Teachers lose health care options

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
10/07/09 EARLY
BY
Terry Bankert
http://www.flintfamilylaw.com/

Just imagine that you head one of the largest Unions in the town, that recognition of the UAW after a Sit Down strike in your town built the American middle class and you get a letter from the CORPORATION taking away your right to negotiate a major benefit to your Union, a right you had fought for.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO !

I went and reviewed the court file 10/06/09 and in a letter from Attorney Kendall Williams Attorney for the Flint Board of Education to Barbara Bouknight Chief Negotiator for the teachers of Flint I found what happened.

The Williams letter stated generally, On Wed 9/16/09 the Flint Board of Education designated that from this point forward it will be designated as the policy holder for health insurance and associated employee group insurance benefits the District provides to Employees Represented by the MEA and the UTF.

He continued to inform the Union, the district no longer is able to provide health care insurance benefits to UTF bargaining unite members, through MESSA,. He continued the district will provide equivalent coverage through policies to be obtained by the board. He concluded generally sating that this will be achieved at the 11/1/09 open enrollment.

The Union members will have to change insurance companies and the terms of insurance. Members fear possible lapses of coverage, increased copays and those with significant preexisting conditions possibly no coverage at all. This was a negotiated benefits which the Flint Board of Education has breeched.

The Flint teachers union has filed a lawsuit against the Flint School District over changes in health coverage. [m]

In the Genesee County 7th Circuit case 09-092289-Cl assigned to Judge Joseph Farah
The Unites Teaches of Flint and Flint Security Association are seeking an injunction against Flint Community Schools and Board of Education for Flint.

The case was filed 10/05/09 setting a Order to Show Cause Hearing in Judge Farahs Court for 10/26/09 at 10:00 AM.The Flint Board of education Attorney Siebigteroth filed an appearance on 10/06/09 but no answer as of 2:30 PM

Michael K Lee of Southfield represents the UTF and the First Security Associations THE WORKERS. Kendal Williams and Sean Siebigteroff represent the Flint Community Schools and Board of education. THE BIG CORPORATION.

Under the new plan, the school district is the policy holder. The previous plan was through MESSA, an insurance provider established by the Michigan Education Association. [m]

Superintendent Linda Thompson has said the new plan would not change the teachers' health coverage. [m]

Flint teachers union President Michele Stinson said the school board broke an agreement to keep the terms of the current contract in place as both sides work toward a new deal. The group's contract expired in August 2008. [m]

Stinson said teachers are especially concerned that they haven't received details of the new health plan, despite having asked for them. [m]

"I’m scared out of my mind," Flint English teacher Kelli Williams said in a statement from the MEA. "I have a son who needs special medical treatment. Will this new plan provide for that?" [m]

More than a thousand teachers have filed a lawsuit against the Flint School District, asking a judge to stop the district from arbitrarily changing the group’s health insurance and violating the terms of their agreement.[c]

The move by the United Teachers of Flint, which represents more than a thousand employees, comes after the Flint Board of Education voted for a new health plan. [m]

The move comes after the school board voted to force a new health plan on the teachers, despite an agreement to keep the terms of their contract in place as the two sides negotiated a new deal.[c]

"We had a deal to hold to the contract on a day-to-day basis," said United Teachers of Flint President Michele Stinson. "For them to decide to throw that out the window while we’re trying to work out a contract is unconscionable—and illegal."[c]

"We had a deal to hold to the contract on a day-to-day basis," she said. "For them to decide to throw that out the window while we’re trying to work out a contract is unconscionable — and illegal." [m]

THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE workers AND THE big corporation RAN OUT IN 2007.

It was extended 2007 to 2008. On 08/12/09 a day to day contractual extension with cancellation allowed with 14 days notice was entered into.

The Union in the Pleading pointed out the corporation did not give notice of an impasse or intent to stop the day to day extension as required.

The Flint Board of Education is legally obligated to negotiate with the UTF.

