A federal lawsuit alleges that state authorities enforced child support orders and garnished wages without any evidence that a child’s welfare was at risk, raising questions about parental rights and due process in family law cases. The complaint was filed by Briana Nicole Glass in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan on March 23, 2026, naming the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and the Friend of the Court as defendants.
According to court documents, Glass asserts that her constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated when state agencies intervened in her divorce proceedings with Kenneth McClure Jr., despite there being no allegations or findings that their minor child’s health or safety was threatened. Glass contends that she and McClure had maintained a cooperative arrangement regarding childcare, finances, and custody prior to their divorce. She states this arrangement was supported by affidavits from daycare workers involved with their child.
The lawsuit outlines how Michigan’s application of its child support statutes—specifically referencing MCL 552.451 et seq.—and use of the parens patriae doctrine resulted in what Glass describes as an “unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and property.” She argues that these statutes should only be invoked when there is genuine concern for a child’s welfare. “The triggering of the state of Michigan’s interest was unnecessary,” Glass writes in her filing, emphasizing that there was no dispute about her child’s well-being during divorce proceedings.
Despite this context, Glass reports that a Child Support Order was entered through the Friend of the Court compelling her to make monthly payments to McClure Jr., which led to wage garnishments totaling $13,298.77 remitted via her employer to the State Disbursement Unit. She further alleges that not all funds reached McClure Jr., as administrative fees—including those authorized under MCL 600.2538—were deducted before disbursement.
Glass claims these actions amounted to an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment because they were based on statutory procedures applied without proof or even allegations of harm or neglect toward her child. “Wage garnishment constitutes a ‘seizure’ of property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” she states in her complaint. She also argues that forcing employers to redirect wages represents an ongoing seizure of personhood by depriving individuals control over their labor and earnings.
In addition to challenging these practices under the Fourth Amendment, Glass invokes Fifth Amendment protections against deprivation of liberty or property without due process. She asserts both a property interest in her earnings and a liberty interest in parenting decisions free from unwarranted state interference: “The financial order is viewed by Plaintiff as a penalty for dissolution rather than necessary protection for the child.” The complaint also raises Fourteenth Amendment concerns regarding substantive and procedural due process rights tied to familial integrity.
Glass specifically objects to administrative fees withheld from support payments before reaching families: “These funds are diverted to the state treasury for public purposes… including funding Friend of Court system,” she writes, arguing this constitutes an unlawful taking without just compensation contrary to constitutional protections.
As relief, Glass requests compensatory damages equal to $13,298.77—the amount garnished from her wages—as well as additional sums for administrative fees not fully specified but referenced as potentially accruing beyond those listed in court documents. She also seeks damages for emotional distress and humiliation (to be determined at trial), punitive damages against individual defendants totaling $75,000 each for alleged indifference to constitutional rights, nominal damages ($1), declaratory judgment confirming violations occurred, preliminary and permanent injunctions halting further enforcement actions against her related to this case, reasonable court costs and fees, plus any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Glass is representing herself (pro se) in this matter; attorney names are not listed in available filings. The case is assigned number 1:26-cv-00954-PLM-SJB before United States District Judge Paul L. Maloney.
Source: 126cv00954_Briana_Nicole_v_Department_of_Health_Complaint_Western_District_of_Michigan.pdf
