� REFEREES QUARTERLY • WINTER 20161

THE REASONABLEPRUDENT PARENT STANDARD

by Casey Anbender, Court Analyst,SCAO-Child Welfare Services

On January 5, 2017, Governor Snyder signed Public Acts 496 and 497 of 2016, which codified into state law certain requirements of the 2015 federal Preventing Sex Trafficking

and Strengthening Families Act (Act). These laws were designed to promote well-being and normalcy for children in foster care, and include important provi-sions for the transition of older youth to achieve meaningful permanency.

“A lack of normalcy and barriers to participation in age or developmen-tally appropriate activities contribute to increased vulnerability to traffick-ing, homelessness, and other negative outcomes for children in foster care.” U.S. House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee Report 113-441, 113th Congress (2013-2014), at 2.

The premise behind the reasonable and prudent parent standard is that children in foster care should have the same social and extracurricular oppor-tunities as their peers who are not in foster care. Normalcy and permanency are interdependent; the more exposure youth have to activities and individuals within the community, the more opportunities they have to form healthy rela-tionships with peers and supportive adults who can facilitate permanency and improve child well-being. The normalcy provisions are further intended to re-duce administrative barriers to getting approval for the child to participate in everyday childhood activities. The Juvenile Code amendments, effective April 6, 2017, now require the court to make a judicial determination at a permanency planning hearing re-garding whether the agency and/or foster parents are following the new rea-sonable and prudent parent standard. The RPP standard must be applied by the court to decisions made regarding the child’s daily childhood activities.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE OF REFEREES QUARTERLY:

REASONABLE PRUDENTPARENT STANDARD 1

JUVENILE UPDATE 4

DOMESTIC UPDATE 8

MEMBER VOIR DIRE 13

Volume XIX, Issue 3 Summer 2017

www.referees-association.org Editor-in-Chief: Lorie Savin Editorial Staff: Kenneth Randall Shelley R. Spivack Designer: Jim Rink President: Sahera Housey

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 11

REFEREES QUARTERLY

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

UPCOMING EVENTS 14

RETIREMENT 15 STORIES

33rd ANNUAL 16 CONFERENCE

PRESIDENT’S CORNER 18

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20172

• Public Act 496 of 2016 amended section 1 of the Juvenile Code by adding a definition of reasonable and prudent parent standard. MCL 712A.1(q) defines the reasonable prudent parenting standard as “decisions characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain a child's health, safety, and best interest while encouraging the emotional and developmental growth of the child when determining whether to allow a child in foster care to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, and social activities.” This is consistent with the federal Act’s definition of “reasonable and prudent parent standard.” 42 USC 675(10).

• Public Act 497 of 2016 amended section 19a of the Juvenile Code to require the court to determine at each permanency planning hearing if the agency is applying the RPP standard. MCL 712A.19a(5) requires the court to determine at a permanency planning hearing “whether or not the agency, foster home, or institutional placement has followed the reasonable and prudent parenting standard that the child has had regular opportunities to engage in age or developmentally appropriate activities.”

The federal Act also directs state agencies, as a condition of receiving federal Title IV-E funding, to en-sure that prospective foster parents are adequately educated about the reasonable and prudent parent stan-dard. This requirement is intended to empower foster parents to make routine, informed decisions without hav-ing to go through administrative approval. See the DHHS-5331 (Caregiver Guidelines for Reasonable and Prudent Parent Standard) which is provided to caregivers during the licensing process to meet this federal re-quirement. See also DHHS Policy FOM 722-11 which outlines the state policy requirements specific to the RPP standard for caregivers and caseworkers. During the permanency planning hearing, the court should communicate the importance of normalcy to child well-being and directly inquire with the caseworker about the youth’s opportunities to engage in normal social activities. It is important for the court to provide oversight and set expectations to ensure the normalcy provisions are being implemented, and that the RPP standard is appropriately applied to decisions made by caregivers about foster youth. The following are some examples of inquiries that the court may find helpful in making the RPP judicial finding:

• If the youth is present, can the youth describe their activities? If not, ask the caseworker. • Has the caregiver received the required training? • If so, is the reasonable and prudent parent standard being exercised? If not, when will the caregiver receive the training? • How are the child’s parents being involved in the child’s activities? • Does the child or caregiver need support or help with addressing system barriers? Are there any orders the court can issue to help resolve the barriers? _________________

1Pub. L. No. 113-183. 2MCL 712A.19a(5).

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20173

The court is the best equipped to enforce this new legal standard, and it is recommended the case-worker be prepared to provide the court with examples of how the youth is participating in extracurricular and social activities, and what steps the foster care provider is taking to ensure the youth maintains connections to the community. The following are examples of activities the RPP standard should be applied to as well as considera-tions for a caregiver in appropriately applying the RPP standard to their day-to-day decisions about the child:

• Extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, and social activities, including sports, field trips, and overnight activities lasting one or more days.

• Decisions involving the signing of permission slips and arranging of transportation for the child to and from extracurricular, enrichment, and social activities.

