Absolutely Omnipotent

More powerful than a federal Judge, more powers than the Governor, more authority than the Attorney General, look, up in the sky!

Is it God?  No.

It's the Michigan Children's Institute Superintendent!  He is absolutely omnipotent.


 THE MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE SUPERINTENDENT’S DECISION TO DENY CONSENT TO A BLOOD RELATIVE’S ADOPTION PETITION IS NOT ‘ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS’ IF THERE ARE GOOD REASONS TO GRANT CONSENT AND GOOD REASONS TO DENY CONSENT TO THE RELATIVE’S PETITION.  IT IS THE ABSENCE OF ANY GOOD REASON TO WITHHOLD CONSENT, NOT THE PRESENCE OF GOOD REASONS TO GRANT IT, THAT INDICATES THE SUPERINTENDENT WAS ACTING IN AN ‘ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS’ MANNER  By Judge Thomas E. Nelson In re Fenner-Bailey, (Unpublished #279990), 3/13/08

Domestic Relations Review Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page

This case involves an appeal of the trial court’s ruling that the Michigan Children’s Institute Superintendent’s decision to withhold consent to appellants’ petition for adoption of their blood relative was not “arbitrary and capricious”.

The child involved had been living with the foster parents who were given the MCI Superintendent’s consent to adopt for over ½ of her 4 years of life.  She had formed a strong psychological bond with the foster parents, whom she referred to as mom and dad.  The appellants maintain that they had a similar bond with the child.  However, that does not undermine the child’s attachment with the foster parents.  Psychological attachment is not a zero sum game.

The relatives also challenged the child’s long-term therapist’s conclusions regarding the bond between the foster parents and the prospective adoptee.  They suggested that the therapist never observed the child and foster parents interact.  However, the Court of Appeals indicated that the trial court was correct in relying on the therapist who interacted with the child professionally for a significant portion of her life and at the time the relevant proceedings and placement were occurring.

The appellants also argue that the MCI Superintendent’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and did not follow the Department of Human Services’ policy manual to give preferential treatment or first choice to relatives seeking to adopt. The appellants offered no legal authority to support that argument. Furthermore, the appellants were originally given custody of the child, but they requested she be placed with the foster parents in order to promote the transition to a permanent home.

Bottom line, the Court of Appeals held that “if there are good reasons to grant consent and good reasons to withhold it, it cannot be said that the decision to withhold consent was arbitrary and capricious”.  It is the absence of any good reason to withhold consent, not the presence of good reasons to grant it, that indicates that the representative was acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner”.
Domestic Relations Review
Return to Calhoun County Courts Home Page

---

Last updated 4-2-08
Send your comments, questions and suggestions to Phil Harter at 161 E Michigan Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 49014 or e mail to pharter@calhouncountymi.gov

And the court never said anything about the decision being right and wrong.

The reason the appellants could not prove the Superintendent did not follow the policy manual is because the policy manual does not exist.

FOIA Michigan Children's Institute Production of Documents