Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 Senate Bill 668: Revise foster child procedures
Public Act 199 of 2008
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Bill Hardiman (R) on August 1, 2007, to allow a court that terminates the parental rights of a parent to authorize continued parenting time, at its discretion. Under current law the parenting time is automatically suspended. The bill also clarifies that the “best interest of the child” provision in parental rights determinations must include a court approved permanency plan for the child. Importantly, under current law the parents in these proceedings must demonstrate that terminiation is not in the best interest of the child. Under the bill, a court would have to demonstrate that the termination IS in the best interest of the child.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on August 1, 2007.
- Reported in the Senate on September 27, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on September 28, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details based on extensive testimony and "fine tuning." The main substance of the bill as previously described is not changed. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 28, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on August 1, 2007.
- Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on October 3, 2007, to allow a court that terminates the parental rights of a parent to authorize continued parenting time, at its discretion. Under current law the parenting time is automatically suspended. The bill also clarifies that the “best interest of the child” provision in parental rights determinations must include a court approved permanency plan for the child. Importantly, under current law the parents in these proceedings must demonstrate that terminiation is not in the best interest of the child. Under the bill, before ordering the termination of parental rights a court would have to determine that termination IS in the child's best interests.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on October 3, 2007.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on October 3, 2007.
- Reported in the House on March 19, 2008, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on October 3, 2007.
- Passed 108 to 0 in the House on June 26, 2008, to allow a court that terminates the parental rights of a parent to authorize continued parenting time, at its discretion. Under current law the parenting time is automatically suspended. The bill also clarifies that the “best interest of the child” provision in parental rights determinations must include a court approved permanency plan for the child. Importantly, under current law the parents in these proceedings must demonstrate that terminiation is not in the best interest of the child. Under the bill, before ordering the termination of parental rights a court would have to determine that termination IS in the child's best interests.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 10, 2008.
Most Recent Comments
1) Sen. Hardiman's "journal statement" by Admin003 on October 7, 2007Senator Hardiman asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Hardiman's statement is as follows:
I'm excited about this package and also about this bill. As the chairman mentioned earlier, it is a very important package and makes some very important changes. It makes important changes in how we deal with difficult decisions to terminate the parental rights for a child. Senate Bill No.668 makes those changes.
Present law says that a parent objecting to termination of parental rights must show that termination is not in the best interest of a child. Senate Bill No.668 would change the law to say the court must find termination is in the best interest of the child. This change relieves the parents from having to overcome a difficult, if not impossible, hurdle to keep their parental rights. The state and courts should have the responsibility to show termination is better for the child.
I do want to thank the chairman of the committee and all the members of the committee and their staff for the fine work on this, as well as Justice Corrigan and the committee that met to put this package together. I ask for the body's approval.
Reply
Senator Jansen asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Jansen's statement is as follows:
Senate Bill Nos. 668 through 672 are the culmination of a year's worth of workgroups and solicitation of input from many interested parties. In recent years, the number of terminations of parental rights has outpaced the number of adoptions, and the goal of this package is to increase permanency and stability for these children in foster care.
Two bills in this package provide the courts with an alternative placement option called permanent guardian, someone who loves the child and who is able to provide a permanent, stable home but who does not wish to adopt the child or be a foster parent. The package also provides concurrent planning, where efforts can be made towards family reunification, while at the same time planning for a backup permanency plan in case the child cannot be returned home safely. This will reduce the time that the child is in limbo and, we believe, opportunity for potentially a permanent home.
Another bill requires that notice be given to the court and the child's attorney if the child is moved. And, finally, the package will allow a judge to make the decision whether or not to suspend visitation by a parent when a petition to terminate parental rights is pending. The judge must consider the child's best interests.
Each foster child is special and each case unique. Justice Corrigan and the workgroup, my colleagues, the department, and private child placing agencies all have the same goal in mind: to provide stable homes for as many children as possible.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work with this fine set of groups and members of different organizations and departments. Senate colleagues, I believe this is a very important matter and I ask that my colleagues vote in the affirmative for these bills.
Reply
Introduced in the Senate on August 1, 2007, to allow a court that terminates the parental rights of a parent to authorize continued parenting time, at its discretion. Under current law the parenting time is automatically suspended. The bill also clarifies that the “best interest of the child” provision in parental rights determinations must include a court approved permanency plan for the child. Importantly, under current law the parents in these proceedings must demonstrate that terminiation is not in the best interest of the child. Under the bill, before ordering the termination of parental rights a court would have to determine that termination IS in the child's best interests
The vote was 38 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 402 at Senate Journal 101)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
