) In addition to the SCAO’s concerns, a friend of the court staff attorney has asserted that the language is misleading because it makes people think that a Uniform Support Order, which addresses only child support, supersedes an entire judgment, which it does not. The staff attorney points out the following.
(1) Custodial parents often argue that a bonus provision (as extra support) in an old Uniform Support Order should continue even though it is not mentioned in a new Uniform Support Order (and the same thing has occurred with child-care provisions).
(2) What if the old Uniform Support Order had a provision for educational expenses (as support) but the provision is not carried over to the new Uniform Support Order? Is it still enforced?
(3) Should health-care provisions from the prior order continue if health care is not addressed in the new Uniform Support Order?  If yes, is this an appropriate deviation from the Michigan Child Support Formula (because health care, such as uninsured health-care percentages, would be subject to modification along with base support/ordinary medical charges if support is recalculated under the formula)?
 
Should the statement at the end of the forms be revised?

Regarding only FOC 10 and FOC 10a, it has been suggested the provisions for overnights be revised. The forms currently say: “Support includes a parental-time offset using _____ overnights for ______________ and _____ overnights for _________________.” It is noted that the figures for the plaintiff and the defendant are based on the average overnights for the highest number of children included in an order. However, it is explained that different children spend different amounts of time with each parent and, as children emancipate, this changes. To understand the figures and determine whether there has been a change in circumstances, it is asserted that it would be helpful to record the average numbers for each support level or tier. Therefore, it is proposed that this provision be included four or five times on the form, rather than just once.

See the current FOC 10, FOC 10a, FOC 10b, and FOC 10c.

Comments Received:
Dan Fojtik

FOC 22, Employer Disclosure of Income and Health Insurance Information: A friend of the court employee has suggested that the instruction prior to item 7 be revised because it is confusing. The employee explains that people are not completing items 10 and beyond because the instruction prior to item 7 says, “Complete items 7, 8, and 9 if insurance is available to employee.” It is asserted that, when people are asked why they are not completing items 10 and beyond, they respond: “The instructions say to only fill out items 7, 8, and 9.”  For clarification purposes, it is suggested the following language be inserted just prior to item 7: “Complete items 7 through 27. Complete items 7, 8, and 9 based on any insurance that is available to the employee.” In the alternative, it is suggested that a general statement instead be inserted at the very beginning of the form that says: “Please complete the form in its entirety. Do not leave any blank spaces.”  Should the instructions be changed? See the current form.

FOC 58, Order after Hearing on Alleged Custody/Parenting Time Violation: It is suggested that item 13 be revised because it only refers to the payer being committed to the county jail. However, a custodial parent, who is not a payer, can also be committed to jail for a parenting-time violation. Item 13 says: “The payer shall be committed to ______ days in the county jail, …,” but MCL 552.644 does not use the term “payer.”  Rather, the statute uses the term “parent.” The statute says: “… (e) Commit the parent to the county jail or an alternative to jail.  (f) Commit the parent to the county jail or an alternative to jail with the privilege of leaving the jail or other place of detention during the hours the court determines necessary, and under the supervision the court considers necessary, for the purpose of allowing the parent to go to and return from his or her place of employment. …” While the statute specifically says “parent,” third-party custodians can also be committed to the county jail. Therefore, the SCAO recommends that the form be reviewed and revised to accommodate payers, parents, and custodians by using the term “respondent” throughout the form, similar to FOC 6, Enforcement Order. Should the form be revised in this manner? See the current form.

FOC 119, Notice to Withhold Income for Fees and Costs: A court administrator/friend of the court has recommended that various items be clarified on this form.  The following changes have been proposed: (1) add “This is additional to any withholdings directed for child support” in the amount field at the top right of the form, and (2) in item 2, include a check box option for sending payment to the friend of the court or the circuit court clerk.  It is asserted that, as currently worded on the form, all payments will likely go to the friend of the court and the circuit court clerk should be specifically named to avoid payments going to the district court clerk.  Should these changes be made? See the current form.

FOC 6, Enforcement Order: It has been suggested that language regarding the amount of arrearage due be included on this form. MCL 552.637 says that an order of commitment “shall” state both of the following: (1) “[t]he amount of the arrearage under the support order” and (2) “[t]he amount to be paid by the payer in order to be released from the order of commitment, which amount may not be greater than the payer’s currently available resources as found by the court.” Currently, the form does not have a field designated for the amount of the arrearage under the support order, but item 23 does provide the amount to be paid in order to be released from the order of commitment.  Also, item 7 (“Other”) in the findings section of the form already allows the judge to include any additional information, as does item 28 (“Other”) in the order section.  Therefore, judges can include the amount of arrearage under the support order in the “Other” provision in items 7 and/or 28. If the committee determines that space should be designated for the amount of the arrearage, the following revision is suggested at the end of item 23:  “… As of ___________, the respondent owes $________________ in arrears under the support order (subject to audit).”  Should space be allowed for the amount of the arrearage? The committee should note there are some space constraints on the form. See the current form.

New Form, Complaint for Divorce (with Children)
New Form, Complaint for Divorce (no Children)
New Form, Judgment for Divorce (with Children)
New Form, Judgment for Divorce (no Children)

The Solutions on Self-Help (SOS) Task Force has developed these forms for use in a statewide website (Michigan Law Help) that is being developed by the Michigan Poverty Law Program.  The forms are designed for limited use and, once approved by the state court administrator, will only be accessible via the Michigan Law Help website.

See the draft forms: Complaint for Divorce (with Children), Complaint for Divorce (no Children), Judgment for Divorce (with Children), and Judgment for Divorce (no Children).

back to top

Get the latest version of Internet Explorer. Some of the files on this site are PDF files. To view PDF files, you need Acrobat Reader. Download your free copy here.

Questions about this site should be sent to webinfo@courts.mi.gov.
This site was last updated on .