“Instead of the easy fiction that massive numbers of fathers are suddenly and inexplicably abandoning their children, perhaps what we should believe instead is that a lucrative racket now is cynically using our children as weapons and tools to enrich lawyers and provide employment for judges and bureaucrats. Rather than pursuing ever greater numbers of fathers with ever more Draconian punishments, the Justice Department should be investigating the kind of crimes it was created to pursue — such as kidnapping, extortion and racketeering — in the nation's family courts.” - Dr. Stephen Baskerville, PhD.

“I worked in the hell hole called child support for almost 6 years. I thought I was going to die. It was the most frustrating, sad, depressing, hideous job I have EVER had in my life. When I quit, I told them I had received a more lucrative offer from a sweatshop in Calcutta. I still have friends there and things have not changed in the 2 years since I left. I had a letter hand delivered to Greg Abbott outlining the problems -- double dipping from two jobs, overcharging non custodial parents, defaulting people when they were not served, intercepting tax refunds illegally and my personal favorite; garnishing the savings accounts of two children, basically forcing them to pay their own child support! The FIDM unit thought it was FUNNY. I failed to see the humor.” Melissa Puntenney - Former Paralegal for Attorney General’s office (TX)

Iosco to pay to settle Alcona based Friend of Court lawsuit

by Holly Nelson

TAWAS CITY - A federal lawsuit filed against the 23rd Circuit Court has been settled and Iosco County has agreed to pay part of the tab, even though it had no role in the events leading up to the suit.

Alcona County resident Kim Gonzalez filed the litigation last April in U.S. District Court against the 23rd Circuit Court, the circuit's friend of the court, Charlene Baker, and the deputy friend of the court, Patricia O'Farrell.

According to the complaint, Gonzalez was employed at the Alcona County Friend of the Court's Office from April 1999 until January 2004.

Prior to court reorganization, this office was part of the 26th Circuit Court, under which Gonzalez was promoted twice.

When state lawmakers reorganized the circuits in mid 2003, Alcona was moved to the 23rd Circuit, a change which meant Gonzalez was working under a different Friend of the Court.

Gonzalez contends she was a skilled and diligent employee who, after the court reorganization, raised concerns and complained about some of the practices of the 23rd Circuit, including possible violations of law.

Gonzalez suspected the Friend of the Court was violating the rights of individuals arrested for contempt for failing to appear for child support enforcement proceedings by detaining them longer than 72 hours without a hearing, according to the litigation.

Gonzalez reported her suspicions to the Alcona County prosecuting attorney, who subsequently met with her and the Friend of the Court enforcement officer, allegedly confirming that an arrestee could only be held 72 hours without a hearing. Despite this, Gonzalez alleges, the 23rd Circuit continued to detain arrestees without a hearing for longer periods.

Gonzalez also contends she spoke out about other matters which her attorney, Julie Gafkay, described in the lawsuit as public concerns. Listed were:

 A change in the Friend of the Court visitation abatement policy which delayed giving parenting time credit refunds until the end of the child support term.

 An allegation that the court was retaining support checks misdirected by other states and did not immediately return these so the money could be rerouted to the custodial parent.

 A suspicion about the legality of a 23rd Circuit policy which charged parents $75 to review their accounts.

The complaint further alleges that both Baker and O'Farrell knew of Gonzalez's outspoken concerns. Three days before firing her, they allegedly required her to provide her password so they could access her e-mails. One of the e-mails contained instructions on how Gonzalez could make a formal complaint to the Friend of the Court Bureau and State Court Administrative Office, sent in response to an inquiry from Gonzalez.

It is Gonzalez's contention that she was fired before she could make her report for the reason that she was about to blow the whistle and also because she spoke out on matters of public concern.

Gonzalez alleged the Jan. 30, 2004 termination violated the Whistleblowers' Protection Act and her right to freedom of speech.

Her suit seeks damages for loss of earnings and career opportunities, mental and emotional distress, loss of reputation and esteem, and loss of the ordinary pleasures of life, including the opportunity to pursue gainful occupation of choice.

The case was referred to facilitative mediation in October. Last month, after the attorneys conferred with the federal judge, a June 2005 date was set for a jury trial.

Recently, the parties settled and turned to the four counties in the 23rd Circuit for the funds to do so.

The Iosco County Board of Commissioners met on the request last Wednesday, reluctantly agreeing to contribute to the settlement.

Prior to making this decision, Clerk and County Coadministrator Mike Welsch asked the board to call a closed session to discuss this litigation.

An objection was registered by an Iosco County News-Herald and Oscoda Press reporter, contending the board could only go into closed session if a party to the suit, further arguing that it was not appropriate to meet behind closed doors merely to approve a financial arrangement.

The board, cancelled the closed session after consulting an attorney, after which Welsch explained that the chief judge of the 23rd Circuit, Ronald M. Bergeron, has decided to settle.

A senior attorney with the Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA) recommended the matter not be taken to trial given that MMRMA has lost five of the last six employee-employer cases which were tried, all resulting in large judgments.

"Jurors believe employees over employers 78 percent of the time, according to the attorney," Welsch explained.

The clerk said the case has been settled for an as of yet undisclosed amount, plus attorney fees.

Iosco County belongs to the MMRMA insurance pool and normally does not pay anything out of pocket to settle litigation.

But there is an insurance coverage problem in this case. Unbeknownst to Iosco, MMRMA requires a separate arrangement before it will cover multi-county organizations. The 23rd Circuit encompasses four counties -- Alcona, Arenac, Iosco and Oscoda.

Arenac is the only one of the four counties with such a policy, but it has a $75,000 deductible called a self insurance retention (SIR).

Arenac's policy will cover the settlement, but the Arenac County commissioners do not believe Arenac should have to pay the full SIR, Welsch explained. They proposed the deductible be split between the four counties using the same caseload formula which determines how much each county puts into the court budgets.

"So, at the most, we would pay 43 percent or $32,250," Welsch announced.

"How can we be liable for the actions of another county?" Commissioner John Moehring asked.

"It's not the actions of a county, but those of the court," Welsch answered.

"I don't like it, but if it goes to a jury, our liability could be much higher," Chairman Bob Cudney remarked. He explained that, if a jury awards an amount higher than the settlement offer, the counties would be required to fund the difference.

The board decided to deduct the money from the 2005 Friend of the Court budget and unanimously approved the 43 percent share on the motion from Commissioner Patricia Schmidt.

According to Welsch, the chief judge is looking into a different insurance arrangement to better cover the court in the future.

Contacted after the meeting, Friend of the Court Charlene Baker had no comment beyond that which her attorney filed with the U.S. District Court shortly after the litigation was initiated.

This denied most of Gonzalez's allegations, specifically contesting that Gonzalez was ever involved in protected speech or that her employers were aware of it. They also claimed the Alcona woman was discharged for a legitimate business reason, that being that she was completely disorganized and careless, further alleging that she had been repeatedly counseled, both verbally and in writing, about this and that she was discharged for only those reasons.

Neither Judge Bergeron nor Gonzalez's attorney could be reached for comment.

The next proceeding in this lawsuit is a telephone conference which is scheduled for today, Wednesday.