Michigan trying to force couple to marry

[Darth Wong]

A Michigan dad has been told by court to pay for child's birth or wed mom
Published: Monday, January 19, 2009 | 8:39 AM ET
Canadian Press NewsItem/NewsComponent/NewsLines/ByLine

FLINT, Mich. - The state of Michigan is giving a father a choice: pay the medical cost of his daughter's birth or marry the girl's mother.

Gary Johnson was billed $3,800 for the birth of his daughter JaeLyn. Johnson is not married to the child's mother, Rebecca Witt. The Michigan legislature amended the state's paternity act five years ago to waive birthing costs for a father, if he married the child's mother.

A year later, Witt gave birth to JaeLyn. The state paid for the hospital costs because Witt was on Medicaid at the time and is now trying to recover the money.

Jack Battles, the Genesee County Friend of the Court, said the law is an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

Battles' office enforces paternity rulings, child support and other aspects of family law. He says until Johnson can produce a marriage license, he faces the costs.

Johnson and Witt said they want to marry eventually, but Witt said she wants her marriage date to be her choice.

"I don't think anybody should tell me when to get married," said Witt. "I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it."

Witt and Johnson said they have been struggling since the state started coming after Johnson for the hospital costs.

Johnson said he was told he would be billed $500 a month and planned to meet with a caseworker to work out a solution.

"Losing just $10 hurts us," said Johnson, who makes $8 an hour at a Grand Blanc-area nursery. "We don't have a car, we don't even have an oven."

Johnson said he understood the state wants to promote marriage for parents but he respects Witt's position. "It's a woman's dream to have the best wedding she can have," he said.

So let me get this straight: the mother was on Medicaid because she was too poor to pay $3800(!) for her childbirth, and now the state is demanding that this poor couple pay $3800 unless they get married?

Is this what the fundies mean by "supporting the institution of marriage"? Blackmailing couples into marrying by threatening them with thousands of dollars in what are effectively fines for living in sin?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Contraception and abortions are sinful, as are children brought up out of wedlock. This is far more acceptable in polite society.

[General Zod]

So let me get this straight: the mother was on Medicaid because she was too poor to pay $3800(!) for her childbirth, and now the state is demanding that this poor couple pay $3800 unless they get married?

Is this what the fundies mean by "supporting the institution of marriage"? Blackmailing couples into marrying by threatening them with thousands of dollars in what are effectively fines for living in sin?

What I think makes it especially bad is that they actually want to get married. But the state is basically telling them they aren't being fast enough about it, it's absurd.

[The Romulan Republic]

One question: is this law legal?

[Kanastrous]

I think the question is, is it constitutional.

[Darth Wong]

One question: is this law legal?

I don't see why it wouldn't be. It's really a pretty clever piece of political bullshit: instead of calling it a fine for having a child out of wedlock (even though that's obviously what it is), they portray it as a benefit for married couples.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If anything, this media attention may bring about some scruntinising of this law and those like it elsewhere if they exist. It's just unfortunate we don't tend to notice stupid legislation until someone's facing it in the courts.

[Darth Wong]

If anything, this media attention may bring about some scruntinising of this law and those like it elsewhere if they exist. It's just unfortunate we don't tend to notice stupid legislation until someone's facing it in the courts.

The problem is that this couple doesn't have the resources to fight this. They'll probably buckle and get married by a judge, and then save their formal ceremony for later.

This law specifically targets poor unmarried couples. People with health insurance will get it paid for, so it won't affect them.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Ah, but of course. Justice only for those who can afford it. They say there's one law for the poor and one for the rich. This is wrong. There's no law for the rich.

At least they want marriage. I'd be baffled at how this could work if the couple split and had no intentions of being in the same county as one another, nevermind household.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, but of course. Justice only for those who can afford it. They say there's one law for the poor and one for the rich. This is wrong. There's no law for the rich.

At least they want marriage. I'd be baffled at how this could work if the couple split and had no intentions of being in the same county as one another, nevermind household.

If the guy had just disappeared after impregnating her, I imagine the law wouldn't apply. And I doubt they would go after an unemployed single mother to "recover" the $3800 that Medicaid spent for her hospital childbirth.

The fact that they go after Medicaid recipients to "recover" medical costs after the fact is disturbing enough already, now that I think about it.

