These children were Legally Kidnapped by CPS from the arms of their original parents, to be trafficked through foster care, used as lab rats, raped, tortured, then sold through adoption.

Yes, it is legal to snatch and sell children.

These people will never give up be there is too much money involved, so they are launching Corporate Parental Rights.

This is a battle just getting started.

People do not like it when you take their money makers.

RELEASE: Gov. Walz signs Rep. Moran bill providing pathway to reestablishment of parent/child relationships

ST. PAUL – Monday afternoon, Gov. Tim Walz signed into law HF 554, a bill authored by Rep. Rena Moran (DFL – Saint Paul), that allows parents, who had previously had their parental rights terminated for non-egregious harm, to directly seek reestablishment of these rights from the courts. Currently, only a county attorney is able to make this petition.

“Whenever we’re able to, we should keep families together and our children deserve to be protected, loved, and nurtured. When they can stay in their community with their parents, this gives them the best outlook in life,” Rep. Moran said. “We know all too well that our child welfare system doesn’t seem to always have the best interest of the child in mind, and that’s why it’s important for us to keep working to improve it. Every child deserves a strong future and I thank Governor Walz for signing this important bill into law.”

The House approved the measure by a vote of 130-0 on April 4, and the Senate followed on April 29 with a vote of 66-0.

Under the bill, petitions for reinstatement of parental rights would only be allowed in cases in which the rights were terminated for non-egregious harm, such as chemical dependency or mental illness, and not for physical, sexual, or psychological abuse.

Studies have shown when children, especially African American children, remain in the foster system, they face poorer life outcomes than those who remain with their biological families. These include lower lifetime employment rates, a greater chance of experience with the criminal justice system, and higher rates of mental illness and addiction.

The legislation requires the parent to clearly demonstrate the steps they’ve taken to address the underlying issue which led to the termination of rights in the first place, and a judge would make the final decision.

A bill for an actrelating to human services; permitting legal parent to petition for reestablishment
of the legal parent and child relationship; prohibiting disqualification of individuals
subject to human services background studies with expunged criminal records;
amending Minnesota Statutes 2018, sections 245C.14; 245C.15, by adding a
subdivision; 245C.16, subdivision 1; 245C.22, by adding a subdivision; 245C.24,
by adding a subdivision; 260C.329, subdivisions 3, 7, 8; repealing Minnesota
Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 5.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.14, is amended to read:

245C.14 DISQUALIFICATION.

Subdivision 1.

Disqualification from direct contact.

(a) The commissioner shall
disqualify an individual who is the subject of a background study from any position allowing
direct contact with persons receiving services from the license holder or entity identified in
section 245C.03, upon receipt of information showing, or when a background study
completed under this chapter shows any of the following:

(1) a conviction of, admission to, or Alford plea to one or more crimes listed in section
245C.15, regardless of whether the conviction or admission is a felony, gross misdemeanor,
or misdemeanor level crime;

(2) a preponderance of the evidence indicates the individual has committed an act or
acts that meet the definition of any of the crimes listed in section 245C.15, regardless of
whether the preponderance of the evidence is for a felony, gross misdemeanor, or
misdemeanor level crime; or

(3) an investigation results in an administrative determination listed under section
245C.15, subdivision 4, paragraph (b).

(b) No individual who is disqualified following a background study under section
245C.03, subdivisions 1 and 2, may be retained in a position involving direct contact with
persons served by a program or entity identified in section 245C.03, unless the commissioner
has provided written notice under section 245C.17 stating that:

(1) the individual may remain in direct contact during the period in which the individual
may request reconsideration as provided in section 245C.21, subdivision 2;

(2) the commissioner has set aside the individual's disqualification for that program or
entity identified in section 245C.03, as provided in section 245C.22, subdivision 4; or

(3) the license holder has been granted a variance for the disqualified individual under
section 245C.30.

(c) The commissioner shall not disqualify an individual under this subdivision based on
(1) a record of conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A and the order was directed
specifically to the commissioner, or (2) any underlying fact or element from an expunged
record of an arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically
to the commissioner. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Subd. 2.

Disqualification from access.

