'Friend Of Court' Under Fire From Clients

Is the Friend of the Court I supposed to be a friend of the I court - or of the parents and I children involved in divorce I that the office serves? Your answer may depend on I whether you talk to the Friend I of tfc.e Court, Richard S. BeneI dek, or his assistant, Michael I P. Malley, or whether you lisI tened to information presentI ed at a "public hearing" held I Nov. 15 during which area I residents vented their frustraI tions in dealing with this I Washtenaw County office. The meeting ws coI sponsored by the National OrI ganization for Women and the I Washtenaw County Advisory I Committee on the Status of I Women. More than 75 persons I attended the relatively unpubI licizéd event. Benedek and I Malley did not attend, alI though organizers said they I had been invited as soon as I the groups received permisI sion to use a courtroom in the I County Building. Benedek told The News he I was in Canada addressing a I group of University of Toronto I social work students at the time; Malley saía Rotding in the way of constructive communication would have occurred had he attended the meeting. In an effort to give both sides an outlet, The News attended the public meeting and later interviewed Benedek and Malley. The Washtenaw County Friend of the Court office has counterparts in Michigan 's other 82 coünties: all are set up by state law and governed by state and local court rules. In addition to offering court-connected marriage counseling, the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court is empowered to act as a referee in domestic relations cases where the circuit judge deerns it necessary. While the office is concerned primarily with divorce cases in which minor children are involved, its realm also extends to paternity cases, support cases and sonríe alimóny cases. The office collects and disburses monies from and to the parties involved in these cases. The budget allocated to the office for the calendar year ending December, 1973, will ■UHHHHWUHanHI totar $247,558, with salaries comprising the largest portion of those funds. The problem of money was much on the minds of those who spoke out at the public meeting. Many complained of inadequate disbursal of funds through the office. "An inefficiently run office," saidone. "I make my payments on time but my ex-wife never receives them on time and no one seems to know why when Icall." "Why are payments held for lOdays?" "No one seems to care when I don't get my payments." Friend of the Court Benedek later said: "We're sympathetic to prompt payments, but unless we're advised by the parties involved, we have to assume everything is going along all right. We don't give a statement unless it is requested. We used to go through the accounts manually, but with a caseload of 6,000 active cases a year, we're operating beyond our capacity." Several persons at the meeting criticized the fact that financial statements are not sued by the office. As one woman put it, "Every other fi nancial institution is required to issue financial statements. How can the Friend of the Court, which disburses so many funds, avoid this require; ment?" Benedek and Malley say the I efficiency of disbursing funds I 9 is seriously hampered by the I I absence of a computerized I system to administer pay ments and keep track of aci counts. They say the budget I crimp has meant the same I E number of personnel has tfed I i to deal with a 40 per cent inI crease in the number of payI I ments over a three-year periI od. They say the office handles I jj about 2,000 transactions a I week and add that they I predicted in 1970 that probI 1 lems would occur without the I assistance of a computerized I 1 system. { Acting County Controller I j John C. Hurd told The News ■ that possibly by early 1974 the I I Friend of the Court will have I use of the county's computer. j On the question of comI j plaints about late support pay1 ments, Malley says that when 1 I a check comes into the office, I it is credited to the proper acI I count and "hopefully the day II I after it's posted we'll mail our 1 1 I check to the custorlial parent. B I Several years ago, it went like 1 1 I clockwork." I We Ai D ArborNerU imerl I 1 m vs ïsions cy of "holding" checks? "We want to make it as easy possible for people to pay. That's why we accept personal checks," Benedek says. "But many other Friend of the Court offices don't follow this practice and most federal offices don't. "Our policy is to accept personal checks until someone bounces one on us. Then we insist that they pay cash, by money order or by certified check," he says. "On checks of $300 or more on an in-town 1 bank, we hold the check for 10 days for a credit check. On an out-of-state bank, we'll hold the check for 15 days. When you pay out several thousand dollars' worth of checks a week, you're putting the county on the line if you don't folio w this procedure." In answer to one person's complaint at the meeting that a certified check had been held for a 10-day period, Benedek denied that this could have happened. He did not ask this reporter for the name of