Petition to Modify Pending Legislation to Protect Children By Protecting Parent's Rights

Doug Dante
DougDante1@yahoo.com
September 29, 2010

The following message was sent to all Michigan Senators, all Michigan Representatives, and
Michigan's Governor (See details below if you would also like to send this message to them), both by
myself and by some members of the FRC@yahoogroups.com and michdads@yahoogroups.com on line
e-mail groups.

SUBJECT:

Modify HB 4118, HB 4169, and SB 1302 to Protect Children By Protecting Parent's Rights

BODY:

Senator/Representative/Governor,

I urge you to modify HB 4118, HB 4169, SB 1302 to protect the rights of parents.

As it is implemented now, the law appears to me to sometimes cause the state to take children from fit
and willing parents, particularly fathers, and place those children in various other placement options.
These laws may marginally help children and parents who lose their relationships to one another in this
manner, but not directly.

Just listen to what Shane Hinojosa, father of Naveah Buchanan, a five year old living with her
grandmother along with a known sex offender "father figure", before she was later murdered, had to
say about his experiences trying to get custody of his child while her mother was in jail:

"I went to court, and the judge looked at me and said well you have no rights to your daughter at all. ...
I don't know why I didn't get custody. I guess in the State of Michigan, it's grandmother, after
something went wrong."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29563848/A-Review-of-Friend-of-the-Court-Legislative-Changes-Suffer-
the-Little-Children

Watch whistle blower and former FOC enforcement officer Carol Rhodes:

"I came to the 32nd circuit family court to make a difference, ... but early on I realized ... it was all
about money ... My director would say regularly, 'We aren't the friend of the family, we're the Friend
of the Court!' ... In the years I worked for the system I witnessed regular deception to clients that was
mandated by office policy. I saw gender bias and discrimination. I saw records destroyed. ... I saw
hundreds of pleas for parenting time or enforcement get buried because there is no money in enforcing
custody or visitation issues. ... We were rated according to how much money we would bring in"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24&fmt=18

A review of recent rulings in the Michigan Appellate Digest may be instructive.

Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled proudly for freedom by announcing that our
constitution protects parents by acknowledging parenting as a "fundamental liberty interest" and
requiring "a more than fair process" and "heightened protection against government interference":

"The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.” We have long recognized that the Amendment’s Due Process
Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, “guarantees more than fair process.” Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997). The Clause also includes a substantive component that
“provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and
liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301—302 (1993) .... it cannot now
be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right
of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."

TROXEL V. GRANVILLE (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

137 Wash. 2d 1, 969 P.2d 21, affirmed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html

Since that time, Michigan's appellate digest has documented a series of rulings that, to me, have not
explicitly acknowledged the full effect of those noble words. Accordingly, to my way of thinking,
some lower courts in Michigan may incorrectly fail to give parents the full legal protections intended
by the US Supreme Court.

In 2001, the Michigan Court of Appeals recognized due process rights only for child protective
proceedings:

"Parents have a due process liberty interest in the care of their children, and child protective
proceedings affect that interest. "

In re AMB
COA# 218869 View Docket Sheet
Released: November 6, 2001
Panel: WHITBECK, McDonald, Collins
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=39235&mode=view#205835

However, apparently, it was necessary to later clarify that those due process rights extended also to
non-custodial parents, including most fathers of children born out of wedlock who are forced to
"voluntarily" give up their custodianship of their children if they wish to execute an acknowledge
paternity, which is the only effective way that they can legally become a child's father. Specific
acknowledgment of their rights would have to wait nine more years, until 2009.

"The fundamental constitutional interest of a parent in the care and custody of his child extends to
noncustodial parents. The state may not enter into an agreement with an unfit custodial parent which
might compromise the state’s efforts to reunite the child with the noncustodial parent."
In re AP
COA# 286431 View Docket Sheet
Released: May 5, 2009
Panel: Murphy, KF KELLY, Donofrio

http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=70685&mode=view#475225

I wonder if the state had entered into such an agreement with Navaeh's maternal grandmother,
preventing her father from reuniting with Navaeh.

