Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Michigan Child Custody Survey Report

Michigan Child Custody Survey Report

Ratings:

4.5

(2)
|Views: 437 |Likes:
Published by DougDante
Responses to the 9 question Michigan Child Custody Survey and summary of findings.
Responses to the 9 question Michigan Child Custody Survey and summary of findings.

More info:

Published by: DougDante on May 28, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2009

pdf

text

original

 
Michigan Child Custody Survey ResultsPage 1
Michigan Child Custody Survey Report
05/28/08Doug DanteDougDante1@yahoo.com
 
Michigan Child Custody Survey ResultsPage 2
Michigan Child Custody Survey ReportSummary
Many respondents reported irregularities when selecting “other”. See report.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 FOCfelt that he or she also provided other domestic relations services (MCL552.515)78% of respondents who met with a mediator were not aware prior to themeeting 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 aneutral third party. (MCR 3.216)89% of respondents who met with a mediator felt that he or she did not facilitatecommunication between parties to promote settlement (MCR 3.216)4% of respondents reported that the recommended order was for substantiallyequal physical and legal custody for the mother and father94% of respondents reported that referees either issued no report, issued areport that was substantially identical to that of the custody evaluator, or tookother actions with the same effect. (MCL 552.507)0% of respondents who requested de novo hearings reported that judges madea different conclusion on de novo review
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 aremarked in shades of blue.
 
Michigan Child Custody Survey ResultsPage 3
Responses
615We did not meet with a mediator162Our mediator was a contractor75
Sum 51
Was the mediator an contractor? If not, and if the mediator was anemployee of the Friend of the Court, was the reason "if the service is notavailable from a private source, or if the court can demonstrate thatproviding 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)
I don't know whether the mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Courtor notOur mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court and I am not aware of why a contractor was not usedOur mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, but mediation bycontract is not cost effective in our areaOur mediator was an employee of the Friend of the Court, but private mediationis not available in our area
Was Mediator a Contractor?
I don't know whether themediator was an employeeof the Friend of the Court orOur mediator was an em-ployee of the Friend of theCourt and I am not awareof why a contractor wasnot usedWe did not meet with amediatorOur mediator was an em-ployee of the Friend of theCourt, but mediation by con-tract is not cost effective inour areaOur mediator was a con-tractorOur mediator was an em-ployee of the Friend of theCourt, but private mediationis not available in our area

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->