On paper, Family court is supposed to resolve disputes involving children with urgency, clarity, and evidence. But in practice, some cases never meaningfully move forward. No evidentiary hearings. No enforceable timelines. No finality.
In one Allegan County, Michigan custody case now overseen by Matthew Antkoviak, more than five years have passed without meaningful reunification. During that time, the case passed through three different judges, including Robert Kengis, who left the bench through early retirement before the matter was resolved.
But Allegan is not the only case; St. Clair. Ottawa. Oakland. Macomb. The emails pour in daily. If you could take a peek into my inbox, you could quickly see this is not a one off problem. This is a distinct, state-wide systemic problem; one that we have known about for at least 24 years.
What appears at first glance to be an unfortunate anomaly begins to look different when placed in historical context. All of these cases reflect a systemic pattern in Michigan’s family courts, not one single isolated failure.
Not an Isolated Anomaly — A Longstanding Systemic Pattern
More than two decades ago, insiders warned that Michigan’s family court system lacked meaningful accountability.
In 2001, the first acting director of the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission raised alarms about unchecked judicial discretion, weak oversight, and a culture resistant to correction.
Those warnings went largely unaddressed.
Fast forward years later; whistleblower cases such as Christine Morrison documented how families caught in prolonged family court proceedings experienced the same dynamics still visible today: delay, procedural confusion, and a system structurally insulated from consequences.
This case, and many others, fit squarely within that lineage.
Five Years Without Meaningful Resolution
In the one Allegan County case alone, across five years:
- Parenting time did not meaningfully progress
- No evidentiary hearing resolved disputed allegations
- No time-certain reunification plan was imposed
- Authority shifted between counselors, evaluators, and judges
- Interim relief was not enforced
- Lack of meaningful guidance and action
- It became a de facto termination through kicking the can down the road
As judges rotated through the case, unresolved issues were inherited rather than adjudicated. The case accumulated process without resolution. That screams pour courtroom management; something that a Chief Judge should be handling and seemingly doesn’t.
Why This Keeps Happening
This is not primarily a problem of individual bad actors. It is an inherent system design problem. Michigan’s family court system allows prolonged delay because:
1. There Are No Meaningful Enforceable Timelines
Family courts face no mandatory deadlines for:
- Holding evidentiary hearings when parenting time is restricted
- Completing reunification plans
- Reviewing stalled cases
Without deadlines, delay carries absolutely zero institutional cost. There is no “skin in the game” for judges.
2. Decision-Making Is Outsourced Without Guardrails
Courts routinely defer to:
- Counselors
- Evaluators
- Guardians ad litem
But without:
- Clear authority hierarchies
- Reporting deadlines
- Enforcement triggers
Those professionals become indefinite gatekeepers rather than tools of resolution.
3. Judicial Turnover Lacks Continuity Requirements
When judges retire, rotate, or are reassigned:
- No reset hearings are required
- No mandatory status reviews occur
- No obligation exists to resolve inherited ambiguity
Cases simply drift forward, unresolved.
4. Oversight Mechanisms Are Weak by Design
Family court operates with:
- Limited appellate review due to cost and delay
- Minimal external oversight
- High deference to judicial discretion
That combination alone makes prolonged inaction largely consequence-free.
What Actually Needs to Be Fixed
Reform does not require reinventing family court. It requires structural guardrails. Meaningful reform would include:
Mandatory Evidentiary Hearings
If parenting time is restricted beyond a defined period, courts must:
- Hold an evidentiary hearing
- Enter findings of fact
- Re-justify continued restriction
Time-Certain Reunification Frameworks
Reunification plans must include:
- Clear benchmarks
- Defined timelines
- Automatic review points
No plan should run indefinitely without reassessment.
Judicial Turnover Safeguards
When a case changes judges:
- A mandatory status conference should occur
- Unresolved issues must be identified
- Timelines must be reset
Continuity should be institutional, not optional.
Independent Case Audits for Stalled Matters
Cases involving children that exceed a defined age or duration threshold should trigger:
- Automatic administrative review
- External audit mechanisms
- Corrective action authority
FitBench Overlay: Where This Case Fails Structurally
FitBench is designed to identify systemic risk patterns, not assign motive or intent. How one frames this is the difference. You cannot walk into court emotional and win, because it gives judges everything they need to paint someone as “unstable.”
When applied to this case, two categories stand out with particular clarity: Procedural Control and Resistance to Correction.
