Another lawsuit against Iosco County FOC?

Today I visited fixthefoc.com. Fixthefoc.com is short for Fix the Friend of the Court, which is an actual judicial agency and employee of the Michigan court system in which they serve, they also provide Title IV-D welfare services on behalf of what they refer to as the custodial parent. Title IV-D welfare has no eligibility requirements.

 At fixthefoc.com I read a story of Iosco County having to pay to settle an Alcona County Friend of the Court lawsuit filed by a former employee. I read about other stories associated with various friend of the court offices state-wide. You ask what may have led me to fixthefoc.com that answer is the story of Doug DeMoss, a Michigan resident.

 Doug DeMoss, a proponent of family law reform, was arrested at home in Southeastern Michigan on Friday, April 21, 2006 and detained for transport to Iosco County, Michigan to answer felony allegations of failing to pay child support for his now 22-year old adult daughter. Mr. DeMoss has been an outspoken critic of the injustices created by Michigan’s Friend of the Court Beauracracy and the broken Michigan family court system. Many public criticisms by Mr. DeMoss extend all the way to Attorney General Mike Cox’s office regarding an admitted affair that the attorney general engaged in while being elected to the highest law enforcement position in the State of Michigan on top of Cox’s desire to previously use posters created by children of their father’s being sent to jail for non payment of prepaid welfare, commonly coined, child support. Mr. DeMoss has been a guest on several talk radio shows, including KrightsRadio.Com regarding the status of Michigan family courts.

 Most importantly, however, Mr. DeMoss has been an open and direct critic of Iosco County Friend of the Court operations, located in Tawas City, Michigan. Why? Because Iosco County is described by Mr. DeMoss as having actually assisted in the concealment of Mr. DeMoss’s only child, who is now an adult that has been completely estranged from knowing her willing father since about 6 months after her birth. The interesting fact is that there was never a court order issued, never any evidence in support of domestic violence leading to a conviction, and never an existence of any restraining order forbidding contact between Mr. DeMoss and his only child. The only barrier to contacting his child was the Iosco County friend of the court, which allowed Mr. DeMoss’s ex-wife to move each and every time that Mr. DeMoss located his child and requested of the friend of the court to be involved in his only child’s life.

 The only payment ever received by the Iosco County Friend of the Court was refunded to Mr. DeMoss as an overpayment, dated May 18, 1993, nearly 13 years ago. The Iosco County Friend of the Court issued the check after Mr. DeMoss was detained for allegedly missing a court hearing that was actually adjourned. The outcome of this detention was that the Iosco County Friend of the Court gave him back his money and sent him on his way.

 Eleven years later, on November 3, 2004 a letter was sent by E.J. Heilig of the Iosco County Friend of the Court addressed to “parents” citing “You failed to return the Request for Services form that was sent to you by the Friend of the Court office.” Further it states that “According to Michigan Statute and Federal Law, you are required to sign the Request for Services form before our office can assist with your case.” Finally stating that “Failure to sign and return the Request for Services for[m] within 10 days will result in all Friend of the Court services being discontinued, including approval of orders.” This was obviously an attempt by the Iosco County Friend of the Court to get Mr. DeMoss’s case on the headcount for participating in Title IV-D welfare, a program that encourages the diminishment of one parent’s role in their children’s lives by court order to give the appearance that a parent is absent and that welfare services are needed. For every participant that the county friend of the court can claim is in their caseload, the county receives additional funding stemming from federal block grants and incentive payments.

 After refusing to return the request for services form in November 2004 and the Iosco County friend of the court realizing that they could be possibly penalized for failing to establish a request for title iv-d welfare services from either parent in Mr. DeMoss’s case, Char Baker, in January of 2005, sent a sample motion for Mr. DeMoss in an attempt to clear the balance associated with the alleged arrearage. Under current incentive guidelines from the federal government, the fact that there were alleged arrearages with no collection activity could lead to the federal government and the State of Michigan requesting money back from Iosco County.

 Mr. DeMoss received a letter dated August 30, 2005 from Mr. Mike Friedgen indicating that “since no action has been taken by you, and the amount of the arrears is over sixty three thousand dollars, your case has been turned over to the prosecutor to see if they wish to proceed with a felony warrant.” He then moves on to say “you can still prevent this action if you, file the motion as requested, appear before the court and allow the Court to make a ruling on the arrears. If you wish not to file the motion, the only way the matter may be cleared is by having you arrested and brought before the court.” Keep in mind 12 years prior to this letter, the Iosco County friend of the court gave Mr. DeMoss back all of his money and sent him on his way.

 After Mr. DeMoss began contacting various Judges, Representatives, and Senators trying to get resolution to the conduct of Iosco County friend of the court and after signing a release for elected officials to obtain copies of his friend of the court file the Iosco County friend of the court again took notice, because this large balance was becoming more and more visible to legislators. When requests for information started coming in from at least one federal agency making inquiries into the operations of Iosco County Friend of the Court and growing rumors of what Iosco County friend of the court was hiding in regards to Mr. DeMoss’s more than outstanding case, Iosco County friend of the court opted to push for Mr. DeMoss’s detainment.

 “My belief is that the Iosco County prosecutor’s office never received any such request from Mike Friedgen and Mike Friedgen has a lot to answer for regarding his statements and conduct over the past many years,” states Mr. DeMoss. Fast forward to April 21, 2006 where Mr. DeMoss has been detained again for transport to Iosco County Circuit Court on April 24^th, 2006 to answer for alleged arrearages, many of which are far beyond the six-year statute of limitation for felony prosecution. The Iosco County Friend of the Court now has the burden of defending their misconduct in the public eye. “After being deprived of your child for over two decades, what more can the Iosco County Friend of the Court think they can do to me? They took my only child,” states Mr. DeMoss.

This has been Lary Holland, reporting from Michigan for KrightsRadio.Com. For more information on KrightsRadio visit www.krightsradio.com. Where the Truth Continues.

For more information about Title IV-D welfare visit http://www.removethesepeople.org.

For more information about Lary Holland visit http://www.laryholland.org.