EXPUNGE CRIMINAL RECORD FLINT GESESEE MICHIGAN 810-235-1970

DO YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER HAVE A COUPLE OF JUVENILE  CONVICTIONS MAKING IT HARD TO GET A JOB ,INTO A COLLEGE OR THE MILITARY?
Presented here,12/31/12/ by Flint Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970, terry@attorneybankert.com, , www.attorneybankert.com
-------------------
On 12/30/2012 Governor Snyder signed into law an amendment to section 18e of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.18e), as amended by 1996 PA 257. by Flint Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970
see:http://www.abc12.com/story/20467852/new-law-makes-it-easier-to-erase-juvenile-crimes

This allows a person to have set aside more than one criminal conviction. This process is called expungement. Prior to this amendment a person was limited to one crime that could be expunged. Having your criminal record become important when applying for a job, the military of college and certain programs and funding sources. A tremendous burden has been taken from those that when young crossed the law and paid their penalty. As an adults they now can move on with their life.

Generally this new law , allows a person who has been sentenced to not more than 1 juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 3 juvenile offenses total, of which not more than 1 may be a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and who has no adult felony convictions may file a petition with the courts that gave them the sentence for the entry of an order after a proper motion and hearing and complying with all portions of this law to set aside the juvenile sentences..

A citizen may have only 1 juvenile sentence for an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 sentences for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult. A total of three juvenile acts can be expunged.

If there has never been a sentence in juvenile court for an act that would be a sentence to a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 sentences for an offenses that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult can set aside . Another way that three juvenile acts can be set aside.

If there were multiple sentences from one act they can be counted as just one with limitations. Multiple sentences arising out of a series of acts that were within 12 hours or less and that displayed a single intent and goal constitute 1 offense provided that none of the adjudications constitute any of the following:

(a) An assaultive crime as that term is defined in subsection .

(b) An offense involving the use or possession of a weapon.

(c) An offense with a maximum penalty of 10 or more years imprisonment.

There are offense sentences that cannot be expunged or set aside. A person shall not apply under this law to have set aside, and a judge shall not under this section set aside, any of the following:

(a) A sentenced for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.

(b) A sentence for a traffic offense under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to that act, that involves the operation of a vehicle and at the time of the violation is a felony or misdemeanor.

(c) A conviction under section 2d of this chapter. This subdivision does not prevent a person convicted under section 2d of this chapter from having that conviction set aside as otherwise provided by law.

Juvenile orders for financial payments will remain in effect. For instance order of disposition placing a juvenile in or committing a juvenile to care outside of the juvenile's own home and under state, county juvenile agency, or court supervision shall contain a provision for reimbursement by the juvenile, parent, guardian, or custodian to the court for the cost of care or service. [

Before a person had to wait three years until after completion of their sentence now they only have to wait one year. A legal petition under this law shall not be filed until the expiration of 1 year following imposition of the disposition for the sentence that the applicant seeks to set aside, or 1 year following completion of any term of detention for that sentence, or when the person becomes 18 years of age, whichever occurs later.

Many young people cross the law. We now have responsibly changed the law so the crimes of our youth are truly forgiven.


-----notes-----
Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a bill to make it easier for people to wipe juvenile crimes off their record. [1] Governor Snyder approved 2011 PA 64, which amends a 46-year old Michigan law limiting courts to setting aside only one criminal conviction for one charge.[2]

The new law will allow people to go to court to erase up to three offenses a year after the case is closed, instead of five years. The old law allowed only one offense to be expunged. [1]

[A]ndividual [under the new law can]... petition the court to set aside a juvenile offense that might prove a barrier to move forward in life. The petitioner would be eligible to set aside one or more juvenile adjudications so long as he or she had three or fewer convictions, and not more than one of the three was a felony. [4]

"People who have turned their lives around find it difficult, if not impossible, to advance in life," said Haveman, R-Holland. "Saddled with a juvenile record, now-responsible citizens are blocked from joining the military, going to college and finding employment. They have cleaned up their lives, but their past prevents them from moving forward." [4]


The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Joe Haveman, R-Holland, was easily approved in the Michigan House and Senate before the Legislature’s recent adjournment.[1]

House Resolution No. 254.
A resolution to declare May 2012 as Criminal Consequence Awareness Month in the
state of Michigan.

Whereas, A criminal record can have a devastating impact on a person’s ability to earn a
livelihood and often is unable to be expunged; and

Whereas, Those who engage in criminal activity often fail to realize that there are often
unforeseen and very severe consequences to their actions; and

Whereas, There are also many collateral consequences as a result of engaging in criminal
behavior including loss or restriction of a professional license, ineligibility for public funds
including welfare benefits and student loans, loss of voting rights, ineligibility for jury duty, and
deportation for immigrants, including those who, while not U.S. citizens, hold permanent
resident status;[3]


Michigan’s new law gives judges the ability to expunge a person’s criminal record even if there are up to two additional minor offenses on it. “Minor offenses” are misdemeanors or ordinance violations for which the maximum permissible punishment does not exceed 90 days and/or $1,000 in fines, and the person was at the time of conviction not more than 21 years old.[2]

Before applying for an expungement under this law, one must wait at least 5 years from the date of sentencing or completion of confinement, whichever is later. Certain crimes, such as murder, rape, and traffic offenses are not eligible for expungement.[2]

The amendment is intended to help those who may have been convicted of a minor traffic or other minor offense when young and yet later is convicted of a misdemeanor or felony to still apply to have that later offense expunged. The law recognizes that a conviction can negatively affect one for a lifetime.[2]