the person who complained, however, nor did he check into the matter during the interview. The question of custodial and visitation rights for children involved in divorce also falls within the Friend of the Gourt's purview. Benedek described the problems with his job: "Up to this point, the parents have been responsible for making decisions for their children in the privacy of their homes. But at the point of divorce, those . decisions become somewhat public. Now a state agency is looking into their lives and deciding what is best for the kids. It can be a frustrating and very difficult job. The Friend of the Court now' represents the third member of the family - the children - and has to do what is in the best interests of the children. "Some may think our questions seem inane, but people are not quite as perceptive while they are in the throes of divorce as they would like to think they were afterwards." In making custody recommendations to the court, the Friend of the Court is bound by Michigan's Child Custody Act of 1970. Among the specifics the law says must be taken into account in deciding custody are: - Emotional ties between the child and the competing parties. - Capacity of the competing parties to give the child love, affection and guidance and continuation of the educating and raising of the child in its religión or creed, if any. -Capacity to provide food, clothing, medical care and other material needs. - Length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment. - Permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home. -Moral fitness of the parents and their mental and physical health. -Home, school and community record of the child. - Reasonáble preference of the child, if the court deerns the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference. -And the catchall: Any other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a particular child custody dispute. But several persons at the public meeting evidently feit there have been breakdowns between the ideal and the real. Some who spoke out included: - A father who after one year had been granted legal possession of his children (the court has legal custody) said he was irratated by the visits of a social worker to inspect his entire house, including, he said, the dressers, closets, basement, garage and refrigerator. Yet, he said, the conditions of the children's former home had been appalling. - A mother said her exhusband had removed their children frpm the state without legal permission, yet the Friend of the Court had done nothing to assist her in obtaining visitation rights. -Several parents of both sexes maintained that children were used as a "ploy" in cases of contested custody, were "bribed" by parents and underwent other forms of manipulation, yet the Friend of the Court seemed unwilling or iiicapable of checking out the validity of their claims. - A woman said her daughter had told her, following a visit by a Friend of the Court social worker, "Don't ask us to talk to the Friend of the Court any more. We have to hate one or the other of you." - A woman claimed that custodial parents are constantly "gone over." "You can't be the boss if someone is always interfering with your decisions." Others questioned the criteria used in deciding their own custody cases. "You 're damed if you do and damned if you don't," is the way Malley summed up complaints about the office's intervention or lack of it. "Our approach is that we would like the parties involved to attempt to Work out visitation policies for 1 selves. If we spell out that a I son has to be free to visit his I father every Tuesday and ■ Thursday from 2 to 4 p.m., I the boy may want to go to 1 tle League . baseball practice I but instead has to visit his 1 ther to avoid having his father I brought to court for contempt. ■ How fair is that?" Mrs. Ann Raney of Child I and Family Service of 1 enaw County, who was pres-1 ent at the meeting, offeredl some suggestions for 1 ing relations bet'ween the I Friend of the Court and its I clients. A booklet for divorcing 1 ents indicating alternative I plans or patterns of visitation I as guidelines for parents to I follow in making their I sion might be offered by the I Friend of the Court, she said. She also suggested that, I lowing a trial period, a review I of hcjw things are working out I should take place in an I mal setting. "They have got to hear I pie who feel the Friend of the I Court is just not helping," she I says. "That may not be the I case, but it is definitely what I these people feel, whether it's I true or not." Other of Mrs. Raney's I suggestions are available H from the Child and Family I Service agency. Organizers of the public I meeting plan to make I ble to interested persons I transcripts of tape recordings I of the proceedings. Spokeswomen for the I groups have indicated, I er, that the question of the accountability of the Friend of the Court office will still be under scrutiny. As for Benedek and Malley, ■ neither indicated to The News ' any plans for follow-ups or I vestigations based on any of the complaints aired at the I public meeting. J