On 12-208 the flint Board of education filed for mediation. The UTF on 3-13-09 filed for fact finding on same or similar issues. The fact finding dates are 11-11 &12-09 The CORPORATION jumped the gun by declaring this unilateral action on 9/17/09

One of the biggest worries with the board’s action is that teachers have been given no information about what this new health plan entails, despite repeated requests. [c]

"The school district hasn’t even responded to any of our requests for details of the plan. Members have no idea of the coverage or the cost," said Stinson.[c]

"I’m scared out of my mind. I have a son who needs special medical treatment. Will this new plan provide for that?" asked Flint English teacher, Kelli Williams.[c]

The pleading cited the harm that this change in insurance coverage could cause Ms Eikey and Ms. Love

The United Teachers of Flint will ask a judge to grant them an injunction against the district at a hearing on October 26.[c]

Judge Farah , relying only on the pleading of the WORKERS, has ordered the BIG CORPORATION to appear before him and answer why they should not be held in contempt of court for changing the health care of the WORKERS with out negotiation.

Flint School District officials could not immediately be reached for comment. [m]

In their pleading the WORKERS call this action of the CORPORATION an unfair labor practice.

POSTED HERE
BY
TERRY BANKERT
http://attorneybankert.com/


[c]
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=359409
[w]
http://blog.mlive.com/flint-city-beat/2009/10/flint_teachers_suing_school_di.html

Sphere: Related Content

DAD GETS CUSTODY

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
10/3/09
BY
Terry Bankert
　
DAD GETS PHYSICAL CUSTODY. and LEGAL CUSTODY!!!!

MOM HAD UNHEALTHY FOCUS ON HER CHILDREN

FLINT DIVORCE ATTORNEY TERRY BANKERT REVIEWS SEVERAL Issues:
Custody; "Best interest" factors MCL 722.23(b), (d), (g), and (j);
Review of the trial court's factual findings; McCain v. McCain; Fletcher v. Fletcher; Rittershaus v. Rittershaus; Bowers v. Bowers
　
FLINT DIVORCE LAWYER TERRY BANKERT REVIEWS A RECENT DECISION OF THE COURT:

Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished), Case Name: Bruns v. Bruns
UNPUBLISHED,September 24, 2009 ,v No. 289312 ,Kent Circuit Court
DENISE MARIE BRUNS, LC No. 00-002680-DM, e-Journal Number: 43859
Judge(s): Per Curiam - Servitto, Fitzgerald, and Bandstra . Additions , opinions and deletions made for presentation here. Consult with an attorney before your rely on its content-trb
　
Concluding the trial court's findings "best interest" factors (b), (d), (g), and (j) favored the plaintiff-father were not against the great weight of the evidence, the court affirmed the trial court's order awarding him legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child.
　
In this case mother challenges the ruling of the lower local county court. How does
The Court of Appeals second guess a local court?

The Michigan Court of Appeals reviews the local trial court’s factual findings under what is called the the great weight of the evidence standard. McCain v McCain, 229 Mich App 123, 125; 580 NW2d 485 (1998); Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 877; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).

In this case the Michigan Court of Appeals found that none of the challenged
findings by mother were against the great weight of the evidence.

FACTOR B - MCL 722.23(b), “[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,”

As to best interest factor (b), the local trial court found while both parties had the capacity to provide the child affection and love, the defendant-mother "'can react to opposition from her children with anger and retaliation to the point of alienating the children from her for an extended period,'" and her emotional ties with the minor child might cause her to view the child "'as a peer, to the point of an emotionally unhealthy enmeshment.'"


The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded the record showed defendant was "verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive to the point of alienating her older children," and she had "an unhealthy focus on her children."


The record , transcripts of the local trial courts proceedings ,further reveals that mother may have difficulty forming friendships, that she has an unhealthy focus on her children, and that she shared “adult problems” with the children.


The Michigan Court of Appeals held the facts did not clearly preponderate in the opposite direction of the local trial court's finding.


