It seems Michigan is about to introduce in the next Legislative session, another Bill to reinstate parental rights.In 2010, the first reinstatement of parental rights bill was introduced by then Senator Martha Scott. I spoke with her on the Bill and she had no clue on what it was. Typical.
But then I was anonymously challenged on the legitimacy of my statement that this was the first reinstatement of parental rights state legislation.
Swiftly responding, I had to clarify by examining specific language of the 2010 Bill.
"(4) THE COURT SHALL TERMINATE THE RIGHTS OF THE MCI AND REINSTATE A PARENT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS..."
This language is omitted from the 2015 Senate Bill.
For those who claim to be so concerned about the "best interests of the child" yet, either knowingly or willingly, have miserably failed to even make a puerile attempt to grasp a rudimentary understanding the legal genesis of child welfare, and child welfare in Michigan, here are my 2 cents:
To begin, there is no legal standard of "fitness". If a parent is determined to be "unfit" this is when the child is placed under the auspices of the state. This issue of "fitness" has previously been addressed in past legislation, devoid of support from the Michigan State Bar.
Then, why is MCI, once again, reinvigorated with its artificial ultra vires powers? For those who are not familiar with this nefarious organization, deeply ensconced within the muddled quagmire of child welfare law and policy of Michigan, allow me to proudly present to you, the man, the myth, the legend, the legal guardian to more than 10,000 children, held to no legal standard, accountable to no one, ever, the Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute, Bill Johnson, with his successor being Bruce Hoffman.
So, how can the legal parent function in an arena with such a conflict of interest to make a recommendation to reinstate parental rights when they were the ones who fought, successfully I might add, under the Cotton rule which means that one must prove the decision to grant approval or withhold the grant of approval for adoption by the MCI Superintendent was "arbitrary and capricious", not that the denial was based upon false, non-factual evidence, or even fraud. Seriously.
Is this not a conflict of interest considering the fact that this Bill lacks any reference to the termination of the MCI parental rights, first.
Now, I immediately have identified the major flaw of this Bill as it is referred to the Senate Committee on Families, Seniors and Human Services and not Judiciary. Termination and Reinstatement of parental rights is a judicial determination, one which has traditionally been functioning under the legal doctrine of child welfare, "guilty until proven innocent".
Remember, there are no civil rights in child welfare.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is the only qualified venue to address the legal matters of child welfare. Reinstatement captures issues within immigration, interstate and due process because parallel jurisprudence does not exist in dependency courts nor do civil rights in the administrative process.
It is only through judicial determination that certain funding streams are opened in child welfare.
This is Michigan's way of addressing its perversive issues with human trafficking. The majority of individuals who are victims of human trafficking hail from the child welfare system, where the issue has been adopted by the Attorney General, another reason why the proper venue is the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Senate Committee on Families, Seniors and Human Services has historically failed, with breathtaking incompetence, to ever, address the legal deficiencies of child welfare. Besides, the members, to my knowledge, do not have legal backgrounds and demonstrate inherent conflicts of interests, which, of course, is never publicly disclosed.
But this is the funniest part, how can you have a parent get a Central Registry Clearance when there is a jack-legged administrative review process which takes, possibly, years. See, if there were civil rights, more intuitively, due process, in child welfare, then the sponsors of this Bill should know that an individual who is denied expungement has the constitutional right to challenge any administrative decision in a traditional court of law.
Will there be training for the judges and attorneys and if so, who is going to pay for it?
Will there be funding for court appointed attorneys representing the parents to appeal decisions if reinstatement of parental rights is not ordered or will it be back to business as usual.
Unfortunately, equal justice under the law costs lots of money. So where are the funding mechanisms?
Medicaid. Yes, that is correct and I am quite sure there are those who salivate at the opportunity to expand privatized child welfare services which have no oversight, whatsoever.
Why is it there is a 3 year waiting period before there is a reinstatement review? That is just draconian and an obvious opportunity to generate cost reimbursements to these privatized organizations to keep the child in care for as long as they can be milked. This also does not provide incentive for any agency to approve or recommend reinstatement of parental rights.
Maine has a 90 day dispositional review period. Unfortunately, Maine has not done very much implementing the new policies.
Continuing on the money aspect, I propose every child returned to their original source, (as I like to refer) should automatically have advocacy set in place so they are eligible for SSI. California has a program because 9 times out of 10, parental rights were terminated due to some ill of poverty.
Lastly, as I end another one of my two penny pontifications on Michigan child welfare, I would like to ask a simple question: What is a parent? The Bill needs to be much more specific as a "parent" may not be the original guardian of the child prior to removal.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©
No comments:
Post a Comment