Court To Rule On Powers Of Michigan Children's Institute

Here is the federal settlement agreement with Michigan to advocate relative placements. In this case, it was not done.

It seems all eyes are on this pending decision.  As soon as the opinion is issued, I will post.

For more background details of the case, click here.

The paternal grandmother of siblings who were placed in foster care petitioned the family court to become the children’s guardian. Although the grandmother had moved to Florida from Michigan in 2005, she asserted that she had maintained “very close and loving” relationships with all four children before and after their removal from their mother’s home in October 2008 by the Department of Human Services. (Three of the four siblings were fathered by the petitioner’s son; although the fourth child was fathered by another man, the petitioner maintained that she had known the boy since his birth and had always treated him as her grandson.) According to the grandmother, she frequently watched the children before moving to Florida; after her move, she talked to them on the phone about once a week, sent them birthday and Christmas presents, and visited them during the summers.

While the grandmother’s guardianship petition was pending, the children’s mother agreed to give up her parental rights, pleading no contest to child neglect and allowing her children to become wards of the court. (The fathers’ parental rights were also terminated.)

The family court accepted the mother’s plea and, after an evidentiary hearing, denied the grandmother’s guardianship petition, instead ruling that it was in the children’s best interests to remain with their foster parents, who had already filed a petition to adopt the children. In making this ruling, the trial court used the “best interest” factors in the Child Custody Act, MCL 722.21 et seq. The trial court noted that neither the children’s mother nor the petitioner’s son had suggested the petitioner as a guardian; in fact, the mother supported the children remaining with their foster parents because they were doing well there.

The petitioner applied to the Michigan Children’s Institute, seeking to adopt the children. The MCI superintendent denied her request, concluding that adoption by the foster parents was in the children’s best interests; the family court refused to overturn the MCI decision.

The petitioner appealed, and, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the family court, ordering the court to appoint the petitioner as the children’s guardian.

“There is a strong preference that children who have been removed from their parent’s care be placed with relatives,” the appellate panel stated. “For example, under MCL 722.954a(2), when a child is removed from his or her home, the supervising agency must identify, locate, notify, and consult with relatives to determine placement with a fit and appropriate relative who is able to meet the child’s developmental, emotional, and physical needs. A supervising agency’s placement decision must be made in the child’s best interests, and, in making the decision, the supervising agency shall give special consideration and preference to a child’s relatives who are willing and fit to care for the child and are able to meet the child’s needs. MCL 722.954a(5).” 

The petitioner claimed that the trial court erred in comparing her to the children’s foster parents, using the “best interest of the child” factors set out in the Child Custody Act. The Court of Appeals agreed: “[T]he trial court erred in making this comparison. Notably, the present case does not present a dispute between parties who have a legal or substantive right to the custody of the minor children. Because a juvenile guardianship is intended to be a permanent and self-sustaining relationship, MCL 722.875b, it is similar to adoption. When a person seeks the adoption of a child, a trial court generally does not compare the prospective adoptive parent with alternate placements for the child.... Here, where appellant is the grandmother of the children and where appellant has an established and continuing relationship with the minor children, the trial court should have considered whether appellant was an appropriate juvenile guardian for the children without regard to the foster care parents.”

The “undisputed facts” in the record support appointing the petitioner as the children’s guardian, the Court of Appeals stated. The petitioner had no health problems, had raised five sons, was employed as a registered nurse, had become a licensed foster care provider, and bought a five-bedroom home in anticipation of becoming the children’s guardian, the panel noted. The petitioner was not married, but had relatives in Florida, and had visited the school that her grandchildren would attend. “In sum, appellant not only quickly fulfilled every DHS requirement, she went significantly above and beyond any legal requirements to ensure she would be well prepared to care for her grandchildren.”

Neither the prosecutor nor the children’s guardian ad litem disputed that the petitioner would be an appropriate guardian, the Court of Appeals observed. “Nonetheless, they inexplicably both requested that appellant’s guardianship petition be denied because the children had found stability with the foster care parents.” But, while the children had enjoyed a stable home with their foster parents, DHS had helped create that situation by failing to consider the grandmother as a placement, the Court of Appeals said. “This type of ‘bootstrapping’ is clearly an inappropriate basis upon which to decide this type of matter, i.e., to justify the ‘best interests’ of the children.”

