Michigan Father Denied Counsel and Loses Parental Rights

[bigmike]

http://stopcorruptdss.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/fundamental-legal-right-often-denied-parents/

BY VIVEK SANKARAN • July 5, 2009

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Ronald McBride, a father whose parental rights to his three children were permanently terminated despite the fact that the juvenile court denied him the right to a lawyer throughout the entire case.

The Department of Human Services admitted that the trial court made a mistake. The Michigan Attorney General's Office conceded that the father's statutory and constitutional rights were violated and that reversal was required. National groups, including the National Association of Counsel for Children and the Public Counsel Project, urged the court to correct the injustice. And Justice Maura Corrigan, joined by Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly, wrote a powerful dissent providing compelling reasons why the court should hear the case.

All for naught. The court's one-sentence response: "We are not persuaded the questions presented should be reviewed by the court."

With that, the court endorsed the permanent severance of the parent-child relationship — often characterized as the "civil death penalty" — without affording the Bay County man the most fundamental of procedural rights: the right to a lawyer.

The McBride outrage was no fluke. But even though the Michigan Juvenile Code and court rules explicitly provide poor parents the right to an attorney in all child protective proceedings, much work remains to be done to implement this right and to ensure that parents receive effective representation.

In 2005, the American Bar Association concluded with respect to parent representation in Michigan that "what was reported to evaluators ... and what was observed in court hearings fall disturbingly short of standards of practice." More recently, Justice Corrigan observed a "disturbing and recent pattern of trial court's failures to appoint counsel and untimely appointments of counsel to represent parents in child protective proceedings."

How lawyers help judges

Justice Corrigan's observations match anecdotal evidence documenting wide variation across the state in the quality of representation provided to parents. Each county sets its own standards for how parents' attorneys are appointed. Compensation rates, training requirements, and the timing of appointments vary widely. The quality of counsel parents receive often depends on the county in which they reside.


And quality counsel matters. Without zealous advocates, parents face an uphill battle navigating the child welfare system. Far too many children are needlessly removed from their homes, and frequently parents feel overwhelmed by a complex system governed by an array of interrelated federal and state laws, controlled by sophisticated professionals who are the only ones who know the rules.

Alone, parents lack the tools to tell their stories or challenge governmental overreaching.

The assistance of a zealous advocate not only reassures the parent that he or she is not alone in navigating the child welfare labyrinth, but also improves the quality of decisions that courts make. By challenging unreliable information and producing independent evidence of their clients' strengths and supports, attorneys ensure that courts rely upon only the most accurate and complete information available prior to rendering life-altering decisions.

Additionally, these lawyers expand options available to courts by proposing creative alternatives, such as guardianships or other custody arrangements, intensive in-home services to preserve a child's placement in the home, or extensive visitation between parents and children supervised by family members, friends or neighbors.

Without zealous parent representation, courts lack an important perspective — that of the parent with whom reunification is sought — which increases the likelihood that courts will reach an erroneous decision.

In the child's best interest. Not surprisingly, national studies strongly suggest that strong advocacy for parents dramatically improves outcomes for children. Studies from Washington, New York and California demonstrate that strengthening parent representation leads to fewer children being removed from their homes, shorter stays for children in foster care, and fewer terminations of parental rights — exactly the types of results the system should strive for.

And ensuring that only those children who truly need foster care enter the system would result in significant public cost savings. As evaluators in the State of Washington concluded, "the enhancement of parents' representation has the potential to save increasing millions in state funding on an annualized basis."

Fortunately, child welfare leaders across the state recognize the need to strengthen the quality of parent representation, and important discussions will begin in upcoming months to fix the system.

For the sake of our children, we can only hope those talks bear fruit soon.

VIVEK SANKARAN is a clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.

[violence]

let him take up arms and get his children back

[doobie]

And he's probably paying 40-50% of his salary to the ex-wife/partner too.

[KBCraig]

And he's probably paying 40-50% of his salary to the ex-wife/partner too.

Severance of parental rights comes with the severance of parental responsibility. Legally, he is not longer the father, so he is under no obligation to provide.

[Humorrhoid]

This brings a lot of memories to me. When children got taken away
that's the most brutal way to do to a parent.
Short of killing the parent, per se.

[doobie]

And he's probably paying 40-50% of his salary to the ex-wife/partner too.

Severance of parental rights comes with the severance of parental responsibility. Legally, he is not longer the father, so he is under no obligation to provide.

So I wonder who they are forcing to pay the child support?  The ex's last boy friend who didn't do anything but take her out on a couple of dates?