Posted on 10/13/2013 7:11:31 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
What's this? Lansing —
Votes by local legislators in the Michigan House and Senate last week.
Senate Bill 351, to clarify fertilizer use restrictions: Passed 27 to 10 in the Senate. Would clarify that use of fertilizers and other soil conditioners which follows “generally accepted” agricultural and management practices at the time of use does not constitute a “release” of hazardous substances in violation of state regulations.
Sen. Arlan Meekhof, R-Olive township: Yes
Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton: Yes
Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge: Yes
Senate Bill 354, to revise dog and cat euthanasia regulations: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate. Would require an animal control or protection shelter to use only injections of a commercially prepared solution for euthanizing a dog or cat. This would prohibit using gas.
Meekhof, Schuitmaker, Jones: Yes
Senate Bill 325, to stablish a “uniform child abduction prevention act”: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate. Would create a “uniform child abduction prevention act” that would allow a court to order abduction prevention measures in a child-custody proceeding if evidence established a credible risk of the child being taken or retained in violation of custody or visitation rights. A court could also take physical custody of a child to prevent imminent abduction.
Meekhof, Schuitmaker, Jones: Yes
Read more: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/mobile_opinion/x2139013569/MICHIGAN-ROLL-CALL-How-local-legislators-voted-in-Lansing#ixzz2heqDOC00
(Excerpt) Read more at hollandsentinel.com ...
All the law requires is that a parent meet any ONE of the following ‘risk factors to be declared a ‘potential felon’.
Note that this determination is being made in CIVIL court, not in a CRIMINAL court.
See IN RE: SIGMAR for an application of this law by the Texas appeals court.
Note that the law makes much more sense when it is limited to it’s original intent of International abductions to Non-Hague treaty states. Such abductions end the custody game because there is no longer any recourse for the child’s return.
Note that this law is not needed within the State. The existing State custody laws adequately cover abductions within the State.
Note that this law is not needed between the States. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act adequately covers abductions between the States.
Note that this law is not needed for abductions to Hague treaty abiding countries. The existing treaty is sufficient for such cases.
The only reason for this law, and the committees original scope before they twisted it, was to prevent abductions to non-Hague countries where the child cannot be returned home by any legal means.
Now, here are the risk factors. Many of them are inappropriate.
Sec. 7. (1) In determining whether there is a credible risk of abduction of a child, the court shall consider any evidence that the petitioner or respondent has done any of the following or that any of the following apply to the petitioner or respondent:
(a) Previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child.
(b) Threatened to abduct the child.
(c) Except for planning activities related to providing for
the safety of a party or the child while avoiding or attempting to avoid domestic violence, recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction, including any of the following:
(i) Abandoning employment.
(ii) Selling a primary residence.
(iii) Terminating a lease.
(iv) Closing bank or other financial management accounts, liquidating assets, hiding or destroying financial documents, or conducting any unusual financial activities.
(v) Applying for a passport or visa or obtaining travel
documents for the respondent, a family member, or the child.
(vi) Applying for or obtaining an enhanced driver license or enhanced official state personal identification card for the respondent, a family member, or the child.
(vii) Seeking to obtain the child’s birth certificate or school or medical records.
(d) Engaged in domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect.
(e) Refused to follow a child-custody determination.
(f) Lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural
ties to this state or the United States.
(g) Has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural
ties to another state or country.
(h) Is likely to take the child to a country to which any of
the following apply:
(i) The country is not a party to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction and does not provide for the extradition of an abducting parent or for the return of an abducted child.
(ii) The country is a party to the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction but 1 or more of the following apply:
(A) The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction is not in force between the United States and the country.
(B) The country is noncompliant according to the most recent compliance report issued by the United States department of state.
(C) The country lacks legal mechanisms for immediately and effectively enforcing a return order under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.
(iii) The country poses a risk that the child’s physical or emotional health or safety would be endangered in the country because of specific circumstances relating to the child or because of human rights violations committed against children.
(iv) The country has laws or practices that would do 1 or more of the following:
(A) Enable the respondent, without due cause, to prevent the petitioner from contacting the child.