Haveman says the new law will help people who made bad decisions at a young age and are facing barriers to college, employment or the military.[1]

"The national trend is shifting from treating juvenile offenders more harshly to putting an emphasis on rehabilitation, and this bill makes it easier for youth who have demonstrated change to clear their records," Haveman said. "This simply makes it easier for deserving youth to put their pasts behind them and get on with life and become productive members of society."[4]

STATE OF MICHIGAN

96TH LEGISLATURE

REGULAR SESSION OF 2012

Introduced by Reps. Haveman, Bumstead, Hooker, Heise, Kurtz, Genetski, Lipton, MacMaster, Wayne Schmidt, Opsommer, Foster, Pettalia, Muxlow, Shirkey, Lori and Jackson

ENROLLED HOUSE BILL No. 5600

AN ACT to amend 1939 PA 288, entitled “An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to certain aspects of the family division of circuit court, to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the family division of circuit court and its judges and other officers, to the change of name of adults and children, and to the adoption of adults and children; to prescribe certain jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the family division of circuit court and its judges and other officers; to prescribe the manner and time within which certain actions and proceedings may be brought in the family division of the circuit court; to prescribe pleading, evidence, practice, and procedure in certain actions and proceedings in the family division of circuit court; to provide for appeals from certain actions in the family division of circuit court; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, agencies, and officers; to provide for certain immunity from liability; and to provide remedies and penalties,” by amending section 18e of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.18e), as amended by 1996 PA 257.

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

CHAPTER XIIA

Sec. 18e. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has been adjudicated of not more than 1 juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 3 juvenile offenses, of which not more than 1 may be a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and who has no felony convictions may file an application with the adjudicating court or adjudicating courts for the entry of an order setting aside the adjudications. A person may have only 1 adjudication for an offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult or if there is no adjudication for a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult set aside under this section. Multiple adjudications arising out of a series of acts that were in a continuous time sequence of 12 hours or less and that displayed a single intent and goal constitute 1 offense provided that none of the adjudications constitute any of the following:

(a) An assaultive crime as that term is defined in subsection (7).

(b) An offense involving the use or possession of a weapon.

(c) An offense with a maximum penalty of 10 or more years imprisonment.

(2) A person shall not apply under this section to have set aside, and a judge shall not under this section set aside, any of the following:

(a) An adjudication for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.

(b) An adjudication for a traffic offense under the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to that act, that involves the operation of a vehicle and at the time of the violation is a felony or misdemeanor.

(c) A conviction under section 2d of this chapter. This subdivision does not prevent a person convicted under section 2d of this chapter from having that conviction set aside as otherwise provided by law.

(3) An application under this section shall not be filed until the expiration of 1 year following imposition of the disposition for the adjudication that the applicant seeks to set aside, or 1 year following completion of any term of detention for that adjudication, or when the person becomes 18 years of age, whichever occurs later.

(4) An application under this section is invalid unless it contains the following information and is signed under oath by the person whose adjudication is to be set aside:

(a) The full name and current address of the applicant.

(b) A certified record of the adjudication that is to be set aside.

(c) A statement that the applicant has not been adjudicated of a juvenile offense other than the juvenile offenses sought to be set aside as a result of this application.

(d) A statement that the applicant has not been convicted of any felony offense.

(e) A statement as to whether the applicant has previously filed an application to set aside this or any other adjudication and, if so, the disposition of the application.

(f) A statement as to whether the applicant has any other criminal charge pending against him or her in any court in the United States or in any other country.

(g) A consent to the use of the nonpublic record created under subsection (13), to the extent authorized by subsection (13).

(5) The applicant shall submit a copy of the application and 2 complete sets of fingerprints to the department of state police. The department of state police shall compare those fingerprints with the records of the department, including the nonpublic record created under subsection (13), and shall forward a complete set of fingerprints to the federal bureau of investigation for a comparison with the records available to that agency. The department of state police shall report to the court in which the application is filed the information contained in the department’s records with respect to any pending charges against the applicant, any record of adjudication or conviction of the applicant, and the setting aside of any adjudication or conviction of the applicant and shall report to the court any similar information obtained from the federal bureau of investigation. The court shall not act upon the application until the department of state police reports the information required by this subsection to the court.

(6) The copy of the application submitted to the department of state police under subsection (5) shall be accompanied by a fee of $25.00 payable to the state of Michigan. The department of state police shall use the fee to defray the expenses incurred in processing the application.

(7) A copy of the application shall be served upon the attorney general and, if applicable, upon the office of the prosecuting attorney who prosecuted the offense. The attorney general and the prosecuting attorney shall have an opportunity to contest the application. If the adjudication was for an offense that if committed by an adult would be an assaultive crime or serious misdemeanor, and if the name of the victim is known to the prosecuting attorney, the prosecuting attorney shall give the victim of that offense written notice of the application and forward a copy of the application to the victim under section 46a of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.796a. The notice shall be sent by first-class mail to the victim’s last known address. The victim has the right to appear at any proceeding under this section concerning that adjudication and to make a written or oral statement. As used in this subsection:

(a) “Assaultive crime” means that term as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

(b) “Serious misdemeanor” means that term as defined in section 61 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.781.

(c) “Victim” means that term as defined in section 31 of the William Van Regenmorter crime victim’s rights act, 1985 PA 87, MCL 780.781.

(8) Upon the hearing of the application, the court may require the filing of affidavits and the taking of proofs as it considers proper.

