Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 23, 2008

Click here to view bill details.

I am concerned that more than protecting good parents, this would empower the very worst parents to use the courts to delay desperately needed interventions on behalf of their victimized children.

This proposed resolution is pure, unadulterated, bare-faced grandstanding appeal to popular paranoia on the part of its sponsors. In the first place, such rights already are constitutionally protected. Only extreme nanny-staters on both the left and right wish and attempt to make it otherwise. Secondly, the verbiage of this proposed amendment renders it both meaningless and a sure-fire litigation generator, both at the same time. Send this one down the trash chute.

Here is what shrillary says... : "Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision will significantly affect a child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents." Hillary Clinton

Joan Bauer, Doug Bennett, Steve Bieda, Pam Byrnes, Barb Byrum, Marsha Cheeks, Brenda Clack, Paul Condino, Marc Corriveau, Andy Dillon, Marie Donigan, Kate Ebli, Matthew, Martin Griffin, Richard Hammel, III Hood Morris, Robert Jones, Steven Lindberg, Mark Meadows, Andy Meisner, Tim Melton, Fred Miller, Michael Sak, Mike Simpson, Virgil Smith, Alma Smith, Steve Tobocman, Aldo Vagnozzi, Mary Valentine, Rebekah Warren Eighty of your colleagues already support protecting Michigan's Families through House Joint Resolution NN, calling for a vote of the people to approve a Constitutional amendment which reads: Sec. 27. Parents and legal guardians have a natural and fundamental right to direct the care, education, and upbringing of their children. No government action shall burden, abridge, or Hinder this natural, fundamental right unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. The text of this amendment merely reinforces the wisdom of the US Supreme Court, which wrote in Troxel V Granville: "The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." Reinforcing their historical affirmation of the rights of parents, the US Supreme Court continued by quoting an early 20th century ruling: the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." And further: "The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children." This proposed amendment merely affirms that the rights that Michigan's families enjoy on a federal level are also covered by Michigan's constitution and enforceable by Michigan's courts. Please listen to your colleagues, the wisdom of the US Supreme Court, and the people of the State of Michigan, who overwhelmingly support this proposed amendment. Please protect Michigan's families and support House Joint Resolution NN.

Agree.

Someone pushing this resolution and State Constitutional Amendment has posted: “This proposed amendment merely affirms that the rights that Michigan's families enjoy on a federal level are also covered by Michigan's constitution and enforceable by Michigan's courts.” Amendment X1V to the US Constitution, the so-called “equal protection” clause of the US Constitution makes this a non-issue for Michiganders (and residents of other states, as well). That is why this redundant and useless resolution is nothing more than grandstanding – election-year pandering to public paranoia. Another ill-begotten solution out in search of a non-existent problem. More fiddling while real issues that beset Michigan and its people go unaddressed. The worst part of this resolution is that accomplishes nothing but it is worded in a way that is absolutely guaranteed to spur litigation and squander scarce public resources.

If I am not mistaken, this resolution seems to mirror the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. In the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice Roberts (546 U.S. 2006) the Court emphasized that Congress had constructed "a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests" (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) Multiple prong tests have been legally constructed to determine whether an interest is a compelling governmental interest, the defenses, as well as the remedies throughout the states, in respect to RFRA. The same may be applied to "Parental Freedom Restoration Act of 2008 (PRFA), as I have coined it". My only concern is I would like the text and analysis to be made public. If the tenants of this resolution are based upon RFRA, then the structural integrity of this institution called "the family" shall be conserved. Parenting, in whatever form it is recognized, has gone through an intellectual metamorphosis to become an established constitutional right as a religious freedom. Simply put, parenting is now a First Amendment Right. Representative Stahl, I pray this national contagent to be expeditiously diffused. Godspeed, Beverly Tran