• The child's overall age, maturity and developmental level to maintain the overall health and safety of the child.

• Potential risk factors and the appropriateness of the activity. • The importance of encouraging the child's emotional and developmental growth. • The importance of providing the child with the most family-like living experience possible. • The behavioral history of the child and the child's ability to safely participate in the proposed activity.

The SCAO Juvenile Court Forms Committee will consider, at its September 2017 meeting, whether to amend SCAO Form JC 19 (Order After Dispositional Review/Permanency Planning Hearing) to include a finding of the RPP standard. For now, SCAO-CWS recommends that the courts make this finding on the record and write it in the “other” section of the SCAO JC 19 check box 34. ________________ 3 See ACYF CB-IM-14-03. 4 Id. 5 Id.

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20174

JUVENILE RELATIONS CASE LAW UPDATE

By Jen Kitzmiller, Berrien County

ICWA/MIFPA In re JJW, Mich App ; NW2d (2017) (Court of Appeals #334095, June 8, 2017) and In Re Williams, Mich App ; NW2d (2017) (Court of Appeals #335932, June 8, 2017), leave to appeal pending (Supreme Court #155994) The two children, JJW and EL, are eligible for membership in the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of the Chippewa Indians through their father, who is a mem-

ber of the tribe. The children were removed from both parents in Macomb County due to substance abuse issues when the youngest child was born with THC, opi-ates, and cocaine in his system. The children were placed with the petitioners/foster mothers shortly there-after. At a hearing three years later, both parents signed a document releasing their parental rights to the chil-dren. Macomb County entered an order terminating their parental rights and committing the children to MCI. A petition to adopt the children was filed in Oakland County by the petitioners/foster mothers, and an order was entered terminating MCI’s rights and placing the children with the petitioners/foster mothers. The child placing entity approved of the adoption, the MCI superintendent consented to the placement and the tribe agreed “with reservations.” The approval/consent was given even after several investigations of problems in the foster mothers’ home. Twenty days after the order placing the children with the foster mothers for adoption was entered, the child placing agency wrote a letter to the Oakland County Circuit Court and requested rescission of the order placing the children due to additional concerns regarding the foster mothers’ home environment. The child placing agency stated both prior and new allegations indicate that the foster family would be unable to meet the needs of all the children in the home, including JJW and ELW. The tribe was in agreement with the rescis-sion. After a hearing, the Oakland County trial court held that both the tribe and the child placing agency have standing to rescind the order up until the entry of the order finalizing the adoption was entered. While ICWA only addresses a parent’s right to revoke consent to adoption, the Oakland Count court noted that MIFPA expressly extended that authority to a minor’s Indian custodian and provides that an agency’s consent to adopt is the same as the parent’s or Indian custodian’s consent. The Oakland County trial court then recommitted the children to MCI and denied the petition to adopt. Once the denial of the adoption petition was entered, the biological father filed a petition in Macomb County to withdraw his release of his parental rights and demanded the return of the children pursuant to MCL CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20175

712B.13(3). He stated that he only relinquished his parental rights to allow the foster mothers to adopt and, because that adoption did not happen due to the Oakland County decision, he has the right under MIFPA to withdraw his consent. The Macomb County trial court refused to withdraw the father’s release finding MCL 712B.13(5) applied because his release was a release of his parental rights, not a voluntary consent to placement for adoption. The trial court found that rescission of his release was only available until the order terminating the parental rights of the parent was entered. The foster mothers appealed the Oakland County trial court’s order rescinding the order placing the children with the foster mothers and denial of their petition to adopt JJW and ELW in docket #334095. In addition, the father appealed the Macomb County trial court’s denial of his petition to withdraw his consent to terminate his parental rights and return of the children to him under MIFPA in docket #335932. The Court agreed, for the most part, with the reasoning of the Macomb County trial court in denying the father’s petition to revoke his voluntary release as he did not consent to an adoption in that proceeding. The father was advised specifically on the record that there were no guarantees with whom the children would be placed or adopted and his release was to the Department for the purposes of adoption, not a con-sent to adopt to a particular individual. The Macomb County order was affirmed. With regard to the Oakland County orders, the Court held that MCI has the authority to consent to the adoption. However, after the trial court terminated MCI’s rights and entered the order placing the chil-dren, MCI lost any authority to withdraw consent. In addition, the plain language of MIFPA does not permit an Indian custodian to withdraw consent as it is expressly provided to the parents. Neither the child placing agency nor the tribe constitute an Indian custodian under MIFPA (MCL 712B.13) as that section applies to consent for purposes of guardianship, not adoption. Further, the placement preferences granted under MIFPA and ICWA only give a tribe an interest in placement. It does not confer on the tribe any statutory right to withdraw consent. MCL 712B.13(3) only gives the right to withdraw consent to a parent. The Court also held that the Oakland County trial court did not make a factual determination whether or not the adoption was in the childrens’ best interests or whether circumstances had come to light that make the adoption undesirable. As a result, the case was remanded to Oakland County to determine if the adoption is in the best interest of the children, taking into account the new allegations that the foster family cannot provide for the children as well as the fact that the children have resided with the foster family for most of their lives.

