Michigan Children's Law Blog

Scholarships for Foster Children

The Casey Family Scholars Program will award approximately 75 new scholarships for undergraduate study and career/technical training at accredited institutions and programs.

Applicants must…

1. Have been in foster care for one consecutive year at the time of their 18th birthday OR have been adopted or taken into legal guardianship out of foster care or upon the death of their parents after their 16th birthday OR have lost both parents to death before the age of 18 and not been subsequently adopted or taken into legal guardianship.

2.  Be enrolled in or accepted into an accredited post-secondary program at the undergraduate level (university, college, community college or vocational/technical institute.)

3. Be under the age of 25 on March 31, 2010.

4. Have been in foster care or orphaned while living in the United States. U.S. citizenship is not required.

The online application deadline is March 31, 2010 at midnight.  I have attached a flyer (scholarships for foster youth).  More information, including the application, can be obtained at the OFA Scholarships for Foster Youth Website.   If you are the GAL for any qualifying foster child, please encourage them to apply.

Finding Families for Foster Children

The New York Times featured an article this weekend about programs that aim to place older, hard-to-adopt children in adoptive placements.  The article features an agency in St. Louis that hires a former police detective to track down long-lost relatives of teenagers languishing in foster care.  The idea is to look for suitable relatives that would be willing to serve as adoptive caregivers for children.  In many cases the relatives of parents that abuse and neglect their children and consequently have their parental rights terminated may not know where the children are, or even that they exist.  The agency finds that,  “lost relatives are a largely untapped resource for adoption.”  The St. Louis agency is funded by a grant from Wendy’s Wonderful Kids, created by the founder of the fast food chain.

The article also acknowledges a nonprofit in Washington State that uses computer databases to locate relatives of children in foster care.

The article addresses the hardships faced by older children in foster care, who are typically some of the most difficult to find adoptive placements.  These children face rejection and disappointments from being bounced around to different foster homes, the isolation and loneliness of living in a group home and a number of other difficulties.  All of these can make it difficult to transition into a permanent adoptive home.

In Michigan, agencies such as Bethany Christian Services and Spaulding for children, who receives grants from the Dave Thomas Foundation,  work to place older and special needs children in adoptive homes.

It is nice to see this issue getting some attention.  You can read the New York Times Article here:  A Determined Quest to Bring Adoptive Ties to Foster Teenagers.

Alternatives to Termination of Parental Rights

I was in the process of cleaning up my office and burning up my document scanner when I came across some seminar materials on Alternatives to Termination of Parental Rights, presented by Bill Bartlam of the Oakland County Circuit Court.  These materials cover each of the permanency goals for children in foster care:

• Reunification with family,
• Adoption, following termination of parental rights,
• Permanent Guardianship,
• Permanent Guardianship with Fit and Willing Relatives, and
• APPLA and APPLA-E or Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement

I am providing these materials for all of you to enjoy.

You can view or download them here: Alternatives to Termination of Parental Rights

In re Ignelzi – Due Process

The Court of Appeals issued another opinion reversing a termination of parental rights this week.   The case involves the trial court’s termination of an incarcerated Father’s parental rights.

In this case, the child (XNI) was initially brought within the trial court’s jurisdiction based on allegations of mother’s neglect (there were no allegations regarding father).   The petition, filed in November 2007, identified a putative father and noted his address in an Indiana state prison.

In December 2007, DNA testing established father’s paternity.  In September 2008, counsel was appointed for Father for a permanency planning hearing.  Father was not given an opportunity to appear at the hearing by phone.  Father’s counsel did not object to his client’s lack of an opportunity to participate.   A foster care worker testified to a letter received by father indicating that his earliest release date was April 2010.

In October 2008, DHS filed a supplemental petition seeking to terminate father’s parental rights.  The petition did not allege any factual allegations against Father, other than the standard statutory language under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) & (j).  Father was not provided an opportunity to participate in the termination hearing and no objections were raised by any party (including his own attorney) to his absence.   At the trial, the foster care worker testified to letters written by Father that his earliest release date was in April 2010 “or sooner with educational or substance abuse time-cuts.”

On appeal, Father argued that he was denied procedural and substantive due process by  the circuit court’s neglect to secure his presence at the termination hearing or his participation by phone.  The Court of Appeals initially noted that MCR 2.004(A)(2), which provides for telephonic access in termination of parental rights proceedings if the parties are incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections does not apply where the respondent is incarcerated out-of-state.  The Court of Appeals based its analysis on whether Father’s due process rights were violated by failing to involve him in the proceedings.

