Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 10-09-2007 12:02 AM by batran. 4 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    • admin
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 11-22-2008

    2007 Senate Bill 672 (Revise foster child procedures )

    Introduced in the Senate 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. The bill is part of a foster care legislative package consisting of Senate Bills 668 to 672

    The vote was 38 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting

    (Senate Roll Call 401 at Senate Journal 101)

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 09-24-2007 8:39 PM In reply to

    The Illegitimac of MCI

    For the first time in the history of the State of Michigan the veiled functioning of Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) is being addressed. Because there has been absolutely no administrative oversight since its inception in 1935, the time has come to present to the general public the arbitrary and capricious pattern of practice of the sole legal guardian of Michigan's children awaiting adoption as a result of termination of parental rights: William J. Johnson, the sole guardian of almost 8,000 children under the auspices by the state and is the legal representative for the State of Michigan of all children entrusted to the Michigan Children’s Institute. As the legal representative for the State of Michigan of children, whose parents’ rights have been terminated, the Superintendent is neither appointed, elected, or a servant of the court. The position is classified as a civil servant, not a public official. The statutory standard of authority has been exhumed and reanimated without legislative review. The Social Welfare Commission grants authority to the position of the MCI Superintendent through appointment. Powers of appointment for the Social Welfare Commission hail from the Governor, with advice and consent of the Legislature, but in 1965, the Social Welfare Commission was abolished. This is the year of the last annual report of MCI. There has never been an audit of MCI. The Superintendent has come to claim authority from the Supreme Court, under the supervision of the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court Administrative Office (SCAO). As a finial decision maker in the court process of adoption, the Superintendent simultaneously holds authority of review with membership of a citizen review board, Foster Care Review Board (FCRB). Not possessing the proper licensing or education, as required by state law, the Superintendent practices certain areas of social work, including development of policy, in concert with the Supreme Court Justices. To date, the Supreme Court refuses to respond to the public question of the legitimacy of authority of the Superintendent of MCI in its refusal to review and hear any and all cases of child welfare. The Superintendent has never been held accountable for the deaths of children under his care, nor has he been held accountable for the malfeasance and misfeasance of his decisions. The time has come to review funding, operations, and all decisions made under the illegitimate reign of the Superintendent. Omnipotence is not the criterion for the position of MCI Superintendent; it is the voice of the public, especially the cries of children and their families, and the children who age out of the foster care system. I beseech thee, my fellow leaders of this state, stand down and refuse to recognize the legitimacy of authority of the Superintendent of MCI. Let the decision and assignment of guardianship be a multilateral decision of judges, children, parents, grandparents, extened family members, GAL, Judges, caseworkers, godparents, playparents, advocates, foster care givers...need I state more? The individual caring for the child should have the guardianship. Beverly Tran
  • 09-28-2007 3:19 PM In reply to

    Thank You

    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
  • 10-07-2007 2:12 PM In reply to

    Sen. Jansen's "journal statement"

    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.
  • 10-09-2007 12:02 AM In reply to

    MCL 710.45

    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
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems