October 8, 2005 (Press Release) --
Lary Holland filed a Motion for Reconsideration on a recent ruling by Judge G. Patrick Hillary regarding a request to Vacate Child Support language from a Temporary Order regarding one of Holland's children this week in the Kent County, MI under a belief that Judge Hillary created a palpable error in his ruling. Holland also alleges that both the courts and parties have been once again misled by arguments presented by local attorney Peter Walsh.
"It's my firm belief that Judge Hillary needs to review past case law I presented in my Motion for Reconsideration that leans favorably to allowing my relief" states Holland. Judge G. Patrick Hillary ruled against Holland on September 30, 2005 regarding his request to remove language from a temporary order that was admitted to have not been carefully reviewed by Judge Steven Pestka.
In Michigan, the courts derive a benefit from every dollar collected through their child support programs. The Federal Incentive Programs (FIPs) were created by the Welfare Reforms of 1996 and encourage states to entertain larger and larger child support orders for longer periods of time to secure additionally federal funding. Holland states "You have to ask yourself why would the courts want to voluntary reduce the amount of money you receive by lowering a child support obligation for a parent especially when reduction would reduce their budget?"
Parents from around Michigan have contacted Lary Holland about similar situations they have been experiencing, and in particular about the Kent County Friend of the Court. "Do we even need a Friend of the Court and Family Court when they are doing everything they can to subsidize their own existence through these FIPs?" Holland asks. In this regard it would appear that the parents are funding their own doom when we subscribe to Holland's statements.
For more information about Lary Holland's case in Kent County, MI you can reach his website at http://www.laryholland.org/serendipity/.
Lary Holland filed a Motion for Reconsideration on a recent ruling by Judge G. Patrick Hillary regarding a request to Vacate Child Support language from a Temporary Order regarding one of Holland's children this week in the Kent County, MI under a belief that Judge Hillary created a palpable error in his ruling. Holland also alleges that both the courts and parties have been once again misled by arguments presented by local attorney Peter Walsh.
"It's my firm belief that Judge Hillary needs to review past case law I presented in my Motion for Reconsideration that leans favorably to allowing my relief" states Holland. Judge G. Patrick Hillary ruled against Holland on September 30, 2005 regarding his request to remove language from a temporary order that was admitted to have not been carefully reviewed by Judge Steven Pestka.
In Michigan, the courts derive a benefit from every dollar collected through their child support programs. The Federal Incentive Programs (FIPs) were created by the Welfare Reforms of 1996 and encourage states to entertain larger and larger child support orders for longer periods of time to secure additionally federal funding. Holland states "You have to ask yourself why would the courts want to voluntary reduce the amount of money you receive by lowering a child support obligation for a parent especially when reduction would reduce their budget?"
Parents from around Michigan have contacted Lary Holland about similar situations they have been experiencing, and in particular about the Kent County Friend of the Court. "Do we even need a Friend of the Court and Family Court when they are doing everything they can to subsidize their own existence through these FIPs?" Holland asks. In this regard it would appear that the parents are funding their own doom when we subscribe to Holland's statements.
For more information about Lary Holland's case in Kent County, MI you can reach his website at http://www.laryholland.org/serendipity/.

Holland believes that Judge G. Patrick Hillary has created a palpable error by not following past case law on a prior filed motion and further ...
Email
Print
SPAM





