Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 9, 2007, to require government authorities determining whether to remove a child from his or her parents and place the child in foster care to give special consideration and preference to placing the child with relatives instead, unless doing so is clearly not in the child’s best interests

The vote was 106 in favor, 0 opposed and 4 not voting

(House Roll Call 207 at House Journal 61)

Click here to view bill details.

I've posted comments like this many times: It's sad that we have to legislate common sense.

Common Sense - again! And we spend time making laws about it because the people making life decisions for these little ones don't know enough to do that automatically.

to go to the relatives instead of the state. i DON'T think it's a good idea for the state to be making that decision.

Isn't this already on the books? Public Act 220 of 1935 MCL 400.207(6) An agreement entered into with a person for the care of a child who is a ward of the Michigan children's institute shall provide that the department may cancel the agreement if, in the department's opinion, the interest of the child requires it. If a parent or relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of a child who is a ward of the institute establishes a suitable home and is capable and willing to support the child, the department may restore the child to his or her parent or relative. The institute may assist the parent or relative with the support of the child if the aid is less than the cost of care the institute would otherwise provide. Consanguinity: the quality or state of being a close relation or connectionof the same blood or origin; specifically : descended from the same ancestor...FAMILY MEMBER! Beverly Tran

to re-write existing laws. some RESEARCH would be a good idea, guys. if ms. tran can do it, WHY CAN'T YOU??? isn't that part of what we pay you for???

Just as a matter of discussion, what is the legal standard for "fit". If the supervising agency is to now authorized to make legal determinations under the "arbitrary and capricious" doctrine? Will MCL 400.207 be repealed? In the December 2006, the National Conference of State Legislatures published a report comporting the needs of child welfare and constitutionalities to be transferred to law enforcement. This bill is another example of fragmented rulemaking in Michigan. Beverly Tran

Thank you for your interest in the issue, but I disagree with your interpretation. 1935 PA 220 deals with policies and standards of the Michigan Childrens Institute. MCL 400.207 has no bearing on the practices of DHS to place children in foster settings when they are removed from their homes. Placement decisions are governed by the Foster Care and Adoption Services Act, and by DHS's internal rules.

The State is responsible for determining and enforcing placement rules. If priority for relatives is going to be standard practice, it must be the state who creates that policy.

To my anonymous respondent, Justification of egregious practices cannot be designated to federal rulemaking: blame it on someone else. Morphing legislation to fit current ideology is a matter of convenience, not constitutionalities. You cannot justify violations of law with degrees in social work. Just because the state has published a roadmap to avoid litigation due to malfeasance and misfeasance does not absolve state certain state privatized contractual and appointed employees of criminal practices. Anonymous respondent, you must be desperate to retain your current source of income. I wish you well; litigation is costly for all. Why do you fear keeping families intact?

Is your anonymity because you are currently a defendant in a federal lawsuit? (smile precious)

COA Case Number: 271847 SCt Case Number: 133770 IN RE RAMON BELL MINOR If anyone is interested in the legal ramifications of the practices of anonymous respondents, feel free to contact me at any time. Beverly Tran 313-522-8213

Social Service workers need a Law to kick start the idea that the Foster provider is Not first phone number that should be called within childs needs.Foster Care system is a mess,if you where a child who would be your preference.Who gave Foster people the Right to Adoption First,the Adoption Laws into ParentsRights are taken away so easy by Courts who doNot followLaws,doNot fully explain, trick,falseReportRecords. Parents naive,doNot know about rule of law,like the one above,or710.44d of separate agreements,710.54,710.64 or even to sign rights to relative before childs lost in system. Thats why currently there is a push Now to get the REform the Forms Law Passed, Adoption Fraud and Mispresentation Placement Fraud comes in many form Legal Forms"Parents sign,never see child again. Question came up, Michigan has NO provision for Relative Adoption or Open placement, only Now is this subject being solely provided,even though the meaning of relative is in defined part of Adoption Rules currently applied to direct placement to all but parents have to give all rights away to courts Wherein child placed into foster home,etc.adopted without chance or to late for relative to a child. Judges,Lawyers DoNot fully explain offered Laws. Also children rights and aarp are trying to get to pass laws different laws to different adoption or placements. Forms-open adoption placement and Forms Parents sign to Relative adoption-visitation Placement of School Physical Custody,all this form a written documents Parents are NOT ask/offered in Social Workers effects of Best interest of Child. Tenure Commission,Obudsman ChildService,just as bad in helping affects of power of Social Services who doNot follow Laws.Appeals courts are full of parents trying to Revoke Termination to save child So anything to help a child stay in family care. in this complete confusion,is Yes forward positive to clean up the control mess of Foster care. Relatives and Grandparents ChildRights org, and even Parents Rights org. need to STOP Power of the Foster Care system Control over our children. Question should be then,are they going to follow laws or Judges give preference to relative first. Foster Care Providers are there as Helpers only. They must Prove Fitness also,if relative have to. Foster People should NOT have sole right to adopt like pick'en in candy store,over the Rights of any Relative of said child in need.child rights first. Also a yes vote to this add on to Adoption Laws Adoption of grandchild by maternal or paternal in 1stdegree,said grandchild shall have right to a continued visitation bond with other grandparent.