It took another year, until just a few months ago, until the Michigan Appellate Digest finally
recognized that the fourteenth amendment's due process rights protect a parent's care and custody of
their children extended to other proceedings than termination of parental rights:

"Both the Michigan and the United States Constitutions preclude the government from depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Parents have a significant interest in the
companionship, care, custody, and management of their children, and that interest is an element of
liberty protected by due process"

In re Beck
COA# 293138
Released: March 4, 2010
Panel: Davis, Fort Hood, Servitto (PC)
http://coa.courts.mi.gov/Digest/DigestDetail?digestId=72675&mode=view#496715

That is, I hope it does. Like noncustodial parent's due process rights, sometimes it seems that a later
ruling and entry in the Michigan Appellate Digest is required by the court of appeals to clarify what
seemed obvious to non-lawyer outsiders like me. If it's not 100% clear that those due process rights
apply to child custody, parenting time disputes, or calculation of child support, then the due process
rights of parents in those circumstances may incorrectly ignored by lower courts.

But notice two more things from the Michigan Appellate digest:

Due Process - Procedural - Standard

The fundamental requirements of procedural due process are notice and a meaningful opportunity to
be heard before an impartial decisionmaker.

Due Process - Substantive - Standard

The essence of a substantive due process claim is the arbitrary deprivation of liberty or property
interests. A person claiming a deprivation of substantive due process must show that the action was so
constitutionally arbitrary as to shock the conscience.

Ten years after Troxel, an entire decade later, I'm not aware of anywhere within the Michigan
Appellate digest says that the Constution “provides heightened protection against government
interference [with parents rights]" or which “guarantees more than fair process.” Furthermore, I've not
seen the words "fundamental liberty interest" used in conjunction with parents rights in the Michigan
Appellate Digest, but rather the apparently weaker "significant interests" of parents are acknowledged.

In fact, the Michigan Appellate Digest appears to me, as a non-lawyer to specifically contradict the US
Supreme Court's Troxel ruling. If a lower court were to hear a parent who said, "I was not given access
to a more than fair process" or "I was not provided heightened protection against government
interference" in my parental rights, that court, relying on the Michigan Appellate Digest, may
incorrectly believe that such claims are erroneous. If a parent's lawyer were to say, "my client's rights
to the care and custody of her child are a fundamental liberty interest" the court might reasonably
respond, after reviewing the Michigan Appellate Digest, "no, it's only a 'significant interest'" To me,
lawyers and judges relying on the digest may reasonably believe that parents in Michigan are not
entitled to those rights which the US Supreme Court specifically recognized in Troxel a decade ago.

We've had a decade already where it seems to me based on the Michigan Appellate Digest that Troxel's
requirements of due process, heightened protection against interference, and a more than fair process
have not have full, and explicit legal force for all parents in Michigan with regards to all proceedings
which effect those rights.

For example, in Ingham County, child custody is decided by a Conciliator. Don't look for the word
"Conciliator" in Michigan's family law statutes, because as far as I know, it's never been defined.
However, this Concilator, who is ordinarily not a lawyer, can take evidence, interview parties
separately, maintain secret files, not inform one parent of evidence that may be used against him or her,
destroy his/her secret files, take secret instructions (including instructions to maximize Title IV-D
funding at all costs), destroy those instructions, and issue orders. Parents are not permitted to complain
about this Concilator's rulings, but rather are limited to factual or procedural reasons for objecting. It's
rather hard to complain that the decision was based on the other party's lies when you don't even know
what the other party said. It's even harder to show that the decision maker who can destroy or modify
his/her records at will, and who leaves little, if any written trail for you to examine, was somehow
biased in some way.

"The specific factual or procedural reason(s) for the objection is/are: (Dissatisfaction with the
outcome of the recommendation is not a reason to object. You must be specific in your objections.)"

OBJECTION TO CONCILIATION ORDER

30th Judicial District
Ingham County
http://ingham.org/fc/PDF/objectpre.pdf

Now back to the bills.