Affirmed the order dening the father’s motion to withdraw his consent, vacated the order re-scinding the order placing the children with the petitioners, reversed the order denying the foster mothers’ petition to adopt, and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. REASONABLE EFFORTS/ADA

In re Hicks, Mich ; NW2d (2017) (Supreme Court #153786, May 8, 2017) (NOTE: The published Court of Appeals decision, #328870, was reported in the Summer 2016 RAM Quarterly.)

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20176

Originally, the mother appealed the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to the Court of Appeals arguing that reasonable efforts to reunify were not made by the Department as the Department did not provide modified reunification services based upon her limited cognitive abilities (she had a full scale IQ of 70 with a verbal comprehension index of 66). The mother, through her attorney, made at least five requests for specialized services prior to the time of the termination hearing. The Department was aware of the mother’s cognitive limitations even prior to the specific requests where at least two evalua-tions recommended that services be tailored to the mother’s disability. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case to the trial court in April 2016, finding that the mother preserved her claim for specialized services by raising the request suf-ficiently in advance of the termination hearing. The Department of Health and Human Services failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability and, thereby, did not provide reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The Lawyer/Guardian ad Litem then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted. The Supreme Court held that efforts at reunification cannot be reasonable if the Department failed to modify its standard procedure to accommodate any disability under the ADA, but the Department must have knowledge of the disability. Once the Department has knowledge of the disability, it has an affirma-tive duty to make reasonable accommodations as needed. Since the GAL and the petitioner did not raise an objection to the “timeliness” of the request for specialized services at the trial court level, and since they did not object to court ordered specialized services at the trial court level, they cannot complain about it now. The trial court erred in finding reasonable efforts were made in this situation and the termi-nation of parental rights was improper. However, the Supreme Court vacated the part of the Court of Appeals’ decision that outlined steps the court and DHHS must complete where a person has or is suspected to have an intellectual, cognitive or developmental impairment. The reasoning is that those steps may not be appropriate in every case and trial courts are in a better position to determine what steps the Department is required to take to comply with the ADA and what efforts are needed to be reasonable. Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded to the trial court. STEP PARENT ADOPTION/SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE

In re LFOC, Mich App ; NW2d (2017) (Court of Appeals #334870, May 4, 2017)

The mother and her husband filed a petition for a stepparent adoption. After a hearing, the trial court terminated the biological father’s parental rights, granted the request for stepparent adoption and placed the child in the petitioner’s home. The petitioners then filed a motion for special findings, asking that the trial court make a finding that the child has been declared a dependent of juvenile court, that re-unification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or similar basis,

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20177

and that it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his home country. This request was made under the Special Immigrant Juvenile provisions under 8 USC 1101(a)(27)(J), which allows immigrant children a path to achieve permanent residency in the United States. The trial court denied the request, finding that it lacked authority to make such findings. The petitioners appealed. The Court held that the trial court does have the authority to make factual findings on whether or not the child is a Special Immigrant Juvenile under federal law. The federal law gives the state courts the limited authority to make child welfare determinations concerning abuse, neglect and abandonment issues as well as the child’s best interests. Because the trial court exercised its jurisdiction in this case by terminating the father’s parental rights, granting the stepparent adoption and placing the child with the mother and stepfather, it qualifies as a juvenile court under the federal definition. The trial court’s determination that it lacked authority to make factual findings pertinent to SIJ status is reversed and the case is remanded to make those factual findings. DELINQUENCY/PROBATION SUPERVISION FEES In re Killich, Mich App ; NW2d (2017) (Court of Appeals #329941, April 20, 2017) The juvenile pled no contest to a felony offense in juvenile court. The dispositional order placed the juvenile on probation for three months and required the juvenile, among other things, to pay a $100 probation supervision fee. The juvenile objected to the $100 supervision fee. The referee denied the objection. The juvenile’s attorney requested a review hearing before the judge. At the review hearing, counsel again objected to the $100 supervision fee. The supervisor of probation testified that the proba-tion office charges the same $100 probation supervision fee to all juveniles on probation and that the funds go directly into the county general fund. The trial court upheld the cost, stating that it is an ex-tremely minimal fee compared to the true cost of the supervision. The juvenile appealed. The Court held that there is no statutory authority to impose a flat $100 supervision fee as the “fee imposed did not take into account differing supervision costs the state may need to expend for dif-ferent juveniles. Therefore, because the fee does not qualify as a reimbursement for the ‘cost of ser-vice’ of a particular juvenile, it is also not statutorily authorized under MCL 712A.18.” The court may im-pose a state minimum cost under MCL 712A.18(1)(b) and a crime victim’s rights fee under MCL 712A.18(12). In addition, MCL 712A.18(3) allows for reimbursement to the court for the cost of service, which can be established before the amount is actually incurred. However, the fee needs to be specific to the respondent and not imposed for the general operating costs incurred by the probation department. There was no evidence in the record to support a finding that the amount imposed was less than or equal to the cost of service. The Court vacated the $100 probation supervision fee and remanded to the trial court for entry of a corrected order of disposition.