In reading this fiscal impact there is ahowever in payment state cost would rise. bill 170 relative programs rate equal 66%. See How Money issues always impact decisions. GEE here a Note for Legislature,Most Relatives raise children doNOT get payed period just think if they demand payments like foster care.SocialServices who input demand to terminate parents rights,judges blinded forget duh,to ask/offer forms,laws to place the child with relative,so its systems rule screw up. Yes,state could save from the relative placements. Heres the laws,if a Parent still has ParentsRIGHTS the parent of child has the solidRIGHT to sign child to RELATIVE custody period. Social services Courts have NOright to change the parentsign forms Unless the relatives are unfit,must prove unfitnes A foster people yea should have to prove fitness Why,because social service do NOT take trust issue or time to check out foster people. PARENTS AND CHILDS PREFERENCE DETERMINES PLACEMENT CHILDREN OVER AGE 4 KNOW RELATIVES,CAN CHOOSE.

In September of this year, the Auditor General Thomas McTavish generated a precedent performance report of the Foster Care Review Board and addressed the findings and recommendations to the overseer of the only child welfare adminsitrative review forum in the state: Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor. The honorable gentleman has embraced silence. The position of Chief Justice is to encompass the roles and duties of protecting the constitution and the constitutional rights of the citizens of the United States of America and the State of Michigan. The position of Chief Justice is to admiral the helms of the Supreme Court Administrative Office (SCAO). The honorable gentleman has stagnates in incompetency. Michigan Children's Institute (MCI) Superintendent, William J. Johnson hails from the executive branch, devoid of training or certification, to be the "final decision maker" in the judicial branch. The MCI Superintendent has no appointment on public record, is not elected, and answers only to the Chief Justice, if only the Chief Justice would ask a question. Justice Maura Corrigan has publicly advocated, in print and radio media, for the defendant, MCI Superintendant, while the matter was pendening befor the court, and the Chief Justice enjoined in the matter of public advocacy while the public question was pending before the court. By adopting the position of an administrative, gluttonous slouth, allowing this to happen to families and their relatives on a daily basis through a sedentary administrative and political stance. The Chief Justice refuses recusal of a matter he was, not only privy, but, directly responsible. Relative placement discussions demand the inclusion of the Chief Justice. The public question, whether the Cheif Justice chooses to recuse himself or not, deems public awareness. If the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court cannot fulfill his duties and obligations of oversight, as documented by the Auditor General, then the question is begged if he is capable of being elected, again, for the position of Chief Justice. Perhaps the Chief Justice is the reason why Michigan possesses the highest rate in the nation, in relation to population and geographical region, for termination of parental rights. Perhaps this is a respondant issue to the Supreme Court's refusal to consider matters of adoption and the legitamacy of the MCI SUperintendent decision's. Leaders of Michigan must adhere to the basic standards of leadership: participation in public discussion. Citizens of Michigan must assume thier responsibilities of citizenship: voting and political participation in viocing thier opinions. I take this opportunity to publicly engage the Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor in a public (or private)discussion to bring accountability to our state, our officials, and our families. If the gentleman will not enforce the state's constitution to conserve families, then how can the gentleman continue to fiscally sour our state as a Chief Justice? Beverly Tran

LAWS to require child officer to contact relatives while determining to remove a child from parents andbefore foster care. Positive yes,but heres a note IF a parent knows there RIGHTS are going to be taken by courts,and Parents sign to relative child custody even 1 hour dated before rights are legal terminated Example,laws state PARENTSRIGHTS ARE STILL INTACT until court determine parents unfit to remove child.PARENTS ARE STILL PARENTS Hereby all RIGHTS to child was Placed signed sealed to relative 2month or even 2hours before termination the CHILD is herein by LAWs in LEGAL relatives rights to CUSTODY BEFORE COURTS rights. A hearing to review where,who shall have child is already been decided by the PARENTS whos RIGHTS to sign child to RELATIVES. Relatives petition to custody of child must be honored by LEGAL LAW. I agree social services is busy overcrowded,this law hopefully will help children needed care. Custody laws, must give parents and child a right to placement with relatives,in sign petitions and foster,courts,shall NOT have right to void rights. well,yes grandparents who adopt grandchild both sets of grandparents should have visitation bond.

