2007 Senate Bill 672: Revise foster child procedures

Legislation watch

Public Act 203 of 2008

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen (R) on August 1, 2007, to authorize the appointment of a legal guardian for a child who has been removed from his or her family by the state, who would have authority to disburse funds for the child’s support and care in a foster home, facilitate the child’s education and social or other activities, authorize medical or other professional care, etc. The bill would establish procedures for appointing a guardian, challenging the appointment, and reviewing it within one year. The bill is part of a foster care legislative package consisting of Senate Bills 668 to 672.
- 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.
Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on October 3, 2007, to authorize the appointment of a legal guardian for a child who has been removed from his or her family by the state, who would have authority to disburse funds for the child’s support and care in a foster home, facilitate the child’s education and social or other activities, authorize medical or other professional care, etc. The bill would establish procedures for appointing a guardian, challenging the appointment, and reviewing it. The bill is part of a foster care legislative package consisting of Senate Bills 668 to 672.
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.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 26, 2008. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 26, 2008.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Virgil Smith, Jr. (D) on June 26, 2008. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 26, 2008.
Passed 108 to 0 in the House on June 26, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 27, 2008.
Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on June 27, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 10, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) MCL 710.45 by batran on October 9, 2007
Why was there no amendment date on this? If language was strickened, (Superintendent struck for Court) then why was this not part of public record?

Is this a circumvention of culpability for the prior invalid decisions of the Superintendent? Is it too much to request special administrative proceedings to review the past decisions of the MCI Superintendent? Is this the Supreme Court's silent answer to a public question? If it is, I find these actions to be suspect of incompetence and violation of their oath of office.

Prove me wrong by righting the wrongs of the MCI Superintendent William J. Johnson.

The time has come for accountability.

Beverly Tran
Reply

Line

2) Sen. Jansen's "journal statement" by Admin003 on October 7, 2007
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

Line

3) Thank You by batran on September 28, 2007
My words have been headed and I bow in sincerest reverence of our elected officials actions.

I pray this Senate Bill with Substitute is unanimously passed.

Beverly Tran
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation