Civil Law

Re: 2007 House Bill 4735 (Give preference to relatives over foster care )

beverlytran — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:02:37 GMT

"...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

Re: 2007 House Bill 4735 (Give preference to relatives over foster care )

beverlytran — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:55:32 GMT

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

Re: 2007 House Bill 4735 (Give preference to relatives over foster care )

beverlytran — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 07:03:19 GMT

Thank you very much.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4735 (Give preference to relatives over foster care )

crazycajun — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:21:48 GMT

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.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4735 (Give preference to relatives over foster care )

beverlytran — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:38:25 GMT

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

Different Section of Law?

beverlytran — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:52:16 GMT

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

Different Section of Law?

beverlytran — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:48:31 GMT

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

An Accountability Additive

beverlytran — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:08:07 GMT

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

Are You Going to Save Us or Not?

batran — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:09:08 GMT

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

MCI Superintendant

batran — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:43:38 GMT

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

MCI Superintendant

batran — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:43:13 GMT

In Harms Way or Money

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:01:55 GMT

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.

SAFE for child, EASY for system, parents SIGN rights are VALID

Anonymous Citizen — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:40:08 GMT

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.

Chief Justice Clifford Taylor...Where are you?

batran — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:07:30 GMT

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

PARENTS AND CHILD PREFERENCE SHOULD DETERMINE PLACEMENT

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:34:31 GMT

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.