Legally Kidnapped

Shattering Your Child Welfare Delusions Since 2007


Saturday, November 15, 2008

Michigan Adoption Quo Warranto

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General

Dearest General Cox:

I am writing to request that you initiate a petition for writ quo warranto as an original proceeding in the Michigan Supreme Court, requesting that the Court remove the Superintendent of Michigan Children’s Institute (hereinafter “MCI”), William J. Johnson. In addition, I request that you request Justices Clifford M. Taylor and Maura D. Corrigan to recuse themselves from presiding over the matter. In addition, I request that you that you seek to have the Court enjoin the Office of the Governor to produce the certificate of appointment and biographical questionnaire of the Superintendent William J. Johnson that has been formally presented to the Senate President and to enjoin the Senate to produce the public confirmation of the appointment. In addition, the Court should enjoin the Superintendent, William J. Johnson, from performing any official duties pursuant to The Act. Finally, I request that you seek to have the Court to review all decisions made by the Superintendent, William J. Johnson.

The basis for the petition is as follows:

Public Act 220 of 1935. MCL 400.202 was enacted to create what is known as the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI). This was a brick and mortar building, residing in Coldwater, Michigan, which housed orphans and unwanted children.

Public Act 280 of 1939 MCL 400.2 established the Social Welfare Commission. This was a body of 5 citizens, appointed by the governor with advice of the legislature, with duties to oversee and appoint the Superintendent of the MCI. The authority of delegation of powers and duties to the MCI Superintendent was originally delineated by what was termed as Michigan Social Welfare Commission. This statute of 1935 designated the title of superintendent because his duty was to superintend the actual institute: the physical building and the physical inhabitants, orphans. The institute no longer exists as a physical brick and mortar building; the institute is now a theoretical institution. According to The Social Welfare Act, the Superintendent is to be an appointed public official from the powers of a public body.

Public Act 220 of 1955 MCL 400.215, 400.216 repealed MCI as a brick and mortar building which amended the MCI by removing land usage. This was a point of dismantlement of the physical Institute, itself. By this time social programming was being formulated to take over the ideology of the state housing and caring for children by placing them within the counties and extended from which they came.

MCL 16.553 of Public Act 380 of 1965 abolished the Michigan Social Welfare Commission.

MCL 16.107 § 7(b) Public Act 380 of 1965 never iterated nor reified the Type III transfer of the administrative duties of the Superintendent.

MCL 556.112 § 2 (c) applies as a civil designation and not one of a democratically elected public official or as of an official granted powers by the Governor.

MCL 710.45 et seq. does not acknowledge that the Superintendent is a representative of any public body or court and does not denote his established powers. These powers were self-granted, in essence, under no Michigan public body’s review. The powers have been self executed with little or no basis of credibility and all cases decided by the superintendent since 1974 should be revisited. MCL 710.45 explicitly states in its title the power to withhold consent for adoption is vested in a “representative” or a “court”. There is no definitive explanation as the Superintendent being this “representative”. The Superintendent has taken on these powers without any authority enumerated in the MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION. The Superintendent has seized the role of a policy maker sans the will of the people. This Section 710.45 is part of the Probate Code of 1939. The term “representative” is then to be understood as a designee or appointment of the court. As written in MCL 400.202, the Superintendent is to be appointed by the Commission established under MCL 400.2.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION Article V § 3 Superintendent is not a representative of the people of Michigan through a democratic process of election and in not appointed by public designation of the official duties. The official powers of the Governor and the Senate have been usurped by the MCI, not in accordance with the just powers delineated in the Michigan Constitution. Thus, this state’s courts have over burdened with oversight of decisions taken by the Superintendent without oversight by the public representatives who were rightly beholden for their actions to the citizens of Michigan pursuant to the.

Public Act 422 of 1984 § 722.131-722.140 recognizes the MCI Superintendent as a public member and a stakeholder of the decisions of this body. The Foster Care Review Board (hereinafter “FCRB”) is to be comprised of the members of the community. As MCI Superintendent is tasked with being the sole legal guardian of Michigan’s children whom are awaiting adoption, he advocates for foster care in his official capacity Superintendent. He is not to advocate foster care because he is supposed to remain objective, but he thus enters the legal arena with skewed objectives. He is required to enter into these important decisions of human lives without prejudices, but his very membership on the FCRB belies otherwise. The Superintendent is the final decision maker in adoption decisions, with the authority to override the decision of a judge.

MCL Public Act 422 of 1984, section 722.137 are so extensive that the Superintendent is required to disclose his affiliations with the FCRB with the lower court. This calls into question the honesty of his responses to questioning of the attorneys of record. The superintendent is on the advisory committee of the FCRB for the state; therefore, his participation in recommendations to the governor and the legislature becomes a clear and convincing fact of evidence that there is bias inherent in decisions, taken or advised.

Public Act 61 of 2004, effective July 1, 2005 changed the regulation of the social work profession under the authority of the Department of Community Health. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Health Professions, Complaint and Allegation Division only has the power to regulate the Community Health Agency. There is no provision in Michigan law for any complaint filed against the Superintendent to be investigated. From an initial investigation, it was found that the Superintendent, William J. Johnson of MCI, directly while dealing with Children and Family Services, does not possess the appropriate licensing, as outlined in General Rules of Social Work for the State of Michigan, R 338.2907 -2909 et seq. of June 24, 2005.

