John Nevin Asks "But Are You Wearing Pants?" - Michigan Supreme Court Director Comments on Subordinate While Court Denies 100% of Family Grievances
John Nevin, Communications Director for the Michigan Supreme Court, publicly asked a court consultant whether he was wearing pants on LinkedIn. Meanwhile, Ari B. Adler, a communications consultant with ties to SCAO, was working from a beach watching a SpaceX launch. The court system they represent has denied 100% of parent grievances in Kalamazoo County over five consecutive years.
A Director Asked a Colleague If He Was Wearing Pants. The Families His Office Ignores Were Not Laughing.
LANSING - While parents across Michigan fight a Friend of the Court grievance system that has produced a 100% denial rate in Kalamazoo County over five consecutive years, two men connected to the state's highest court were using a public professional platform for a very different kind of exchange.
John Nevin, Communications Director of the Michigan Supreme Court Public Information Office, posted a public comment on LinkedIn directed at Ari B. Adler, a communications consultant with documented ties to the State Court Administrative Office. Adler had posted about working remotely from a beach parking lot in South Padre Island, Texas, where he had driven to watch a SpaceX rocket launch.
Nevin's response, visible to thousands of professionals on the platform where both men identify themselves by their titles and court affiliations:
"But are you wearing pants?"
A Court Consultant Watches Rockets While Families Get Denied
Adler's post, published in March 2024, was not a quick aside. It was a detailed celebration of remote work culture. He described driving to Texas to watch a SpaceX launch, then parking in a beach lot and working from there. He used it to lecture managers about productivity.
"And if you think #remotework means having unproductive employees, then you don't have an employee problem, you have a management problem," Adler wrote.
Ari B. Adler identifies himself on LinkedIn as a communications consultant with connections to Michigan's court system. His professional network includes officials from the State Court Administrative Office, the same agency that oversees Friend of the Court operations for all 75 counties in Michigan.
This is the system that parents depend on when they file grievances about denied parenting time, miscalculated child support, or caseworkers who refuse to return phone calls.
In Kalamazoo County alone, 18 grievances were filed between 2020 and 2024. Every single one was denied. Zero corrective actions. Not one parent received relief through the process that Michigan law promises them. The denial rate is not 90%. It is not 95%. It is 100%.
And a consultant connected to the office overseeing this system was watching rockets from a beach.
"But Are You Wearing Pants?" - What a Director Says When Nobody Is Watching
John Nevin is not a low-level staffer. He is the Communications Director of the Michigan Supreme Court. He is the official voice of the court when the press calls. When State Court Administrator Tom Boyd issues a statement, it goes through Nevin's office. When reporters ask about judicial conduct, court policy, or administrative complaints, Nevin is the man who picks up the phone.
This is the same John Nevin who responded to a press inquiry from The Kalamazoo Press regarding the Kalamazoo County FOC grievance process and its 100% denial rate. In that response, Nevin delivered a statement from Boyd declaring that SCAO has "no legal authority" over grievances.
No legal authority. No corrective action. No accountability. But time to ask a colleague on a public platform whether he is wearing pants.
The comment was not made in a private message. It was not sent in a text. It was posted publicly on LinkedIn, a professional networking platform, beneath a post where both men are identified by their titles and affiliations with Michigan's court system.
When a director in a position of authority publicly asks a colleague about his clothing in a context that carries obvious undertones, it raises questions that go beyond humor. This is the kind of comment that would trigger an HR review in any corporate office, any government agency, any workplace with functioning professional standards.
But this is the Michigan Supreme Court. The institution that sets the standard for every court, every clerk, every Friend of the Court office in the state.
The People These Men Represent
The parents caught in Michigan's Friend of the Court system are not watching rocket launches. They are not working from beaches. They are sitting in courtrooms. They are calling caseworkers who do not answer. They are filing grievances into a system that has never once ruled in their favor in Kalamazoo County.
These are fathers who have lost income, faced bench warrants, and had bank accounts seized. These are mothers who cannot get their custody orders enforced. These are parents who trusted that the grievance process written into Michigan law would give them a fair hearing.
The man responsible for communicating the court's position on these failures was asking a colleague about his pants.
The consultant connected to the office overseeing these operations was watching a SpaceX launch from a beach parking lot.
What Standard Is the Michigan Supreme Court Holding Itself To?
The Michigan Supreme Court sets the tone for judicial professionalism across the entire state. Every circuit court, every FOC office, every administrator looks to the Supreme Court for the standard of conduct.
When the court's own Communications Director treats a public professional platform as a space for locker room comments directed at a colleague, it sends a message. When a consultant tied to the court's administrative office broadcasts that he is working from a beach while the system he is connected to produces a perfect record of denying families, it sends a message.
The message families are receiving is clear: the people running this system do not take it seriously.
Nevin's comment may have been intended as a joke. Adler's post may have been intended as career advice. But when 18 families in one county filed grievances and every single one was denied over five years, when the state's own court administrator says he has "no legal authority" to do anything about it, when a 21-year-old part-time law clerk was handling official state complaint responses - the public is not in a laughing mood.
The LinkedIn exchange between Nevin and Adler remains publicly visible. A screenshot has been archived.
Sources:
AI-Generated Content Disclosure
This article was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While we strive for accuracy, AI-generated content may contain errors. We encourage readers to verify information through the sources linked above.