(9) Except as provided in subsection (10), if the court determines that the circumstances and behavior of the applicant from the date of the applicant’s adjudication to the filing of the application warrant setting aside the 1 adjudication for a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 adjudications for a juvenile offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult or if there is no adjudication for a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult and that setting aside the adjudication or adjudications is consistent with the public welfare, the court may enter an order setting aside the adjudication. Except as provided in subsection (10), the setting aside of an adjudication under this section is a privilege and conditional, and is not a right.

(10) Notwithstanding subsection (9), the court shall set aside the adjudication of a person who was adjudicated for an offense that if committed by an adult would be a violation or an attempted violation of section 413 of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.413, if the person files an application with the court and otherwise meets the requirements of this section.

(11) Upon the entry of an order under this section, the applicant is considered not to have been previously adjudicated, except as provided in subsection (13) and as follows:

(a) The applicant is not entitled to the remission of any fine, costs, or other money paid as a consequence of an adjudication that is set aside.

(b) This section does not affect the right of the applicant to rely upon the adjudication to bar subsequent proceedings for the same offense.

(c) This section does not affect the right of a victim of an offense to prosecute or defend a civil action for damages.

(d) This section does not create a right to commence an action for damages for detention under the disposition that the applicant served before the adjudication is set aside under this section.

(12) Upon the entry of an order under this section, the court shall send a copy of the order to the arresting agency and the department of state police.

(13) The department of state police shall retain a nonpublic record of the order setting aside an adjudication for a juvenile offense that would be a felony if committed by an adult and not more than 2 juvenile offenses that would be misdemeanors if committed by an adult or if there is no adjudication for a felony if committed by an adult, not more than 3 adjudications for an offense that would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult and of the record of the arrest, fingerprints, adjudication, and disposition of the applicant in the case to which the order applies. Except as provided in subsection (14), this nonpublic record shall be made available only to a court of competent jurisdiction, an agency of the judicial branch of state government, a law enforcement agency, a prosecuting attorney, the attorney general, or the governor upon request and only for the following purposes:

(a) Consideration in a licensing function conducted by an agency of the judicial branch of state government.

(b) Consideration by a law enforcement agency if a person whose adjudication has been set aside applies for employment with the law enforcement agency.

(c) To show that a person who has filed an application to set aside an adjudication has previously had an adjudication set aside under this section.

(d) The court’s consideration in determining the sentence to be imposed upon conviction for a subsequent offense that is punishable as a felony or by imprisonment for more than 1 year.

(e) Consideration by the governor, if a person whose adjudication has been set aside applies for a pardon for another offense.

(14) A copy of the nonpublic record created under subsection (13) shall be provided to the person whose adjudication is set aside under this section upon payment of a fee determined and charged by the department of state police in the same manner as the fee prescribed in section 4 of the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.234.

(15) The nonpublic record maintained under subsection (13) is exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act, 1976 PA 442, MCL 15.231 to 15.246.

(16) Except as provided in subsection (13), a person, other than the applicant, who knows or should have known that an adjudication was set aside under this section, who divulges, uses, or publishes information concerning an adjudication set aside under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This act is ordered to take immediate effect.

Clerk of the House of Representatives

Secretary of the Senate

Approved

Governor[5]

[source]
[1]
http://www.dailytribune.com/article/20121230/NEWS03/121239988/new-law-makes-it-easier-to-erase-juvenile-crimes

[2]
http://www.mwplegal.com/michigan-broadens-eligibility-for-expungement-of-criminal-convictions

[3]
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislature.mi.gov%2Fdocuments%2F2011-2012%2Fresolutionadopted%2Fhouse%2Fpdf%2F2012-HAR-0254.PDF&ei=HpzhUOuKKKq80QG04IHIBA&usg=AFQjCNE-A6P2evFzKXOQf0P08j-xPWAqfA&sig2=P22yxbz5txKUIePus8V99A

[4]
http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=9347&District=90 contact Haveman at
http://www.gophouse.com/contact.asp?District=90

[5]
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billenrolled/House/htm/2012-HNB-5600.htm

Sphere: Related Content

FLINT DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
Full article
http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/

4/21/09 By Terry Bankert
http://flintfamilylaw.com/
Summary posted first to Flint Talk
http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=43416#43416

STATE FORCES THE CITY OF FLINT TO MAKE MORE BUDGET CONCESSIONS

It is a state requirement of any local government operating in the red. The plan will reduce that debt completely within five years. In the plan, the mayor said they have reduced the city’s executive staffing by between $1 million and $1.5 million. [3]

STATE MONITORS IN CITY HALL TELL BROWN YOU HAVE TO DO MORE

Brown said the state government has worked with the city in drafting the plan for two months. There wasn’t any specific word on whether more cuts could come to police and fire. Brown said the city is actively seeking grants from the federal government to sustain and add more police and firefighters to the city. [3]

FLINT IS WORKING HARD TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW REQUIREING A BALANCED BUDGET AND AVOID STATE TAKE OVER LIKE PONTIAC

"The state will try its darnedest not to come to Flint," said Schimmel, the finance director at the Mackinac Center. "They don't want to take over municipalities. The state has enough problems of its own."Schimmel said Pontiac has failed to address the root problems in its budget, and its expenses would have continued to spiral out of control without a state takeover."They didn't have the gumption or the political will to stand up and make the tough decisions," Schimmel said.[6]

IN THE PROCESS OF A STATE TAKE OVER THE STATES RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET AND A DEFCIT REDUCTION PLAN

The recovery plan to be presented by Mayor Brown is a required action by the State of Michigan for any municipality that operates with a budget deficit. [4]

ITS SAD WHEN THE STATE HAS TO COME IN TO TELL US TO BALANCE OUR BOOKS, TO CORRECT PROBLEMS CAUSED BY WILLIAMSON,BUCHANAN AND THE CURRENT COUNCIL. BROWN HAS A TOUGH JOB.

