My 2 Cents: Michigan Reinstatement Of Parental Rights

It seems Michigan is about to introduce in the next Legislative session, another Bill to reinstate parental rights.

Rumor has it Senator Rick Jones and Senator Judy Emmons will have the honor.

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.

Michigan Senate Bill for Reinstatement of Parental Rights by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Reinstatement of Parental Rights Policy- Maine by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

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.

Michigan Reinstatement of Parental Rights Bill

This is the first ever in the nation for a state to introduce legislation to reinstate parental rights.


This is historical.


Even though the bill is sine die, it was read twice and referred to Committee.  It is being fast-tracked.  Please take notice that there is no Social Welfare Commission and its powers were transfered to, well I assume you can say, were absorbed with the Director, I guess.


Perhaps, the state will resurrect the Social Welfare Commission, a citizen panel of oversight of Michigan Children's Institute...after Governor Snyder does not allow Bill Johnson, the Superintendent to come back to the administration.


Thank you Senator Scott for making history for Michigan, and the rest of the world.

Senate Bill No. 1586, entitled

A bill to amend 1935 PA 220, entitled “An act to provide family home care for children committed to the care of the state, to create the Michigan children’s institute under the control of the Michigan social welfare commission, to prescribe the powers and duties thereof, and to provide penalties for violations of certain provisions of this act,” by amending sections 7 and 9 (MCL 400.207 and 400.209), section 7 as amended by 1998 PA 525 and section 9 as amended by 2004 PA 470.

The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Families and Human Services.

Senator Scott introduced.

SENATE BILL No. 1586

November 30, 2010, Introduced by Senator SCOTT and referred to the Committee on Families and Human Services.

     A bill to amend 1935 PA 220, entitled

"An act to provide family home care for children committed to the

care of the state, to create the Michigan children's institute

under the control of the Michigan social welfare commission, to

prescribe the powers and duties thereof, and to provide penalties

for violations of certain provisions of this act,"

by amending sections 7 and 9 (MCL 400.207 and 400.209), section 7

as amended by 1998 PA 525 and section 9 as amended by 2004 PA 470.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

     Sec. 7. (1) The department shall promulgate necessary rules

for the maintenance, health, instruction, and training of the

children under the control of the Michigan children's institute,

for placing them in homes, and for their supervision while they

remain public wards. The liability of a county for the cost of a

child's care shall be determined under the youth rehabilitation

services act, 1974 PA 150, MCL 803.301 to 803.309.

     (2) The superintendent is the authorized agent of the

department to implement this act.

     (3) The superintendent or the department may receive any

donation, grant, or personal property for the benefit of the

children of the Michigan children's institute. Upon receiving a

donation, grant, or personal property, the superintendent or the

department shall remit it within 30 days to the state treasury to

be credited to the Michigan children's institute trust fund, which

is created in the state treasury. The state treasurer may keep as

much of the fund as the treasurer considers advisable invested in

United States government bonds, notes, bills, certificates, or

other obligations, and shall credit the earnings on the investments

to the fund.

     (4) The department may expend necessary amounts for the

purposes of the Michigan children's institute for the care and

education of the children during minority or until released as

provided in this act. When a part of the trust fund is required by

the department for these purposes, the superintendent shall obtain

those funds by requisition.

     (5) The department may utilize facilities existing in a county

in caring for children and may accept the services of a voluntary

organization for the benefit of the children, subject to rules

promulgated by the department. The superintendent shall enforce

these rules on behalf of the department.

     (6) An agreement entered into with a person for the care of a

child who is a ward of the Michigan children's institute shall

provide that the department may cancel the agreement if, in the

department's opinion, the interest of the child requires it. If a

parent or relative within the third degree of consanguinity or

affinity of a child who is a ward of the institute establishes a

suitable home and is capable and willing to support the child, the

department may restore the child to his or her parent or relative.

The institute may assist the parent or relative with the support of

the child if the aid is less than the cost of care the institute

would otherwise provide.

