Memorandum (Administrative) to Chief Circuit Court Judge - Paul Sullivan

To: Hon. Paul J. Sullivan        (Chief Circuit Court Judge)                               July 31,  2005

MEMORANDUM

On September 23, 2003 the 17^th Circuit Court for Kent County and the Kent County Probate Court adopted a Family Court Plan for their respective operations and subsequently on November 10, 2004 filed with the State Court Administrator's Office its Caseflow Management Plan via Local Administrative Order:2004-12. The Case Management Plan, hereinafter referred to as CMP, "upheld the original Order [2003-7] but refined and expanded the time guidelines to capture changes in the definitions of case initiation and disposition, to include new categories of cases, and to accommodate jurisdictional changes within the Michigan Trial Court structure" see CMP(A) Introduction.

At CMP(B) ... Plan Goals and Objectives, the Court affirms that it will work toward the goals of ensuring that, inter alia,

•     "The disposition of all cases will be expedited and in a manner consistent with fairness to all parties. "

•    The uncertainties associated with processing cases will be minimized.

•    Equal access to the adjudicative process will be assured for all litigants.

•    The resolution of matters is guided by what is permissible under law by defined standards of service and by balancing the needs of the individual and society.

•    The quality of litigation will be enhanced"

The goals that this Bench is working towards are simply not being met with the inefficiencies overrunning the Kent County Friend of the Court as well as with the operations in Judge Steven M. Pestka's Courtroom practice. Notwithstanding the particulars of the case at hand, I have reviewed both the CMP and the Family Court Plan and believe the 17* Circuit Court to be in default of its' practice.

Under CMP CASE PROCESSING TIME STANDARDS; Domestic Relations Proceedings " The F. O. C. "troubleshoots " and/or evaluates cases early in the process so to identify and resolve issues in an expedited manner. " This simply has not been the case in 2003-09173-DC and the time limits imposed of 30-60 days actually never occurred from a November 6, 2003 "Troubleshooting Session." Further, Judge Steven Pestka did not "early on identify the urgency of a case an direct it to the proper track." In fact, Attorney Peter Walsh for opposing counsel in the above referenced case made one telephone call to the Kent County Friend of the Court delaying any Custody Evaluation or Investigation spawning from the Troubleshooting Session on November 6, 2003 for over a year! Judge Steven M. Pestka was made aware of the continued delays of the Kent County Friend of the Court, even to the point that I attempted to Order to Show Cause the Kent County Friend of the Court to produce its documents in June of 2004. Judge Steven Pestka was under a duty per the plan to check with the Kent County Friend of the Court, or to Order Appearance when the question was raised, and Attorney Walsh's behavior would have been flushed out. (See Letter from Denise Kimbrel attached hereto as Exhibit A)

Under CMP Case Processing and Related Policies and Procedures^) "Paternity: 90% of all paternity cases should be adjudicated within 147 days from the date of case filing and 100% within 238 days." For all intensive purposes the case is indeed a Paternity Action that was actually filed as a DC instead of a DP case. Nonetheless there is no cause for one type of case involving children without a divorce and children with a divorce. My case has gone on considerably longer than any of the time limits prescribed in the CMP, despite requests for a Custody Trial under MCR 3.210(C)(1) within 56 days the Court continued to not have a trial while I was represented by counsel. Now it is more than likely that at some unknown point in time we may get a Pre Trial conference to get a scheduling order and then go to trial without my being represented by an attorney.