[Kodiak]

The fact that they go after Medicaid recipients to "recover" medical costs after the fact is disturbing enough already, now that I think about it.

I'd imagine in this case Medicaid is the one pushing to get their money back? I find it outrageous that insurance companies can cover expenses and then come back with a "just kidding" clause and demand they be reimbursed.

[Darth Wong]

The fact that they go after Medicaid recipients to "recover" medical costs after the fact is disturbing enough already, now that I think about it.

I'd imagine in this case Medicaid is the one pushing to get their money back? I find it outrageous that insurance companies can cover expenses and then come back with a "just kidding" clause and demand they be reimbursed.

I think it's this "Friend of the Court" thing, whatever that is. From the article:

Jack Battles, the Genesee County Friend of the Court, said the law is an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

Battles' office enforces paternity rulings, child support and other aspects of family law. He says until Johnson can produce a marriage license, he faces the costs.

It looks like this "Friend of the Court" entity is the prime mover behind this nonsense. This Jack Battles' office appears to be the one which is "enforcing" it. I wonder how much discretion he has over which cases are prosecuted and which ones aren't. He certainly doesn't sound apologetic at all.

[LadyTevar]

Why is a private individual being asked to pay back Medicare in the first place?

What's next, I'm supposed to pay back what they've been giving Nitram?

[Pinjar]

My reading of the Michigan Model Friend of the Court Handbook June 2006 (PDF 88KB) leads me to believe that these Friends of the Court are essentially administrative assistants to the court. Not that bureaucrats can't bite.

I wouldn't be suprised if Jack Battles was pushing against the bounds of his authority - he is from a school with a "Jesuit Tradition" would that have any bearing on the situation?

Jesuit Tradition

Why choose a Jesuit school? There are reasons people are impressed when you say you attend a Jesuit college.

First, we believe in educating "the whole person" -- mind, body, heart and spirit. The more whole you are, the more you can contribute to the world.

Second, Jesuit schools are known for their rigor. We don't so much embrace ideas as challenge them, always looking for larger, stronger answers. As a consequence, not only will you learn to defend your ideas, you will learn to improve upon them, developing the intellectual wherewithal to think clearly, argue pointedly and express yourself beautifully.

And, finally, you will evolve as a leader, acquiring the ethical and moral underpinning necessary to make sound judgments. Through class, service learning and learning to appreciate cultural difference, you will come to see the world -- and your place in it -- as a wondrous opportunity for growth and good works.

More on the man from a Michigan Child Support newsletter Febuary 2007 interview with Jack Battles,
PDF 134K

Why did you choose a career in child support and enforcement of parenting time?
To help children through the turmoil of divorce by ensuring that they are adequately cared for, financially and emotionally.

What is the most satisfying aspect of being an FOC director?
Being part of an organization that assists clients and their children with the enforcement
of child support and parenting time orders..

What is the most frequently asked question you receive from litigants?
Divorcing parents want to know what they can realistically expect regarding child
support, custody, and parenting time..

In your opinion, what is the best thing about the Michigan child support program?
Automated income withholding orders..

What do you think is the most critical challenge facing the Michigan child support
System today?
The lack of adequate financial resources. The Genesee County Friend of the Court
office has many good programs that should be expanded to better meet the needs of our
clients..

If you had your choice of making one improvement to the Michigan child support
program, what would it be?
The state should delegate more authority to local friend of the court offices..

What would you like to see done at the state or federal level to strengthen the
Michigan child support program?
Review federal regulations that encumber the ability of local friend of the court offices to
efficiently meet the needs of our clients.

What “best practice” used in your office are you most proud of?
After I was appointed as the friend of the court, we completely revamped our
enforcement efforts. Those changes have substantially increased our support
collections.

What is the key to a successful child support program in the future?
Technology is definitely the key to improving the services offered by the friend of the court.

Who is your personal hero?
My father, John A. Battles.

I don't know the man or the system he works in. However from what is written of him and the interview I would say that he comes across, to me at least, as someone who took the job because of his ideals but who still loves the process more than the people.

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting that he cites limited authority and limited funding as his two biggest issues, and that he may in fact be attempting to remedy those problems by setting precedents for more aggressive collection of money from citizens. It does cast new light on his possible motivations.

[Spyder]

I thought forcing people to marry only happened in those evil religious extremist places, like Utah.

[Invictus ChiKen]

I thought forcing people to marry only happened in those evil religious extremist places, like Utah.