Family Court is a Deadly Business In today’s world family court has become a big part of our lives; we all have some type of connection to family court. Family court has become a deadly business, a business that is more concern about the money, then about the family. You might be thinking at this point, how I can say this about our family court, a court with laws. Hopefully by what I have learned, experienced and seen will open your eyes to what family court is really doing to our families. Let start off with explaining to you, what is family court, this is a part of the court system that just deals with the family: divorce, custody, cps and foster care. When you ever get a divorce, you will be in family court. Depending on if you have children or not will determine the length and cost your divorce. When children are involved with the divorce, this is where family court becomes a deadly business. Children end up being used as a pawn, in order for the lawyers to create a battle field that in which the cost become more then we have to loose. And then you add the family court, which proves the arena for the battle. Two parents, two homes, both what to be apart of there children lives, to continue the role of the parent and to share this responsibility. A child right to have both parents in their lives, to give them the up bringing they need. The best interest of the children, a term the courts love to use in order for them to justify the ruling they will give. Oh how far from the truth that is, their best interest is not for the children, but for the courts. If the parents of the children don’t agree on share parenting and joint custody, the family court will. And one of the parents will not like the outcome, because the family court now sees how much money they can make off the children. Yes, this is one of the ways the family court gets their money, off the back of our children. Through Title IV-D of the social security act, the federal government gives money to the state on how much child support has been paid. And plus the state’s will get even more money when they enforce one to pay. It doesn’t take genies to figure out how to make money for the state, lots of money. The family court knows how and they do a great job for their state’s, allowing them to grow into one of the largest business in our country. But there is a price we all are paying, through taxes, our children being taken from us and foremost our lives. By creating single parent also creates an absente parent and then creates child support. When you are forced to be that absente parent and to add to it, you now have to pay to be that absente parent, you start to loose sense to what right and wrong. This is where, that person, who are across America, become a person they were never was before. Some handle it the wrong way and that is committing suicides, murder and robbery. The latest case which grew national attention was the grant case, a man who killed his wife. He could not handle that his wife wanted a divorce and she was going to take the children from him. The county he resided in, over 80% of custody goes to the woman and I believed he knew this. Family court has become one of the largest growing businesses and also one of the most deadly businesses. People of America need to wake up and let themselves be heard, by talking with our representatives, senators, governor and everyone we come in contact with. Remember we the people who are one’s paying for this to happen, we the people need to know and hold our government accountable, that they are there to serve us.

If the Bill looks good, then what needs a deeper exam? Your comment sounds similar to other posts, which oppose the passage. If you question compelling government interest's- breadth, depth, and application? Look to US Supreme Ct's decision in the Troxel case. A more insidious concern is, the US Supreme Ct's rulings on states' statutes which contain "compelling government interest" clauses to usurp a citizen's rights. Most states' compelling interest statutes are repudiated by the US Supreme Ct. When the Court reviews "compelling ...." for family issues- Troxel is the bench mark! The Court clearly states no state compelling interest. Thus, for those of you concerned about the state poking its nose into family rights through the compelling interest clause, fear not! It cannot survive the litmus test at the Fed level! For those who believe this amendment will increase case law disputes on an issue already guaranteed federally, you have answered your own question. If the Federal guarantee was being followed in MI courts, we would not have cases in the courts complaining about the state's involvement in family child rearing. Therefore, we wouldn't have any future cases either. Thus, to insist that we will have cases in the courts after the amendment's passing is a cause for its non-passing is ignoring the already existing case load on issue! For those of you who insist that the governemnt, like Hillary believes, should decide parenting decisions, you need to return to your country of origin- USSR! For those of you in agreement with this post, consider another piece of legislation in Michigan's House of Reps.- HB 4564, which assumes a rebuttal presumption for joint custody of children. Thus, if parents divorce a parent would have to prove that joint custody was either untenable or the other parent was abusive/ neglectful to break the presumption. This is another one of those Bills which would significantly reduce case loads. Have you ever seen two parents fighting for custody, years after a divorce is final? As everyone knows the winner of custody gets the money! Oh, and also the kids! Presumption of joint custody ends the parental fight and the parental abuse of children, as the kids no longer are used as a tool by parents!

