Lary Holland: Official Blog, Links, and Resources

I have been following a case recently with regard to Judge Tracey A. Yokich and she has been making the occasional flippant statement of what she believes a father's role should be in their children's lives. I certainly disagree with her and put my disagreement in writing to her. Here is what I have to say to the Honorable Tracey A. Yokich and I look forward to her response in the near future and maybe you might want to discuss the issue with her too. We have to ensure that there is equality in our family courts and that judges an see past their financial incentives for what is truly best for children.

Judge Tracey A. Yokich sits on the Family Court in Macomb County, Michigan.

The entire letter is available for review and circulation by clicking this link.

Letter to Hon. Judge Tracey A. Yokich

I took the time to write Honorable Representative Brenda Clack, Representative Joel Sheltrown, and the sponsors of House Bill 4564 this evening urging for a referral to Chairperson Clack to bring House Bill 4564, Michigan's Presumption of Equal Custody Bill, to the floor for discussion and debate. 

Dear Hon. Representative Brenda Clack,

            My name is Lary Holland, a father and former litigant in an extremely litigious child custody dispute arising in several counties that should have resulted in a split-custody arrangement that would have been great for my children, fair for both parents, and appropriate for taxpayers. The outcome, however, was over three years of litigation, a significant drain on community resources, my children being deprived of meaningful access to their one and only father, and my no longer contributing to Michigan’s high-tech industry in a leading metropolitan corridor. There are additional ramifications that resulted from Michigan’s policy over the family too numerous to list here.

            Michigan needs a presumption of equal custody because it is fair for taxpayers, parents, and children. A presumption of equal custody eliminates the necessity of parents to feud over parenting time and children because there will no longer be an enabling negative family law policy supporting back and forth fighting over the children unless there are actual provable reasons on why one parent should not have substantially equal custody of their child(ren).

            Michigan needs to bring family law policy inline with Constitutional expectations, whereas a protected right should not be infringed upon unless all Constitutional protections are afforded the accused or deprived. Right now, when there are two fit, willing, and caring parents “fighting with the winner takes all philosophy” the children lose substantially because the parents stay enmeshed in the battle, projecting animosity to their children. The children should not be fought over, unless there is good reason to strictly limit one parent’s interaction with their children. House Bill 4564 levels the playing field and will reduce this tug-of-war dramatically when there are two fit, willing, and caring parents involved, freeing up court resources, time, and tax dollars because parents will no longer be enabled to fight with the winner take all philosophy over total domination of their children. Parental litigants will be directed to properly divide the time with their children a substantially equal amount of time. This bill does nothing for those that willfully abandon their children and do not have an interest in equally parenting their children.

            House Bill 4564 takes into account domestic violence concerns, because if an individual parent is perpetrating a continual act of domestic violence the evidence can be presented resulting in conviction of the offending party, and quite possibly showing that the offending party is also unfit as a parent. The bill does not go far enough to provide for a penalty to parents that fail to work together as equal parents, which would encourage and reward good behavior instead of the current atmosphere of alienation and family feuding. Policing for positive outcomes helps shape Michigan’s family law policy to support equal parents and towards punishing those that continue to enmesh themselves in a winner take all pattern of conduct.

            I hope you take into account the growing support across the State of the Equal Custody concept. This issue needs to be brought to debate early and discussed fully to come to a resolve in the committee that equal custody is good for parents, great for children, and honest for taxpayers. We need to free up community resources and focus again on parents being parents instead of adversaries in a courtroom. I have sent a copy of this letter to my Representative, Joel Sheltrown as well as all of the sponsors of the House Bill requesting referral for this bill to be brought up for discussion and thoroughly investigated.

            Should you have any questions about my position on this issue you may reach me toll-free at 800-319-4955 ext. 3. I would also like to be invited to any hearings that might be scheduled on House Bill 4564. Thank you for your consideration on these matters.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ /s/

Lary Holland

Michigan Family Court Problems

P.O. Box 107

Oscoda, MI 48750

The Grand Rapids Press printed the misleading propaganda of government without asking necessary investigative questions and quoting misleading biased sources without thorough disclosure. That was evident in the article "Cuts could crimp child support" printed on Sunday July 23, 2006.

