Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2008 House Bill 5910: Revise non-child abuse documentation request restrictions
Public Act 374 of 2008
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Robert Dean (D) on March 19, 2008, to revise the conditions limiting a request from an individual for documentation that he or she is not named as a perpetrator in the state's central registry of serious child abuse cases, and allow the person to request that the state share the information with whoever is appropriate for purposes of seeking employment. Under current law only a person applying to work in a child care center, child caring institution, or child placing agency can ask for this documentation.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on March 19, 2008.
- Reported in the House on April 30, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 1, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 1, 2008.
- Referred to the House Family and Childrens Services Committee on March 19, 2008.
- Passed 82 to 26 in the House on May 1, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on May 6, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on May 6, 2008.
- Reported in the Senate on December 2, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 4, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 4, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on May 6, 2008.
- Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on December 10, 2008, to revise the conditions limiting a request from an individual for documentation that he or she is not named as a perpetrator in the state's central registry of serious child abuse cases, and allow the person to request that the state share the information with whoever is appropriate for purposes of seeking employment. Under current law only a person applying to work in a child care center, child caring institution, or child placing agency can ask for this documentation.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on December 10, 2008.
- Passed 88 to 20 in the House on December 11, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 23, 2008.
Most Recent Comments
1) "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on May 3, 2008Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The problem with this bill is that it will hurt more people than it helps. Anyone convicted of child abuse whether it is physical, sexual, or neglect would be revealed in a criminal back round check. Most of time people are put on the central registry within 24 hours of being accused of some type of abuse. Many people who get put on the central registry have not been convicted of any crime and or are later exonerated, but may be on there for 9 months to a year before any decision is rendered. Many innocent people loose their jobs, because they end up on this list, but even after they are removed they don’t get there job back or their reputation. Expanding the number of people, individuals, and employers who can access this information would have little effect on the problem they desire to address, but it will most certainly damage the lives of many people financially, professionally and their reputations. The central registry abrogates the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and makes them guilty until proven innocence and that is not what the constitutional writers ever intended.”
Reply
Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
This bill would continue the allowance of somebody being put on the registry before they’ve even been convicted causing great harm to individuals that are not guilty. Presently we have many on this registry that are guilty of minor issues but have been placed on this for life. This whole area needs work. This is not a fix.”
Reply
Rep. Calley, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The US Constitution guarantees due process to all citizens of this country. This bill violates that unalienable right.”
Reply
View Full Conversation