Michigan citizens: House Joint Resolution NN, "The Parental Rights" Resolution, is a must. As everyone well knows, Michigan's family law court system sees itself fit to determine what "is in the best interests of the child" in a divorce/child custody battle, ignoring our fundamental rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. True, we should not have to ask (or more to the point DEMAND) the fundamental rights already guaranteed to us. But, we must do so. Many of the previous posts, as so often happens with this type of "debate", just don't get it-AT ALL. Parents are the only ones able to decide what is best for their children. Children are NOT property to be given to one parent when a married couple divorces. The family law court system needs to get that through their head one way or another. As is currently allowed, even "blessed" by our wonderful state is this: children are denied the love, care, guidance, and nurturing of a fit, able and willing parent after a divorce, usually the father, BECAUSE OF TITLE IV-D INCENTIVE DOLLARS. Anyone who cannot grasp this is a fool, and is completely ignorant. Children have the right to the love, care, guidance and nurturing of both fit, willing and able parents, whether they be married, divorced, separated, or unmarried. IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE. DEAL WITH IT!!! Phillip Wurm West Michigan Regional Director-A Child's Right

This is not a matter that belongs in the constitution. Which is suppose to be for fundamental rights, not issues that should or should not be a law!!!

Is NN Needed? If we go by the old premise of what the constitution says, and what is said about those powers not strictly stated in the constitution, NO. Unfortunately we have constructionist judged who build new rights and laws out of whole cloth, creating new precedents, further impinging the rights of every citizen, and building ever growing caseloads to ensure their ongoing employment. If we didn't have a Family Court system (or is it Friend of the Court) that rules for unilateral custody in 7 out of 8 cases (about 80% of those cases being to mom), then we wouldn't need NN, but right now Sole custody ensures a burgeoning caseload for the true friends of the court, attorneys, and it brings in the maximal Title IV-D federal funding to the State. It doesn't take a community to raise a child, it takes a family to raise a child - that is the childs right - to be raised by a loving family, according to the families traditions, values, Morals and ethical standards, not the nanny states guidelines. Robert Kerr Ingham county represntaive - Parents for children member - A Childs Right

it takes a village. Are they lying to us perchance? We better wake up and soon.

their lips are moving. more people have died in teddy kennedy's car than abu grabe prison.

STILL haven't found all the F.B.I. files that hillary kept when she was first lady... where did THOSE all go? what REALLY happened to Vince Foster? what about WHITEWATER? are they still selling drugs there?

'If the tenants of this resolution...' Who do these 'tenants' rent from?

A commenter wrote: about this amendment that it is "redundant and useless" and that it "is absolutely guaranteed to spur litigation" When our federal tax dollars create a financial incentive for the state to separate parents and their children. Former employees are coming forward and describing their previous involvement in what amounts to Racketeering in the Michigan FOC. When, in the CSPER report, the FOC recommends that it be have the power to starve out poor young women and their babies by refusing them welfare if they aren't "cooperating" with them. Or when, in the CSPER report, saddle young men facing a false paternity judgment with the cost of paying for both sides before being allowed to talk to a judge. Or when most local FOCs simply DO NOT have parenting time policies: "Develop and recommend guidelines to be used by an office in determining whether or not parenting time has been wrongfully denied by the custodial parent" (MCL 552.519) And they DO NOT have makeup parenting time policies in full compliance with the law: "Each circuit shall establish a makeup parenting time policy under which a parent who has been wrongfully denied parenting time is able to make up the parenting time at a later date" (MCL 552.642) We have courts that effectively and openly flout the laws of the state. They hardly limit their "burdens" or "abridgments" to only those that are "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and they certainly don't limit themselves to "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." Look at the appeals courts decisions. We review for blah blah blah. The review? Almost always affirm or a statement to the judge to consider some other factor or another, and almost never retain jurisdiction. The judge modifies her opinion slightly and nothing changes on the ground. With this amendment, the appeals courts will be able to get some control on the worst offenders, those more interested in their own pocketbooks than in justice for families.

I appreciate your readership and participation in state government. It takes astute individuals to bring attention to errors in spelling as well as policy. Thank you and I hope you continue bring any future errors to public attention. Beverly Tran