(B) Restrict the petitioner from freely traveling to or
exiting from the country because of the petitioner’s gender,
nationality, marital status, or religion.
(C) Restrict the child’s ability legally to leave the country after the child reaches the age of majority because of the child’s gender, nationality, or religion.
(v) The country is included by the United States department of state on a current list of state sponsors of terrorism.
(vi) The country does not have an official United States diplomatic presence in the country.
(vii) The country is engaged in active military action or war, including a civil war, to which the child may be exposed.
(i) Is undergoing a change in immigration or citizenship status that would adversely affect the respondent’s ability to remain in the United States legally.
(j) Has had an application for United States citizenship denied.
(k) Has forged or presented misleading or false evidence on government forms or supporting documents to obtain or attempt to obtain a passport, a visa, travel documents, a social security card, a driver license, or other government-issued identification card or has made a misrepresentation to the United States government.
(l) Has used multiple names to attempt to mislead or defraud.
(m) Has engaged in any other conduct the court considers relevant to the risk of abduction.
Nifster, under this law
a parent will not even be able to safely apply for a drivers license in the State of Michigan.
a parent will not even be able to safely apply for a drivers license for their child in the State of Michigan.
Ahem, Don’t you need one of those to be able to V.O.T.E ?!?
(vi) Applying for or obtaining an enhanced driver license or enhanced official state personal identification card for the respondent, a family member, or the child.
which is defined up at the top as:
(g) “Enhanced driver license” and “enhanced official state personal identification card” mean those terms as defined in
section 2 of the enhanced driver license and enhanced official state personal identification card act, 2008 PA 23, MCL 28.302.
Nifster,
Under this law, a custodial parent can be at risk for performing their ordinary parenting duties.
Since when is obtaining your child’s medical records an indication that parent is a risk of abduction?
It is much more likely that it indicates that they are changing doctors.
It is an act all parents (custodial and noncustodial) do to be a good parent.
Since when is obtaining your child’s school records an indication that a parent is a likely child abductor? IT IS NOT.
It is an act done by all good parents.
Was this bill written by children who get bad report cards?
Sheesh.
...
And a parent obtaining their child’s birth certificate?
First of all, most parents already have that at home and on file. But they probably only have one copy.
When a divorce happens, the other parent obtaining a copy for their records is natural. It does not indicate child abduction is imminent.
Or, say a storm comes along (Katrina, Sandy, etc.) and damages your existing files. Getting a new record is not an indication of abduction.
This law is WAAAAAY out of bounds.
Anytime it is unanimous it is a bad thing for the people
Nifster,
Lets say you want to make travel plans for your parents to visit the Statue of Liberty (assuming it has reopened and is not surrounded by Park Ranger dragoons.)
Under this law, if you have children, you can be accused of being a potential abductor.
(v) Applying for a
A passport
B or visa
C or obtaining travel documents
for the
A respondent,
B a family member,
C or the child.
(m) “Travel document” means records relating to a
A travel itinerary,
B including travel tickets,
C passes,
D reservations for transportation,
D or {reservations for} accommodations.
Travel document does not include a passport or visa.
Very good point for most detailed bills.
Nifster,
In a divorce, someone has to move out of the house. Often the family house gets sold. Often the apartment lease is terminated.
In Louisiana, 2007 was just after Katrina. Everybody in New Orleans had done all of these activities because of the storm.
None of these indicate a likely abduction.
Nifster,
You just have to admire the brilliance of these two points. They apply to every single person in the United States. They are that broad. There are 8 criteria on these two lines. Lets parse them. We will just look at the State requirements since they are the most stringent.
1. Lacks strong familial ties to Michigan
2. Lacks strong financial ties to Michigan
3. Lacks strong emotional ties to Michigan
4. Lacks strong cultural ties to Michigan
5. Has strong familial ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
6. Has strong financial ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
7. Has strong emotional ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
8. Has strong cultural ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
So simply having a brother in Texas makes you a potential abductor.
So simply being the only person in your family living in Michigan makes you a potential abductor.
So being poor in Michigan makes you a potential abductor.
So having property in NY makes you a potential abductor.
Really?
Lets not even get into what the emotional or cultural requirements would be.
These points are absurdly vague.