HB 4118-4119 make things marginally better by allowing for relative foster care. Still, they requires
that the parent who's losing custody specify relatives, suggesting that the other half of the family mays
still be cut out of the opportunity to care for the child. It could easily improve the situation by
requiring the DHS to make reasonable efforts to find all potential family members eligible to care for
the child. As written, they still allows the parent who has lost custody to avoid notifying the other
parent (usually the father) and all of the other parent's relatives:

Besides that, these bills should be modified to make it crystal clear that the state is not permitted to take
children from fit and willing parents and that parents are entitled, explicitly, to the protections that the
US Supreme Court gave them in Troxel:
" (3) The notification of relatives required in subsection (2)

shall do all of the following:

(a) Specify that the child has been removed from the custody

of the child’s parent."

At a minimum, HB 4118 still places state care above parent care. The law should be amended such
that:

(B) SPECIFY THAT THE CHILD'S OTHER PARENT IS UNFIT UNWILLING OR UNABLE
TO CARE FOR THE CHILD

(C) SPECIFY THAT BOTH OF THE CHILD'S PARENTS WERE GIVEN ACCESS TO A
MORE THAN FAIR PROCESS WHICH PROVIDED FOR HEIGHTENED PROTECTION
AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH THEIR FUNDAMENTAL DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS TO THE CARE, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL OF THEIR CHILDREN

The law should similarly be changed to include the words "fundamental liberty interest", "heightened
protection against government interference", and "more than fair process" when dealing with the rights
of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children, including child custody, parenting time,
and child support proceedings. Furthermore, the DHS should be required to make good faith efforts to
find family members when a child has no fit parents, and not rely on potentially biased responses from
an unfit parent. Also, rather than the "best interests of the child" standard, children should be given to
relatives unless they are unfit or unwilling based on the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. If
the legislature wants to give effect to the words of the US Supreme Court in Troxel, and to fully respect
the rights of parents, which is the best way to ensure the safety of Michigan's children, I believe that
such changes in statutory language will be helpful.

TO:

Names of all Michigan Senators:

Jason Allen, Glenn S. Anderson, Jim Barcia, Raymond E. Basham, Patricia L. Birkholz, Michael
Bishop, Liz Brater, Cameron Brown, Nancy Cassis, Deborah Cherry, Irma Clark-Coleman, Hansen
Clarke, Alan L. Cropsey, Valde Garcia, Thomas M. George, Judson Gilbert II, John Gleason, Bill
Hardiman, Tupac A. Hunter, Gilda Z. Jacobs, Mark C. Jansen, Ron Jelinek, Roger MD Kahn, Wayne
Kuipers, Michelle McManus, Mike Nofs, Dennis Olshove, John Pappageorge, Bruce Patterson,
Michael Prusi, Randy Richardville, Alan Sanborn, Martha G. Scott, Tony Stamas, Michael Switalski,
Samuel Buzz Thomas III, Gerald VanWoerkom, Gretchen Whitmer
E-mail addresses of all Michigan Senators:

SenJAllen@senate.michigan.gov; SenGAnderson@senate.michigan.gov;
SenJBarcia@senate.michigan.gov; SenRBasham@senate.michigan.gov;
SenPBirkholz@senate.michigan.gov; SenMBishop@senate.michigan.gov;
SenLBrater@senate.michigan.gov; SenCBrown@senate.michigan.gov;
SenNCassis@senate.michigan.gov; SenDCherry@senate.michigan.gov; SenIClark-
Coleman@senate.michigan.gov; SenHansenClarke@senate.michigan.gov;
SenACropsey@senate.michigan.gov; SenTGeorge@senate.michigan.gov;
SenJGilbert@senate.michigan.gov; SenJGleason@senate.michigan.gov;
SenTAHunter@senate.michigan.gov; SenGJacobs@senate.michigan.gov;
SenMJansen@senate.michigan.gov; SenRJelinek@senate.michigan.gov;
SenRKahn@senate.michigan.gov; SenWKuipers@senate.michigan.gov;
SenMMcManus@senate.michigan.gov; SenMNofs@senate.michigan.gov;
SenDOlshove@senate.michigan.gov; SenJPappageorge@senate.michigan.gov;
SenBPatterson@senate.michigan.gov; SenMPrusi@senate.michigan.gov;
SenRRichardville@senate.michigan.gov; SenASanborn@senate.michigan.gov;
SenMScott@senate.michigan.gov; SenMSwitalski@senate.michigan.gov;
SenBThomas@senate.michigan.gov;
SenGVanWoerkom@senate.michigan.gov;SenGWhitmer@senate.michigan.gov