The Court analyzed the case under the three factors for determining due process contained in Mathews v Eldridge, 424 US 319, 335; 96 S Ct 893; 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976) and reiterated by the Michigan Supreme Court in Justice Corrigan’s opinion in In re Rood, 483 Mich 73; 763 NW2d 587 (2009), which are as follows:

“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”

The Court found that MCR 2.004 represents the Michigan Supreme Court’s recognition that “basic due process principles mandate affording incarcerated parents a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the state terminates their parental rights.”  The Court also concluded that the failure to secure participation by Father was not harmless error in this case because evidence could not be established that he could not be released with good behavior and able to parent prior to his April 2010 release date without his participation.  In addition, the trial court failed to terminate Mother’s parental rights despite finding that “left unsupervised, [Mother] is a danger to her children.”

The Court of Appeals summarized its findings as follows:

In summary, the circuit court’s neglect to give respondent any meaningful opportunity to be heard during these proceedings, combined with petitioner’s failure to perform even the most rudimentary investigation about respondent’s background and capabilities, foreclosed the possibility of a decision predicated on clear and convincing evidence.

The court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to provide services to Father.

While this case is unpublished, the argument should serve as a model for attorneys representing incarcerated parents in termination cases because the reasoning is so strong.  The case does raise a question regarding what a court is to do if the out-of-state prison refuses to allow the parent to participate?  After all, the court lacks jurisdiction to compel out-of-state prisons to do anything.  The question was not raised in this case because the court did not try to secure Father’s participation, but what if it had and was denied by the prison?  Would the Court of Appeals have held that the attempt to secure his participation was enough?   I would hate to think  it would have left the child in limbo until it could secure Father’s participation.

We also should not forget that Father’s case was buttressed by the fact that the parental rights of Mother, who had custody of the children, were not terminated.  This meant the child would remain under the supervision of the court, reducing the harm in giving Father an opportunity to plan for the child.  Father’s defense was also aided by the fact that DHS did not to their homework regarding,

“(1) the nature of respondent’s relationship with XNI before his incarceration; (2) the length of time that respondent had been incarcerated; (3) the date of respondent’s potential release; (4) whether respondent had attempted to plan for XNI or desired to share involvement in that process; (5) whether respondent had obtained any services in prison; or (6) whether respondent’s family members were interested in caring for XNI, MCL 722.954a(2); 42 USC 671(a)(29).”

This made it impossible for DHS to meet its burden under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g) & (3)(j).

In closing, I should also point out that the Court specifically called out the appellate attorney for not ordering the transcripts of the hearings prior to the September permanency planning hearing after Father was made legal and appointed counsel.  The Court wants to see those transcripts to have a better understanding of the case.  The Court was sending a strong message to all of us appellate attorneys.

You can view or download the case here: In re Ignelzi

Legislative Update

Below are some of the bills impacting Children’s Law we are following in the legislature along with links to the bills and bill summaries:

• HB 4118 - Gives special consideration for relatives in foster care placement.
• HB 4314 – Requires appointment of attorney in juvenile delinquency cases under (2)(a) and (d).
• HB 4518, HB 4596 – Repeal of Juvenile Lifer Law.
• HB 5174, HB 5175, HB 5482, HB 5483, HB 5484, HB 5485, HB 5486, HB 5487, HB 5488, HB 5489 – Juvenile competency procedures (Note: HB 5174 is not connected to the other bills).
• HB 5676 – Michigan Public Defense Act would create a statewide system of public defense.

I will do my best to continue to update you on these bills as information becomes available to me.

Weapons Charges Against 10 year old Boy

A 10 year old Detroit boy accused of bringing an unloaded handgun to school was charged with a number of weapons violations in Wyane County Family Court.  The incident occurred on January 20, 2010, when another student saw the boy with the gun in a bathroom at Brewer Elementary/Middle School and told a teacher. The teacher took the gun.

The juvenile pleaded guilty last week to possession of a weapon in a weapons-free school zone.   The Wayne County Prosecutor issued a release today that a concealed weapons charge and a charge of minor in possession of a firearm in public have been dropped.

This is a little more than a case of “boys will be boys.”

Detroit News: Child poverty, neglect on rise in Michigan

On January 12, 2010, The Detroit News ran an article with the headline “Child poverty, neglect on rise in Michigan.”   The article summarizes some of the results of the annual Kids Count Report.  Some of the facts in the article include:

• 40% of Michigan School children are eligible for free or reduced lunches, up from 30.7% in 2000.
• In Oakland County, 11% of children are in poverty, compared with 8.6% in 2005.
• Statewide, 1 in 5 children live in poverty.
• Poverty is tied to a 16 percent increase in confirmed cases of abuse and neglect since 2000.
• Childhood deaths are down with 18.9 deaths per 100,000 children ages 1 to 14, down from 23.1 in 2000.
• The infant mortality rate is down at 7.8 deaths per 1,000 infants from 8.1 in 2000.
• The rate of births to teens fell 20 percent over the decade.