(a) If an individual who is studied under section
245C.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (2), (5), and (6), is disqualified from direct
contact under subdivision 1, the commissioner shall also disqualify the individual from
access to a person receiving services from the license holder.

(b) No individual who is disqualified following a background study under section
245C.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clauses (2), (5), and (6), or as provided elsewhere
in statute who is disqualified as a result of this section, may be allowed access to persons
served by the program unless the commissioner has provided written notice under section
245C.17 stating that:

(1) the individual may remain in direct contact during the period in which the individual
may request reconsideration as provided in section 245C.21, subdivision 2;

(2) the commissioner has set aside the individual's disqualification for that licensed
program or entity identified in section 245C.03 as provided in section 245C.22, subdivision
4; or

(3) the license holder has been granted a variance for the disqualified individual under
section 245C.30.

Sec. 2.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.15, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:

Subd. 6.

Expunged criminal records.

The commissioner shall not disqualify an
individual subject to a background study under this chapter based on (1) a record of
conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A and the order was directed specifically
to the commissioner, or (2) any underlying fact or element from an expunged record of an
arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically to the
commissioner. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Sec. 3.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.16, subdivision 1, is amended to read:

Subdivision 1.

Determining immediate risk of harm.

(a) If the commissioner determines
that the individual studied has a disqualifying characteristic, the commissioner shall review
the information immediately available and make a determination as to the subject's immediate
risk of harm to persons served by the program where the individual studied will have direct
contact with, or access to, people receiving services.

(b) The commissioner shall consider all relevant information available, including the
following factors in determining the immediate risk of harm:

(1) the recency of the disqualifying characteristic;

(2) the recency of discharge from probation for the crimes;

(3) the number of disqualifying characteristics;

(4) the intrusiveness or violence of the disqualifying characteristic;

(5) the vulnerability of the victim involved in the disqualifying characteristic;

(6) the similarity of the victim to the persons served by the program where the individual
studied will have direct contact;

(7) whether the individual has a disqualification from a previous background study that
has not been set aside; and

(8) if the individual has a disqualification which may not be set aside because it is a
permanent bar under section 245C.24, subdivision 1, or the individual is a child care
background study subject who has a felony-level conviction for a drug-related offense in
the last five years, the commissioner may order the immediate removal of the individual
from any position allowing direct contact with, or access to, persons receiving services from
the program.

(c) This section does not apply when the subject of a background study is regulated by
a health-related licensing board as defined in chapter 214, and the subject is determined to
be responsible for substantiated maltreatment under section 626.556 or 626.557.

(d) This section does not apply to a background study related to an initial application
for a child foster care license.

(e) Except for paragraph (f), this section does not apply to a background study that is
also subject to the requirements under section 256B.0659, subdivisions 11 and 13, for a
personal care assistant or a qualified professional as defined in section 256B.0659,
subdivision 1.

(f) If the commissioner has reason to believe, based on arrest information or an active
maltreatment investigation, that an individual poses an imminent risk of harm to persons
receiving services, the commissioner may order that the person be continuously supervised
or immediately removed pending the conclusion of the maltreatment investigation or criminal
proceedings.

Sec. 4.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.22, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:

Subd. 8.

Expunged records.

This section does not apply if the subject of a background
study has a conviction that was expunged under chapter 609A, and the order was directed
specifically to the commissioner, or any underlying fact or element from an expunged record
of an arrest, criminal charge, or conviction and the order was directed specifically to the
commissioner. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits the commissioner from disqualifying
an individual based upon a separate administrative determination under section 245C.15,
subdivision 4, paragraph (b), unless there is a court order directed specifically to the
commissioner to expunge an administrative order.

Sec. 5.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 245C.24, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:

Subd. 5.

Expunged criminal records.

Sec. 6.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 3, is amended to read:

Subd. 3.

Petition.

