Comments for Michigan Children's Law Blog

Comment on Justice Corrigan to be appointed head of DHS by Timothy P. Flynn

Timothy P. Flynn — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:18:06 +0000

Melinda:

I agree that former-Justice Corrigan’s selection as Director of DHS is a very wise strategic move on behalf of the fledgling governor. He was able to replace her with another judicial conservative, Judge Brian Zahra.

With the swamping effect the Great Recession is having on the DHS caseload, what innovations and improvements do you think are important for Corrigan to consider as she takes on this daunting task??

Comment on In re Beck – Supreme Court Opinion – Child Support by Tam

Tam — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 11:01:09 +0000

“Terminating fundamental parental rights, and making them pay for it, is like stealing your house, and making you pay the mortgage on it.”

When a parent’s rights are terminated, it is because the parent is a complete and utter screw-up. The state doesn’t run around “stealing” children. The terminated parent, whether male or female, has their rights terminated because of their BEHAVIOR.

So, to use your lovely mortgage analogy:

Terminating fundamental parental rights, and making them pay for it, is like making you pay your mortgage after you’ve blown up your house.

Comment on In re Beck – Supreme Court Opinion – Child Support by Dadzrites

Dadzrites — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 23:25:41 +0000

” Once again, we see the left-wing Marxists on the Michigan Supreme Court trying to tell us how to live. These clowns took an Oath of Office to uphold, support & defend the US Constitution. As a condition of their public employment, by taking the Oath, they are obligated to recognize, acknowledge, and protect each citizen’s fundamentally secured rights. Terminating fundamental parental rights, and making them pay for it, is like stealing your house, and making you pay the mortgage on it.

Children are indeed property because Federal funding to the state for child support is determined on how many children have been awarded or are collecting child support. Gov’t cannot take money from people to pay for property, especially in this instance, when the property is not theirs.

Obviously the children will not be on the public dole because foster or adoptive parents will be raising them. The entire matter is a fraud & a scam and these justices should be removed and impeached and have their pensions forfeited.

The New Jersey Supreme Court case Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396, 451 (1988), held that “custody and visitation encompass all of what we call ‘parental rights’, a total denial of both would be the equivalent of termination of parental rights”. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 612-13 (1987) held “when parents make a commitment to meet those responsibilities of parenthood , the child has a right to rely on the unique contribution of each parent to material and emotional support. The child therefore has a fundamental interest in the continuation of parental care and support.

This fundamental interest, and the corresponding parental duty, is an inherent part of the “best interests of the child”. Hence, the RECIPROCAL means no parental rights; no support obligations. “

Comment on In re Beck – Supreme Court Grants Leave by Leah

Leah — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:03:25 +0000

This is a very interesting blog you keep up. I am a foster parent, not a very seasoned one, and I am shocked to see a blog like this…I just never knew one existed.

Looking forward to keeping up with it…

Comment on In Re Beck: Child Support Following Involuntary Termination by Melinda Deel

Melinda Deel — Mon, 17 May 2010 15:17:28 +0000

Generally, the obligation to pay continuing child support will terminate when the child is adopted.

Comment on In Re Beck: Child Support Following Involuntary Termination by Sheryl DeGroff-Burg

Sheryl DeGroff-Burg — Mon, 17 May 2010 12:19:06 +0000

I have adopted a child whose parental rights, both mother and dad have been involentarily terminated. Are they still legally responsible for child support. Right now they are paying for back support while all the court case was involved. What happens when dhs is paid back? How do I file or do I have to, will it be automatic?

Comment on Amendments to the Safe Delivery of Newborns Act Moving by Melissa

Melissa — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:39:48 +0000

My custody battle for my son in 2001 was a disgusting mess because of the safe delivery law. The fact that someone is finally making some changes is wonderful news. I fought for 5 weeks over jurisdiction and battled the adoption agency for my son because this law was full of holes. I honestly believe there are a lot more ammendments needed to be made. As far as I know my case was one of the first asking for returned custody and at the time the courts and everyone involved was completely unprepaired. There was no provisions in place for what I went through with my child. Fantastic news that something is starting to change with this law.

Comment on In re Hansen – Published Opinion Re: Best Interests by J Latuszek

J Latuszek — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:25:24 +0000

Who would’ve thought the July 2008 Legislation needed interpretation!!??!! There are so few published cases, I hate to see one with such bad facts. I couldn’t agree with you more about the definition of best interest. I had hoped the MI supreme court would’ve adopted one in In re Hudson Morgan Minors. MI Childrens law briefed as amicus and suggested a defintion…to no avail. Oh well.

Comment on New Study on Relation between Breastfeeding and Child Abuse by AnnaKLarson

AnnaKLarson — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:07:43 +0000

Examining our own data at LegalMatch.com over a five year period, we have also found that the majority of allegations of child abuse made by our customers are related to the biological parents, with mothers being no exception. However, the findings of the article above do not seem surprising; mothers who breastfeed their children (particularly in this age of convenience) would appear to be particularly bonded to their child. The more bounded, the less likely to be abusive.