     (7) The department may place and maintain a child under the

control of the institute in a licensed boarding home for children.

The expense of supervision and transportation of the child to the

home shall be paid out of money appropriated to the institute,

subject to partial reimbursement by the county liable as provided

in this section. The superintendent shall cause an investigation of

the condition and suitability of each boarding home to be made and

a report to be made and kept on file at the superintendent's

office. The report shall have the superintendent's approval before

a child of the institute may be placed in the licensed boarding

home.

     Sec. 9. (1) The superintendent of the institute is authorized

to consent to the REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, adoption,

marriage, or emancipation of any child who may have been committed

to the institute, according to the laws for the REINSTATEMENT OF

PARENTAL RIGHTS, adoption, marriage, or emancipation of minors. On

such REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS, adoption, marriage, or

emancipation, the child so adopted, married, or emancipated shall

cease to be a ward of the state.

     (2) On the effective date of the amendatory act that added

this subsection, the family independence agency DECEMBER 28, 2004,

THE DEPARTMENT shall discontinue the Michigan children's institute

preliminary consent denial review process.

SENATE BILL No. 1587

November 30, 2010, Introduced by Senator SCOTT and referred to the Committee on Families and Human Services.

     A bill to amend 1939 PA 288, entitled

"Probate code of 1939,"

by amending sections 19c and 20 of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.19c and

712A.20), section 19c as amended by 2008 PA 203, and by adding

section 21a to chapter XIIA.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

                            CHAPTER XIIA

     Sec. 19c. (1) Except as provided in section 19(4) of this

chapter and subject to subsection (14), if a child remains in

placement following the termination of parental rights to the

child, the court shall conduct a review hearing not more than 91

days after the termination of parental rights and no later than

every 91 days after that hearing for the first year following

termination of parental rights to the child. If a child remains in

a placement for more than 1 year following termination of parental

rights to the child, a review hearing shall be held no later than

182 days from the immediately preceding review hearing before the

end of the first year and no later than every 182 days from each

preceding review hearing thereafter until the case is dismissed. A

review hearing under this subsection shall not be canceled or

delayed beyond the number of days required in this subsection,

regardless of whether any other matters are pending. Upon motion by

any party or in the court's discretion, a review hearing may be

accelerated to review any element of the case. The court shall

conduct the first permanency planning hearing within 12 months from

the date that the child was originally removed from the home.

Subsequent permanency planning hearings shall be held within 12

months of the preceding permanency planning hearing. If proper

notice for a permanency planning hearing is provided, a permanency

planning hearing may be combined with a review hearing held under

section 19(2) to (4) of this chapter. A permanency planning hearing

under this section shall not be canceled or delayed beyond the

number of months required in this subsection, regardless of whether

any other matters are pending. At a hearing under this section, the

court shall review all of the following:

     (a) The appropriateness of the permanency planning goal for

the child. THE COURT MAY ORDER THE AGENCY TO INVESTIGATE THE

APPROPRIATENESS OF REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER SECTION

21A OF THIS CHAPTER.

     (b) The appropriateness of the child's placement.

     (c) The reasonable efforts being made to place the child for

adoption or in other permanent placement in a timely manner.

     (2) Subject to subsection (3), if the court determines that it

is in the child's best interests, the court may appoint a guardian

for the child.

     (3) The court shall not appoint a guardian for the child

without the written consent of the MCI superintendent. The MCI

superintendent shall consult with the child's lawyer guardian ad

litem when considering whether to grant written consent.

     (4) If a person believes that the decision to withhold the

consent required in subsection (3) is arbitrary or capricious, the

person may file a motion with the court. A motion under this

subsection shall contain information regarding both of the

following:

     (a) The specific steps taken by the person to obtain the

consent required and the results, if any.

     (b) The specific reasons why the person believes that the

decision to withhold consent was arbitrary or capricious.