Only the county attorney
A legal parent may file a petition for the
reestablishment of the legal parent and child relationship. A petition for the reestablishment
of the legal parent and child relationship may be filed when:

(1) both the responsible social services agency and the county attorney agree that reestablishment of the legal parent and child relationship is in the child's best interests;

(2) the parent has corrected the conditions that led to an order terminating parental rights;

(3) the parent is willing and has the capability to provide day-to-day care and maintain
the health, safety, and welfare of the child;

(4) the child has been in foster care for at least 36
24 months after the court issued the
order terminating parental rights;

(5) the child is 15 years of age or older at the time the petition for reestablishment of
the legal parent and child relationship is filed;

(6)
(5) the child has not been adopted; and

(7)
(6) the child is not the subject of a written adoption placement agreement between
the responsible social services agency and the prospective adoptive parent, as required under
Minnesota Rules, part 9560.0060, subpart 2.

Sec. 7.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 7, is amended to read:

Subd. 7.

Service of petition on the parties.

The petition for the reestablishment of the
legal parent and child relationship and notice of hearing on the petition must be served on:

(1) the child;

(2) the parent whose rights have been terminated and with whom the legal parent and
child relationship is proposed to be reestablished;

(2) the county attorney;

(3) the responsible social services agency;

(3)
(4) the child's guardian ad litem; and

(4)
(5) the child's tribe if the child is subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Sec. 8.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 8, is amended to read:

Subd. 8.

Hearing.

The court may grant the petition ordering the reestablishment of the
legal parent and child relationship only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that:

(1) reestablishment of the legal parent and child relationship is in the child's best interests;

(2) the child is 15 years of age or older;

(3)
(2) the child has not been adopted;

(4)
(3) the child is not the subject of a written adoption placement agreement between
the responsible social services agency and the prospective adoptive parent, as required under
Minnesota Rules, part 9560.0060, subpart 2;

(5)
(4) at least 36
24 months have elapsed following a final order terminating parental
rights and the child remains in foster care;

(6)
(5) the child desires to reside with the parent;

(7)
(6) the parent has corrected the conditions that led to an order terminating parental
rights; and

(8)
(7) the parent is willing and has the capability to provide day-to-day care and maintain
the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

Sec. 9. REPEALER.

Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 260C.329, subdivision 5,
is repealed.

APPENDIX

Repealed Minnesota Statutes: 19-1755

260C.329 REESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEGAL PARENT AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP.

Subd. 5.

Decision not appealable.

The decision by the county attorney not to file a petition for the reestablishment of legal parent and child relationship is not appealable.

If you are going to promulgate a piece of legislation which promotes a presumptive joint custody doctrine in dealing with child custody and guardianship between parents, you must include the State of Michigan.

What about the State of Michigan's parental rights?

Michigan House Representative
Jim Runestad, Chairman of
House Judiciary Committee

What about Michigan Children's Institute?

What about Title IV-D funding, double-dipping fraud schemes?

What about legally defining and codifying the term "parent"?

What about termination of parental rights?

What about reinstatement of parental rights?

What about defining parental rights?

What about parents with disabilities?

What about incarcerated parents?

What about staggering sentences?

What about deportation of parents?

What about previously being charged with abuse and neglect cases, where many, many of these cases are based, waist deep, in the claim of moral turpitude for "failing to provide for the best interests of the child", otherwise known as having exclusive BRIDGE card carrying membership as "The Poors"?

If a parent is dependent upon the State of Michigan to provide for the necessary needs of the child, then the state is the de facto parent, and, as such, qualified to jump into any custody/guardianship case.

One cannot just allow legislation to cut into the State's privatization child welfare schemes.

Duh.

Notice there is no fiscal analysis as of yet because they know, and they know well, that I am going to rip it apart.

Jim Runestad has been rolling in the mud of Michigan Child Welfare for as long as I have been, so all I can do is honor him for listening to the people, which is more than that thief, Michigan State Representative Rosemary Robinson, and her nefarious son have done.

Rose Mary Robinson voted in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee in opposition to this Bill, just to let you know.

Oops, did I just say all that? (snicker)

Required joint custody bill passes Michigan House panel

LANSING — Absent reports of domestic violence, judges would be required to award joint legal custody of children to divorcing parents under a bill that passed the House Judiciary Committee today.

With the standard of parenting changing dramatically over the past 40 years — from including same-sex marriage to an increasing number of people having children out of wedlock — reform is needed to remove discretion from judges in child custody cases, said state Rep. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, who sponsored the legislation.