"Because we had the state at the table with us as we went through this process for the past two months, I feel very comfortable that we're really following the dictates of the state," he said.[2]

WHO DOES IT GO TO AT THE STATE LEVEL.WHAT LAW REQUIRES THIS? WHAT HAPPENS IS THE PERSONNEL AT THE STATE LEVEL REJECT THE CITY PROPOSAL?

Flint City officials have presented their plan to balance the city’s budget. Now it moves on to the state for a final approval. It was a fairly crowded City Council chambers Monday night, where Acting Mayor Mike Brown presented the deficit elimination plan, unanimously passed by the city council at 7:12 p.m. [3]

WHERE IN LANSING DOES THE CITY PROPOSAL GO?

The deficit-elimination plan now heads to Lansing.[2]

BROWN SUBMITTED A BUDGET AND NOW FIORCED TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT

"Every municipality must present a balanced budget," Brown said. "We didn't create this mess but we are cleaning it up. We got 9-0 support from Council so I think it sends the right message to the community," he said. [3]

THE COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE WITH PAST MISMANAGEMENT ALONG WITH WILLIAMSON AND BUCHANAN, NO EXCUSES

"I wish we didn’t have to do this at all," said City Council President Jim Ananich. "But if you don’t present the deficit reduction plan, the state will come in and make drastic cuts. You’ve got to operate within the means that you have. You can’t have hope budgets. You have to have realistic budgets," he said.[3]

WHY DID THE COUNCIL NOT DO THIS BEFORE?

Wiping away nearly $14 million in red ink. The Flint City Council Monday gave the green light to the interim mayor's plan to start fixing the city budget. [2]

THE COUNCIL SHOULD FOLLOW SUIT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL SEATS FROM 9 TO 5.

The numbers submitted to the state include various city revenue sources and include savings the city made through various budget cuts, including more than 100 job layoffs.[2]

DID BROWN CUT TOO DEEP INTO POLICE AND ENDANGER OUR COMMUNITY?

Brown says he's trying to reduce that, especially with regard to police.[2]

New Flint plan would save 10 public safety jobs by cutting executive positions [1]
The city may ax about 10 executive-level positions in order to save 10 public safety positions.[1]

The plan calls for the city to pay itself back more than $2 million the first year, and nearly $3 million in each of the four remaining years.[2]

Deficit plan highlights The Flint City Council on Monday unanimously approved a 5-year deficit reduction plan that eliminates a $14-million deficit by 2015. [1]

The plan cuts personnel costs and increases revenue by hiking fees for services. The city will also hire a grant writer to apply for federal grants.[1]

IS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF VOODOO BOOKKEEPING?

There are also plans to use underutilized accounting methods to boost the city's troubled general fund with $3.9 million from the city's healthier water and sewer funds.[1]

IS THIS THE LAST DITCH EFFORT TO STOP A STATE TAKE OVER?

The white-collar cuts would come in addition to a new deficit reduction plan that temporary Mayor Michael Brown will send to Lansing this week in an attempt to convince state officials that the city can eliminate its $14-million deficit by 2015.[1]

NEELEY WAS ON THE COUNCIL THAT ALLOWED THE DEFICIT REDUCTION

"If the economic tide changes in this community, then we'll be able to pay this off sooner," said Councilman Sheldon Neeley.[2]

THE CITY DOES NOT NEED A SURPLUS IT NEEDS POLICE

Under the plan submitted to the state, the city will clear out its debt within five years and eventually end up with a surplus. [2]

EXACTLY?

The interim mayor's administration laid out exactly how the plan would work.[2]
The plan is serving as the blueprint to help the city get its finances back in order.[2]

"If we're spending money on executive staff, we can't spend it on police and fire," Brown said. "It's the right thing to do."[1]

WHAT DOES THE COUNCIL DISAGREE WITH?

Brown also proposed a reorganization of the city government, but not all city council members supported those possible changes. NBC25 spoke with Brown and members of council immediately after the measure was passed. [3]

FINANCE DIRECTOR?

"This will give us a clean slate," said Finance Director Scott Kincaid. "We don't have to worry about raising taxes to the residents in the city of Flint."[2]


Wow cuts across the board that include some executive positions, who would have thunk it.....[Posted by micu29 on [1]][1]

YOU WOULD THINK THE COUNCIL WOULD PUBLICLY DISCUSS THIS?

The Flint City Council on Monday unanimously approved Brown's plans to get rid of the deficit through personnel cuts, hikes in service fees and changes to accounting methods. The city will also hire a grant writer to apply for federal grants.[Posted by micu29 on [1]][1]

DO YOU THINK A MAJOR REORGANIZATION SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC DEBATE?

Brown also proposed not only reorganizing his office, but other city departments. The plan includes a public safety department for services like police and fire.[2]

WHY DID THE COUNCIL NOT DISCUSS THIS BEFORE THEY ADOPTED IT? IS THERE A STATE DEADLINE?