The article correctly points out that increased poverty leads to increased instances of abuse and neglect because parents can’t provide for their children’s basic needs or take out their frustrations for their economic troubles on their children.  It is interesting that in Oakland County, where poverty is on the rise, petitions seeking court jurisdiction over abused and neglected children are down.  Based on the correlation between poverty and child abuse and neglect, shouldn’t we see more petitions being filed?

Some attribute the cause of the lower filings on the fact that the new Oakland County prosecutor no longer co-petitions with DHS in child neglect matters.  Under this reasoning, the filings are down because DHS was being pressured into filing petitions by the previous prosecutor and the reduction is the result of DHS no longer filing petitions they consider unnecessary.  Another theory is that DHS has hired new staff and this staff is being retrained.  Whatever the cause, I find it hard to believe in these difficult economic times that child abuse and neglect is on the decline as the decrease in petition filings would suggest.

You can read the Detroit News Article here:  Child poverty, neglect on rise in Michigan.

CARE House may be expanding/relocating

The Oakland Press reports that CARE House in Pontiac may be expanding their facility.  CARE House has submitted a request to the Pontiac City Zoning Board to re-zone property that includes the now closed Ducky’s Bar on Woodward between Earlmoor Boulevard and Nebraska Avenue.  If approved, CARE House, who already owns the property, plans to demolish the bar and its own facility to build a new building at the location.

Most of us who do child abuse and neglect work in Oakland County are very familiar with CARE House.  CARE House provides advocacy, prevention, intervention and treatment services to children who have suffered abuse and neglect.  They also conduct forensic interviews of children who are alleged to have suffered abuse and neglect.   According to the Oakland Press, CARE House has declined to talk about the plans publicly, but hopefully these new facilities will provide better rooms to conduct the forensic interviews also.  I am sure we will be hearing more about this if and when the zoning plan is approved.

You can check out the Oakland Press article here:  CARE House hopes to tear down Pontiac bar, build new facility

USDOJ Report on Sexual Assaults in Youth Detention Centers

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice released survey results regarding sexual assaults in youth detention centers in Michigan.  The data is based on anonymous surveys issued to children in youth detention centers.  The survey revealed that nearly one in four kids said they had been sexually assaulted.  All of the assaults reported were perpetrated by other inmates.  No staff members were implicated in the assaults.  I have excerpted the data from Michigan in the table below:

These results are very alarming.  The offenders in these facilities are there for very serious offenses, which increases the likelihood of these incidents.  However, these facilities must do a better job protecting these children.

You can view the full report here: U.S. Dept. of Justice Survey

Oakland Press Editorial – Oakland County Prosecutor needs to take lead on fighting juvenile crime

Last week (Thursday, January 14, 2010), the Oakland Press published an editorial criticizing Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper for not being tougher on juvenile offenses.   Ms. Cooper states that there has been an increase in serious juvenile crimes in the county “mainly because of gang activity in Pontiac and in the southern part of the county.”  She adds that the increased serious crimes, budget problems and staffing shortages result in other juvenile cases not getting turned around as quickly.

The article reports that the prosecutor did not follow through on an assault complaint in Waterford Township in which a female teen hockey player struck another player on December 5, 2010.  The father of the victim in the matter is apparently upset because the other player is permitted to continue participating in sports.  The school district has denied the father’s request that the school take immediate disciplinary action, suspend the player and remove her from all sports teams and athletic events.  There was no report that the victim was injured.  Yet, the Oakland Press feels the need to “question why Cooper seems to be taking such a casual approach to an apparently serious incident.”  The report then goes on to criticize the prosecutor for not communicating her actions on juvenile offenses to the public.

Am I wrong here or is this report overly harsh on the prosecutor?  First, I think it would be hard to argue that the prosecutor should give the same  priority to a simple assault as she does a more serious crimes like Armed Robbery.  A good prosecutor should direct her resources to the most serious crimes first.  Second, I am not sure how much she should communicate the rationale behind the use of her prosecutorial discretion.  There are ethical rules that  prohibit her from making public communications that would have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding .” MRPC 3.6.   Finally, perhaps this issue was better left to the local school board, who did not find the offense serious enough to take action, to discipline the child, rather than as a juvenile delinquency matter.

You can read the Oakland Press Editorial here.