TexasCHLforum.com

http://tribunist.com/news/state-tells-m ... -to-court/

The judge reportedly stated, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.”

So the judge admitted to violating the Constitution? Sounds like grounds for removal to me.

Hope it gets to SCOTUS. My guess is that this court would overturn Michigan's statute.

Wow... So unalienable constitutional rights of the people are only valid if they suit the interests of the ones in charge of enforcing it? I'm starting to feel like more and more states in this nation are turning toward authoritarianism. It's such a travesty.

While I believe the state is correct to demand that all firearms be locked and not available to the children. But a judge acknowleging he is acting contrary to the constitution is appalling. There can be no higher arrogance of the court than a judge claiming that he is above the law above the very constitution itself.

This is a State Agency policy, not State law. If I remember correctly, there was a similar case here in Texas, and the agency backed off of it's policy. I too hope this goes to SCOTUS, and that all foster care, adoption agencies, etc. are put on notice that these types of infringements, will not be tolerated. This is no different than denying someone the ability to foster, or adopt, based on race, religion, etc.JMHO

There is another interesting question: where does the State get the authority to decide who raises a family member? In the past custodial care was often worked out among family members. While I can see that in the cases abandoned or completely orphaned children, some help may be needed to find an alternative. But churches and other institutions have always played a role in these matters and in many other countries today, play the primary role. It wasn't until the 18th century that the State really seemed to do more than provide funding. Then the birth of State run orphanages and the horrors of them lead to the dismantling of the physical institutions but governments seem to want a larger and larger share of the control in the process.

The recent news articles about the UK and the denial of medical support for the allegedly terminal infant should be a reminder of the growth of this power. The underlying theme of the OP is that the State knows better what is better for the child than the grandparents. We see CPS in Texas with the same mentality in the licensing of day care facilities. It isn't just the court and the judge with this mindset.

we have friends in a similar situation- once a child is taken from the parents, even family members have to qualify as foster. If they had done this prior, the grandparents could have probably just been given custody.

It's a very broken system, no doubt, but even worse for the kids in it.

chasfm11 wrote:There is another interesting question: where does the State get the authority to decide who raises a family member? In the past custodial care was often worked out among family members. While I can see that in the cases abandoned or completely orphaned children, some help may be needed to find an alternative. But churches and other institutions have always played a role in these matters and in many other countries today, play the primary role. It wasn't until the 18th century that the State really seemed to do more than provide funding. Then the birth of State run orphanages and the horrors of them lead to the dismantling of the physical institutions but governments seem to want a larger and larger share of the control in the process.

The recent news articles about the UK and the denial of medical support for the allegedly terminal infant should be a reminder of the grow of this power. The underlying theme of the OP is that the State knows better what is better for the child than the grandparents. We see CPS in Texas with the same mentality in the licensing of day care facilities. It isn't just the court and the judge with this mindset.

The article doesn't say, but my best guess is, that the child in question, was probably already in the system as a foster child. I don't know how Michigan agencies are set up, but here in Texas, if it was a simple case of a child moving in with grandparents, the only agency involved, would be child protective services, where they would do an investigation, and not remove the child unless there were extenuating circumstances. Since they have described this as a foster care issue, I am just assuming that the child was removed, from the home, placed in foster care, and the grandparents applied to be his/her foster parents. That's why it went to court. The odd thing to me, is that rather than just apply for full guardianship, they went through the foster care system, which, pays the foster parents a stipend for the care of the child. Full guardianship, or adoption, doesn't pay them. I know that if it were my grandchild, I would simply take over guardianship, which gives me full parental rights. Of course this is all conjecture since, the article, leaves out a lot of detail, and again, Michigan agencies, may differ from those here. JMHO

flechero wrote:we have friends in a similar situation- once a child is taken from the parents, even family members have to qualify as foster. If they had done this prior, the grandparents could have probably just been given custody.

It's a very broken system, no doubt, but even worse for the kids in it.

Are they really "foster" parents, or are they guardians? It is my understanding that they can be given, custody, and guardianship, without going through the foster care system. But I am relying on memory, which, at my age, is suspect at best.

Gun Talk Radio had an interview with the lawyer on the lawsuit yesterday (brief interview). From what he said, it was mainly the state agency making demands. The judge was just unable or unwilling to declare their regulation invalid. They have just filed the lawsuit so there hadn't been any reviews or rulings yet.

Liberty wrote:While I believe the state is correct to demand that all firearms be locked and not available to the children. But a judge acknowleging he is acting contrary to the constitution is appalling. There can be no higher arrogance of the court than a judge claiming that he is above the law above the very constitution itself.

This is the law in Texas, and I would assume in Michigan as well. Unless Michigan law otherwise allows minors to have access to loaded firearms, the state agency has zero reason to get involved.

Jusme wrote:

flechero wrote:we have friends in a similar situation- once a child is taken from the parents, even family members have to qualify as foster. If they had done this prior, the grandparents could have probably just been given custody.

It's a very broken system, no doubt, but even worse for the kids in it.

Are they really "foster" parents, or are they guardians? It is my understanding that they can be given, custody, and guardianship, without going through the foster care system. But I am relying on memory, which, at my age, is suspect at best.

In my friends case, they had to go through the full blown foster qualifications to take a nephew... it was an absolutely ridiculous process. (we walked through it with them as they are part of our Bible study /Com group.) I see why so many people are turned off by the process.

flechero wrote:

Jusme wrote:

flechero wrote:we have friends in a similar situation- once a child is taken from the parents, even family members have to qualify as foster. If they had done this prior, the grandparents could have probably just been given custody.

It's a very broken system, no doubt, but even worse for the kids in it.

Are they really "foster" parents, or are they guardians? It is my understanding that they can be given, custody, and guardianship, without going through the foster care system. But I am relying on memory, which, at my age, is suspect at best.

In my friends case, they had to go through the full blown foster qualifications to take a nephew... it was an absolutely ridiculous process. (we walked through it with them as they are part of our Bible study /Com group.) I see why so many people are turned off by the process.

a court will determine that they are guardians. But yes, they have to go through most if not all of the "foster" junk, including all of the "how to raise a kid" classes.
Now....I'm not sure if the bill made it through or if was one that got knocked out in the mess, but there was a bill dealing with what they call "kinship care" that deals with just this and is intended to make it a bit easier. Because, yeh, people hate this and go running to the hills if they are gun folk or have pets or a slightly messy house.