The Detroit Free Press has been in a similar rut as the Grand Rapids Press when it comes to the various arguments proposed by pro-welfare groups like Grand Rapids ACES. See my previous letter to the editor regarding Jack Kresnak's article: http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/272-Jack-Kresnaks-Article-Misses-Key-Investigative-Point..html.

The current article fails to address the most obvious question which is "why is the child support and foc system overburdened?" Instead the article publishes the statements of Kelli VanDyken and Dawn Swafford, both leaders of a group looking to expand welfare services to people that don't need them at the tax payers expense. One of them is passed off as a "Comstock Park Resident" instead of disclosing the fact that she too is one of the group's leaders. In past the GR ACES has been exposed for their public discrimatory remarks and Kent County Friend of the Court's support of those statements. See: April 2006 Statements with .

I felt it necessary to email Chairman Roger Morgan of the Kent County Board of Commissioners to help him understand why the Friend of the Court (Title IV-D Welfare Contractor) is in the position that it is now. That reason is because Title IV-D Welfare (FOC) is being used as a way for States and Counties to generate huge amounts of revenue instead of providing a safety-net to needy families. There is a very large number of FOC caseloads that are people that are not even receiving TANF services. However, many times FOC staff are now recommending that recipients request TANF services from DHS because they know that there are imminent changes on the horizon for the program.

I also communicated the appropriate information to Representative Peter Hoekstra this weekend regarding Title IV-D Welfare Services being further abused by the States and forwarded appropriate support showing how simple administrative and legislative changes could improve and streamline the system for needy families instead of the current bloated operation that is strangling county budgets.

Please take a minute to review the other information below to fully understand the problems associated with free-for-all welfare spending programs.

Other Information:

1. Email to Grand Rapids Board of Commisioner: Chairman Roger Morgan

2. Fax to Congressman Peter Hoekstra's Office: Honorable Peter Hoekstra

3. Letter to Dr. Wade Horn: Assistant Secretary of DHHS

4. Endorsement letter from Center for Parental Responsibility

6. Nationwide Campaign: Did I Say Requesting Change Would Be Easy?

7. Requesting Change is a Matter of Adminstration and Legislation.

8. Letter to Secretary Henry Paulson and Asst. Secretary Mark Warshawsky

July 11, 2006

RE: Democrats seeking to undo Budget Deficit Reduction Act counter productive to stated goals this morning of reducing entitlements.

Dear Secretary Paulson,

Congratulations on your success, becoming the 74^th Secretary of the Treasury. I watched this morning President Bush’s statements concerning economic policy and reigning in entitlement programs to save our Social Security Fund.

Democrats are working to repeal portions of the Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 2005; in particular they are trying to expand funding for Title IV-D welfare services under the Social Security Act that was previously reduced.

This program is unique in that it does not have any eligibility requirements to match Title IV-A (means testing). The States are abusing this program as a tool to create revenue for their States instead of a safety-net for needy families. This program also puts States at odds with each other in trying to force the inclusion of all divorcing families into Title IV-D welfare programs, including the wealthy and middle-class, to drive up participation numbers and thereby obtaining additional reimbursements from the federal government.

We need to cap spending on this program, add eligibility requirements for determined needy families, and save the tax-payers billions of dollars on bloated State Democrat sponsored family management at the expense of public trust.

Congratulations on your success and I look forward to providing any additional information that you may need.

Very Truly Yours,

Lary Holland

Cc:  Asst. Secretary Mark Warshawsky

Peter Walsh has stooped to an all-time low today by sending me a copy of a fax that he sent his friend, Daniel J. Fojtik (Title IV-D welfare attorney at Kent County Circuit Court). The letter shows the collaborative effort between the two of them and demonstrates once again the close ties they share together. Peter Walsh actually fabricated evidence with the wrong date(s) on it and then tried to pin it on me as some type of creation that I have been involved with.

http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/uploads/letter-pw-4-27-2006.pdf (complete fax copy of my correspondence to the two of them along with a copy of Peter Walsh's False and Misleading Statements to a Government Official.)