Civil Law

Re: 2008 Senate Bill 1418 (Revise child abuse case procedures )

anonym — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:09:35 GMT

I would post all the names of who voted for this bill in the Senate to all the families in Michigan that suffer the false accusations by the CPS and by their ex-spouses. I bet that it would change the next election and these persons will not be elected again.

Re: 2008 Senate Bill 1418 (Revise child abuse case procedures )

anonym — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:01:00 GMT

This bill is not good. The law makers should realize that CPS is adding in their investigative reports just hearsay with no actual proof. Therefore, this allows the other parent just make a numerous false calls to CPS and thus, gain the custody ... JUST BECAUSE there are numerous false reports in CPS files!!!!!! Whose bright idea this bill was? do they not even think about this.

Also CPS should not be allowed to write down hearsay without a concrete proof of evidence. Just hearsay is no proof.

Now they can put you to their Central Registry with NO ACTUAL PROOF and even when there is proof that you are innocent. CPS has lied in Michigan and seems to be able to continue doing so still until some law maker will take a real action. There should be audits more frequently of the CPS procedures and actions. They also do discriminate foreigners in their procedures and just because (to quote a CPS supervisor in MIchigan) " they do not have to know state law, federal law or immigration law"

This is the agency that you allow distroy families and now allow the hearsay and lies to affect the custody rulings, too.

UNBELIEVABLE! Michigan seems to become more of state of *** and CPS dictatorship than a democracy.

Do Your HomeWork

Anonymous Citizen — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:57:16 GMT

Yes Preponderance of Evidence is important, but at the lowest level for Family and Administrative Courts. However, you need to do your legal homework and find out how this information can be presented a evidence and not just hearsay.

perponderance of evidence

Anonymous Citizen — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:37:17 GMT

I have been told by Family Advocacy and an agent from the child ombudsman's office that CPS can add whatever information they want to in thir reports. If a child states "Mommy picks her nose", they can add that. But when the child has told law enforcement, working with CPS that "Daddy says don't tell nobody", they don't have to add that to their report. CPS has a journal of the child's odd sexual behavior for a three year old and doesn't even add that into their report. A journal has been submitted to CPS to prove enough probable cause that sexual abuse is occuring but they choose not to add that information into their reports. How can they actually say there is not a "perponderance of evidence" when they don't read or write the evidence??? I believe something needs to change in the way CPS writes their reports. They should not be given the opportunity to write what they want to. I feel there needs to be legal consequences against this.

Family Preservation

beverlytran — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:55 GMT

It is with the greatest excitement that we see the coordination of SWSS-CPS and FOC. So, I take it BRIDGES is up and running...snicker. On another serious note, this assists in the compliance of dealing with absent parent protocol and facilitates relative placements for family preservation. This is fiscally responsible legislation. Beverly Tran

Secret Evidence - End of Confidentiality

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:02:32 GMT

There are two fundamental problems with SB 1418-1421. Firstly, it allows the inclusion of secret evidence in custody proceedings. Secondly, it invalidates mediator confidentiality. The first can be fixed by requiring that parents have access to all information on which custody decision is made unless there is clear and convincing evidence that there is a threat of bodily harm to the child or the reporting person. The second can be fixed by stating explicitly that the provision for mandated reporting do not alter or reduce confidentiality anywhere else in law. I have not read the entire DHS settlement. I did read the summary. It requires more DHS officers on the beat and more money. I didn't see any mandates that custody decisions must be driven by secret information or that mediator confidentiality be revoked. SB 1418: - Basically gives FOC automatic (paragraph 19) and blanket (paragraph 9)(t) access to all DHS confidential files. Parents have no access. If aunt Millie mistakenly believes that dad is hurting his child, FOC will know this. Dad will not. Dad can then loose his custody battle, involving either the other parent or the state, and have no access to the information on which the decision was made, and no right to confront his accuser. I'd expect that the courts and COA would have similar access to these secret files on which child custody decisions are made. - DHS is not required to report multiple false allegations to FOC (paragraph 20), and is forbidden from reporting less than 3-5 false allegations, depending on timing. - The bill fails to correctly recognize joint legal custody, refering to other parent as "non-custodial parent". This is legally inncorrect, and will allow courts to lump joint legal custody cases in with non-joint legal custody cases. (pargraph 21) However, it does require the "non custodial parent" to be given a form explaining how to modify custody or parenting time. Often, these parents do not know their rights. SB 1419: - DHS is automatically informed of all actions in FOC cases. (paragraph 2) SB 1420: - FOC employees in a professional capacity are mandated reporters. (section 3, a) This will likely invalidate mediator confidentiality (MCL 552.513) SB 1421: - Forces supervisors to sign off on a specific checklist to close any investigation.

DHS has a credibility problem

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:45:45 GMT

DHS/CPS has a credibility problem-clearly we don't know abuse and neglect when we see it or we create the illusion where there is none. We waste valuable resources by allowing some of the least qualified individuals to investigate and decide what is and isn't abuse and/or neglect. Let's create some measureable guidelines and enforce them with actual law enforcement agencies rather than leaving it to social workers who are underqualified and overwhelmed. We simply allow too much to the discretion of individuals who are not versed in due process, the full realm of case law, or the investigatory process. If ever there was an agency that needs to be dismantled and reassembled it would be DHS/CPS. They have a credibility issue because we don't provide the best practices with the most appropriate investigators. Let's decide if we want CPS to be law enforcement or a social services support resource. We're trying to do both and it ain't working....

!st CPS has to do their job

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:56:25 GMT

First of all their are unfound complaints because CPS/DHS don't even do their job. They get the report at 9 and close the case by 9:30amThis was a nice thought but first you need to enforce CPS to do their jobs and do them correctly with a thorugh investigation but hey they aren't even professionally trained for this right?????????

2008 Senate Bill 1418 (Revise child abuse case procedures )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the Senate on June 26, 2008, to revise and add to the current requirements for coordination between Friend of the Court offices and the Department of Human Services in cases of child abuse or neglect. The DHS would be required to notify the FOC whenever there is a suspected child abuse or neglect case involving any of the latter’s cases, and would be allowed to notify the FOC if there have been multiple unfounded abuse complaints from one parent about the other parent. The DHS would be required to notify parents of a child who is suspected of being abused or neglected of their option to request a change in child placement

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

(Senate Roll Call 540 at Senate Journal 75)

Click here to view bill details.