“We looked at county by county statistics on what happens in custody situations and what we found out is that the custody arrangements are not determined by the kind of parent that you are, but the judge in the county,” he said. “We have study after study of the benefits of shared parenting. It’s a tremendous benefit for the children.”

Linda Wright, of the National Parent's Organization in Michigan, earlier this month said she saw the ill effects of a single parent family when her husband died in 1998.

"While we can't protect our children from the loss of a parent resulting from death, we certainly have the ability and responsibility to do everything possible to prevent the loss of a parent that occurs through divorce," she said. "The children are innocent victims here."

But the bill aroused a flood of opposition from judges, advocates against domestic violence, family court employees and the family law section of the State Bar of Michigan.

“This bill presumes that one form of custody is best for all families and that’s equal time,” said Rebecca Shiemke, of the Michigan Poverty Law program. “And that’s not necessarily true.”

Logistically, shared parenting time would make it difficult for some parents to find jobs, children could feel lost between two households and child support awards could become a bargaining chip for a parent who doesn’t want to pay a higher amount, she said.

“Some studies report that children complain that they don’t feel they have their own home in shared custody situations," Shiemke said. "We’re a much more mobile society now and with a focus on parents needing to work and have to split time with their children, it’s going to make it harder for parents to find work.”

And child support is based on the number of overnights the parent has with the child. The bill would require that no parent receive more than 200 overnights with their children in a year.

“That would reduce the child support burden that one parent would have to pay to the other,” Shiemke said. “So a parent could get a lower child support obligation and then just not exercise their equal time.”

In testimony prepared for the committee, judges Kathleen Feeney and Brian Kirkham of the Michigan Judges Association said the bill puts the best interest of the child behind the interest of the parents.

"This presumption (of shared custody) disregards the actual facts as to which parent provides day-to-day support, maintenance and nurturing of the child and instead substitutes the mere presence of a parent," they wrote.

The provision that a judge must give substantial weight to the preference of the child also will force the child to publicly choose sides, they added, "and thrust the child into the middle of a contentious battle between their parents. The ensuing animosity and hurt feelings will linger well after the custody battle is over."

The bill would:

Require a judge to grant joint legal custody and substantially equal parenting time, unless there’s a preponderance of evidence of domestic violence in the family.

Prohibit a parent from moving more than 80 miles away from the other parent.

If a child is 16 or older, the child's preference on custody has to be given substantial weight by the judge.

After only two days of testimony earlier this month, the bill — HB 4691 — passed the committee Tuesday on a 6-3 party line vote with Republicans voting for it and Democrats opposing. Runestad said a vote on the bill is not expected in the full House of Representatives before they adjourn for the summer later this week.

"I want to continue the dialogue with all the stakeholders so that nobody feels left out," he said.

Michigan Custody Dispute House Bill 4691To Create Presumption of Joint Legal Custody of a Child by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Michigan Leads the Nation in Terminations of Parental Rights by Beverly Tran on Scribd

BEVERLY TRAN ®

Pages

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz Signs The First Reinstatement Of Parental Rights - We Are Coming For Our Children - The End Of The Peculiar Institution

RELEASE: Gov. Walz signs Rep. Moran bill providing pathway to reestablishment of parent/child relationships

Section 1.

245C.14 DISQUALIFICATION.

Subdivision 1.

Disqualification from direct contact.

Subd. 2.

Disqualification from access.

Sec. 2.

Subd. 6.

Expunged criminal records.

Sec. 3.

Subdivision 1.

Determining immediate risk of harm.

Sec. 4.

Subd. 8.

Expunged records.

Sec. 5.

Subd. 5.

Expunged criminal records.

Sec. 6.

Subd. 3.

Petition.

Sec. 7.

Subd. 7.

Service of petition on the parties.

Sec. 8.

Subd. 8.

Hearing.

Sec. 9. REPEALER.

APPENDIX

260C.329 REESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEGAL PARENT AND CHILD RELATIONSHIP.

Subd. 5.

Decision not appealable.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Shared Parenting Bill: They Forgot To Include The State Of Michigan

Required joint custody bill passes Michigan House panel