Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 28, 2008, to authorize the retroactive payment of certain state adoption subsidy money to the Bay County parents who in 2004 were about to adopt a child who died

The vote was 105 in favor, 0 opposed and 5 not voting

(House Roll Call 674 at House Journal 65)

Click here to view bill details.

Why is it that there exists no statute or policy rule in dealing with the adoption of a child who is in foster care by foster parents who loose their license? Even if a foster parent looses their licenses, for whatever reason, the child is not removed, if the foster parent wishes to adopt. Basically, if the foster parent has lost their license to be a foster parent, the agencies simply change the funding source to adoption placement. Quintessentially, the federal government, will never find violations of material provisions of law or policy committed by the state. Brilliant...simply brilliant, I tell you. Beverly Tran

Children should no longer be considered as chattel, or more readily recognized as commodities. Integrating a child into retroactive financial reimbursement is no more than a "money-back-guarantee" upon the "good" that has expired. Will natural parents be able to garner similar "money-back-guarantees" if their children die, or are reunified by the state from its custody as "damaged goods"? Consumer protection law is covered by the Freedom Of Information Act, which is shrouded by public fear, veiled by political sensationalism of abuse and neglect. If the state is to pay an adopter federal compensation, then it is only "natural" to compensate the natural parent, for there exists multitudes of reasonings why the initial termination of parental rights happened in the first place. Stop the human trafficking through the penal colonization of poverty. This is nothing more than a state issued usufruct tax-write-off. Beverly Tran