Report finds racial disparity in Michigan's foster care system

Here is a fun fact as to why the report found racial disparity in Michigan's foster care system:

It was designed that way!

Just ask Bill Johnson, Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute.

Report’s Findings

Key findings from a report from the Michigan Race Equity Coalition in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice:

• Minority kids were 2.1 times more likely to age out of foster care than white children. Hispanic kids were 1.1 times more likely, American Indian 1.4 times more likely, and black children 2.3 times more likely to age out of the system.

• Black children were 1.6 times more likely than white children to live in families investigated for abuse or neglect.

• Children from minority families were 1.3 times more likely than white kids to be removed from their families’ homes due to abuse and neglect.

Michigan’s minority children are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to age out of the foster care system without being adopted or returned to their families, a new report shows.

Children of color also are more likely to be removed from their families for abuse and neglect, according to the report from the Michigan Race Equity Coalition in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice, to be released today.

“This gives us verifiable data that policymakers, legislators really like,” said Michigan Supreme Court Justice Mary Beth Kelly, who co-chaired the coalition effort with public policy advocate and former legislator Lynn Jondahl. “That is really what moves decision-makers faster.”

Those behind the report hope it will help improve early intervention and community-based services for families, win more funding for child abuse and neglect prevention and lead to better training for child welfare workers to help them discern the difference between poverty and neglect.

About 13,000 kids in Michigan are in foster care at any given time, according to the Department of Human Services. Using data from 2013, the coalition’s report compares the number of minority children with the number of white children in care. It found:

•Minority kids were 2.1 times more likely to age out of foster care than white children. Hispanic kids were 1.1 times more likely, American Indian 1.4 times more likely and black children 2.3 times more likely to age out of the system.

•Black children were 1.6 times more likely than white children to live with families investigated for abuse or neglect. Kids from Hispanic or American Indian families were slightly less likely than their white counterparts to live in families investigated for abuse or neglect.

•Children from minority families were 1.3 times more likely than white kids to be removed from their families’ homes due to abuse and neglect.

That’s troubling, said Jane Zehnder-Merrell of the Michigan League for Public Policy. She served as data coordinator for the project.

“That suggests we are not doing enough upstream to get these kids safe or keep these kids safe in their own homes,” she said.

“A lot of these kids get pulled into the child welfare system because that’s our response rather than helping their families with economic stability,” she said.

She said erosion in assistance for poor families and school funding in recent years has made the situation more precarious for many families.

“People are really struggling to maintain any kind of stability for their kids,” she said. “It used to be that schools were the bedrock in the community. That’s not the case anymore, particularly in our most desperately poor cities.”

Kelly said she’s encouraged by some recent changes, including a 2011 law that allows foster kids who meet certain criteria such as working or attending college to receive continuing assistance until they are 21.

The state also has boosted the number of foster care caseworkers.

Jondahl said a pilot program in Saginaw County involving courts, child welfare and juvenile justice systems provides a model for reducing the disproportionate numbers.

He also said an advisory panel will be created, meeting regularly, to check on progress in meeting the recommendations in the report.

“It won’t be just a report to put on the shelf,” he said. “That, to me, makes all the difference in the world.”

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.”

Michigan Court of Appeals Overturns Wayne County Judge’s Decision to Terminate Parental Rights

Regarding In the Matter of Clarmont, Minors; a respondent appealed as of right termination of her parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). The Court of Appeals opinion is dated February 19, 2013. The lower court is the Wayne County Juvenile Division.

First, the respondent had an expected prison release date within a span of only five months. In establishing grounds for termination, the petitioner wholly relied upon the respondent’s criminal history and substance abuse (which occurred before the commencement of the child protection hearings); the fact that she was imprisoned; and also the difficulties she would face after her release date.

However, In re Mason held that imprisonment with a possible release date in less than two years plus the respondent having a criminal history are not alone sufficient grounds for termination under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j) except under specific circumstances not implicated in this case. In Mason, the Court found significant factors like the respondent maintaining contact with his children through the exchange of cards through the mail; the respondent also engaged in prison services; and he lined up housing and employment for after  his release from imprisonment.

In the instant case, the respondent was required to have a relative sponsor in the state to acquire an interstate compact and transfer of her probation to Michigan. Due to this, the respondent had not yet arranged housing that would enable her to care for her children. Furthermore, an unknown factor was whether respondent would be able to find post-release employment and housing.