The following Senators use identical web forms:

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/garcia
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/hardiman
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/stamas

Office of the Governor (Jennifer Granholm):

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995-65331--,00.html

All members of Michigan's House (district number):

Timothy Bledsoe (001), LaMar Lemmons Jr. (002), Bettie Cook Scott (003), Coleman Young II (004),
Bert Johnson (005), Fred Durhal Jr. (006), Jimmy Womack (007), George Cushingberry Jr. (008),
Shanelle Jackson (009), Gabe Leland (010), David Nathan (011), Rashida Tlaib (012), Andrew
Kandrevas (013), Ed Clemente (014), Gino Polidori (015), Bob Constan (016), Andy Dillon (017),
Richard LeBlanc (018), John Walsh (019), Marc Corriveau (020), Dian Slavens (021), Douglas Geiss
(022), Deb Kennedy (023), Sarah Roberts (024), Jon Switalski (025), Marie Donigan (026), Ellen
Lipton (027), Lesia Liss (028), Tim Melton (029), Tory Rocca (030), Fred Miller (031), Jennifer Haase
(032), Kim Meltzer (033), Woodrow Stanley (034), Vincent Gregory (035), Pete Lund (036), Vicki
Barnett (037), Hugh Crawford (038), Lisa Brown (039), Chuck Moss (040), Marty Knollenberg (041),
Harold Haugh (042), Gail Haines (043), Eileen Kowall (044), Tom McMillin (045), Jim Marleau (046),
Cindy Denby (047), Richard Hammel (048), Lee Gonzales (049), Jim Slezak (050), Paul Scott (051),
Pam Byrnes (052), Rebekah Warren (053), Alma Smith (054), Kathy Angerer (055), Kate Ebli (056),
Dudley Spade (057), Kenneth Kurtz (058), Matt Lori (059), Robert Jones (060), Larry DeShazor (061),
Kate Segal (062), James Bolger (063), Martin Griffin (064), 65 District (065), Bill Rogers (066), Barb
Byrum (067), Joan Bauer (068), Mark Meadows (069), Mike Huckleberry (070), Rick Jones (071),
Justin Amash (072), Tom Pearce (073), David Agema (074), Robert Dean (075), Roy Schmidt (076),
Kevin Green (077), Sharon Tyler (078), John Proos (079), Tonya Schuitmaker (080), Phil Pavlov
(081), Kevin Daley (082), John Espinoza (083), Terry Brown (084), Richard Ball (085), Dave
Hildenbrand (086), Brian Calley (087), Bob Genetski (088), Arlan Meekhof (089), Joseph Haveman
(090), Mary Valentine (091), Doug Bennett (092), Paul Opsommer (093), Kenneth Horn (094), 95
District (095), Jeff Mayes (096), 97 District (097), Jim Stamas (098), Bill Caul (099), Goeff Hansen
(100), Dan Scripps (101), Darwin Booher (102), Joel Sheltrown (103), Wayne Schmidt (104), Kevin
Elsenheimer (105), Andy Neumann (106), Gary McDowell (107), Judy Nerat (108), Steven Lindberg
(109), Michael Lahti (110)

E-mail addresses of all Michigan House Members (Groups of not more than 20):