Procedural Control Failure
Procedural Control measures whether a court:
- Maintains clear authority over a case
- Issues enforceable orders
- Prevents ambiguity from substituting for adjudication
In this case, procedural control broke down in several observable ways:
- No evidentiary hearing was held despite long-term restriction of parenting time
- Authority over reunification shifted between judges, counselors, and evaluators without a clear hierarchy
- No time-certain benchmarks were imposed for reunification or review
- Judicial turnover occurred without mandatory reset hearings or clarification of unresolved issues
The result was a system where no single actor was clearly responsible for moving the case forward. When courts do not assert procedural control, process accumulates without resolution. That is not neutrality. It is abdication.
From a FitBench perspective, this is a classic procedural drift condition, where the absence of deadlines and enforceable triggers allows delay to become self-sustaining.
Resistance to Correction
Resistance to Correction evaluates whether a system responds meaningfully once problems are identified.
Here, the court repeatedly acknowledged:
- Prolonged delay
- Confusion in counseling and reunification roles
- The age progression of the children
- The lack of clarity in existing orders
Yet acknowledgment did not result in corrective action.
No evidentiary hearing followed.
No restructuring of the reunification framework occurred.
No interim relief was ordered.
Instead, the same unresolved structure persisted.
This is not a failure to recognize problems. It is a failure to respond to recognition.
Under FitBench analysis, that pattern signals institutional resistance to correction. When a system can identify dysfunction but does not recalibrate, the risk is no longer theoretical. It becomes embedded.
The Fit-Bench Scorecard
Fit-Bench Scorecard
Subject: Judge Matthew Antkoviak Jurisdiction: Allegan County Circuit Court (Michigan Courts)
Role: Judge
Review Window: Capacity and reliability screen using verifiable record indicators. Current scoring reflects a pattern-based review claim centered on repeat procedural drift signals (deferral, reserved issues, unclear triggers, and prolonged non-resolution). Where broader multi-docket confirmation is not included in the record set, findings are limited to what is observable.
| Category | Status | Notes / Observable Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Category 1: Cognitive Tracking | ● ● ● | Repeat indicator: on-record uncertainty regarding prior rulings, objection windows, and procedural triggers, requiring live reconstruction during hearings rather than reference to settled orders or a clear procedural roadmap. |
| Category 2: Legal Accuracy | ● ● ● | Repeat indicator: recurring ambiguity in how controlling provisions are interpreted and enforced (authority, notice, objections, triggers), with inconsistent issuance of clarifying orders that convert disputed mechanics into enforceable procedure. |
| Category 3: Impulse Control | ● ● ● | No stable, repeatable volatility pattern supported by the current record set. Hold neutral unless additional transcripts show persistent dysregulation, escalation, or retaliatory bench conduct. |
| Category 4: Neutrality and Bias Risk | ● ● ● | Structural appearance-of-impartiality risk: spousal employment with Safe Harbor Children’s Advocacy Center operating in the child-advocacy ecosystem within the same jurisdiction. No finding of bias is asserted. The risk flag reflects subject-matter overlap and the need for visible disclosure, recusal standards, or documented safeguards to protect neutrality confidence. |
| Category 5: Procedural Control | ● ● ● | Primary capacity risk signal: procedural drift and weak enforcement. Observable indicators include deferral of adjudication in contested matters, reliance on third-party gatekeeping without time-certain benchmarks, reserved issues without fixed follow-up, and unclear triggering mechanics that allow delay to function as a de facto outcome. |
| Category 6: Health and Safety Risk Flags | ● ● ● | Reliability indicator: safety and best-interest issues are processed through informal or third-party workflow rather than consistently resolved through evidentiary findings, increasing the risk that restrictions or conditions persist by default rather than adjudication. |
| Category 7: Resistance to Correction | ● ● ● | Repeat indicator: acknowledged process problems (notice, objection timing, unclear authority, disputed mechanics) recur without standardized corrective orders that permanently repair workflow and prevent repetition. |
| Category 8: Fiscal and Economic Competence | ● ● ● | Capacity-relevant cost signal: prolonged non-resolution, repeated non-dispositive hearings, deferred rulings, and extended third-party involvement increase cumulative litigation cost and court resource load. Delay is treated as a measurable fiscal risk because it multiplies time, billing, and downstream proceedings without producing finality. |
Overall Flag: ● Yellow — Elevated Capacity Risk
Overall Summary: This profile reflects a pattern of reliability concerns across multiple Fit-Bench domains, with most indicators clustering at Yellow rather than Red. The dominant signal is procedural drift (deferred adjudication, unclear triggers, reserved issues without time-certain closure), accompanied by recurring gaps in corrective closure and measurable cost amplification through prolonged non-resolution. Taken together, these patterns support an elevated capacity and governance risk designation that warrants monitoring and structured procedural safeguards. This determination does not allege misconduct or diagnosis and is based solely on observable, pattern-based indicators in the record.