Michigan be smarter vote Yes,oh.nev.wash,nj.,ny.ma. voted to allow state,federal help to grandparents or relatives raising grandchildren.food stamps,etc with out becoming licensed .Children defense fund reports 1in12 children national live w/familys. Congress stated-Wheres the money going to come from? Heres a GEE-how about cutting congress paychecks,or have noMore PayRaises,or legislation,judges,congress use newsPapers in goldTolietRooms,or all members have a BigGarageSale,sell off your stuff to buyFOOD. Just think we pay these smartPeople??to make laws.

The difference between a question and an interpretation is punctuation...(?) I placed a question mark at the end of my inquiry. Please tell us, the citizens of Michigan, that you do not recieve a paycheck as a public servant. If you are in a position of authority, it scares me. Do you possess a degree in omnipotence or are your comments arbitrary and capricious?

The difference between a question and an interpretation is punctuation...(?) I placed a question mark at the end of my inquiry. Please tell us, the citizens of Michigan, that you do not recieve a paycheck as a public servant. If you are in a position of authority, it scares me. Do you possess a degree in omnipotence or are your comments arbitrary and capricious? Beverly Tran

Relatives of children who have been "spirited away" by the state are asking you, the Chief Administrator of the Courts of Michigan, to come to our aid. Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, please save our families...please...pretty please...with whip cream and a cherry on top (and I do not mean LT. GOV. Cherry) Beverly Tran

Remember these wise words, Office of Attorney General and Director of Department of Human Services, for they have been set into law a long time ago... THE SOCIAL WELFARE ACT (EXCERPT) Act 280 of 1939 400.115a Office of children and youth services; duties generally. Sec. 115a. (1) The office shall: (a) Establish uniform statewide daily rates for the care of children. In the case of children receiving services by or through child caring agencies licensed pursuant to Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended, being sections 722.111 to 722.128 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, the daily rates may include an average daily rate for agency supervision. In a case of demonstrated need an exception for payment above the established rate may be obtained through prior written agreement with the office. Standards of care shall be in conformity with Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended. (b) Monitor children and youth services and programs operated by or funded through the department. (c) Establish guidelines for the development of children and youth services and program plans and budgets. (d) Cooperate with the office of criminal justice programs in the development of the state plan required by Public Law 93-415, 5 U.S.C. 5108; 18 U.S.C. 4351 to 4353, 5031 to 5042; and 42 U.S.C. 3701, 3723, 3733, 3768, 3772 to 3774, 3811 to 3814, 3821, 3882, 3883, 3888, and 5601 to 5751. The office shall review the annual budget of the office of criminal justice programs as that budget relates to juvenile justice services and make recommendations to the governor and the legislature regarding the consistency of the budget with the standards and guidelines recommended by the office. (e) Coordinate educational and public information programs for the purpose of developing appropriate awareness regarding the problems of children and youth; encourage professional groups to recognize and deal with the problems of children and youth; make information about the problems of children and youth available to organizations dealing with juvenile problems and to the general public; and encourage the development of community programs to improve the status of children and youth. (f) Enter into contracts necessary for the performance of its powers and duties and the execution of its policies. The contracts may be with a state agency, a local public agency, or a private agency, organization, association, or person to enhance, provide, or improve the availability and quality of children and youth services and programs. (g) Provide for the administration and supervision of employees of institutions for children and youth operated or maintained by the department. (h) Develop and allocate the children and youth services budget of the department. (i) Develop and recommend personnel policies and standards to the director of social services. (j) Identify and designate priorities to the training needs of employees of the department engaged in the provision of children and youth services programs and participate in the development and implementation of appropriate training programs. (k) Establish and implement standards of uniform practice for children and youth services programs operated by the state, consistent with the rules promulgated under Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended. The office shall recommend these standards for other public and private child care organizations. The standards shall include provisions for the administration, organization, training, supervision, and funding of children and youth services and programs. (l) Establish and interpret policy for children and youth services administered by the department. (m) Assist in the development of sound programs and standards for children and youth services and promote programs and policies encouraging the prevention of dependency, neglect, delinquency, and other conditions adversely affecting the welfare of children and youth. These programs and policies shall include services for families of children and youth in trouble or at risk. (n) Monitor and evaluate children and youth services and programs and recommend to the director of social services and monitor corrective action necessary for the improvement of those services and programs. (o) Develop and implement standard reporting methods to provide accurate program and statistical data on children and youth affected by children and youth services and programs. (2) Children and youth services staff allocated to a county shall operate under the supervision and direction of a county director of social services. (3) UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICE, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL REQUEST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BRING AN ACTION IN THE APPROPRIATE COURT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY THE OFFICE. History: Add. 1973, Act 154, Imd. Eff. Dec. 6, 1973 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 87, Eff. Apr. 1, 1978 Compiler's Notes: For transfer of powers and duties of the Office of Children and Youth Services as a single-purpose entity within the Department of Social Services to the Department of Social Services, see E.R.O. No. 1991-8, compiled at MCL 400.221 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Popular Name: Act 280 Beverly Tran