     (5) If a motion is filed under subsection (4), the court shall

set a hearing date and provide notice to the MCI superintendent,

the foster parents, the prospective guardian, the child, and the

child's lawyer guardian ad litem.

     (6) Subject to subsection (8), if a hearing is held under

subsection (5) and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the decision to withhold consent was arbitrary or capricious,

the court may approve the guardianship without the consent of the

MCI superintendent.

     (7) A guardian appointed under this section has all of the

powers and duties set forth under section 15 of the estates and

protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.5215.

     (8) If a child is placed in a guardian's or a proposed

guardian's home under subsection (2) or (6), the court shall order

the department of human services to perform an investigation and

file a written report of the investigation for a review under

subsection (10) and the court shall order the department of human

services to do all of the following:

     (a) Perform a criminal record check within 7 days.

     (b) Perform a central registry clearance within 7 days.

     (c) Perform a home study and file a copy of the home study

with the court within 30 days unless a home study has been

performed within the immediately preceding 365 days, under section

13a(9) of this chapter. If a home study has been performed within

the immediately preceding 365 days, a copy of that home study shall

be submitted to the court.

     (9) The court's jurisdiction over a juvenile under section

2(b) of this chapter and the jurisdiction of the Michigan

children's institute under section 3 of 1935 PA 220, MCL 400.203,

shall be terminated after the court appoints a guardian under this

section and conducts a review hearing under section 19 of this

chapter, unless the juvenile is released sooner by the court.

     (10) The court's jurisdiction over a guardianship created

under this section shall continue until released by court order.

The court shall review a guardianship created under this section

annually and may conduct additional reviews as the court considers

necessary. The court may order the department or a court employee

to conduct an investigation and file a written report of the

investigation.

     (11) The court may, on its own motion or upon petition from

the department of human services or the child's lawyer guardian ad

litem, hold a hearing to determine whether a guardianship appointed

under this section shall be revoked.

     (12) A guardian may petition the court for permission to

terminate the guardianship. A petition may include a request for

appointment of a successor guardian.

     (13) After notice and hearing on a petition for revocation or

permission to terminate the guardianship, if the court finds by a

preponderance of evidence that continuation of the guardianship is

not in the child's best interests, the court shall revoke or

terminate the guardianship and appoint a successor guardian or

commit the child to the Michigan children's institute under section

3 of 1935 PA 220, MCL 400.203.

     (14) This section applies only to a child's case in which

parental rights to the child were either terminated as the result

of a proceeding under section 2(b) of this chapter or a similar law

of another state or terminated voluntarily following the initiation

of a proceeding under section 2(b) of this chapter or a similar law

of another state. This section applies as long as the child is

subject to the jurisdiction, control, or supervision of the court

or of the Michigan children's institute or other agency.

     Sec. 20. The court in all cases involving custody shall state

in the order for disposition or any supplemental order of

disposition whether the child is placed in the temporary or

permanent custody of the court. If the child is placed in the

temporary custody of the court, no supplemental order of

disposition providing permanent custody, or containing any other

order of disposition shall be made except at a hearing pursuant

ACCORDING to issuance of summons or notice as provided in sections

12 and 13 of this chapter or at a rehearing provided by section 19

of this chapter. If the child is placed in the permanent custody of

the court, all parental rights are terminated, though such THE

rights may be reinstated by a supplemental order of disposition

after rehearing pursuant to UNDER section 21 OF THIS CHAPTER OR BY

AN ORDER REINSTATING PARENTAL RIGHTS ACCORDING TO SECTION 21A OF

THIS CHAPTER.