Yet, similar to Mason, the respondent completed all available prison services including parenting classes. Moreover, the respondent sent monthly letters to her children. A corrections officer even testified that the respondent did not exhibit any serious behavioral issues in prison—and that she earned all available good time. Notably, the respondent had a nonviolent criminal history that was not directly related to her parenting ability as well. Only limited evidence was introduced by the petitioner pertaining to the respondent’s parenting ability prior to incarceration. Moreover, the caseworker admitted to not evaluating the respondent’s current parenting skills either.

The Court of Appeals found the termination premature under Mason. The trial court clearly erred in finding statutory grounds for termination. Therefore, the case was reversed and remanded.

Also, the Court stated the children should be temporary wards of the court while reunification or termination efforts are ongoing with more information required concerning the respondent’s ability to provide proper care to her children in a reasonable time after her release from prison. Additionally, the Court noted that separation related to the imprisonment weakened the child/parent bond, and that the children would benefit from permanence. Therefore, the lower court did not clearly err in its best-interest determination.

With nearly one hundred years of combined experience, the attorneys of Kronzek and Cronkright, PLLC, aggressively protect the parental rights of clients all across the lower peninsula of Michigan, including Lansing, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, Port Huron, Flint, Detroit, Saginaw, Kalamazoo, and more.

Michigan Children's Institute Sued For Fraud?

The individual responsible for adoption fraud in Michigan is none other than the Superintendent of the Michigan Children's Institute, Bill Johnson.

Michigan Children's Institute need to be dismantled.  I am hoping someone will send me the complaint so I can post it.  I sincerely hope Bill Johnson was named as a defendant.

What really has alluded me in logic of Children's Rights settlement with Michigan is there is no where to be found in any of the court proceedings, mention of MCI or Bill Johnson.  Situations of children under state care are absolutely horrific and no one is really telling it like it is.

As an original source, I can attest that what is in this complaint is completely true, not having read it.  Why, one may ask?  Because I live with the irreparable harm every single day.

Even though the case highlights the lack of mental health assistance of these children, more needs to be done to expose and end the fraud schemes created to maximize revenue at the expense of all children of Bill Johnson.

If DHS falsified records for adoption, then you can bet your bottom dollar DHS lied about removals, placements, cost reimbursements and its federal audits.

DHS Director Maura Corrigan is a brilliant and refined liar.

8 families in Ingham, Clinton counties expected to sue DHS for adoption fraud

Child welfare offices in Ingham and Clinton counties are among several public and private agencies named in a lawsuit expected to be filed Thursday alleging social workers lied to adoptive parents of special needs children about their kids’ disabilities and denied them funding available for parents of disabled children.

Eight families with 17 adopted children and two biological children said Wednesday they are planning to sue the Department of Human Services, alleging deceit and violation of federal law going back 20 years. They are seeking more than $13 million in back Social Security assistance and other damages, said David Kallman, the Lansing attorney representing the families.

“The parents in this case were assured that the children they were adopting were physically and mentally healthy,” Kallman said in a statement. “DHS workers knew and documented that this was not the case. As a result, these families were, and continue to be, irreparably harmed.”

Some of the parents specifically stated they would not be willing to adopt children with significant mental, emotional or physical disabilities, according to the complaint.

The suit names Gov. Rick Snyder, DHS Director Maura Corrigan and several other DHS officials.

DHS spokesman Dave Akerly released the following statement today.

“DHS has already prevailed in the majority of cases referenced by this attorney at the administrative level, and Michigan courts on review have repeatedly ruled in DHS’ favor in most of these cases. Because DHS takes all issues of child safety seriously, the state Attorney General’s office — on behalf of DHS — met with Mr. Kallman regarding his allegations this past August. Subsequently, the Attorney General’s Office has requested information from Mr. Kallman to assist with this matter, thus far to no avail."

Ingham County DHS could not be reached for comment. Clinton County DHS referred questions to the state.

Kallman alleges adoption agencies and social workers in seven cases covered up or lied about the level of abuse and neglect the children endured before being removed from their birth parents. Kallman also accuses DHS of denying all eight families access to Social Security funds through an adoption assistance program called Title IV-E, designed to support families who adopt children with special needs.

“These families love their kids,” Kallman said. “They want to care for their kids. But one family, for example, is literally destitute. They’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for help and psychologists, things that state should have been paying for.”