The council will later take a look at Brown's administrative reorganization plan.With 85 layoffs already announced -- mostly in the police and fire departments -- Brown is looking for ways to spare public safety from more cuts.[1]

Posted by retiretime on
04/20/09 at 10:39PM
Who would have thunk it, not mike brown until now. I wonder who told him he was cutting to deep in safety. Here comes the puppet man, the puppet man, the puppet man.... [1]

The proposed administrative cuts would save about $1 million, which means they could save about 10 public safety positions, Brown said.[1]

The city's executive positions would be chopped by more than half compared to former Mayor Don Williamson, who had 25 administrative positions.[1]

Under Brown's plan, the city would have 11 executive jobs plus the mayor, according to a fact sheet handed out by Brown. Brown had already eliminated some executive positions when he took over for Williamson in February.[1]

Saving police and fire jobs would be welcome news to north end resident Gwendolyn Turner, who said the city's streets need more police. There was a fight amongst numerous youth in her neighborhood over the weekend, but she said the police response was slow.[1]

"We called the police, but it took them hours and hours to get out there," Turner said.[1]Specific administrative positions to cut haven't been publicly identified yet, but Brown presented a broad plan to consolidate departments, including:[1]

• Creating a public safety department that includes police, fire, EMS and 911. There would still be a police and fire chief, but some administrative positions could be eliminated. [1]

There is also a development and infrastructure department for areas like parks and recreation, and code enforcement.[2]

There is also a department for all finance issues like the budget and accounts payable.[2]
Finally, there is also a human resources department for things like labor relations and benefits.[2]

The proposed department consolidations are estimated to save the city about $1 million.[2]
Council will talk about it later.[2]

Posted by baddog54 on
Great idea. Streamline and consolidate public safety. It can be done and public safety can become cost effective.[1]

• Development and infrastructure department. Planning and zoning, building inspection, transportation, code enforcement, parks and recreation and community and economic development would all be under one department. [1]

• Finance. Budget, finance, accounts payable, risk management, purchasing, treasury will all be under the finance department. [1]

• Human resources will be a combination of labor relations, benefits administration and occupational health. [1]

• Constituent services will include the ombudsman, civil service and human relations. [1]
Councilman Delrico Loyd said he's happy to see any proposal that saves police and fire jobs.[1]
"We have to cut everything but the essentials," Loyd said.[1]

Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

THANKS FOR ALL THIS DON WILLIAMSON

It is a start, but where will it end? How about saving money by getting rid of the ombudsman's office.Again,they have NO power. Put the money into saving a police or firefighters position (or 2).Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

Vote to get rid of the Ombudsman's office. Will they show up when your house is broken into or on fire? Didn't think so.Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

Years ago, did the ombudsman's office have a say when a "lady of the night" was picked up (without her consent) and dropped off outside the city limits?????Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

Flint Interim Mayor Mike Brown's five-year plan to get the city out of a $14 million deficit got the thumbs up from City Council members.[2]

It's a plan that could even leave the city with $1 million surplus by 2015.[2]

"We didn't create this, but we are cleaning it up," Brown said.[2]

Residents have heard it before. On the eve of another election, some are skeptical about the next mayor being able to improve Flint.The field of six candidates will be whittled to two in a May 5 primary, then voters will choose the city's next mayor in the Aug. 4 general election."I don't see any of them being able to do much of anything," said Carriage Town resident Bill Griffin. "We're at a standstill."The two candidates who can stir people such as Griffin will grab enough voters in a crowded field to emerge from the primary.But residents are definitely in a "show me" mood.Many appear unhappy with recent turmoil at City Hall and don't express much hope that things will change for the better.[5]

Councilman Scott Kincaid said he likes what he sees so far.[1]

"This is a good plan," Kincaid said.[1]

[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]
04/21/09 at 1:12AM
Good morning. Before anyone chastises my suggestion...strongly think of the potential savings short and long term.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Our city is changing. The population is shrinking, tax revenues are down and will persist in declining, crime is still too high. Our schools are old, student #'s are down, budgets are out of whack. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Simple solution with SIGNIFICANT political ramifications and high level admin types will need courage to make the tough choices. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Solution: City/County Governmental consolidation...no holds barred but all departments systematically reviewed, scrutinized to the utmost. Think of the immediate savings in law enforcement coverage, efficiencies. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]
Less # of administrators between the city/county offices. Consolidations of city/county waste removal services, integration of the public safety vehicles, maintenance, administrative purchases, etc.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Consolidation of human resources to name one...finance/budget...and the list goes on.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

There are other American cities larger than Flint which prssently have a city/county government in place and doing quite well. There are many efficiencies, savings to be obtained IMMEDIATELY if there are govt leaders willing to make the hard choices.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

A steering committee jointly approved by the County Commissioners, City Council and represented by people who have the knowledge, wisdom, desire and are objective in their choices would be a start. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Since Mr Brown is NOT running for reelection, someone like him could fill one slot because of his knowledge of the city, county govt entities. Perhaps Governor Granholm could appoint another slot on this steering committee. Others would come from civic organizations, UM-Flint, Kettering, Mott Foundation,, businesses, the church, etc. The key to this committee would be objectivity since the infusion of politics across the board would hinder the committee's effectiveness. Again, we have a choice Flint, Genesee County to make a difference long term and this may be a viable option. Its just a thought. I have NO direct, indirect connection with any of the Flint or Genesee Co politicians though I have met several over the years. I say give it some thought.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

The children of Flint, Genesee Co deserve a future. They, like the adults, need the opportunity. Saving a million dollars here, there is nice..but "what if...?" What if we could streamline the WHOLE process, make our community a better place, have budgets in the black more often (than not)? What if. Give it some thought citizens. I'm willing to meet with anyone to explore ideas, suggestions, etc.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

"I think the state will accept that plan, so over the next 3 or 4 years the deficit will be eliminated," said Councilman Scott Kincaid. [3]

BROWN MAY STAVE OFF THE STATE AND DELIVER A SMALLER CITY GOVERNMENT TO THE NEXT FLINT MAYOR? WHO DO YOU TRUST IN THESE HARD ECONOMIC TIME TO BE FLINT MAYOR? WHO ARE THE CANDIDATES?