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20178

DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE LAW UPDATECases can be accessed by docket number at the Court’s website at

http://courts.mi.gov/opinions_orders/opinions_orders/pages/default.aspx

By Ed Messing, St. Clair County

The Revocation of Paternity Act, MCL 722.1431, applies to cases involv-ing children conceived through in vetro fertilization (IVF), according to Jones v Jones _ Mich App_(2017) #334937 6/22/17 (appl. for leave pending). The married parties had one child prior to their separation in 2008, but Plaintiff did not file for divorce until 2015. Plaintiff testified that he had revoked his consent for Defendant to undergo IVF in 2010 and that Defendant was aware of that revocation of consent. Defendant gave birth to a daughter, AJ, conceived by IVF in 2013. Plaintiff testified that an

anonymous donor contributed sperm for the IVF procedure. Plaintiff’s divorce complaint alleged that AJ was not born of the parties’ marriage, and the parties eventually stipulated that Plaintiff was not AJ’s father. The court accepted the parties’ stipulation and found Plaintiff was not AJ’s father under the Revocation of Paternity Act, stating it had considered the best interest factors in the act. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the Revocation of Paternity Act applies to cases when paternity is presumed because a child was conceived by IVF and born during the marriage. Although the trial court did not make individual findings on each best interest factor, the statute only requires that this be done when the court declines to enter an order that affects a father’s parental rights and obligations. Further, the trial court did not commit clear error as Plaintiff had not and would not establish a clear bond with the child. However, the court did err when entering an order regarding parenting time transportation for the parties’ older child as it did not comport with the court’s ruling on the record.

The Court of Appeals defined the term “fit parent” in Geering v King _Mich App_(2017) #335794 6/13/17. After several years of the parents’ contentious post-judgment custody and parenting time proceedings, the maternal grandfather filed a motion for grandparenting time. He alleged that the parents had only allowed him sporadic visits during the mother’s parenting time resulting in a negative impact on the children mentally and emotionally. The parents filed a joint affidavit stating that they were both fit parents and opposed the motion as not being in the children’s best interest. The trial court granted grandparenting time, finding that the parents were not “fit parents” based on their inconsistent discipline, communication, and co-parenting, resulting in a substantial risk of harm to the children’s mental, emotional and physical health. The Court of Appeals re-versed, holding that a “fit parent” is a parent who adequately cares for his or her children, and the trial court’s finding was against the great weight of evidence. The parties had been maturing, their relationship had signif-icantly improved, and CPS had found complaints regarding the parents to be unsubstantiated. Therefore, CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 20179

under the statute, the parent’s affidavit opposing the motion for grandparenting time required the court to dis-miss the motion.

The term “annual salary” as stated in a divorce judgment was interpreted to include only taxable income ac-cording to Andrusz v Andrusz _Mich App_(2017) #331339 7/13/17. Defendant was awarded monthly spousal support of $6,000, based on her $0 income and Plaintiff’s $204,000 annual salary, with an additional 25% from any bonus or commission if Plaintiff’s salary exceeded $204,000 in a given year. Plaintiff was later laid off, but obtained new employment with a base starting salary of $143,000 which has increased to $187,445, and has also earned commissions, bonuses, and perks, while Defendant is unable to work. Plaintiff requested a reduction of support while Defendant requested that the court determine Plaintiff had underpaid support. Although Plaintiff’s taxable income had decreased by half and he was paying their children’s college expenses, the court determined Plaintiff had underpaid support and declined to reduce spousal support based on both his taxable and untaxable income. The Court of Appeals reversed, in part, finding that based on the judgement, the additional 25% spousal support should be based on Plaintiff’s taxable income only, and not all of his earned income. The court also failed to consider Plaintiff’s payment of the children’s college expenses. Although Plaintiff was not legally obligated to pay the children’s college expenses, this factor should have been considered by the court, and the court must articulate why it denied a reduction in support considering Plaintiff’s reduction in taxable income and his payment of their children’s college expenses.

According to Joughin v Joughin _Mich App_(2017) #329993 7/11/17, the statute of limitations does not ap-ply to the entry of a QDRO pursuant to the terms of a prior valid divorce judgment. The parties 2003 judgment granted Plaintiff 50% of Defendant’s accrued balance in his Iron Workers pension and required the parties to cooperate in the execution of a QDRO and any other documents to effectuate the transfer of this interest to Plaintiff. For some reason, Plaintiff did not submit the proposed QDRO to the court until 12 years after the en-try of the judgement, Defendant (who was not yet retired) objected to entry of the QDRO arguing that it was barred by the 10-year statute of limitations for enforcement of non-contractual money obligations. The trial court entered the QDRO and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The entry of the QDRO is not an action to enforce a non-contractual money obligation under MCL 600.5309(3), but is a ministerial task done in conjunction with the divorce judgment. As the statute of limitations does not apply, entry of the QDRO was not time-barred by the statute.

