Anonymous Challenges Beverly Tran On Michigan Proposed Reinstatement Bill

Recently, I was challenged by an individual who goes by the name of Anonymous who brought to my attention that Michigan is not the first state to propose reinstatement of parental rights legislation.  My contention, beyond not properly identifying oneself for credibility, was this:

I am quite familiar with that code which is one of 4 states that has a limited exception to reunification.

Unfortunately, you did not understand that this particular piece of legislation deals with a a reunification factor that provides services to that family.

In numerous situations, children are chattel ranched through the foster care system due to poverty.

Failure to provide for the necessary needs of the child. There have been multiple, well documented cases, presenting this pattern of practice. Parental rights may be terminated because it is the only way to access proper medical care for the child.

I actually helped on the Washington piece with Pam Roach's people.

Again, I remain steadfast on my position, there is no other full reunification for I refer to one particular section of the Michigan Bill that I truly enjoy:

"(4) THE COURT SHALL TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF THE MCI AND

REINSTATE A PARENT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS..."

This is the only proposed legislation in the nation whereby the state actually 'terminates' its own grant of custody and guardianship of an individual. I wrote a book on it. Of Parental Rights: The Acquisition of Goods. I also filed a quo warranto in Michigan.

By the state self-terminating its own parental rights, it is properly applying the doctrine of parens patriae officially registering the transfer of the grant of custody and guardianship, the moveable good, itself.  This is due process.

I thank you so much for engaging me and forcing me to clarify myself. For comparison, I have included the California Code below you have so graciously provided.

(i)(1)Any order of the court permanently terminating parental rights under this section shall be conclusive and binding upon the child, upon the parent or parents and upon all other persons who have been served with citation by publication or otherwise as provided in this chapter. After making the order, the juvenile court shall have no power to set aside, change, or modify it, except as provided in paragraph (2), but nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the right to appeal the order.

(2)A child who has not been adopted after the passage of at least three years from the date the court terminated parental rights and for whom the court has determined that adoption is no longer the permanent plan may petition the juvenile court to reinstate parental rights pursuant to the procedure prescribed by Section 388. The child may file the petition prior to the expiration of this three-year period if the State Department of Social Services or licensed adoption agency that is responsible for custody and supervision of the child as described in subdivision (j) and the child stipulate that the child is no longer likely to be adopted. A child over 12 years of age shall sign the petition in the absence of a showing of good cause as to why the child could not do so. If it appears that the best interests of the child may be promoted by reinstatement of parental rights, the court shall order that a hearing be held and shall give prior notice, or cause prior notice to be given, to the social worker or probation officer and to the child's attorney of record, or, if there is no attorney of record for the child, to the child, and the child's tribe, if applicable, by means prescribed by subdivision (c) of Section 297. The court shall order the child or the social worker or probation officer to give prior notice of the hearing to the child's former parent or parents whose parental rights were terminated in the manner prescribed by subdivision (f) of Section 294 where the recommendation is adoption. The juvenile court shall grant the petition if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is no longer likely to be adopted and that reinstatement of parental rights is in the child's best interest. If the court reinstates parental rights over a child who is under 12 years of age and for whom the new permanent plan will not be reunification with a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its findings that it is in the best interest of the child to reinstate parental rights. This subdivision is intended to be retroactive and applies to any child who is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court at the time of the hearing regardless of the date parental rights were terminated.