Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on November 28, 2006, to revise the definition of "child with special needs" in the law that authorizes adoption subsidies for such children, and make other revisions. The bill would require that certain new factors or conditions be considered when determining whether a child is eligible for these subsidies, including a history of abuse or neglect. This would expand the number of children eligible for these subsidies

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

(House Roll Call 1162 at House Journal 90)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Switalski's statement is as follows: This bill has a noble purpose of increasing adoptions, but almost every bill introduced in these chambers has a noble purpose, except some of mine. This one happens to cost $30 million. It was introduced for the first time two weeks ago and it was discharged from committee late last night. So if you want to spend $30 million we don't have, and not show where the revenue is coming from, go ahead. But there are some members on both sides of the aisle who are not so fiscally irresponsible. We have a budgetary process that evaluates all the needs and good ideas and resources at hand and prioritizes them. This is a $30 million spending bill made in a vacuum. Don't be part of such a process.

Senator Whitmer's statement is as follows: I rise to oppose the passage of this bill. In the Judiciary Committee last week, we had testimony, and I tell you, it pulled at your heart strings. These were good people who are doing extraordinary things for some amazing kids, and this is an issue that we should be confronted with, we should be talking about. But the fact of the matter is that this bill was discharged late last night. It was only introduced two weeks ago and it was passed through the House in one day. We do not have the facts as to what the real costs of this bill are, and for a group of people who say we are all aboutbeing fiscally responsible, it is irresponsible to move forward a change of this magnitude without taking the time to seewhat the costs are. The cost of additional assistance alone in this bill would be $10-$20 million the department estimates. The medical subsidiary cost of the Medicaid system is much higher than that. We are looking at a $20-$30 million price tag on this bill alone that has only been in existence for 14 days. It certainly merits our consideration but it certainly, as well, merits a much lengthier study as to what the real cost is going to be and how we are going to balance the budget. We've got a quarter of the state's General Fund, which is still unknown as to what we are going to do with the tax structure in the state of Michigan. To make changes of this magnitude at the twelfth hour is irresponsible, and I will oppose this bill for those reasons, but not because ultimately this may make good public policy because these are extraordinary people doing wonderful things. This is irresponsible at this twelfth hour and we need to oppose this bill today.

The continuance of child welfare enhancement policy will in no shape or form ameliorate the systematic errors of the antiquated child protective services structures. Included within these structures is the Michigan Children's Institute which has never been evaluated nor reviewed for performance standards since its inception in 1935. FDR is rolling in his grave. The time has come to open discussion regarding the legitimacy of MCI and the decisions, thereof. Senator Barcia has been bold enough to tackle the transparency issue of MCI. I strongly suggest we, as concerned citizens and elected officials follow his lead and "air the dirty laundry". Before anything can be approved for inception of new policy furthering the "arbitrary and capricious" practices of Bill Johnson, the Superintendent of MCI...The sole decision-maker who ensures the state meets its previous year's federal benchmarks for SSA Title IV-E funding, I believe it would behoove all to take the time to request some educated and expertise in assessing the long-term implications of such a policy. Implementation of rules is supposed to embrace the component of review, or rather quantitative analysis. Unfortunately, the previous legislature has found it politically beneficial to remove transparency of their actions with "quick and dirty" analysis of policy. It is time evaluation of all child welfare policies be placed in the hands of trained political engineers....and not "social workers". I do not know about you, but I prefer to listen to the social engineer of a system because they possess the capacity and the receptiveness to improve and revise through innovation. Social workers only follow rules and directives. On that, scathing note, Bill Johnson is a social worker for MCI who answers to Marianne Udow, Director of the Department of Human Services. There is no communication between the two. As to date, Rhode Island, Illinois, Florida, and Pennsylvania have embraced a new direction of leadership in their Human Services Divisions. The time has come for Michigan to do the same. "Out with the old and in with new"... Happy New Year, Michigan Department of Human Services!