In an unpublished case, the Court of Appeals held that the parties cannot prohibit modification of support un-der a “global agreement” regarding all divorce issues, Anglin v Anglin Unpub Ct App #331313 4/25/17. The parties’ mediated consent judgment addressed all issues. The UCSO provided that Plaintiff would receive a salary from a former marital business of $38,000 annually in lieu of child and spousal support until the marital business was sold, at which time Plaintiff could motion to change the support orders. Plaintiff later motioned to

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201710

change the support orders. Plaintiff later motioned to modify child support and receive FOC services, alleg-ing that the prior order was based on Defendant’s 2012 income, but Defendant had a substantial increase in income in 2013. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s motion on the basis that the parties had entered into a “global agreement” regarding property settlement and support, and that child support could not be modified. The Court of Appeals reversed. While Plaintiff cannot collaterally attack the terms of the consent divorce judg-ment, child support is always modifiable based on a change in circumstances, and the trial court erred by failing to consider the motion on the merits.

2017 Conference Photos

photos by Ken Randall

Grand Traverse Bay

Downtown Traverse City

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201711

LEGISLATIVE UPDATEContributed by Kate Weaver, Oakland County

Governor Snyder has submitted his Fiscal Year 2018 budget proposal to a joint meeting of the House and Senate Appropriation Committees. Those committees are now tasked with review of the proposal and passing a com-prehensive set of appropriations. The Legislature will then recess for the summer.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS

HB 4691: AMEND CHILD CUSTODY ACT TO MICHIGAN SHARED PARENTING ACT

The family law community has been abuzz about the introduction of House Bill 4691. Rep. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced House Bill 4691 which would amend the Child Custody Act to the Michigan Shared Parenting Act. The bill would require mandatory joint custody absent limited circumstances. This bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary and is now re-ferred for a second reading. The Referees Association of Michigan has submitted a letter opposing the bill to the committee. (See Sahera Housey’s President’s Column.)

Rep. Jim Runestad states he is seeking public input on child custody reforms. He scheduled two pub-lic meetings at the following times and locations: August 21, 2017 at Studio D2D, 401 Hall Street SW, Grand Rapids from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and August 22, 2017 at Antonio’s Cucina Italiana, 2220 N. Canton Center Road, Canton from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

STATUS: This bill has been referred for a second reading with the House Judiciary Committee. NEGLECT/JUVENILE SB 0419/0420/0421: AMEND JUVENILE CODE, AMEND CHILD PROTECTION LAW AND AMEND CHILD ABUSE AND PROTECTION ACT

This package of bills would amend the Juvenile Code, the Child Protection Law and the Child Abuse and Protection Act to expand the definition of neglect given recent Michigan Supreme Court decision In re Hicks/Brown (Supreme Court #153786, May 8, 2017) and Michigan Court of Appeals Decision In re D. Gach (Court of Appeals #328714, April 19, 2016). Under the bill, neglect would be expanded to include if the per-son responsible for a child's health or welfare failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care though financially able to do so or when offered financial or other reasonable means to do so.

STATUS: This bill was read and approved by the Senate Committee on Families, Children and Seniors and referred to Committee of the Whole with substitute S-1.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SPRING 201712

HB 4716: AMEND JUVENILE CODE

This bill would amend the Juvenile Code to add, as a circumstance that constitutes grounds for ter-mination of a parent's parental rights to a child, that the parent is convicted under a state or federal law of know-ingly performing female genital mutilation (FGM) on a child or knowingly transporting a child, or facilitating the transport of a child, for that purpose.

STATUS: This bill has been referred to the Committee on Law and Justice and referred for a second reading.

HB 4298/4299/4300: AMEND CHILD PROTECTION LAW, AMEND REVISED JUDICATURE ACT AND AMEND JUVENILE CODE

Taken together, the bills would amend various acts to: require an electronic recording of an interview of a child in a child abuse or neglect investigation where "electronic recording" refers to a video recording of a wit-ness statement; allow that statement to be considered in a hearing to expunge irrelevant or inaccurate evidence from the Central Registry (of child abuse and neglect); specify who may view a video recorded statement; in-crease the penalty for unauthorized disclosure of a statement; and specify how long a court must retain a video recorded statement.

STATUS: These bills are tie barred and have been re-referred to the House Committee on Judi-ciary for a second reading.

All of the above legislation can be accessed at: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gw41t0asyldke545yfbmwhra))/mileg.aspx?page=home