They are former city administrator Darryl Buchanan, Genesee County Commissioner Brenda Clack, businessman Greg Eason, political activist Eric Mays, Flint City Councilman Sheldon Neeley and former mayoral candidate Dayne Walling.[5]The race is a tossup, but Walling, as the only white candidate, will likely emerge as one of the top two candidates, said Paul Rozycki, a political science professor at Mott Community College.[5] Walling was narrowly defeated when he challenged Williamson for mayor in 2007.[5]

ITS TIME TO MEET THE CANDIDATES AND DECIDE WHO YOU WILL VOTE FOR!

4/30/09-The Genesee County Democratic Party is sponsoring a Mayorial candidate debate Thursday 4/30/09 6:30 pm at UAW Local 651 on Robert T Longway. This will be the last debate. Bring hard questions about the budget, fill out a question card as soon as you arrive.

4/28/09 -The Flint Area Public Affairs Debates presents a candidate forum on Tuesday, April 28th from 7-9 pm at the UM-Flint Kiva. The forum will be moderated by Chris Machniak of the Flint Journal.

4/21/09 -The Evergreen Estate and Evergreen Valley Block Club Association will host a mayoral forum from 5:30-7:30 p.m. Tuesday , 4/21/09 tonite, at Scott Elementary School, 1602 S. Averill St.

Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/21/09 You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

SOURCES
[1]
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/04/new_flint_plan_would_save_10_p.html

[2]
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=6770997

[3]
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=289457

[4]
http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=288898

[5]
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/04/flint_mayoral_hopefuls_face_to.html

[6]
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/04/flint_so_far_avoids_pontiacs_t.html