Supporting documents for the lawsuit include disturbing descriptions of the conditions in which the children allegedly lived and the abuse they suffered prior to their placement in the foster care system.

In the Ingham County case, for example, the complaint alleges workers documented extreme neglect of three siblings in 1994, including an infant sleeping beneath bags of garbage, dead rodents throughout the home and children walking around in nothing but urine-soaked diapers.

“Mushrooms grew in the toilet and nails stuck up from the bathroom floor,” according to the documents. “They sucked spoiled milk from bottles. While the workers were there, the garbage in the crib moved and an infant was discovered in the crib.”

Despite the conditions in the home, the workers left the children with their birth parents for another six months, according to the lawsuit, then falsified documents to cover up the children’s history of abuse and neglect before they were adopted.

The lawsuit alleges the abuse caused severe emotional and behavioral disorders in the children, including violence disorders, fetal alcohol syndrome and reactive attachment disorder — which is a rare but severe psychiatric illness often caused by abuse that limits a child’s ability to bond with others or to feel empathy. The children all displayed signs of sexual abuse. One of the children was deemed “legally incapacitated” as a teenager and will never be able to care for herself, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit is another hit for DHS, which is still under federal oversight following a lawsuit by a group called Children’s Rights. That lawsuit accused the state of neglecting children in its child welfare system, including failure to adequately assess and treat psychological, behavioral and emotional issues.

Michigan Quo Warranto Petition Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wanna See A Michigan Policy Lie To Cover Up Medicaid Fraud?

Wanna See A Michigan Policy Lie To Cover Up Medicaid Fraud?


Here, I present to the public, Michigan's blatant lie on how it conducts business in child welfare.

Yes, it is true to say that this is proper information presented on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

Yes, it is true to say that there are no lies presented on the names and titles of administration.

Yes, it is true to say the final decision maker on the ICPC is not the compact administrator.  It's  Mr. Omnipotent. Bill Johnson, the Superintendent of Michigan Children's Institute!

Michigan Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)

First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto

Maura Corrigan: Michigan's Cash Cow

Ricky Holland

Bill Johnson, Superintendent of Michigan Children's Institute authorized the adoption of Ricky Holland's two younger siblings to the murders during the murder investigation.

Ricky Holland was placed in foster care by his mother because there was no help for her. He was never removed for abuse and neglect.

Now, every time the Ricky's mother has another child to replace the one who was murdered by the State of Michigan, the State of Michigan comes and cuts the umbilical cord.

I used to have in my possession some of the case transcripts where the foster murderer was testifying on the scheme to dope up Ricky Holland with the highest dosages of psychotropics in order to get more money.

There are many reasons why this case is so dear to me, why I swore I would never let Ricky Holland's memory fade away, but I will only share one.

Michigan's Cash Cow

Maura Corrigan

Michigan's Cash Cow had the audacity to run a statewide commercial paid with undisclosed funds in to the tune of $80,000 asking the people of Michigan to call the Supreme Court and thank her for "all she has done for foster care and adoption" in order for her colleagues to elect her as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  She was not elected.

It was at that moment I began my mission...

Michigan OCO Ricky Holland Investigative Report

Maura Corrigan's Wonderful Things For The People Of Michigan

Maura Corrigan's Wonderful Things For The People Of Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan is to become the new Director of the state's Department of Human Services.

Let's take a look back at all the "wonderful" things she has done for Michigan's Foster  Care:

• Legislate from the bench
• 
  
• Participate in the generation of false information to HHS Region V Review
• 
  
• Codify poverty as a crime
• 
  
• Facilitate the construction of multi-billion revenue-maximization fraud schemes
• 
  
• Publicly advocate for a party while the matter was pending in her court
• 
  
• Deny due process to individual (parents) family members
• 
  
• Ignore mandatory referrals of violations of law to the attorney general
• 
  
• Promote lack of oversight to allow children to die in foster care
• 
  
• Allow Michigan to go to federal court for allowing children to be abused in foster care
• 
  
• Cover up the largest fraud scheme in the nation

All in all, despite her real background in child welfare, I believe she is an excellent choice for the position.  Guilt should do "wonderful" things for Michigan's people.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan Steps Down Welcome to Michigan's hell. I look forward to your creative ways of ignoring me.

Michigan Reinstatement of Parental Rights Bill

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.