(f) Lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to this state or the United States.
(g) Has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country.
And what of the punishment?
Do you really want parents labeled by civil court as ‘potential felons’ because of the above points?
This act allows the court to act in an ex-parte manner. (Without the offending parent knowing about the legal action about to come down)
In fact, it allows the court to act without either parent/party knowing about the action. The court is empowered to act on its own.
The court can order the children arrested.
Do you really want the courts to be able to order an Elian Gonzales style raid of your house... without your knowledge?
... on the basis of the claim of a vindictive ex-spouse?
... on the motion of a corrupt divorce judge?
Such an act is much more likely to result in harm to the child than help.
Just so you know....I didn’t bother to read your multiple posts back to me. You are so far gone there really is no point
Got it.
You have your head in the sand and are singing ‘la la la la’.
What on earth are you doing on free republic? .
Got it.
You have your head in the sand and are singing ‘la la la la’.
What on earth are you doing on free republic? .
Would you take your head out of the sand long enough to listen to a lawyer?
“Excerpt from Harold Murry Family Law Attorney, Alexandria[edit]
Murry:
Hello, My name is Harold Murry, I am a family law attorney in Alexandria, I am also on the Supreme Courts domestic violence along with Anne Styre, who is a friend of mine, who I believe is speaking in favor of the bill.
My problem with this bill, is I think it started out as a really good idea, if you go look at the web site, you see that it started out as the Uniform International Child Abduction prevention act.
Because that is a huge problem, I have had cases where the father of the kid for instance is an exchange student from Jordan or he is a merchant from Pakistan and the people split and he is not going to get custody, he takes the kids to that country, and all we can do is write a couple of letters to the consulate, the mom never sees them again, there is no way to get them back.
and that is why there is so much in this about the Hague treaty on child abduction, whether or not somebody is from one of these countries where you can take kids and never get them back. At some point, I think in August 2004, somebody appended some additional language to this, to make this solve all problems, and they took the International, the word international out and they added this thing that if you are from another state or have strong cultural ties to another state, that you are suspect, just like somebody who is from another country and really has the ability to do this sort of thing.
I tell my clients, there are always these threats that well, I am going to take the kid, no I am going to take the kid and you’ll be darned if you see him again. I say, let him take the kid to Mississippi, we will have the kid back in two weeks and the judge will put him in jail. I’d love it. Don’t worry about it.
We have all the laws we need. We have the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act; We have the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act - which is the federal statute to prevent children from being snatched from State to State.
They talk about strong cultural ties to another State should make you suspect. Well, I can’t imagine them saying that somebody in Nebraska has cultural ties to Kansas that are suspect, they don’t even have culture. I mean, its all the same, they are from the mid-west. (audience laughter) I mean, I think it is going to be used against Cajuns or something, I don’t know. If you live in Houston and you have LSU season tickets you are suspect.
This should be, we need to send a message back to the committee to fix this thing back the way it was, to strike out the provisions that are just pasted in there where it says things like from another country or state, that that should be taken out and it should be an International act.
We need this protection, but this is going to be abused, I mean, lawyers love ex-parte custody orders. When I started practicing in ‘85 that was part of your stock in trade, if you could get your party ex-parte custody before the hearing came up a month later, your phone did not ring, the other attorney’s phone would ring.
We went to a lot of trouble, you guys passed Code of Civil Procedure Article 3945 a few years ago making it extremely difficult to come in and get temporary custody, you had to show immediate irreparable harm.
And this has these factors like um, has previously abducted or attempted to abduct that could be taking the kid on a day when it wasn’t your day. There is all sorts of things, Ms. Bowler is absolutely right, there is no number, what if you just meet two of them, I mean you don’t have to meet them all, they terminate a lease, all of the things that happen when you are going through a divorce are present here.
I think it had the potential to be a very great act, but it is now extremely flawed by adding the business about the state, being from another state will trigger these incredible sanctions against you. I don’t know if it is appropriate to amend a Uniform Act its been done before because I remember the UCCJA when it was first passed, there were a couple of states with asterisk’s by their name because they had taken some provisions out of it. {Rep Walker sits down} I think probably the best is to just not pass it, but if you do pass it you can.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.