     SEC. 21A. (1) IF THE COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT ADOPTION IS NO

LONGER THE JUVENILE'S PERMANENCY GOAL, AND IF AT LEAST 3 YEARS HAVE

PASSED FROM THE DATE THE COURT TERMINATED PARENTAL RIGHTS, THE

AGENCY OR THE JUVENILE MAY FILE A PETITION REQUESTING REINSTATEMENT

OF PARENTAL RIGHTS. THE JUVENILE'S LAWYER-GUARDIAN AD LITEM OR AN

ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 17D(2) OF THIS

CHAPTER SHALL ASSIST THE JUVENILE TO FILE A PETITION UNDER THIS

SECTION. THE COURT MAY ORDER PARENTING TIME ACCORDING TO SECTION

13A OF THIS CHAPTER PENDING A HEARING ON THE PETITION.

     (2) THE COURT SHALL NOT REINSTATE PARENTAL RIGHTS TO A FORMER

PARENT OF A JUVENILE WHO HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO THE MCI WITHOUT THE

MCI SUPERINTENDENT'S WRITTEN CONSENT.

     (3) IF IT APPEARS FROM THE PETITION THAT THE JUVENILE'S FORMER

PARENT IS FIT TO HAVE PARENTAL RIGHTS REINSTATED AND THE BEST

INTEREST OF THE JUVENILE MAY BE PROMOTED BY REINSTATEMENT OF

PARENTAL RIGHTS, THE COURT SHALL HOLD A HEARING. THE COURT SHALL

CAUSE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE HEARING THAT DESCRIBES THE HEARING'S

PURPOSE AND CONTAINS THE INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (5) TO

BE SERVED UPON THE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

     (A) THE AGENCY.

     (B) THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT.

     (C) THE JUVENILE.

     (D) THE JUVENILE'S LAWYER-GUARDIAN AD LITEM.

     (E) THE JUVENILE'S FOSTER PARENT OR RELATIVE CAREGIVER.

     (F) THE JUVENILE'S FORMER PARENT WHOSE PARENTAL RIGHTS MAY BE

REINSTATED.

     (G) IF TRIBAL AFFILIATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED, THE ELECTED

LEADER OF THE INDIAN TRIBE.

     (H) OTHER PERSONS AS THE COURT MAY DIRECT.

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

REINSTATE A PARENT'S PARENTAL RIGHTS IF THE COURT FINDS BY CLEAR

AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IS IN

THE JUVENILE'S BEST INTEREST. THE COURT SHALL CONSIDER, BUT IS NOT

LIMITED TO CONSIDERING, ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

     (A) WHETHER THE PARENT IS FIT AND HAS REMEDIED THE GROUNDS

THAT SUPPORTED TERMINATION OF HIS OR HER PARENTAL RIGHTS, AS

PROVIDED IN THE RECORD OF THE PRIOR TERMINATION PROCEEDINGS AND

PRIOR TERMINATION ORDER.

     (B) THE AGE AND MATURITY OF THE JUVENILE AND THE ABILITY OF

THE JUVENILE TO EXPRESS HIS OR HER PREFERENCE.

     (C) WHETHER REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WILL PRESENT A

RISK TO THE JUVENILE'S HEALTH, WELFARE, OR SAFETY.

     (D) OTHER MATERIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, THAT MAY

HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE DATE OF THE ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL

RIGHTS.

     (5) THE JUVENILE'S FOSTER PARENT OR RELATIVE CAREGIVER HAS A

RIGHT TO BE HEARD AT A HEARING HELD UNDER THIS SECTION.

     (6) AN ORDER ENTERED UNDER THIS SECTION REINSTATING PARENTAL

RIGHTS DOES NOT MODIFY, VACATE, OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER TERMINATING

PARENTAL RIGHTS. AN ORDER REINSTATING PARENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THIS

SECTION RESTORES ALL RIGHTS, POWERS, PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES,

DUTIES, AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARENT REGARDING THE JUVENILE,

INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO CUSTODY, CONTROL, AND SUPPORT OF THE

JUVENILE.

     (7) THIS SECTION APPLIES TO ANY CHILD WHO IS UNDER THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OR MCI AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING

REGARDLESS OF THE DATE PARENTAL RIGHTS WERE TERMINATED.