FOSTER CARE PLACEMENT S.B. 668 (S-1)-672 (S-1): FLOOR ANALYSIS
[Please see the PDF version of this analysis, if available, to view this image.]
Senate Bill 668 (Substitute S-1 as reported)
Senate Bill 669 (Substitute S-1 as reported)
Senate Bill 670 (Substitute S-1 as reported)
Senate Bill 671 (as reported without amendment)
Senate Bill 672 (Substitute S-1 as reported)
Sponsor: Senator Bill Hardiman (S.B. 668)
Senator Mark C. Jansen (S.B. 669 & 672)
Senator Gilda Z. Jacobs (S.B. 670)
Senator Roger Kahn, M.D. (S.B. 671)
Committee: Families and Human Services
CONTENT
The bills would amend the juvenile code to revise provisions concerning the placement of children in foster care.
Senate Bill 668 (S-1) would do the following:
-- Permit a judge to suspend parenting time if a petition to terminate parental rights were filed, and delete provisions for the automatic suspension of parenting time.
-- Require the family court, before ordering the termination of parental rights, to determine that termination was in the child's best interests.
Senate Bill 669 (S-1) would do the following:
-- Require the family court, at a permanency planning hearing for a child, to obtain the child's views regarding the permanency plan, in an age-appropriate manner.
-- Permit, rather than require, the court to order the termination of parental rights if it determined that a child should not be returned to his or her parents.
-- Require the court to order the termination of parental rights if a child had been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, except under certain circumstances.
-- Permit the court to appoint a guardian for a child as an alternative placement plan, if termination of parental rights were not initiated.
-- Require the court to order the Department of Human Services (DHS), if a child were placed in a guardian's or proposed guardian's home, to conduct a criminal record check and central registry clearance within seven days, and a home study within 30 days.
-- Require the court to terminate or revoke a guardianship if it found that continuation of the guardianship was not in the child's best interests.
Senate Bill 670 (S-1) would require a child placing agency to notify the court and the guardian ad litem for a child before a change in the child's placement took effect.
Senate Bill 671 would permit efforts to finalize an alternate permanency plan for a child to be made concurrently with efforts to reunify the child with his or her family.
Senate Bill 672 (S-1) would do the following:
--
-- Permit the court to appoint a guardian for a child who remained in placement after parental rights had been terminated.
-- Prohibit the court from appointing a guardian without the consent of the Michigan Children's Institute superintendent.
-- Require the court to order the DHS, if a child were placed in a guardian's or proposed guardian's home, to conduct a criminal record check and central registry clearance within seven days, and a home study within 30 days.
-- Require the court to terminate or revoke a guardianship if it found that continuation was not in the child's best interests.
MCL 712A.19b (S.B. 668) Legislative Analyst: Curtis Walker
712A.19a (S.B. 669)
712A.13b (S.B. 670)
712A.19 (S.B. 671)
712A.19c (S.B. 672)
FISCAL IMPACT
Senate Bills 668 (S-1), 669 (S-1), and 671 address court procedure and would have no fiscal impact on the judiciary. A provision in Senate Bill 669 (S-1) for criminal record checks would require the DHS to pay the Department of State Police $70 per nationwide criminal record check. The Department expects that on October 1, 2007, there will be 50 guardianship cases, but the caseload is expected to increase during the year.
Senate Bill 670 (S-1) would have no fiscal impact on State or local government.
Senate Bill 672 (S-1) could require the Department of Human Services to spend additional funds for criminal record checks, which would require a $70 payment per record check, as well as contractual services, supplies, and materials, but otherwise would not have a fiscal impact on the Department.
Date Completed: 9-26-07 Fiscal Analyst: Constance Cole
Stephanie YuAnalysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent. sb668-672/0708