This is a proposed bill to establish shared custody. I know all about this and it has the best intentions, but there are substantial flaws.
Underneath, the movement began as a way of fathers protecting themselves from the outrageous antics of Friend of the Court. The likelihood of a father going to jail for not being able to make payment is substantial. Loose a job, go to jail. Interest accrues, the father never is able to catch up and goes in and out of jail. When the father is in jail, he cannot see his children nor work. Because he has been in jail for non-payment of child support, he cannot hold a job.
In essence, this is great but the revenue maximizers stepped and inserted the code word "fit".
Who determines "fitness"? Child Protective Services.
What happens if a parent is determined to be "unfit"? Termination of parental rights.
The child is placed under the auspices of the state. The state can share custody with the fit parent and begin to double dip.
Because of the one little word of "fit", the flood gates to tens of millions in Medicaid dollars come rolling into the state. Medicaid pays for the fitness test.
Michigan was the first to try it and got shot down. The state bar concurred.
We already have individual right protections. This bill was not written to identify constraints of government, it is intrusive.
Besides, would you let someone call you unfit without a fight? Another added cost to the state.
Alabama Fit Parent Bill
Showing posts with label equal parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label equal parenting. Show all posts
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Michigan Joint Custody Bill Fails Fitness Test
From the State Bar of Michigan
Joint Legal and Physical Custody Initiative: Reader Comment
A reader offers more policy arguments to the State Bar's objections to mandatory joint and physical custody (see Language of Petition to Amend the Child Custody Act to Create Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Physical Custody Approved ). Beverly Tran, a policy analyst, writes on her own blog:
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.
Joint Legal and Physical Custody Initiative: Reader Comment
A reader offers more policy arguments to the State Bar's objections to mandatory joint and physical custody (see Language of Petition to Amend the Child Custody Act to Create Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Physical Custody Approved ). Beverly Tran, a policy analyst, writes on her own blog:
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.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Michigan Shared Parenting Duplicates Services
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)