TimBledsoe@house.mi.gov, lamarlemmonsjr@house.mi.gov, bettiecookscott@house.mi.gov,

colemanayoungii@house.mi.gov, bertjohnson@house.mi.gov, FredDurhal@house.mi.gov,
JimmyWomack@house.mi.gov, georgecushingberry@house.mi.gov, shanellejackson@house.mi.gov,
gabeleland@house.mi.gov, DavidNathan@house.mi.gov, RashidaTlaib@house.mi.gov,
AndrewKandrevas@house.mi.gov, edclemente@house.mi.gov, ginopolidori@house.mi.gov,
bobconstan@house.mi.gov, andydillon@house.mi.gov, richardleblanc@house.mi.gov,
JohnWalsh@house.mi.gov, marccorriveau@house.mi.gov, DianSlavens@house.mi.gov

DouglasGeiss@house.mi.gov, DebKennedy@house.mi.gov, SarahRoberts@house.mi.gov,

JonSwitalski@house.mi.gov, mariedonigan@house.mi.gov, EllenLipton@house.mi.gov,
LesiaLiss@house.mi.gov, timmelton@house.mi.gov, toryrocca@house.mi.gov,
fredmiller@house.mi.gov, JenniferHaase@house.mi.gov, kimmeltzer@house.mi.gov,
WoodrowStanley@house.mi.gov, VincentGregory@house.mi.gov, PeteLund@house.mi.gov,
VickiBarnett@house.mi.gov, HughCrawford@house.mi.gov, LisaBrown@house.mi.gov,
chuckmoss@house.mi.gov, martyknollenberg@house.mi.gov

HaroldHaugh@house.mi.gov, GailHaines@house.mi.gov, EileenKowall@house.mi.gov,

TomMcMillin@house.mi.gov, jimmarleau@house.mi.gov, CindyDenby@house.mi.gov,
richardhammel@house.mi.gov, leegonzales@house.mi.gov, JimSlezak@house.mi.gov,
PaulScott@house.mi.gov, pambyrnes@house.mi.gov, rebekahwarren@house.mi.gov,
almasmith@house.mi.gov, kathyangerer@house.mi.gov, KateEbli@house.mi.gov,
dspade@house.mi.gov, KennethKurtz@house.mi.gov, MattLori@house.mi.gov,
robertjones@house.mi.gov, LarryDeShazor@house.mi.gov

KateSegal@house.mi.gov, JamesBolger@house.mi.gov, martingriffin@house.mi.gov,

Dist065@house.mi.gov, BillRogers@house.mi.gov, barbbyrum@house.mi.gov,
joanbauer@house.mi.gov, markmeadows@house.mi.gov, MikeHuckleberry@house.mi.gov,
rickjones@house.mi.gov, JustinAmash@house.mi.gov, tompearce@house.mi.gov,
daveagema@house.mi.gov, robertdean@house.mi.gov, RoySchmidt@house.mi.gov,
kevingreen@house.mi.gov, SharonTyler@house.mi.gov, johnproos@house.mi.gov,
tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov, phillippavlov@house.mi.gov
KevinDaley@house.mi.gov, johnespinoza@house.mi.gov, terrybrown@house.mi.gov,
richardball@house.mi.gov, rephildenbrand@house.mi.gov, briancalley@house.mi.gov,
BobGenetski@house.mi.gov, arlanbmeekhof@house.mi.gov, JosephHaveman@house.mi.gov,
maryvalentine@house.mi.gov,

dougbennett@house.mi.gov, paulopsommer@house.mi.gov, kennethhorn@house.mi.gov,

Dist095@house.mi.gov, jeffmayes@house.mi.gov, Dist097@house.mi.gov,
JimStamas@house.mi.gov, billcaul@house.mi.gov, goeffhansen@house.mi.gov,
DanScripps@house.mi.gov

darwinbooher@house.mi.gov, joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov, WayneSchmidt@house.mi.gov,

kevinelsenheimer@house.mi.gov, AndyNeumann@house.mi.gov, garymcdowell@house.mi.gov,
JudyNerat@house.mi.gov, stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov, mikelahti@house.mi.gov

END