Shat terd

Reproduced under the Fair Use provisions of 17 USC Sec. 107 for noncommercial, educational use.

Those words are particularly fitting for Tindall this year because he's made a name for himself - and not always a complimentary one - by criticizing and suing the Wayne County Friend of theCourt system over what he considers the agency's bias against fathers, blatant profit motives and due process violations.

As an attorney and divorced father, Tindall has been personally involved with the FOC system over the past several years - including being taken to jail for alleged nonpayment of support - and, accordingly, has witnessed its problems. When you question Tindall about his motive for pursuing the perceived problems, he says, "I'm a lawyer. And I happen to believe in our legal system. What is going on in domestic-relations litigation is wrong and I think I have a professional duty to do something about that."

Tindall currently has a handful of actions pending against the FOC, the most notorious being the FOC's appeal of a federal declaratory judgment earlier this year. In Tindall v. Wayne County FOC, et al., Eastern District Judge Denise Page Hood declared certain FOC practices in Wayne County, and other Michigan counties, unconstitutional. (See "Already-Prepared Warrants And Orders Ruled `Unconstitutional,'" Feb. 14, 2000.) That ruling also prompted Tindall to attempt a class-action suit against the FOC. Counterclaims are currently underway, and an appeal looms in the future.

Though he is often attacked for criticizing the FOC, which supposedly exists for the purpose of protecting children, Tindall considers himself to be the true children's advocate.

"People often categorize any criticism of the FOC as just `deadbeat dads' who don't want to pay child support," he points out. "That has made the system almost immune from supervision. The truth is that this is a big money business they are operating and the way they run it is hurting children."

Q. Here's a blunt question: Why don't you just pay the FOC [the amount of child support it says you owe], even if it's not accurate?

A. It is a matter of principle. What the FOC is doing is wrong. They are operating outside of the law. Worse still, they are destructive to families while hiding behind this reputation of being family advocates. And they are perpetuating this myth that fathers are somehow not important as parents and don't have parental rights.

The vast majority of fathers out there love their children. During divorces, they do whatever they can to make the best of a bad situation and fall all over themselves to make sure their kids are taken care of.

Are there bad fathers? Of course, just as there are bad mothers. But this tiny minority of bad fathers has been turned into a myth that the majority of fathers are "deadbeat dads." This myth has been used to run roughshod over the rights of fathers to be a part of their children's lives. Children need fathers.

What we end up with is this out-of-control FOC, violating the rights of fathers and mothers alike, and operating outside of any sort of constitutional restrictions.

Q. Specifically, what is your criticism of the FOC?

A. That it is out of control and that it has turned into a system of private administrative law, not bounded by the constitutional restraints that are supposed to operate in courts of law.

Currently, each county's FOC is operated like its own little kingdom, like renegades. They each create their own system and run it pretty much as they like. These systems have become very efficient little cash machines, generating profits rather than working for the best interests of children and their families.

The way they do this is by ignoring the niceties of due process.

In my case, they overstated the amount of my support payments. I knew I was paid up, so I wasn't paying much attention until they hauled me off to jail. I found out later that some FOC employee had just upped my support. There was no order from a judge. They just did it. In court, they admitted that they do this all the time.

I was in a trial recently in St. Clair County and the local FOC referee got up on the stand under oath and explained how it was the county's policy that if a child support payer lost his job, the support payment would not be lowered. When I asked this person to point to that policy, to explain where it came from, the FOC referee admitted that it was just their opinion.

That's how they run the system.

In my case, I also found that the Wayne County FOC was operating as if its employees had the authority to issue warrants and show-cause orders. Of course, in our system only judges can adjudicate our constitutional rights by issuing such warrants and orders. But for some reason, many judges have allowed FOC referees to make these decisions.

In federal court, Judge [Denise Page] Hood determined that this was a violation of my due process rights, and of the rights of all the other people who the FOC had subjected to this treatment.

Q. What is your goal in this lawsuit?

A. To legally establish the fact that Michigan courts do not provide a fair, or impartial, tribunal for any domestic relations litigant. Instead, they customarily and regularly deprive litigants
of due process of law.

By doing that, I want to once again make it possible for a domestic-relations litigant to walk in to a Michigan courtroom and have their case litigated according to the rules.

The rules apply to everyone.

Q. Do you see yourself as a "Fathers' Rights" advocate?

A. I see myself as an advocate for children.

When the rules are applied properly, you get good decisions and that can only work for the benefit of the kids. When they are not applied properly, you get bad decisions and that works to the detriment of children.

Any attempt to hold the FOC accountable to its own rules and procedures is just dismissed as the groundless complaints of disgruntled dads. That is frightening and has caused tremendous damage to domestic litigants.

Of course, as in every other area of human interactions, there are your minority percentage of bad actors. There is no question about that. There are child support payers who don't pay.

But the overwhelming majority of so-called "deadbeat dads" are just judicially created - rather than surgically created - eunuchs. These are fathers who have been turned into geldings by virtue of a judicial attitude that is anachronistic and has as its primary goal to make the cash register ring for the State of Michigan.

This does not benefit mothers, it does not benefit children. It just serves to collect cash for the State of Michigan.

There is a $200 million per year profit motive driving this system. It dances at the string of federal money. The FIA [Family Independence Agency] yanks the chain of the FOC and the FOC is pressured to run up these basketball-score type statistics.

Why all this talk about so-called "deadbeat dads"? Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth. The current system is the most sexually discriminatory system this country has ever seen. And it is permitted.

Q.To what degree are you willing to pursue this? At what cost?

A. At least to the successful conclusion of the federal appeal. I want to open the courthouse door to all of these people whose constitutional rights have been violated, the way that mine were.

At what cost? So far, I have spent about $750,000 of my own funds and dedicated three years of my life to this fight. I've had to give up a large part of my law practice. This has been a huge detriment to my business and my personal financial situation.

So why do I continue? Many people ask me why I don't just walk away. I guess I just can't. I went to school to be a lawyer. I'm the proud son of a lawyer. I grew up believing in this system and it really upsets me to see what it has turned into.

I guess I'm not going to leave this alone until I have made my own statement: This is not how the system is supposed to work. And not everyone is just going to roll over and take it.

Of course, I could write the FOC a check for the $9,000 whenever I feel like it and could get on with my life. I've had other people offer to do the same. But for me, this isn't about money. This is about something else.'

Michael E. Tindall
Born: 1953
Education: University of Detroit Mercy, J.D.;
John Carrol University, B.S., B.A.
Admitted to bar: 1978