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201713

MEMBER VOIR DIREBy Susan Murphy, Jackson County

One of our more recent additions to the RAM membership is Marie E. Matyjaszek, who is a Domestic Attorney/Referee. Marie has been with the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court just over three years. Previously, she spent a short stint as a conciliator with the Jackson County Friend of the Court after practicing in Jackson with her father, Robert Matyjaszek (now retired), for ten years. Marie’s practice focused on family law matters. Marie graduated from James Madison College at Michigan State University, and continued at Michigan State in their College of Law. She would encourage current students of the law to focus in on the type of law

they would like to practice, so they can take specific classes while in law school that are important to that practice area. Marie is married to Todd Brewer and they have two daughters, Callie (4) and Ella (2). The family en-joys the companionship of two cats, Leo and Meeska, and a golden retriever, Sparty. In fact, Marie said that if she could trade places with anyone for a day, it would be with Sparty! Marie indicated that the greatest compliment she ever received was when someone told her “You’re a really good mom.” But she also shared that her responses to many of my interview questions would be very different had they been asked before their daughters were born. Her girls are her world, and they are sure to make her laugh. Upon reflection, Marie indicated that the years the girls were born ~ 2013 and 2015 ~ were her two favorite years by far. Being a mom is very important to Marie, and she realizes now that while her 16-year-old self didn’t like her own mother much, those things have a way of changing. Marie’s mother now lives the closest to the family, so grandma is able to visit with the girls often. Callie affectionately refers to her grandmother as “Geena,” and Callie thinks that “Geena” loves her more than anyone else, including Marie and Todd. Marie would have to say that the best part about being a mom is her ability to relive her favorite child-hood memory of trips to Walt Disney World. Of course, the worst part is the laundry and dishes. Marie wishes someone would invent self-cleaning dishes ~ and she doesn’t mean Chinet! Marie finds Bravo television to be the bomb, but her favorite pastime is reading. She just completed No Man’s Land by David Baldacci. Her favorite movie is Love Actually, and her favorite song is “Build Me Up Buttercup,” by The Foundations. Marie likes spending time at the beach. Hawaii is her all-time favorite awe-inspiring destination. She was able to bask in the Caribbean during their honeymoon, but now, the family spends time at the beaches in the South Haven area. Marie hopes that when she is 90 years old she will still be able to spend time at the beach. Here’s to hoping Marie gets a few more good beach days in 2017!

Marie Matyjaszek and her husband Todd Brewer

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201714

UPCOMING EVENTS

• RAM Board MeetingThursday September 28, 2017Townhouse 500 Woodward Ave.Suite 200, Detroit MI

• MJI Referee Seminar Domestic RelationsTuesday October 17, 20178:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.Michigan Hall of JusticeLansing, MI

• MJI Referee Seminar Juvenile Relations Wednesday October 18, 2017 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Michigan Hall of Justice Lansing, MI

• RAM Board Meeting & Holiday Lunch Friday, December 8, 2017 Meeting at 11 a.m., Lunch at 11:30 a.m. Place TBD

• RAM Board Meeting Thursday, February 15, 2018 10 a.m. State Bar of Michigan Lansing, MI

• RAM Board Meeting Thursday, April 19 2018 10 a.m. State Bar of Michigan Lansing, MI

• 34th Annual RAM Training Conference May 23, 2018 through May 25, 2018 The H Hotel Midland, MI

The H Hotel Midland

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201715

RETIREMENT STORIESBy Lynn Marie Perry, Kent County

As your eyes are glazing over while listening to the umpteenth child support hearing, or maybe when you hear about yet another colleague retiring, do you ever dream about what you would do in retirement? Perhaps joining a local law firm to share your expertise (make some real money), being forced to re-tire because you have just been elected judge, jumping on your Harley and riding into the sunset, or retiring to a mix of play with occasional stints as a substitute referee to be the elder states(wo)man in your Circuit sound attractive to you. Since 2006, Kent County referees have done all of the above. Jon Ferrier – Jon wasn’t ready to settle down when he retired in 2006 and a local law firm, Rhoades McKee, promptly made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Jon accepted a three year contract and, at its end, made a full retirement transition spending time with his family until he passed in 2011. Deborah McNabb - Deb was “forced” to retire in 2016 due to her electoral triumph- note she was only retired for two weeks before donning the black robe! Deb has not forgotten her roots and frequently stops in for lunch to gloat over her basement parking spot and the luxury of having a clerk AND a secretary! Debbie Autman - In 2014 (after warning everyone for a year), Debbie retired and immediately commenced various motorcycle trips visiting family. Only sporadic Facebook postings with big smiles have been seen ever since. Doug Dok – Doug is the “elder” statesman of the Kent County referees. Doug, the history keeper, claims that when he first took the position of referee, he never thought about the fact that someday he would be collecting a pension. Over the years, he just kept doing the job. Whenever the work became tedious, the evolution of the position kept it fresh. But in 2011, Doug had an epiphany -- as much as he loved the people he worked with, he didn’t want to be “that person” who never leaves. After discovering that due to foresight and generosity his pension/IRA contributions along with Social Security benefits (and having a wife who planned on working for five more years) would allow him to main-tain a comfortable retirement, Doug officially retired in 2012. EXCEPT, he would be called back into service a number of times to cover medical leaves in between some great trips. AND, Doug is spotted in our corri-dors at least twice a month when he joins the other referees for a Friday lunch out. He is very good natured when anyone suggests that he is “flunking retirement.” As Doug mentioned when interviewed for this article, “I absolutely love to travel but I love to come home” and “I have found that I am content to enjoy the daily business of life.” (Ask him about the protracted four year construction project to replace a garage in a historic district.) Doug does confess to missing the daily collegiality of working with his fellow referees. But, he is looking forward to the evolution of his retirement story when his wife, the love-ly Miss Diann, also retires at the end of this year. Flunking Retirement? I think not, Doug.