DHS argued that the any issues about the guardianship were moot because the children had already been committed to MCI and so already had a guardian, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. “[W]e find nothing in [previous Court of Appeals decisions] that prevents this Court from revoking the commitment of a child to the MCI when it reverses an erroneously entered order from the trial court that led to the child’s commitment.”

The Court of Appeals declined to review MCI’s denial of the petitioner’s request to adopt, saying the issue was moot: “[S]ince the minor children are no longer wards of the MCI following this court’s decision, appellant need not procure the consent of the MCI superintendant [sic] to adopt the children.” Moreover, the petitioner had already stated that she would dismiss her adoption petition if her guardianship petition was granted, the appellate panel noted.

DHS appealed, noting in part that even the petitioner’s son did not recommend her as a placement and that the children’s mother supported them remaining with their foster parents, rather than moving out of state. DHS also disputed some of the petitioner’s claims about her involvement with the children.

In an order dated October 2, 2013, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and also granted the Michigan Children’s Institute’s motion to intervene. The Court directed the parties to address “(1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there is a preference for relatives under MCL 712A.19c(2) when a circuit court decides whether to create a juvenile guardianship after parental rights have been terminated; (2) if such a preference exists, whether the paternal grandmother was entitled to that preference where her son’s parental rights to the children had been terminated; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred by not applying a clear error standard of review to the Muskegon Circuit Court Family Division’s determination of the children’s best interests pursuant to MCL 712A.19c; (4) whether the circuit court erred by using the best interests factors enumerated in MCL 722.23 of the Child Custody Act in deciding whether to grant the petition for a juvenile guardianship; and (5) whether the Court of Appeals erred by reversing the circuit court on the ground that it was improper to compare the foster parents with the proposed guardian, or erred on any other basis.”

Welcome To The Michigan Foster Care Show!

Welcome to the Michigan Foster Care Show!


Why did this bill from 2007 pass so quickly in the final days of this legislature?  


Could it be the federal settlement agreement pending sanctions?


Could it be a desperate plea from administrators to elected officials to divert attention from the federal violations of law within the child welfare system in order to keep their jobs?


Or could it be concessions with the Michigan Children's Institute to keep the newly elected Governor Snyder in the dark of its omnipotence?  You see, it was the Superintendent who granted the decision to adopt, despite the evidence.


What, you thought only the court had the power to grant?  Oh no, my dear readers, the Superintendent possesses the powers of the court to "consent or withhold" the grant of adoption.  


So why does the Superintendent have so much authority in the judicial branch?  Because he is a civil servant of the executive branch!  See, in Michigan, one must prove his decisions were arbitrary and capricious, not that they were false or improper decisions, just whimsical.  


Bill Johnson has a divinity degree.  Therefore all his decisions are directly told to him from God and as such are not whimsical.  But the best part is the Superintendent not only is a vessel for the word of God, he is represents the State of Michigan without being appointed or elected, with no oath of office filed in the great repository of the state.


If you think this was a horrible life experience the Amers lived through, there are tens of thousands of other families in the state who have experienced the same thing, if not worse.


Keep in mind, the language of the new law, "fit".  The relatives still have to go through screening, in which the state still has stricter standards than with reunification efforts.


All in all, including the monetary incentive, it is better than nothing.  It's a start.

Relatives get power in foster care bill

Mark Hicks / The Detroit News

Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed into law Tuesday a bill requiring the state to give special consideration to relatives when placing children in Michigan's foster care system.

"This is a victory," said Rehab Amer of Dearborn, who had three children taken away and raised in foster care. "No child can go through what we went through."

Rehab Amer and her husband, Ahmed, had pushed for the bill, known as the Amer Act.

The Amers lost custody of their children when Rehab was accused of killing her 2-year-old son, Samier, in 1985. She was acquitted a year later.

Nearly 20 years after the boy's death, Wayne Circuit Court ordered the cause of death be changed to accidental on the death certificate. Medical experts said Samier had a rare brittle bone disease.

Meanwhile, the children were adopted, their names were changed, and they were raised in a Christian home in Clarkston. The Amers are Muslim.

Michigan Foster Care Relative Placement 2010

Michigan still will not reinstate parental rights.

Will Snyder Stop Medicaid Fraud In Michigan?