Note: Fit-Bench is a capacity and reliability screen, not a diagnosis. It identifies repeatable, observable risk patterns that may warrant confidential fitness review or procedural intervention.
How to Read This Scorecard
This FitBench scorecard does not allege misconduct, bias, or intent. It evaluates observable system behavior across multiple family court matters to identify risk patterns that undermine timely, evidence-based adjudication.
The dominant signal in this review is procedural drift. Across cases, contested custody and parenting-time disputes are repeatedly managed through discussion, deferral, and third-party process rather than adjudication. Evidentiary hearings are postponed or avoided. Critical issues are reserved without time-certain follow-up. Authority diffuses instead of consolidating.
Over time, delay itself becomes the outcome.
Why Delay Is a Governance and Fiscal Issue
Prolonged non-resolution is not cost-neutral. When courts repeatedly “kick the can down the road”:
- Parties incur years of additional attorney fees
- Counselors, GALs, and evaluators bill indefinitely
- Courts schedule duplicate hearings instead of final ones
- Staff time is consumed maintaining the status quo rather than resolving disputes
From a governance perspective, this is not restraint. It is cost amplification through inaction. FitBench treats that as a fiscal competence concern because unresolved cases consume public and private resources without producing decisions.
On Neutrality and Appearance of Impartiality
FitBench also flags structural appearance-of-impartiality risk where a judge’s close familial relationship overlaps with advocacy organizations that routinely interact with the same court system.
In this jurisdiction, Safe Harbor Children’s Advocacy Center plays an active role in child abuse response, CPS coordination, and related family court processes. Spousal employment in that ecosystem does not imply bias or wrongdoing. It does, however, trigger reasonable questions about disclosure, recusal standards, and safeguards that protect public confidence in judicial neutrality.
This is a governance issue, not a personal one.
Why This Matters Systemically
Taken together, these indicators reflect a system that tolerates delay, diffuses responsibility, and lacks corrective pressure once problems are identified. These patterns do not self-correct. They persist until external standards, timelines, or oversight mechanisms intervene.
FitBench exists to make those patterns visible before delay hardens into policy.
Why This Matters for Oversight and Reform
Viewed through FitBench, this case is not about one ruling or one judge. It is about system tolerance for unresolved risk.
- Procedural Control failed because authority diffused instead of consolidating
- Resistance to Correction appeared when delay was acknowledged but left unaddressed
These failures are exactly the kind that do not self-correct. They require external guardrails: timelines, mandatory hearings, and continuity mechanisms that activate regardless of who is on the bench.
Without those controls, delay becomes normalized. And once normalized, it becomes policy.
Why This FitBench Mapping Resonates With Legislators
FitBench language translates family court dysfunction into governance terms legislators understand:
- Lack of procedural control equals lack of management
- Resistance to correction equals institutional risk
- Delay equals cost, liability, and public trust erosion
This framing avoids emotional narrative while clearly identifying why reform is necessary.
The message is simple:
When a system repeatedly fails to correct known problems, the problem is no longer individual. It is structural.
That is the level at which reform becomes unavoidable.
How to Frame This So Legislators Will Listen
Emotional arguments about fairness or pain often fail in legislative settings. What works is systems logic.
This issue should be framed as:
- A governance failure, not a personal dispute
- A cost problem, not a custody fight
- A process breakdown, not a moral argument
Effective framing sounds like this:
“Michigan’s family court system allows cases involving children to stall for years without evidence, timelines, or accountability. Delay becomes the outcome. This creates predictable harm, increased litigation costs, and long-term public expense.”
Legislators respond to:
- Risk
- Cost
- Predictability
- Structural solutions
They do not respond well to emotionally charged narratives unless those narratives are tied to systemic failure.
The core message is simple and defensible:
No public system should be allowed to make life-altering decisions through inaction and staggering lack of accountability.
The Quiet Cost of Doing Nothing
Family court rarely announces its most consequential decisions aloud. Sometimes the most powerful ruling is silence. When years pass, judges rotate, and no resolution occurs, the system has still chosen an outcome.
That outcome is delay.
Michigan has been warned about this problem before. The record shows those warnings were ignored. The question now is whether lawmakers will continue to look away or finally address a system that has allowed time itself to replace justice.
