Don't Beat Your Foster Parents - Baby LK Report For May 25th 2014

Baby LK recaps the week in news for the child protection industry.

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.”

Court revokes Michigan Children's Institute guardianship

Bill Johnson, Superintendent of MCI

Bill Johnson, Superintendent of the infamous Michigan Children's Institute, has filed an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court because the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the paternal grandmother of four children was granted guardianship as his guardianship was revoked.

I do believe this is the first time the Court has revoked the legal powers of MCI.

Out of respect of the people involved, I will not publish the MCI appeal at this time, but I will be using a few choice demonstratives when commenting on the legal arguments.

Daniel Beaton, the Assistant Attorney General who always represents Bill Johnson, is a rather nice man but can lie his ass off in a courtroom.  He is good.  That is why Bill Johnson always wins.  But this time is a different story.

The grandmother applied to for adoption and was denied but applied for legal guardianship and was approved upon appeal.  Brilliant.

Bill Johnson went to the Court of Appeals and was thrown out.

Now, he goes to his buddy Maura Corrigan's (former Chief Justice of Michigan Supreme Court and current Director of Department of Human Services) old stomping grounds, the Michigan Supreme Court to cry the blues about the beginning of the end of his omnipotent reign.

Bill Johnson wants to cry the blues that he was not party to the case and had his guardianship stripped.

First of all, the state was just released from federal monitoring of relative preference placements, so Bill is violating a federal settlement agreement.  

Second, there is no law which states that a person who has guardianship must adopt.

Third, Bill Johnson completely ignored the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.  He overrode the decision of another state governor.

Bill Johnson is the legal guardian for more than 7,000 children.  How can he possibly know what the best interests of the children are without third party knowledge?  

Michigan Children's Institute is a 3 man circus that is an absolute waste of taxpayers dollars.  It is about time judges of Michigan's bench and start making decisions.  Let the people who actually care for kids be the guardians and tell Bill to go far away.

Bill Johnson is one of the last paleo-conservatives of chattel law.  I expect him to be denied his petition for leave to appeal.

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.©

Is privatizing foster care bad for kids and costing you more money?

Am I the only one screaming for federal intervention?

Is privatizing foster care bad for kids and costing you more money?

Ask Bill Johnson.

(WXYZ) - A grandma has been fighting the state to get her grandkids out of foster care for years. A great aunt has been trying to do the same for her niece. But both have been met with strong resistance—and it may be a matter of money.

The state pays private agencies to handle most foster care adoptions. By law, they are supposed to make placing foster children with extended family members a priority. But 7 Action News has found some cases where relatives say the agencies may be putting profits ahead of policy – and this can cut kids off from family forever. 

When Lori Scribner found out her grandchildren were put in foster care after the state declared their parents unfit, she came forward to claim them. 

“I have been telling them I want them all along,” says Scribner. 

But she also was told that she needed a bigger home for her four grandkids. So she bought a five-bedroom ranch with a pool. 

“That’s one of the things they love most is swimming,” says Scribner. 

Then she was told she had to earn more money. The registered nurse came out of semi-retirement and went back to work full-time.

“So I could support the kids. I understood that,” Scribner says. 

Scribner also says she has spent $50,000 in legal fees and other costs fighting for her grandkids. But she still faces the prospect of never seeing them again. 

“There was nothing I could do that they would let them come,” she says. 

Micky Gordon says she’s been fighting a system that seems set on breaking family bonds. The Department of Human Services (DHS), and the private agency it contracts, approved another couple to adopt her great niece who’s in foster care. 

“I feel like I have been living under a bully mentality," says Gordon, who is a social worker in Oklahoma, and is very familiar with foster care. She and her husband have foster-parented dozens of kids and adopted two of them. 

“My credentials are impeccable,” insists Gordon, who says she has spent about $30,000 in legal fees fighting to adopt her niece and has no plans to stop. 

“I’m not going away. She’s coming home to her family,” says Gordon.

The law is on their side.

“Both federal and state law require that the agency and the court give priority to relatives seeking placement of children in foster care,” says attorney Vivek Sankaran, who heads the Detroit Center for Family Advocacy and is an expert on child welfare law.

Sankaran says, “Systemic road blocks are created, license, home-study requirements, criminal background checks take time. By the time these checks are done, the child is living somewhere else.”

Scribner and Micky suspect this is about more than just bureaucratic red tape

“I think a lot of it has to do with these agencies earning money,” says Scribner.

DHS contracts with private agencies to handle foster care adoptions. But DHS wouldn’t talk to 7 Action News because Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases are being litigated.

The private agencies also wouldn’t talk about their cases, citing adoption confidentiality laws. But they did tell us that a child’s welfare is their top priority.

Scribner and Gordon aren’t buying it. They point to the current contract between DHS and the private agencies. The agencies get between $5,400 and $11,500 per adoption. The faster they get a child adopted, the more money the agency receives.

“We’re moving way too fast into adoption, close that deal, show me the money,” says Gordon.

Gordon and Scribner have something in common that would mean less money for the agencies. Both live in other states. For out-of-state adoptions, private agencies in Michigan get $3,500 tops.

“The whole system is set up to give the children away, and pay other people to take care of them when family is right there,” says Scribner.

In fact, the state would have saved more than $330,000 had the private agencies placed the children in Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases with them.

The state gives foster and adoptive parents $14.24 a day to care for a child until they turn 18-years-old. Scribner and Gordon say they told the agencies they didn’t want the subsidy, they just want their loved ones.

“I told the adoption worker with the agency, look, we’re not asking for your money,” says Gordon.

A recent study put together by a former county DHS director shows that it costs more for the state to pay private agencies to manage foster care than to have the state do it.

The report shows that for a state case worker to manage 18 foster care cases, it costs about $174,590 a year. That’s compared to about $297,087 for a private agency worker to handle the same case load.

Meanwhile Scribner and Gordon are not giving up.

“There are days you just sit and cry because you don’t know what’s happening,” says Scribner. “You don’t know anything about the kids and the more that they stonewall you, the more you think something must be wrong.”

In Scribner’s case, court records show the private agency had their recruited couple apply to adopt her grandkids—while, at the same time, they were telling Scriber that

the children were not available for adoption.

“The only thing they will tell you is you can’t have them,” says Scribner.

DHS admitted in court records that Scribner is a “loving, caring, nurturing and suitable care-giver,” but that the kids should be adopted by the agencies recruited couple since the children had already bonded with them.

Attorney Sankaran says he has seen agencies drag out the placement process and then argue it’s in the best interest of the child to stay with the recruited family.

By the time these checks are done, the child is living somewhere else and then bonding and things of that nature are brought up as the reason to keep kids away from family,” says Sankaran.

Bonding was the key reason in both Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases for not letting them have their loved ones.

“Do you think the agency purposely delayed this process?” Catallo asked Gordon.

“It certainly does appear that way,” says Gordon 

To be clear, a judge has the final say, but rarely goes against a DHS recommendation. And children can be cut off from family forever. 

“I want the kids to know that we fought and we tried everything to get them that we could,” Scribner says through tears. 

After 7 Action News contacted DHS about Scribner’s and Gordon’s cases, Scribner got a letter.

It says DHS is now reconsidering their decision to deny Scribner adoption of her grandkids. The letter also says it is looking at new information and will issue a new decision in 30 days.

Gordon’s hearing to challenge DHS’s decision is still ongoing.

We’ll stay on these stories and tell you the outcome of both.