Hey Rick, 


Congrats on the election but I send my condolences to you, in advance, for the inherited mess of DHS for which you are about to receive.  This wonkette is here for you.


Here is a list of administrators you need to immediately boot:

Bill Johnson, Michigan Children's Institute Superintendent


Bruce Hoffman, Michigan Children's Institute Assistant Superintendent


Mary Rossman, Michigan Children's Institute Assistant.... who knows her title.


Shut down Michigan Children's Institute (Supreme Court has been playing the hiding game on this one.)


Kathleen O'Grady,  Her title keeps changing on the micro-org charts, she is adoption czar

and, last, on my top ten list of the status quo keepers of Michigan's Dark Secret...

Verlie Ruffin,  Ombudsman of Michigan's Children

Deal averts request for fed control of Mich. child welfare system

Catherine Jun / The Detroit News

  Detroit — A child advocacy group backed away from plans to seek a federal takeover of Michigan's child welfare system after a federal judge said she received assurances from Gov.-elect Rick Snyder that his incoming administration will make fixing the Department of Human Services a top priority.

Children's Rights, a New York-based agency, had announced earlier today that it planned to file a motion of contempt Wednesday in federal court in Detroit and ask the judge to appoint a receiver for Human Services, the agency that oversees foster care and adoption. The agency cited a progress report publicized today that showed the state was failing to comply with court-mandated reforms.

Instead, after a meeting in chambers this afternoon with U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Edmunds, attorneys for Children's Rights agreed to meet again with DHS officials in late January — after Snyder takes office — to devise a plan to get reforms on track.

"We have every confidence that they see how urgent this is," said Sara Bartosz, senior staff attorney for Children's Rights. She added, though, that she has not ruled out seeking federal intervention in the future, if necessary. "That option is out there if the system doesn't improve."

This is the latest development in the department's court-ordered overhaul of its foster care system. The department has been under court watch since the settlement of a lawsuit in July 2008 filed by the New York group, which alleged the state's system was endangering the lives of children.

Before the scheduled 2 p.m. court hearing, the New York agency had issued a statement saying it planned to seek receivership for the department, citing a court-appointed monitor's report that showed the department failed to adequately reduce high caseloads for caseworkers as well as recruit and retain enough foster homes.

The 200-page report, covering Oct. 1, 2009, to March 31, 2010, charges that DHS failed to: Ensure that new caseworkers were adequately trained before they became responsible for children and families.

Ensure that adequate staff was assigned to conduct timely and thorough child abuse and neglect investigations.

Recruit, retain and license enough foster homes and those of relative care providers.

Court-appointed monitor Kevin Ryan, of the New Jersey-based Public Catalyst Group, submitted the report to Judge Edmunds at the hearing.

According to the report, Ryan also found data-keeping and mathematical errors in state records, including how the state counts the number of children in its care. The state delayed the recording of adoption finalizations in some cases by as much as 225 days.

"Child welfare managers and staff across Michigan, in both the private and public sector, are working very hard, but their best efforts are often undone by poor planning and a lack of adequate coordination," the report stated.

This is the third update since the settlement, and comes 1½ years after reforms began. The settlement contained a five-year plan the state agreed to enact.

This is the final report before Rick Snyder takes over as governor next month. It's possible that new management will be tapped at DHS.

Anticipating the court hearing, the Michigan Department of Human Services issued a news release this morning highlighting what it says are improvements within the department.

More children have been adopted from foster care, are receiving better mental health services and have better outcomes overall, DHS Director Ismael Ahmed said in a written statement.

"DHS, in partnership with private agencies and the courts, have made significant strides in the past two years to ensure we're doing our part to help children find safe, loving and stable homes," Ahmed said.

In fact, 3,030 children were adopted from foster care in 2009, more than in any other year, he said.

Other accomplishments include reducing the number of children in foster care and expanding a program that provides in-home services and support to families with children who have serious emotional problems.

The previous report issued in March showed the state was missing significant targets, like sufficiently reducing the number of children aging out of foster care and documenting adequate responses to allegations of abuse or neglect of foster children.

At the time, the human services department was placed on a 30-day watch to get reforms on track.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20101207/METRO/12070385/Deal-averts-request-for-fed-control-of-Mich.-child-welfare-system#ixzz17T4XMO3Z