Public Act 368 of 1978, MCL 333.18504, amended as Public Act 61 of 2004, effective July 1, 2005, it explicitly states: In the capacity of Superintendent, the responsibilities mandate Macro and Clinical Master Social Work licensing. William J. Johnson possesses neither, nor any form of academic credentials similar.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6 § 3 sets forth the duty of oversight to the Chief Administrator of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, for the Supreme Court Administrative Offices (hereinafter “SCAO”), the judicial, not the executive branch. SCAO oversees the FCRB, on which the Superintendent of MCI, William J. Johnson, functions as a decision maker. Neglecting to provide the public with concise written statement of ministerial obligations over the FCRB and decision making associations with the MCI Superintendent provides ground to question the impartiality of the Chief Justice participating in the decisions to deny Petitioners of any and all child welfare matters leave to appeal.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 § 6 expresses that on June 15, 2007, Justice Maura Corrigan publicly advocated the activities of the Superintendent of MCI, on radio station WJR 760 AM without authority. Justice Corrigan publicly denied having any knowledge pertaining to the question of authority of the MCI Superintendent, when the very matter was simultaneously pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Corrigan, further, went on to publicly defend the administration and functioning of MCI in a commentary to the Detroit News, July 2, 2007. In the public pronouncements she jeopardized her ability to decide the case at the very same time that the court was faced with an internal decision: the opportunity to protect children in the foster care process. Justice Corrigan purported her own public issue of a successful foster care system in one of Michigan’s largest newspapers rather than remaining impartial on a matter pending before the Court. The private membership of Justice Corrigan on the Pew Foster Care Commission 2004 should not have allowed her to decide on any public matter dealing with foster children and adoption. Neglecting to provide the public with a timely concise written statement of previous ministerial obligations over the FCRB and decision making associations with the MCI Superintendent, as former Chief Justice, who also has run her recent campaign for Chief Justice on the privately funded platform of foster care and adoption, provides ground to question her impartiality.

Public Act 1 of 2003 provides for the audit of MCI, yet MCI has never filed an evaluation of its operations nor has never been audited.

Public Act 220 of 1935 MCL 400.207 inscribed the financial philosophy of MCI through the codification of the MCI Trust Fund has never been repealed. It is unknown if there continues to exist the MCI Trust Fund, Public Act 249 of 1982, MCL 21.171 but it is known that any estate of a child whose parent’s rights have been terminated becomes absorbed by the state and the child ward of the state is stripped of all rights to inheritance and their estates.

MCR 2.613 (c) establishes the responsibility of the lower court to verify the credibility of witnesses who appear before it. Lower courts neglect to examine the proper licensing required for the position of Superintendent. Therefore, family courts fail to establish the credibility of the Superintendent and due account should be taken of the rule of prejudicial error in the revisiting of all adoption decisions made under this Superintendent.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 § 7 maintains the principles of common law and tradition to uphold the constitution and protect the well being of citizens, yet becomes challenged when there are no recusals due to conflict of personal interests and the abolishment of the Social Welfare Commission, whereby making the position of Superintendent of MCI repugnant.

MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 6 § 27 does not provide for the authority to aver the acceptance nor the discharge of duties of Superintendent of MCI by the Supreme Court Justices Taylor and Corrigan in their respective positions of Chief Justice,

I, respectfully, request that you act upon this request and file the petition on an expedited basis. The position of the Superintendent of MCI continues to accelerate the precipitous climate of destroying families in the state and false claims of federal funding. As the alleged legal parent to the children remanded to the guardianship of MCI, the Superintendent has perpetuated a culture for abuse, neglect and murder of children to thrive.

Because there are pending decision for the Superintendent of MCI to render, time is of the essence. To avoid the continuance of false federal claims of children improperly under the auspices of MCI, I pray that you will expeditiously provide me with a written answer pertaining to the issue of supervising authority of the Superintendent of MCI, William J. Johnson. I will contact the Chief Deputy, Carol Issacs, on or before November 24, 2008, to work with your Department to establish a reasonable expedited deadline for your decision.

With Serenity and Sincerity,

Beverly Tran

3 comments:

  1. Way to go!

    Can you get the rest of the incompetent bozos running DHS in Michigan removed too, or would that mean firing everyone but the janitors?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous7:50 PM

    One at a time my dear.

    Help me and shoot this to every media, blog, person, elected official you know!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This was very informative. I am in process of adoption and I have the full support of the FCRB, yet MCI innitially gave their concent to adopt but later requested that I complete a psych eval due to an incident that occured with one of my biological children last year. This incident has been examined and even DHS as well as the police have said that it was not something within my control to stop. In the meantime, Pre-adoptive visits continue. Weekends and had her for 10 days over the Holidays. I am not sure what to do in this case. Do you have any suggestions?

    ReplyDelete

Guess what

It Could Happen To You