Honorable Representative Doug Bennet Michigan House District 92 You requested clarification on concrete ways that House Resolution NN would make children's lives better, examples of problems, and how this resolution would resolve it. Given this information, you indicated that you may support this resolution. Today, there is substantial evidence that Michigan family court decisions are being driven in in whole or in part by the financial implications of the court [1], rather than the application of the law and the best interests of children. Former FOC Officer Carol Rhodes described her experiences, saying "It was all about money.... We stumbled over ourselves trying to get more Title 4D cases .... I witnessed regular deception to clients that was mandated by office policy ... policies change from week to week for the profit of the agency" [2] She even talks about how her coworkers colluded with judges to intentionally and completely sever the parent child relationship for those who made trouble for what she called a "racket". This is little more than kidnapping and racketeering [3] We also see in the CSPER report that the SCAO is mishandling state dollars intended for parenting time enforcement, and state, federal, and local dollars intended to handle child support modification requests. [4] Such is their disdain for the law that most local FOC offices do not appear to even have state mandated parenting time policies [5], or state mandated makeup parenting time policies [6], and most parents who have parenting time problems find the FOC unhelpful. When a child custody decision is appealed, the Michigan Appeals court often points to MCL 722.28 [7] and says "MCL 722.28 provides that child custody orders and judgments shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court made “findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.”" [8] It is under this legal cover that all manner of questionable activities continue, including violations of law in Oakland County [9], Ingham and Jackson Counties [10], and elsewhere. Those who would thwart the interests of justice, violate the law, and harm children within Michigan's courts do so knowing that the Michigan Appeals Court will not step in to stop them, because their actions are protected under MCL 722.28. If the Constitutional Amendment proposed by House Joint Resolution NN is passed, the Michigan Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction to stop all local court actions, and all actions by any other part of the government of the State of Michigan whose procedures violate the law or otherwise harm kids. This will ensure that children and their parents are accorded the due process that the legislature of Michigan has deemed appropriate for them, and will guarantee that no law, no matter how cleverly worded, can harm children and parents by allowing local officials to ignore the laws of this state. It is for this reason that house resolution NN would take care of these specific problems, and improve the lives of children. Sincerely, Doug Dante [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24 [3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/454566/Racketeering-in-Michigans-Friend-of-the-Court [4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/477791/A-Review-of-the-CSPER-Report [5] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qo5quk45xtknti450u4bya55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-519 [6] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gjkkug55alvutf55woprxgaj))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-642 [7] http://legislature.mi.gov/(S(obn4fvjcym21p1fwvxpfll55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-28 [8] http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20070322_C274016_42_274016.OPN.PDF [9] http://www.scribd.com/doc/362206/Oakland-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-the-Law-and-Hurts-Kids [10] http://www.scribd.com/doc/362198/Ingham-County-and-Jackon-County-Michigan-FOC-Are-Ignoring-The-Law-and-Hurting-Kids

As a Father who has repeatedly fought this dishonest Family Court system for equal custody I can attest to the fact that this legislation is sorely needed to protect the right of parents who are otherwise disenfranchised by our current system. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that this system is MAKING MONEY from isolating the major wage earner from their children? It is no coincidence that sole mother custody is the norm in Michigan given the fact that the State receives major federal funding based on the amount of money they are able to collect from the non-custodial parents that they create. I have never experienced a more dishonest or corrupt group of individuals than those I have dealt with at the Michigan Friend of the Court or the Michigan Family Courts. Divorce is an industry and a lot of people, the state, laywers, judges, FOC workers and others are making huge money from victimizing non custodial parents. Currently a Michigan Father has no more rights than a common felon. You have the right to remain silent but no right to access to your own children. Michigan Family Courts routinely abuse the constitutional rights of ordinary citizens to raise their children without the benefit of due process. Michigan Families need the protection of this amendment to prevent Family Courts from abusing a parents right to simply raise their children without interference from the government. If and when the government needs to step in they should have a real and convincing case, provide the protections of due process, and treat citizens in a fair and ubiased way. I'm sure that very few Fathers in Michigan can speak out in favor of the way they have been treated by the "system" in Michigan. I know my children have suffered because of the rulings of our local Family Court!

Emergency action when their is clear and convincing evidence of harm will not be inhibited. Your objection is unfounded since the state is still allowed to remove abused children with the wording of this resolution. The resolution will require that there be clear and convincing evidence instead of hearsay and false allegations as is the family court standard now.

“Article I Sec. 23. “The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Which means this parental rights business already has constitutional protection in the state. Thus, the amendment is unnecessary. The impulse to “enumerate” every conceivable right by constitutional amendment tends to cheapen and erode the principle stated in Article I, Section 23. Michigan’s Constitution, like the US Constitution is a document written to limit the scope of government, not expand it. The wording of this proposed amendment clearly states that the government does have authority that supercedes parental rights. That is not a good thing.