Replace Utah with America in general man. Even I'll say this place can go to far with forcing ones religion on others...

Damnit this just isn't right people should marry for love not because some fucking government says so.

[SirNitram]

Jack Battles, the Genesee County Friend of the Court, said the law is an incentive to maintain the sanctity of marriage.

To ensure marriage is a sacred covenant of joining man and wife, we will charge debilitating penalties to those who don't get married.

[Prometheus Unbound]

What if they got a Civil Union rather than a marriage? Does it have to be done in a Church etc?

How would it work with a gay or lesbian couple, who aren't allowed to get married?

[The Spartan]

What if they got a Civil Union rather than a marriage? Does it have to be done in a Church etc?

Do they even recognize civil unions in Michigan? I'm pretty sure they don't; they're all called marriages, whether done in a church or by a JP.

How would it work with a gay or lesbian couple, who aren't allowed to get married?

Well, presumably, if they somehow got pregnant in such a way that the state of Michigan's Medicaid paid for it they'd probably be required to marry the person who impregnated them/they impregnated. So the gay man would be required to marry the woman he knocked up or the lesbian would have to marry the man that impregnated her.

[Broomstick]

So let me get this straight: the mother was on Medicaid because she was too poor to pay $3800(!) for her childbirth, and now the state is demanding that this poor couple pay $3800 unless they get married?

No, sir - the way I read it they are billing the father for the cost of childbirth, not the mother, and they're willing to waive that if he marries the mother. It is a small distinction, but a valid one. The woman is, in no way, being called upon to pay for her medical care regarding childbirth.

Is this what the fundies mean by "supporting the institution of marriage"? Blackmailing couples into marrying by threatening them with thousands of dollars in what are effectively fines for living in sin?

It wouldn't be the first time they tried it, but I don't think that's the sole motivation here. Medical care for pregnant women does cost money and it may be some folks voted for this with the idea that the fathers should help pay for the costs of the children they sire. That is, after all, one of the reasons men are forced to pay child support, even against their will. There may well be multiple motivations behind this law.

This law specifically targets poor unmarried couples. People with health insurance will get it paid for, so it won't affect them.

I would say it targets men who father children on women they aren't married to - a wealthier man who is out sowing his oats may just as easily be targeted by this, although it would also be easier for someone with money to either fight this or just pay the money.

And, believe it or not, health insurance doesn't always pay for childbirth. I once worked at a place where the policy did not cover normal labor and delivery, only complications. So... have a normal and uneventful vaginal delivery you were on the hook for every dime despite having insurance Have cesarean and it's paid for without only a 10% (or whatever it was) co-pay. Uh... all the women who got pregnant under the policy while I worked there coincidentally had cesareans. Big surprise!

At least they want marriage. I'd be baffled at how this could work if the couple split and had no intentions of being in the same county as one another, nevermind household.

Remember - it's the MAN being billed for this, NOT "the couple". If he splits they'll still come after him demanding money.

If the guy had just disappeared after impregnating her, I imagine the law wouldn't apply.

Yes, it would. You don't get out of child support payments by skipping town, either, even if you've never seen the kid.

And I doubt they would go after an unemployed single mother to "recover" the $3800 that Medicaid spent for her hospital childbirth.

Again, they are not billing the woman, they are billing the man. This is a law holding men liable for fathering children out of wedlock.

I'd imagine in this case Medicaid is the one pushing to get their money back? I find it outrageous that insurance companies can cover expenses and then come back with a "just kidding" clause and demand they be reimbursed

They have been doing just that for decades in the private sector - most Americans don't know that, so they don't realize how shitty our system is.

Why is a private individual being asked to pay back Medicare in the first place?

MedicAID, not MediCARE. Medicaid is under state rules, Medicare under Federal. The systems are somewhat related, but still separate.

What's next, I'm supposed to pay back what they've been giving Nitram?

Unlikely, unless you've committed fraud (which I doubt!). Michigan Medicaid law will not affect the Medicare you receive while living in a state other than Michigan.

What if they got a Civil Union rather than a marriage? Does it have to be done in a Church etc?

So far as I know, no state in the union requires that any marriage be done in a church. Atheists are free to marry without religious involvement, usually by going to a Justice of the Peace or authorized government person and filling out a marriage license. We've had secular marriage for a long, long time in the US.