After paternity contract ends, Kalamazoo County prosecutors reassign staff and commissioners approve position changes

Kalamazoo County commissioners on May 7 approved a request from the prosecutor's office to eliminate and create certain positions after the county's contract with the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) for paternity-establishment work ended.

The item was contentious and produced extensive questioning from commissioners concerned about community impacts and staff notification. Before the vote, county leadership and the prosecutor described the statutory and operational context: the prosecutor's office had performed paternity-establishment work under a state reimbursement agreement; a change in staffing and the prosecutor's inability to reassign an experienced attorney led the office to notify MDHHS in early March that it would stop providing the service. MDHHS told the county it would assume responsibility for paternity-establishment work, but the transition raises questions about timing and local service continuity.

Prosecuting Attorney (unnamed in the public transcript) told the board the long-serving assistant prosecuting attorney who handled the unit left in early February and later took a state child-support position. The prosecutor said he lacked an attorney to assign to the paternity unit and that, under the reimbursement agreement, his office had historically staffed the function with multiple employees. He described heavy workloads in the criminal divisions and said the proposed personnel change uses money already budgeted to preserve service levels in prosecutors' core functions while retaining legal-assistant capacity in the office.

"We are not doing this to hurt anyone. We are doing it because we can't do it anymore," the prosecutor said, explaining the office's staffing shortages and its discussions with the courts and the state. He said the county agreed with MDHHS to continue processing certain near-term cases so that 50 cases could be brought to conclusion and that the state had indicated it would consider those cases compliant while it stood up its program.

The prosecutor's request asked the board to reassign or retain a subset of the earlier-funded positions. Commissioners debated alternatives — whether the county could reassign staff to other departments, whether the friend of the court could assume the work, and whether the county should require better advance notice when a board-signatory contract is terminated. Several commissioners asked for reports on outstanding grant billing and the status of cases that need paternity orders.

After more than an hour of discussion, the commission voted to approve the prosecutor's elimination/creation request. The clerk recorded the final roll call as 6 yes, 2 no. Supporters said the change allowed the prosecutor to preserve critical legal-assistant capacity within the office and add one criminal investigator for case work. Opponents said the change was a midyear response to a problem they wished had been raised earlier and urged broader follow-up with the state, the friend of the court and county administration to secure a longer-term solution.

What the board noted: commissioners emphasized the statutory options in the paternity act of 1956 that allow the prosecutor to assign the authority to file paternity cases to another county entity (friend of the court), to a county-employed attorney, or to the state. Commissioners asked county staff and the prosecutor to return with more detailed information about which cases were pending, how many households would be affected, and whether additional county options — including hiring a county-employed attorney to run an establishment unit — might be feasible.

Why it matters: establishing paternity is a prerequisite for child-support orders in most cases and can affect families' eligibility for cash assistance and Medicaid. Commissioners said they were concerned about the pace of the state transition and about long-term local capacity to provide timely paternity and child-support legal services.

What's next: prosecutor and county staff will coordinate follow-up briefings for the board that detail pending cases, billing status, and alternative service models. Administration and corporate counsel were asked to explore policy changes so the board is notified earlier if the county is a signatory to a contract and that contract will be terminated.