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201716

RAM’s 33rd ANNUAL TRAINING CONFERENCE

By Lorie N. Savin, Oakland County

This year’s annual training conference was held at the Park Place Hotel in Traverse City. Although the weather wasn’t ideal, the presentations and camaraderie were well worth the time away from the office. We kicked off the conference Wednesday afternoon with a panel of professors presenting on religious and cultural diversity. Presenters included Dr. Sarah King, Dr. Abhishek

Ghosh, and Dr. Brent Smith from Grand Valley State University and Dr. Richard Wooten from Wayne Coun-ty Circuit Court. Along with explaining where our biases come from and implicit bias, they explained how to engage in “debiasing” by acting consciously and deliberately, being self-aware, and creating processes to serve as a check on unconscious biases.

On Thursday, we learned from David Manville of Eastern Michigan University about human traffick-ing, including how to identify it, how it thrives, and resources for victims of trafficking. Everyone should have the contact information for the National Human Trafficking Hotline, which is 1-888-373-7888, TTY 711 or www.humantraffickinghotline.org. Anyone can call to get help or report a tip at this national clearinghouse.

We also learned more about Social Security benefits from attorney Diane Kwitowski, and we re-ceived valuable materials on the subject. This was a follow up from the 2015 conference presentation by Lars Framness, the District Manager of a local Social Security Administration office. If you weren’t there, make sure you jot down the Social Security Information Line 1-800-772-1213, TTY 1-800-325-0778, which is available Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. They often provide more accurate information than the local SSA office.

Additionally, Oakland County Deputy Court Administrator, and former RAM member, Dave Bilson had a lively question and answer session after providing some helpful information about the intersection of juvenile and domestic relations law.

Our final day included the customary and always informative case law update from our own Ed Messing, our annual membership meeting, and the annual awards presentation. (Hopefully, Ed isn’t plan-ning on retiring any time soon!) This year’s honorees were:

• Ron Foon, a 38 ½ year veteran of the Friend of the Court, recent retiree, founding member of RAM, former RAM President and Board Member, participant of many RAM committees, a RAM representative on the child support formula committee forever, and keeper of John Fer-rier’s “referee shirt”, was awarded the President’s Award.

• Michelle Letourneau, who stepped onto the Board and became the Membership Committee Co-Chair with great enthusiasm and new ideas, was awarded the Service to the Board Award.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201717

• Betty Lowenthal, recent retiree and recipient of the Public Service Award, for her many years of help on the Conference Committee.

• Erin Magley, Eric Blubaugh, and Michael Krellwitz, Valuable Member Award recipients, for their participation on external committees on behalf of RAM. Congrats also go to Eric for his appointment to the 91st District Court bench!

Additionally, Judge Deborah McNabb of Kent County, Judge Nancy Thane of Tuscola County, and Judge Tracey Yokich of Macomb County were all recognized as new Honorary Members of RAM. Both Judge Deb and Judge Nancy were active on the RAM Board for a long time before they were elected to the bench. Judge Yokich’s continuous support of RAM even though she has never been a referee earned her the honor of being the first honorary member who had not previously held membership in the organi-zation.

Congratulations to all of those that were recognized for their leadership and contributions to RAM! And congratulations to Sahera Housey and her Conference Committee members: Kate Weaver, Libby Blanchard, Ilyssa Cimmino, Rebecca Decoster, Amanda Kole, Betty Lowenthal, Tyler Martinez, Kathy Oemke, Mark Sherbow, and Nick Woods for putting together another wonderful conference.

Park Place Hotel Photo by Ken Randall

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201718

President’s Corner Sahera Housey, Oakland County

As Referees we impact the lives of the people we serve, especially the children. You all know that HB 4691 was introduced earli-er this year and passed out of the subcommittee before the House took their summer recess. The intent is to have the bill go to the floor for a vote in the fall. This bill is proposed to correct a perceived bias against fathers in the application of existing law. However, in reality, less than 3% of cases go to trial and are, in fact, decided by the courts.

Section 1.2 of the RAM By-laws states: “….RAM’s mission also includes contributing to the improvement of the legal system… by review-

ing and offering comments to proposed family law legislation and court rules.” This language allows our mem-bers to offer our expertise and knowledge without giving the appearance of impropriety or bias. Our role as referees is to listen to the cases that appear before us and apply the law as written.

The current law for custody and parenting time cases has a significant history and case law that has been developed for over 40 years. There are ample Court of Appeals cases that provide direction and law as to what each of the factors mean and how they should be applied.

The current version of HB 4691 does not provide the same history or direction. The bill is vague and unclear, which would make it difficult for referees to interpret the standards it delineates. Additionally, the crux of the biggest problem with the bill is that we lose focus of the children we serve. Most of us have large dock-ets and have a significant number of cases we rarely or never see. This is a testament and compliment to the parents who are able to focus on the well-being of their children and prioritize their children’s needs, while recognizing they are no longer an intact family. The difference is in the smaller percentage of cases we see often. These are acrimonious cases where parties do not get along, may have substance abuse issues or other adult issues, and may have difficulty separating these problems from the needs of their children.

