STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF NEWAYGO

FAMILY DIVISION

                   In The Matter of Alyssa and Amber

                  Date of Hearing: April 4, 2007. Judge: Terrence R. Thomas P21388

                         This court by order dated March 5, 2007, following a post termination

                  review hearing held February 7, 2007, terminated these children's

                  commitment to the Michigan Children's Institute and made the children

                  be placed with their maternal grandparents, Timothy and Barbara Atwood

                  consistent with petitions to adopt these children on file with this court.

                         The foster mother with whom the children were placed appealed this

                  change of placement to the Michigan Foster Care Review Board who

                  conducted a hearing and agreed with the foster parent placement that the

                  ward's removal was not in the wards best interest. These finding were faxed

                  to court and received March 22, 2007.

                         For the sake of a full record, this court scheduled a hearing consistent

                 with MCL 712A.13b(5), although not compelled to do so for the reason that

                 the Foster Care Review Board has no role in these proceedings. A clear

                 reading of the statute reveals that the Review Board reviews agency

                 decisions in certain circumstances of changes in placements. This court

                 reviews the work of the Review Board. The Review Board has no authority

                 to review a placement decision by this court. The appropriate review of this

                 court's decisions is the Court of Appeals.

                         The court further surmises that once this court made these children

                 permanent wards of the court, any agency jurisdiction ended. However, as a

                matter of courtesy, the court did request the Department of Human Services

                 to supervise the transfer and to monitor the placement to insure its success

                 pending a final order of adoption.

                         Having made that determination, the court would further augment the

                 record as follows:

                        1. What is not at issue in this case is the care provided the children by

                 the foster mother Nicole. It would appear that the children have

                been properly cared for and a bonding has occurred between her and the

                children. Such would be expected given the ages of the children and the

                two years they have been in her care.

                        2. What has developed subsequent to the February 7, 2007, hearing is

                a competition to adopt between the maternal grandparents and the foster

                mother, a single working person employed by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.         The strong support provided by the foster

                mother's co-workers and others in the local social services community

                smacks of cronyism and undermines the value of their opinions. It is

                apparent from the list of witnesses who appeared in front of the Foster Care

                Review Board, there is no one in that community left to speak for the

                grandparents and the court is left to wonder whether they were even

                informed of the hearing.

                       3. That any change in the placement of these children would be

                difficult is not lost on this court. The Foster Care Review Board's

                conclusion, "... that the Court's decision has gone against every

                professional opinion who has been involved with these children's lives

                since their original placement and the placement with the grandparents does

                not meet the "best interests of the child" provision of MCL 722.23 [MSA

                25.312(3)] is nothing more than pure opinion. Further, such a conclusion

                anticipates that nothing other that the status quo is appropriate for these

                children. Since these children were able to weather placement with a

                complete stranger two years ago, they will survive placement with their "old

                grandparents". The court believes that these children will receive

                appropriate care and that current services will be continued with the current

                providers. The foster mother previously pledged her support to a transition

                and if she loves the children she will do so and continue to be a part of their

                lives. As to what child welfare practices other than stall and delay are being

                violated by this placement is not clear to the court.

                         4. This case is long on opinion and short on fact. The quarrel the

                agency has with the grandparents is that arguably they disobeyed an agency

                directive by allowing the children to go with their mother when in their

                placement and that the grandfather admitted to the use of marijuana. The

                drug assessment reveals the grandfather has been drug free for years and is

                not at risk. The agency initially placed the children with their mother and

                only removed them when she attempted suicide in the children's presence.

                Psychological evaluations do not indicate that the children would be at risk

                of harm in placement with the grandparents.

                          5. The core issue presented by this case is whether the conduct of the

                maternal grandparents arises to a the level that over rides the strong public

                policy that dictates children be placed with their families. This court does

                not believe that it does. To answer otherwise would disqualify 50 to 80

                percent of families in this community. In this court's opinion there is no fact

                presented by this case strong enough to deny these children their lineage

                and their birthright. The court finds that it is in "the best interests" of these

                children to continue their placement with their grandparents.

                        In her "The Last Word" column entitled The Weight of What-If,

                found in the April 2, 2007, issue of Newsweek, Anna Quindlen writes:

                        "          From the snug harbor of their settled lives, people like

                        to torture themselves a little with the specter of what-ifs, which is

                        why so many still watch "It's a Wonderful I,ife" every year at

                       Christmas time. A different school, a different job, a different town,

                       a different choice. One brick out of the wall, and the whole thing                                        .    

                       tumbles. the randomness of life is disconcerting."