The State Bar of Michigan has clearly identified the key component of HB 4564 that would create burdens in the execution of applying the presumption of joint custody.
There is no legal definition of "unfit" and "fit" contained within this bill and would leave the court to import existing state standards under child protection law., MCL 722.622 et seq. Not only would the child protection standards of "fitness" have to be relied upon, but also the services and authorities to make these determinations. This would result in an unnecessary financial burden upon the state to provide the determination of fitness services as well and the responsibility to provide services to address whatever issues have placed the parent in a position of questionable fitness.
When it is determined by the courts that a parent is "unfit", according to current probate procedures, the state is mandated to monitor and supervise the parent-child relationship and possesses the authority to initiate termination of parental rights.
The judicial ability to make determinations would be transferred to the identified authorities who would make the determinations of fitness, and that usurps the powers of the court.
I oppose HB 4564 on the grounds of its negative fiscal impact and lack of clarity on the statutory definition of "fitness".
Joint custody is a wonderful concept but the realities make it not so.
Joint custody would alleviate the burdens of child support but would increase the financial responsibilities of both parties to provide and maintain housing and its amenities. This is what I call a duplication of services.
Duplication of services, for each parent to maintain and provide separate households may be feasible for those who are financially secure, but what about the individuals who are barely making ends meet?
Michigan currently views economic hardship as a standard of "unfitness", so I am concerned that poverty will be used as grounds for determining custody of the child in these domestic cases, the same way it is used in Child Protection proceedings. This is a duplication of services on the part of the state, because, now, services must be put in place to allow equal treatment under the law in the determination of the domestic custody.
What concerns me the most of this bill is, at any time, a party may make allegations that a parent is unfit. These allegations would be filed with the local Child Protective Services Office, weighting the powers of the state to intercede in the judicial decision of custody. At this point, if there is an allegation of "unfitness" there could be a subsequent case opened in child protection proceedings, thus, transferring the case outside the jurisdictional venue of a custody proceeding.
The idea is novel but immature. Until there is clarification whether this will be a Child Protection issue, I would recommend the bill be sent back into committee for further evaluation.
No comments:
Post a Comment