Sphere: Related Content

MOM GETS PHYSICAL CUSTODY FROM DAD POST JUDGEMENT

"KNOW THE LAW"
Attorney Terry Bankert 4/10-11/09
Www.FlintFamilyLaw.com
Today’s issues are hot "Off the Press" released by the Michigan Court of Appeals on 4/2/09.
Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert has modified (consult an attorney before reliance,) this opinion for media presentation, written, radio and internet TV. Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert practices exclusively in Michigan Family Law. Www.DivorceLawGuy.com
These issues will be discussed on WFLT 1420 AM Radio 9-9:30 AM Saturday 4/11/09. Program "Know The Law"It is a call in program. If you have questions call 1-810-239-5733.
Www.GeneseeCountyLaw.com
Issues:
MOM WANTS TO CHANGE CUSTODY
1.Custody; Whether the trial court properly granted the defendant-mother's motion for a change of physical custody of the parties' minor children; MCL 722.28; Mason v. Simmons; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Powery v. Wells; Schlender v. Schlender; Fletcher v. Fletcher; Berger v. Berger;
DID THE LOWER HANDLE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS RIGHT?
2.Whether the trial court's findings as to several child custody factors were against the great weight of the evidence;
DAD NEEDED MORE TIME COURT SAID NO
3.Denial of the plaintiff-father's request for an adjournment; Soumis v. Soumis; MCR 2.503(C)(1) and (2);
THE POWER OF FREIND OF THE COURT
4.Admission of the FOC report over plaintiff's objection at the evidentiary hearing; Duperon v. Duperon
[If you have question email me at www.FlintDivorce.com ]
*
/opinions/appeals/2009/031209/42134.pdf/opinions/appeals/2009/031209/42134.pdfS T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
CHRISTOPHER J. STARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED
April 2, 2009, v No. 287314 ,Kent Circuit Court ,CYNTHIA L. STARK,
LC No. 99-005236-DM ,e-Journal Number: 42360
Defendant-Appellee.Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Zahra and Shapiro, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Full article posted at http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/
COMPLETE ARTICLE AFTER CAPTION FOLLOWS
*
Plaintiff Christopher Stark appeals as of right the trial court’s August 1, 2008 order,
which granted defendant Cynthia Stark’s motion for a change in physical custody of the parties’
two minor children. We affirm.
I. CHANGE OF CUSTODY, COURTS CANNOT ABUSE DISCRETION
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that a change
in custody was in the children’s best interests.
A. WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court must affirm a trial court’s custody order unless the trial court made factual
findings against the great weight of the evidence, committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or
made a clear legal error on a major issue. MCL 722.28; Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188,
194; 704 NW2d 104 (2005).
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE NEEDED TO CHANGE CUSTODY
Modification of an established custodial environment requires clear
and convincing evidence that the change is in the best interest of the child. MCL 722.27(1)(c);
Powery v Wells, 278 Mich App 526, 528; 752 NW2d 47 (2008).
THE COURT MUST USE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
The trial court must weigh the statutory best interest factors enumerated in MCL 722.23 and make a factual finding regarding each factor. Schlender v Schlender, 235 Mich App 230, 233; 596 NW2d 643 (1999).
" A [TRIAL]court’s ultimate finding regarding a particular factor is a factual finding that can be set aside if it is against the great weight of the evidence." Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 881; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).
Therefore, a trial court’s findings "with respect to each factor regarding the best
interests of the child under MCL 722.23 should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly
preponderates in the opposite direction." Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 706; 747 NW2d
336 (2008).
B. Analysis
1ST QUESTION , WHERE IS THE CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT
In this case, the trial court found that a custodial environment existed with plaintiff and
properly weighed each of the best interest factors.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE NEEDED
After weighing the best interest factors, the trial court found that a change was warranted by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the trial court found that factors (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), and (l) favored defendant, that plaintiff was favored on factor (c), and that the parties were equal with regard to factor (g).
Plaintiff challenges the trial court’s findings of fact pertaining to factors (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h),
(j), (k), and (l) of the best interest factors, arguing that the findings were against the great weight
of the evidence.
FACTOR A
Factor (a) refers to "[t]he love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the
parties involved and the child." MCL 722.23(a). The trial court found that plaintiff’s emotional
relationship with the children was severely damaged because of pornography found in the home,
excessive use of corporal punishment, and uneven treatment of the children. There was ample
evidence showing a strained emotional tie between plaintiff and the children. The parties’ son
was very angry with plaintiff and refused to see plaintiff because of plaintiff’s punishment
techniques and the perceived disparate treatment amongst the children. In addition, the parties’
daughter had unresolved fear and anxiety stemming from the pornography in plaintiff’s house
and his use of corporal punishment. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted that he had declined to take
the steps necessary to continue supervised visitation and strengthen the emotional tie. The
evidence does not clearly preponderate against the trial court’s finding that this factor favored
defendant.
FACTOR B
Factor (b) requires the trial court to consider "[t]he capacity and disposition of the parties
involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising
of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any." MCL 722.23(b). The trial court found that
defendant had a greater disposition to fulfill this factor because the children harbored unresolved
fear and anger against plaintiff. The trial court recognized that plaintiff met this factor in the
past, but after a specific incident on August 28, plaintiff failed to provide the intervention
necessary for "healing and restoration of relationships." David Bosworth testified that the
children found more comfort with defendant despite spending the majority of their time with
plaintiff. In addition, both of the children had unresolved anger towards plaintiff, but he has
refused to exchange letters through the children’s therapist to repair the relationship.
Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is not against the great
weight of the evidence.
FACTOR D
In regards to factor (d), "[t]he length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory
environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity," MCL 722.23(d), the trial court
found that defendant enjoyed custody of the children since the August 28 incident and was in a
stable relationship and environment for several years while plaintiff’s home was less stable
because of the use of corporal punishment and pornography in the home. Defendant testified
that she has lived with her boyfriend for four years and that they had recently purchased a house.
Plaintiff lived with his partner and had two other roommates until April 2008, and while in
plaintiff’s custody, the children were exposed to pornography and received excessive corporal
punishment. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is not against
the great weight of the evidence.
FACTOR E
As for factor (e), "[t]he permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed
custodial home or homes," MCL 722.23(e), the trial court found that defendant’s living situation
exhibited more permanence than plaintiff’s situation. Defendant testified that she was in a fouryear,
stable relationship with her boyfriend and that she planned to move into a house in August
2008. The new house was located in the children’s school district and would not result in a
change of school. Plaintiff lives in a four bedroom duplex with his partner. While in custody of
the children, plaintiff has had other partners and roommates living with him and has lived in a
number of different places, including defendant’s home. Therefore, the trial court’s
determination of this factor is consistent with the evidence on the record and was not against the
great weight of the evidence.
FACTOR F
Factor (f) "[t]he moral fitness of the parties involved," MCL 722.23(f), relates to the
parent-child relationship and the effect that any identified conduct at issue may have on that
relationship. Fletcher, supra at 887. Conduct relevant to this factor includes "verbal abuse,
drinking problems, driving record, physical or sexual abuse and other illegal or offensive
