|September 21-27, 2009||
Volume 7 Issue 39
FOCUS:The FY 2010 department budgets for Corrections and Judiciary were voted out of conference committee last week. The Department of Corrections will see a cut of $87.5 million in general fund spending, a 4.5% reduction. The conference committee report for Corrections will be received in the House on September 29. The Judiciary budget will rely on the federal Byrne Grant funding to continue the state's mental health court pilot project and $1.4 million will be transferred from the juror compensation fund to the general fund. The Judiciary budget was adopted by the House of Representatives on a vote of 107-1 and will now be considered by the Senate.
In the Capitol
Committee Meetings of Interest for the Week of 9/28
Legislation Introduced 9/21–9/25
HB 5468 Communications; technology; validity of judgment or order created with an electronic record or signature; clarify.
HB 5477 Courts; juries; names and addresses of taxpayers; allow to be given to jury boards for purposes of selecting juror pools.
HB 5478 Courts; juries; jury pool selection process; revise.
In the Hall of Justice
2009-09–A Court Shall Submit a Local Administrative Order to SCAO When Appointing Magistrates and Referees
Administrative Order No. 2009-6 requires a court to submit a local administrative order to the State Court Administrative Office regarding the identity of magistrates and referees, as well as a description of the scope of the authority of magistrates and referees. These requirements provide the State Court Administrative Office necessary information about who these individuals are and what functions they perform in the trial court. It is the magistrate's or referee's responsibility to update his or her contact information.
Issued: September 9, 2009
Effective January 1, 2010
2008-43–Proposed Amendments of Rules 3.800, 3.802, 3.901, 3.903, 3.920, 3.921, 3.931, 3.935, 3.961, 3.963, 3.965, 3.974, 3.975, 3.976, 3.977, 3.980, 5.125, 5.402, and 5.404 and Proposed New Rules 3.002, 3.807, 3.905, 3.967, and 5.109 of the Michigan Court Rules
MCR 3.002(1)(c) defines "preadoptive placement" to mean the "temporary placement of an Indian child in a foster home or institution after the termination of parental rights, but before or in lieu of adoptive placement, and . . . ." The phrase "in lieu of adoptive placement" is not intended to mean that it is permissible to leave a child in foster care indefinitely, in violation of MCL 712A.19b(6) or (7) or 45 CFR 1355.20, 45 CFR 1356.21, or 45 CFR 1356.50. Rather, it addresses situations where the parental rights to a child have been terminated and there is no permanency plan for adoption of the child. One example is when the child has been placed with a juvenile guardian and the guardianship is subsequently revoked. In this situation, jurisdiction over the child pursuant to MCL 712A.2(b) will be reinstated and the child is placed in foster care.
The proposed amendment of MCR 3.905(C)(1) states that a court shall consider guidelines established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in determining whether good cause not to transfer exists (Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed Reg No 228, 67590-67592, C.2-C.4. [November 26, 1979]). Some examples of good cause are that the Indian tribe does not have a tribal court or that the Indian child is over 12 years old and objects to the transfer. For additional examples of good cause and relevant case law, see the BIA guidelines cited above and A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act. (Native American Rights Fund, A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act [Boulder, CO: Native American Rights Fund, 2007], 7.15 and 7.16, p 60.)
2009-01–Supreme Court Appointment to the Attorney Grievance Commission
At the Bar
Sections and Committees