Thursday, October 26, 2006
SUMMARY OF MICHIGAN "JOINT CUSTODY AS DEFAULT" BILL*
House Bill 5267 would amend The Child Custody Act so that in cases of custody disputes between parents, the court would have to order joint custody unless either of the following applied:
- The court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child,
- A parent moves his or her residence outside the school district the child has attended during the previous one-year period before the initiation of the action and is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption.
School Schedule Exception. Under the bill, if the parent is unable to maintain the child's school schedule, the court would order the parents to submit to mediation to determine a custody agreement that maximizes both parents' ability to participate equally in a relationship with their child while accommodating the child's school schedule. A parent could restore joint custody by demonstrating the ability to maintain the child's school schedule.
The bill would modify the definition of joint custody to mean an order of the court specifying (1) that the child resides alternately for specific and substantially equal periods of time with each parent, and (2) the parents share decision-making authority as to all of the important decisions affecting the welfare of the child, including the child's education, religious training, and medical treatment. (Proposed amendments to the definition are underlined.
The bill also would amend the existing provision in the Child Custody Act that requires the court to advise parents of the availability of joint custody and that allows either parent to request joint custody, with the court to determine if joint custody is in the best interest of the child. The changes incorporate language from the new provision described above, including language about school schedules and about parents sharing custody "alternately for specific and substantially equal periods of time." Currently, the act says that if parents agree, the court will award joint custody unless the court determines on the record, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that joint custody is not in the best interest of the child. House Bill 5267 would say, instead, that if parents agree in writing on joint custody, the court "shall grant that custody arrangement," and the bill deletes the provision in italics above.
*http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billanalysis/House/htm/2005-HLA-5267-1.htm
Monday, October 23, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
An article in the Post and Courier indicates that "[w]ith the Charleston County jail population reaching record highs this week, county officials are left with little room to put off an expansion project that could top $101 million."
We wonder if anyone has considered the makeup of the jail population and whether there are ways to reduce costs. For example, could the inmates be processed, and bonded out, more quickly? Are most of the inmates fathers who are behind in their child support obligations, or are most of the inmates violent convicts who need to be lock downed?
We are of the view that unnecessarily criminalizing people is an ineffective and costly way of running a prison system
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
In today's New York Times is an article that discusses both the practical difficulties of expunging criminal records in the electronic age and the often devasting consequences of failed attempts at expungement.
As Adam Lipchak reports. "In 41 states, people accused or convicted of crimes have the legal right to rewrite history. They can have their criminal records expunged, and in theory that means that all traces of their encounters with the justice system will disappear. But enormous commercial databases are fast undoing the societal bargain of expungement, one that used to give people who had committed minor crimes a clean slate and a fresh start....But real expungement is becoming significantly harder to accomplish in the electronic age. Records once held only in paper form by law enforcement agencies, courts and corrections departments are now routinely digitized and sold in bulk to the private sector. Some commercial databases now contain more than 100 million criminal records. They are updated only fitfully, and expunged records now often turn up in criminal background checks ordered by employers and landlords."
As a result of failed expungements, people have been known to lose jobs, to be refused loans, and to be denied rental opportunities. This strikes us as another argument for the need to reform the law of Civil Contempt so that innocent people are not unfairly saddled with an arrest and conviction record.
Labels: Civil Contempt, Expungment
Saturday, October 14, 2006
On May 26, 2005 we posted out thoughts regarding our belief that jailing folks is not the solution to every problem. In a nutshell, we believe that before we build more and more (and more expensive) jails to house more and more prisoners, that some thought should be given to whether the public good is best served by jailing everyone accused of, or even convicted of, a crime. But, Charleston County Council apparently does not share our views. An article in yesterday's Post and Courier indicates that Charleston County Council is going to spend $101 Million to expand the County Jail. Predictably, this planned expansion will result in a tax increase.
Here's a question for our readers. Once they have the room to jail him, do you think Charleston County will prosecute State Representative Scarborough for adultery?
Monday, October 09, 2006