behaviors." Id. The trial court indicated that its primary concern on this factor was the
children’s exposure to pornography. Bosworth interviewed the children and determined that
they both had been exposed to inappropriate sexualized images and situations in plaintiff’s home.
Some of the sexual images were purposefully shown to the children by plaintiff and his partner.
Bosworth testified that exposure to sexual images and items caused the children to experience
anxiety and could be deleterious to their future development. Accordingly, the trial court’s
finding that this factor favors defendant is not against the great weight of the evidence.
The trial court found in favor of defendant with regard to factor (h), "[t]he home, school,
and community record of the child." MCL 722.23(h). The trial court commended plaintiff’s
efforts for establishing a foundation for the children’s educational successes; however, plaintiff’s
ongoing discipline regime was unhealthy and detrimental to the children’s development.
Bosworth testified that plaintiff’s discipline techniques were not suitable for someone with
special educational needs like the parties’ son. Plaintiff’s use of corporal punishment caused
both of the children to experience anxiety. Defendant on the other hand used a system of
privilege removal and timeouts, and the children were responsive to those techniques. Both of
the children found more comfort with defendant. Therefore, the trial court’s determination of
this factor is consistent with the evidence on the record and was not against the great weight of
the evidence.
FACTOR J
With regard to factor (j), "[t]he willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate
and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other
parent or the child and the parents," MCL 722.23(j), the trial court found that defendant
attempted to facilitate a strong relationship between the children and plaintiff while plaintiff was
unwilling to accept criticism of his past mistakes and had terminated contact with the children.
Bosworth testified that the parties are often inappropriate in the comments they make concerning
the other party; however, plaintiff’s criticisms are more prolific. In addition, during the
supervised visitation, William Edwards testified that defendant encouraged the parties’ reluctant
son to visit with plaintiff. Conversely, plaintiff refused to bring the children’s Christmas
presents or video game equipment to the supervised parenting time because he felt their property
should stay at his home. In addition, plaintiff refused to take the steps necessary to continue
supervised visitation. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is
not against the great weight of the evidence.
FACTOR K
Factor (k) refers to "[d]omestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed
against or witnessed by the child." MCL 722.23(k). The trial court found that there was a long
history of domestic violence between the parties and that both parties bear the responsibility to
change their behavior; however, the trial court found that more recent events were dispositive on
this issue. Defendant admitted that she was arrested twice for domestic violence against plaintiff
in the past and previously used corporal punishment with the children. Plaintiff recently used
corporal punishment as a motivation for the parties’ son to behave properly in school and used it
when he threatened to slap the parties’ daughter after she used "the Lord’s name in vain." In
addition, plaintiff was arrested after the August 28 incident because the son had red marks on his
neck and chest. Furthermore, Edwards testified that he was primarily concerned about emotional
abuse that may be occurring between the children and plaintiff. The children were more
comfortable with defendant because of the corporal punishment and pornography issues at
plaintiff’s household. Therefore, the trial court’s determination of this factor is consistent with
the evidence on the record and was not against the great weight of the evidence.
Factor (l) refers to "[a]ny other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a
particular child custody dispute." MCL 722.23(l). The trial court found that the parties’
daughter required special care because she was a victim of sexual abuse and that plaintiff did not
fully appreciate the situation and allowed the child to be exposed to pornography. Bosworth
testified that the child was intrigued by pornography and searched for pornographic images and
that plaintiff had not completely restricted access to the sexualized images and, in fact, had
shown some of them intentionally. Bosworth testified that the child was experiencing anxiety
because of her exposure to inappropriate adult images and that such exposure could cause further
deleterious effects. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is not
against the great weight of the evidence.
COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED EACH FACTOR
Our review of the record indicates that the trial court properly considered each of the best
interest factors and made factual findings consistent with the record evidence. The majority of
the statutory factors weighed in favor of defendant and the great weight of the evidence
supported the challenged findings. Because the evidence did not clearly preponderate in the
opposite direction, and because the findings favored defendant, there is no basis on which to find
that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant sole custody of the children.
II. DAD WANTED ADJOURNMENT
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for an adjournment to
allow him more time to prepare for the hearing.
A. Standard of Review
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for an adjournment for an abuse of
discretion. Soumis v Soumis, 218 Mich App 27, 32-33; 553 NW2d 619 (1996).
B. Analysis OF FATHERS REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT
An adjournment may be granted because of the unavailability of a witness or evidence,
but the motion "must be made as soon as possible after ascertaining the facts" and "only if the
court finds that the evidence is material and that diligent efforts have been made to produce the
witness or evidence." MCR 2.503(C)(1) and (2).
ADJOURNEMNT MUST BE FORE GOOD CAUSE
In addition, a motion for an adjournment must
be based on good cause, and a trial court may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of
justice. Soumis, supra at 32.
FATHER DID NOT ASK FOR THE ADJOURNMENT QUICK ENOUGH
Plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for an
adjournment is without merit because plaintiff’s motion for adjournment was not timely and was
not made for good cause.
FATHER WAS ILL AND WANTED ADJOURNMENT
Plaintiff moved for an adjournment three days before the hearing
because he was unable to reestablish supervised parenting time with the children and was unable
to communicate with his counsel preceding the hearing because of a prolonged illness. While we
do not question that plaintiff’s counsel suffered a prolonged illness before the hearing, the record
does not support that an adjournment was necessary. Counsel appeared in this matter on
February 20, 2008, and even without most of the month of May to prepare, he had more than two
months, including a full week before trial to prepare. Nothing in the record or in plaintiff’s
arguments on appeal indicates that certain witnesses or evidence was not presented because of
any lack of preparation. Further, plaintiff failed to articulate to the trial court, or to this Court,
how additional preparation would have benefited plaintiff. In addition, there was evidence that
plaintiff’s counsel was aware that Edwards suspended plaintiff’s supervised parenting time in
April 2008, and he discussed the matter with plaintiff. Plaintiff had ample time to address the
issue before the evidentiary hearing. Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff’s motion, made the
Friday before the hearing, was not only untimely, but was not made for good cause. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion.
III. THE POWERFUL FRIEND OF THE COURT REPORT
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in admitting the Friend of the Court (FOC)
report over his objection at the evidentiary hearing.
A. Standard of Review
A trial court’s evidentiary decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Waknin v
Chamberlain, 467 Mich 329, 332; 653 NW2d 176 (2002).
B. Analysis ENTERING INTO A TRIAL THE FRIEND OF THE COURT REPORT WITHOUT TESTIMONY?
We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting the FOC report at
the evidentiary hearing. In rendering its opinion, the trial court never referred to the FOC report
and did not rely on the report as the basis for its decision. The trial court based its opinion upon
competent evidence adduced at the hearing. The trial court’s modification of the custody order
was proper.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
[Comments of Flint Lawyer Terry Bankert are found within Brackets or CAP Headlines. Spacing has been changed for readability-trb]
END ARTICLE
Posted here by Terry Bankert http://www.flintdivorce.com/ You are invited to continue these discussions on my face book. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

Sphere: Related Content