Many family law organizations sent letters to state legislators to discuss problems with the proposed legislation. Among them were Michigan Judges Association, Michigan Probate Judge’s Association, Friend of the Court Association, State Court Administrative Office, SBM Family Law Section, Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers – Michigan Chapter.

As RAM President, I wrote a letter on behalf of RAM. Below is a slightly modified version of what I sent:

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SUMMER 201719

I am writing on behalf of the Referees Association of Michigan (RAM). RAM is an organization comprised of domestic relations and juvenile court referees. First and foremost, we are sworn to uphold the law and we shall continue to do so. We share many of the concerns expressed by many other organizations, including the Michigan Judges Association. The proposed HB 4691 completely changes the focus of the law from child-centered to par-ent focused. As Referees, we see every day the damage that parents do to their children, whether with good intentions or with misfeasance. We often assist parents to resolve their difference and believe that parents are in the best position to determine parenting time for their children. However, every case we see if different and every child is different. HB 4691 proposes that all families are the same, all children are the same and one size fits all. This is simply not true. HB 4691 fails to take into consideration children with special needs, learning disabilities, mental or physi-cal issues. Again, this is will negatively impact those children and their parents. This proposed change in the law will have unintended consequences which would be detrimental to the families and children we serve. The bill does not consider that a very small number of cases are actually decided by the courts. This number is actually less than 3% of cases we see. In fact, most cases are re-solved by the parents. If the parents are not able to reach agreement, the current law already provides “if a child custody dispute is between the parents …the court shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by awarding custody to the parent or parents, unless the contrary is estab-lished by clear and convincing evidence.” This bill proposes to change existing law that is well established. It is understood that the perception is that the existing law favors women. This is simply not true. The law and its application from 40 plus years ago is not the same. In today’s times, most parents are required to work and, therefore, the parents have to share joint responsibilities for their children. There may be some merit to some of the concerns but those concerns should be addressed with educating the jurist hearing the case and not necessarily changing long established case law. In its current form, the bill would prevent the court from giving either parent, including fathers, full custody, even when it would be in the best interests of their children be-cause the burden is so high. Additionally, this will open each and every case to litigation. The courts will have to schedule every matter for a hearing. This will require additional time, judicial resources and cost the parties an inordinate amount of legal fees and time away from their jobs. The bill also touches on the issue of child support which would be contrary to the Supreme Court direc-tive and would have detrimental and long term consequences to the economy and funding. It is our understanding that a revised version of HB 4691 may be introduced. We are asking that you give this matter the weight and time it deserves. The children of our state need you to consider their needs first. Sahera G. Housey President of the Referees Association of Michigan  

I want to thank you again for all you do as referees. You do make a difference and you change lives. You are appreciated.

Sahera

� REFEREES QUARTERLY • SPRING 201720

2016-2018 BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COMMITTEES

Officers:PresidentSahera HouseyOakland County houseys@oakgov.com

Vice President Kristi Drake Lenawee County kristi.drake@lenawee.mi.us Secretary Janet Mendez Ingham County jmendez@ingham.org Treasurer Amanda Kole Macomb County amanda.kole@macombgov.org Immediate Past President Amanda Kole Macomb County amanda.kole@macombgov.org

Board Members:

Michelle Letourneau Wayne County Michelle.letourneau@3rdcc.org Susan Murphy Jackson County smurphy@co.jackson.mi.usLynn Perry Kent County lynn.perry@kentcountymi.gov Lynda Pioch Isabella County piochl@vbco.org Lorie Savin Oakland County savinl@oakgov.com Kristin Stone Macomb County Kristin.stone@macombgov.org Kate Weaver Oakland County weaverc@oakgov.com Nicholas Wood Isabella County nwood@isabellacounty.org

Committee Chairs: Communications: Ken Randall & Lorie Savin Conference: Sahera Housey Finance: Kristi Drake & Susan Murphy Law & Court Rules: Shelley Spivack Kate Weaver Membership: Michelle Letourneau & Nicholas Wood Liaisons:

State Bar of Michigan: Candace Crowley SBM, Children’s Law Section: Kristin Stone SCAO, Friend of the Court Bureau: Paul Gehm SCAO, Child Welfare Services:

www.referees-association.org

Since 1984 “Compassionate justice

helping children”

MISSION STATEMENT Founded in 1984, the Referees Association of Michigan (RAM) is a special purpose bar organization recognized by the State Bar of Michigan that consists of attorneys who serve as juvenile and domestic relations referees throughout the State. RAM’s primary focus is to educate its members through an annual training conference, its publication, Referees Quarterly, and a listserv. RAM’s mission is also to contribute to the improvement of the legal system by appointing members to serve on numerous State Bar and State Court Administrative Office committees, and by offering comments to proposed legislation and court rules.