"The impulse to “enumerate” every conceivable right by constitutional amendment tends to cheapen and erode the principle" But what will these guys do all day? Maybe this is more evidence that we don't need these twits full time?????

Q: Which came first, the writ or the right? A: "Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hoc parte sequitur" Just another constitutional enigma wrapped in a political conundrum. Beverly Tran

The Constitution may allude to parental protections; the Revised School Code may actually define a parent's rights and "natural and fundamental", however, school districts have found a volume of loopholes to eliminate parents from a child's educational experience. Parents are useful to schools when they carpool, bake cookies, and rubberstamp spending. It's time we got something back for our investments. We also have the right to self expression and due process and school districts have found ways around those constitutionally protected activities as well. The 6th Ciruit court recently ruled that cps referrals, juvenile court referreals, and truancy referrals made by public schools and their representatives on parents who have the audacity to pursue their protected rights via advocacy may be guilty of a "chilling of constitutional rights protected by the first and fourteenth amendments". So, let's finaly put something on the books and enforce it so that parents can advocate and participate in the education of their children. Let's also not forget the tenents of IDEA and FAPE. Parents have a number of venues that are allegedly protected, but enforcement is the real problem. We need to hold public school staff and administrators accountable for acts of malicious prosecution, slander, retaliation and harrassment. Stop protecting the abusers under a veil of exemption. Let parents parent and teachers teach.....

As Speaker of the House, Rep. Dillon was almost certainly aware of or involved in the unconstitutional handling of Rep. Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, a joint resolution to put before the voters a parent's rights amendment. Rather than putting the motion before the entire House, as required by the Michigan Constitution, Dillon allowed the Judiciary committee to kill Representative Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, violating both Michigan's Constitution and Michigan House Rules. " Rep. Stahl moved that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint Resolution NN." Michigan's constitution, covering motions to discharge from committee, reads in part: "Each house, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall choose its own officers and determine the rules of its proceedings, but shall not adopt any rule that will prevent a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein from discharging a committee from the further consideration of any measure ..." Michigan House Rules are constitutionally appropriate, providing under Rule 42 for a vote to discharge among "a majority of the Members elected to and serving in the House": "(3) Nothing in these rules shall prevent a majority of the Members elected to and serving in the House from discharging a committee from further consideration of any measure. (See Const 1963, Art 4 § 16) A notice of one session day shall be given of a motion to discharge any such committee, the notice to be in writing and entered upon the House Journal. If a committee of the House is discharged from further consideration of a bill, the bill shall be placed on the order of Second Reading." And further for motions to discharge must be handled each session under Rule 58: "Always in Order; Not Debatable. Rule 58. (1) The following motions are not debatable: (a) Adjourn; (b) Call of the House; ..... (b) Discharge a committee; ...." Yet the only responsive action was a vote in the committee that is being discharged to postpone action within that committee itself for one day. "9/9/2008 HJ 72 Pg. 2115 motion to discharge committee postponed for day" The vote on the motion to discharge within the Judiciary Committee itself was irrelevant to the motion to discharge, and it violated both Michigan House Rules and Michigan's Constitution.

I allowed my ex husband to take my children out of state while separated, but still married. After 3 months, 2000 miles away, he filed for divorce, sole custody, and a restraining order, so I could not take them back out of state. Without money, I barely attended court. He was awarded all, effectively ending almost all parental rights in practical terms. On top of that, I was ordered to pay child support, adding injustice to injustice. Some states have adopted the view that unless proven unfit, parents will always be awarded joint custody. Not a perfect solution, but better than what happened to me.

However, the HJR 16 is not about one parent against another, but rather parents fighting the over-involvement of the government. Many citizens have never known anyting else and cannot imagine a life anymore, where parents fully govern their children's lives. Homeschoolers are a large group of people within the United States, who still believe not only in the obligation, but also the right to self-govern their families. I believe there are about 1 million home schoolers in the U.S. This bill does not attack or counter the right and responsibility of the government to help protect children from being abused and neglected and should be voted into law.

 

 Absolutely true!

 perhaps we should establish government non-intervention in the constitution. curbing the power of government as opposed to curbing the rights of the people.