Well, it is quite obvious the challenge presented of my comment dealt with a different section of law. The section of law I addressed was the constitutionality of statutory standing. Many months after this anonymous comment, I am still saddened with the ignorance of law a person in authority possesses who gives the "thumbs up or down" about the life of a family. Superintendent William J. Johnson, why is it you will not face the public? Oh, I forgot, you are neither elected nor appointed as legal representative of children who are wards of the state (and now, for your 90 day period of transitional ownership.) Representative David Law has spearheaded a Child Abuse and Neglect Task Force. I formally invite you to publicly make speech on this "different section of law" by inviting your overseer, Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor to join you in explaining the structural format for filing grievances for substantial and material violations of law and policy, since the Supreme Court refuses to hear ant and all child welfare cases. Is my interpretation of the United States of America Constitution correct, or is that a "different section of law?" Beverly Tran

Well, it is quite obvious the challenge presented of my comment dealt with a different section of law. The section of law I addressed was the constitutionality of statutory standing. Many months after this anonymous comment, I am still saddened with the ignorance of law a person in authority possesses who gives the "thumbs up or down" about the life of a family. Superintendent William J. Johnson, why is it you will not face the public? Oh, I forgot, you are neither elected nor appointed as legal representative of children who are wards of the state (and now, for your 90 day period of transitional ownership.) Representative David Law has spearheaded a Child Abuse and Neglect Task Force. I formally invite you to publicly make speech on this "different section of law" by inviting your overseer, Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor to join you in explaining the structural format for filing grievances for substantial and material violations of law and policy, since the Supreme Court refuses to hear any and all child welfare cases. Is my interpretation of the United States of America Constitution correct, or is that a "different section of law?" Beverly Tran

These may be a bit contentious, but dissent is a key component of democracy.

If government authorities determining whether to remove a child from his or her parents and place the child in foster care, perhaps government authorities should give special consideration and preference to keeping the child with the relatives, who are the parents, by providing greater and more effective resources.  Poverty is a crime codifided as abuse and neglect.

Why is this legislation narrowly tailored to address only child removals from parents.  There are situations where it is not always the parent who is the legal guardian and caregiver.  What about grandparents, aunts, uncles, sisters, brothers, and others of immediate degrees of consanguninity...I believe I there is enough here to open further discussions. 

 

Beverly Tran

 foster care puts children in the care, custody, and control of the state.

that is the goal.

if it weren't, the relatives would already have priority.

but keep up the good fight, beverly, one day it will change.

Thank you very much.

Just when you think all facets of the argument have been explored, there exists another area to be addressed:

Reinstatement of Parental Rights

If a system is to be viewed as balanced, there is always a counter-balance.  This would be the reinstatement of parental rights.  Currently, there are four states which have some form of limited execptions to reinstatements.  Michigan is in a prime position to lead the nation in the development of a "checks and balance" mechanism that would raise the bar to the term "reunification".

Beverly Tran

 

"...If a parent or relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of a child who is a ward of the institute establishes a suitable home and is capable and willing to support the child, the department may restore the child to his or her parent or relative. The institute may assist the parent or relative with the support of the child if the aid is less than the cost of care the institute would otherwise provide."

It seems, in part, there is already legislation on the books to reinstate parental rights.  Unfortunately, there, also, exists a desperate need to clean up all the statutes pertaining to child welfare, for they are extremely antiquated and incoherent.

 

Beverly Tran