Father says he's still paying child support for 3-year-old son who died 25 years ago

[Dave]

It's probably fair to say that this guy has paid more then he should of, its a shame that the Friend of the Court hasn't just made it easy and told him that he need not worry about having his checks docked anymore and that there will be a check on its way for what he over payed. Then again, your dealing with Detroit, suppose we shouldn't be surprised that things are so screwed up.

DETROIT (WXYZ) - Lional Campbell's son, Michael, passed away at the age of three from acute meningitis.

"It took a lot out of me," says Campbell who is from Detroit and now lives in Kentucky. And it's that distance that is making it even more difficult for Campbell to wage a fight with the Wayne County Friend of the Court over child support that Campbell says he is still paying for Michael.

A spokesperson for the Friend of the Court says no one ever notified them of the boy's death until Campbell began asking why he still owed child support in 2011 for a child that was deceased by the age of 3.

For years, Campbell never questioned paying child support to Friend of the Court because he thought the money was for what he owed for an older son he fathered with Michael's mother.

The older son was born seven years before Michael and is now 34 years old.

Believing his payments, that included arrearages, should have ended by now, Campbell asked why the payments had not stopped.

He says he was told the continuing payments were back child support for his son Michael.

Campbell drove to Detroit to show court officials a death certificate, proof that Michael died in 1988, but says he was told that he still owed about $43,000 for Michael.

Campbell asked for several audits. Each time he was given a lesser amount. He was then told he owed a little less than $20,000.

Campbell says even clerks at the Friend of the Court have been baffled.

"The lady said 'how you owe on a child been dead 23 years?' I said I don’t know and she said we’ll do another audit".

Campbell reached out to 7 Action News and while a spokesperson for the Friend of the Court could not talk specifically about Campbell's case because of privacy issues, they did tell us that surcharges drastically raise the amounts owed by non-custodial parents.

One court official likened the surcharges, that ended several years ago, to "loan sharking".

Court officials admitted to 7 Action News that the calculations from the audits were wrong and that they would expedite another one.

The latest audit resulted in what court officials believe is an accurate amount Campbell still owes: $6,460.08.

And after so many erroneous audits, Campbell still doubts he owes that amount because for so many years he was paying for what court officials believed were two children.

A spokesperson for Friend of the Court tells 7 Action News that there is no clear reason other than human error to explain why multiple audits generated such varied amounts.

The case is also complicated by factors that include: appropriately detangling the surcharges; gaps in Campbell's employment history; and payments for two children that were being made for many years.

Campbell plans on seeking another audit before filing his taxes for fear that any refund will be swallowed up by the Friend of the Court that continues to garnish his checks.

Court officials call the mistakes they believe were made on their part "regretful". And they believe the errors in Campbell's case are isolated.

Michael's mother declined to comment on the story.

Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/father-says-hes-still-paying-child-sup...

[Jane]

guaranteed The biotch momma kept taking the money and never said a word to the court, she should be responsible for paying the court back for any money she got that she should not have received!

[Dave]

I would agree with that... she's is just as responsible for failing to keep the FOC up to speed as the FOC is.. I understand why he didn't say anything for a long time as he believed it was for the other child.

[masonco]

Hmmm  But then again, I am now collecting child support on my son who is 35 because my ex moved out of the state and Indiana revoked all his arreagages (he had over $150,000 erased by Indiana) so Kent county kept one of my kids on their records. Now that my ex is collecting social security disability they take $200 (max possible) a month out of his check and direct deposit it into my checking account. I had to explain that he's not still paying child support, but paying very minimal back support. (All Kent county could get is about $20,000) a far cry from the original amount cancelled before my kids entered high school.

BUT when I started receiving those unexpected deposits, I did call them and ask why and that is when I learned the above.

[easymoney]

Ya,right. I paid support for 18 years and as each child reached the age of 18 and were taken off the support records the amount I paid never went down. When I finally was down to one chid, the amount paid was the same as I paid for three. Not to mention, the clerk at the Bureau of support had failed to put on record That I was to pay direct to my ex, and , her lawyer , after 5 tears got me for being in error and I had to repay the first 5 years, even tho I produced cancelled checks to prove I paid every week, the courts concluded it was a gift.

Welcome to working with the Bureu of support.

I wish the guy all the luck in the world, I can relate to his frustrations.

[XLFD]

The State of Michigan routinely contact the parents receiving the support and tell what the support is coming in as and what kid it is support for.  The mother knew precisely she was getting money, knew it wasn't for back-support, when she shouldn't have been getting the money for many years.  That's fraud, and she's as bad as a deadbeat dad.  The Friend of the Court should go after her for this man's money, and for the surcharges she's cost the State in unlawfully taking this money from him.

[masonco]

easy and XFLD

I agree with you both.