Michigan Senate has introduced another revenue maximizing adoption scheme.
SENATE BILL No. 1203
March 3, 2010, Introduced by Senators BASHAM, HUNTER and GLEASON and referred to the Committee on Families and Human Services.
A bill to amend 1982 PA 294, entitled
"Friend of the court act,"
(MCL 552.501 to 552.535) by adding section 5b.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 5b. (1) At the request of a putative father of a child who is the subject of proceedings under the Michigan adoption code, chapter X of the probate code of 1939, 1939 PA 288, MCL 710.21 to 710.70, the friend of the court for the county where the child resides shall open an account to collect child support payments from the putative father.
(2) At the time of making a request to open an account under subsection (1), a putative father shall provide the friend of the court with all of the following:
(a) The name of the court in which the adoption proceedings are pending, the name of the presiding judge, and the case number.
(b) The name of the child and the names and last known addresses of the mother, the prospective adoptive parents, and any person who has custody of the child.
(3) On opening an account under this section, the friend of the court shall do all of the following:
(a) Notify the mother and the prospective adoptive parents that the account has been opened.
(b) Notify the mother or any person who has custody of the child that the mother or custodian has the right to withdraw money in the account, after payment of the friend of the court service fee.
(4) The friend of the court shall withdraw from an account opened under this section a service fee equal to the service fee imposed on support orders under section 2538 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2538, at the intervals at which service fees are required to be paid under that section. Service fees collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the general fund of the county and distributed in the same manner as money deposited in the general fund of the county under section 2536 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2538, is distributed.
One is unable to review the court case as there is no transparency in child welfare.
From the smell of the action, I am going to assume through logical deduction that the proposed bill is, in essence, dealing with the Michigan Children's Institute (MCI).
If a child is involved in a pending matter in dealing with a prospective adoption, it is probably a challenge to termination of parental rights and the placement of a child as a ward of the state.
If the child is a ward of the state, then, in Michigan, where there is a pending issue of paternity of a father, then, the legal guardian is the Superintendent of MCI. That makes the Superintendent the daddy.
So, following this line of understanding, the Superintendent is to provide for the child, as the child has been remanded to the guardianship of the Superintendent.
This means the state is suppose to pay child support for the state ward, and it does through federal payments of Title IV-E and Medicaid, to name a few funding streams.
Now, according to this legislation, the state wants to collect child support from the punitive father by opening a Friend of the Court (FOC) case. By establishing a FOC case, the state, MCI, is able to access Title IV-D funding to process the case and the state is enabled by this proposed legislation to withdraw from the FOC case while in receipt of Title IV-E, Title IV-D and Medicaid.
And, to make the bill a slam dunk in keeping the federal funding streams flooding in, if the punitive father cannot make the FOC payments, for what ever reason, he is out the picture as being found unfit to provide for the necessary needs of the child and the adoption is, thus, processed, sequestering all evidence of the revenue maximizing scheme from the eyes of the public.
Then, if there is a college fund established by the FOC, well I shall go out there on a limb and assume that the state is going to gain on the financial interests of the account because, if the child is in foster care, the child, once ready for college can access the Chaffee funds and the state can make those federal funds fungible for the purpose of FOC college fund. If this is the case, then the state, while pulling down even more Title IV-D funds for the maintenance of this college fund, can pocket the money and no one will be the wiser.
But the best part of this analysis is that the Superintendent, who has no statutory authority, whatsoever, to represent the state, is just a front for the entire scheme, as I have stated, once again, that all legal matters dealing with adoption are banned from public disclosure.
The State Bar of Michigan is in opposition of this bill and so am I. Actually, I am delightfully surprised that the State Bar is actually finding its voice in adoption policy.
All we have to do is to get someone to listen to me a do an audit (or a FCA) on MCI, as it has never been done in the history of its existence. That's what I call an absolutely brilliant Racket!