FACTOR D - MCL 722.23(d), “[t]he length of time the child has lived in a
stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity,”

The situation involved mother’s undermining of father’s authority with the child.
Defendant mother did not provide any discernible facts to outweigh the trial court's conclusion factor (d) also favored plaintiff father , and the court noted there were several examples of her interfering with father plaintiff's parenting time.

FACTOR G- MCL 722.23 (g) “[t]he mental and physical health of the parties involved,”

As to factor (g), the court concluded defendant relied too much on her psychologist's brief testimony, and noted her psychologist did not prepare a psychological evaluation or dispute any of the findings, conclusions, or recommendations in the psychological evaluation admitted at the evidentiary hearing. A local trial court need not comment on every matter in evidence or declare acceptance or rejection of every proposition argued. Bowers v Bowers, 198 Mich App 320, 328; 497 NW2d 602 (1993).

FACTOR J - MCL 722.23(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,”

Regarding factor (j), the court concluded the record contained many examples of defendant's "mental, verbal, and physical abuse; her failure to comply with court orders; and her efforts to undermine father's authority with the children."

[Mother] has consistently demonstrated a high level of hostility toward
[father] to the extent that her inappropriate expression of that hostility in front of
[the child] was a source of concern for school personnel. She has been
substantiated for denying [father] parenting time. [Father] has provided [mother]
with the parenting time ordered by the Court, and has been willing to expand the
amount of time for [mother] to be with [the child] without the necessity of court
involvement.
　
While she provided "a litany of father's transgressions during the history of this case," these facts did not outweigh the trial court's findings as to factor (j). The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to award plaintiff legal and physical custody.

The Michigan Court of Appeals Affirmed the decision of the local trial court.

Dad gets Custody!

Posted here by
Terry Bankert
10/03/09
http://www.flintfamilylaw.com/
---

Sphere: Related Content

Illionois mom runs to family in Michgian which accepts jurisdiction

FLINT FAMILY LAW DIVORCE ATTORNEY REVIEWS A RECENT MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION,UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2009

Terry Bankert a Flint Family Law Divorce Lawyer reviews several family Law Issues:

1. Custody; Jurisdiction of an interstate custody dispute; The Acknowledgment of Parentage Act (APA)(MCL 722.1001 et seq.); The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)(MCL 722.1101 et seq.); Nash v. Salter; In re Hatcher; Bowie v. Arder; MCL 722.1006; MCL 722.1010; Eldred v. Ziny; Fisher v. Belcher; MCL 722.1201; MCL 722.1102(h);

2.A "child-custody determination" (MCL 722.1102(c));

3.Whether the APA and the UCCJEA can be read together; White v. Harrison-White; Whether the UCCJEA should control because it was the more recently enacted and the more specific statute; In pari materia; In re Project Cost & Special Assessment Roll for Chappel Dam; MCL 722.1202(1)(a); Atchison v. Atchison;

4.Whether the child or a party had a "significant connection" to Michigan;

5.Whether applying the APA to unmarried fathers while applying the UCCJEA to married fathers violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the federal and state constitutions; Heidelberg Bldg., LLC v. Department of Treasury; In re AH; The applicable standard of review; American States Ins. Co. v. Department of Treasury; Crego v. Coleman; Strict scrutiny;
4.Whether the defendant-father was entitled to an award of costs and fees pursuant to the UCCJEA; MCL 722.1311(1); "Shall"; Walters v. Nadell
　
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished),Case Name: Foster v. Wolkowitz
e-Journal Number: 43754,Judge(s): Per Curiam - O'Connell, Talbot, and Stephens
No. 291825,Monroe Circuit Court Family Division,LC No. 08-002771-DP

Here the courts opinion held the APA and the UCCJEA can be read together and the Michigan court had continuing jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA, the court affirmed the trial court's determination it had jurisdiction of this interstate custody dispute.

MOM RUNS TO MICHIGAN WHERE SHE ONLY VISITED, DOES MICHIGAN HAVE JUSISDICTION, YES!

“Jurisdiction deals with the power of a court to hear a class of cases or the authority of a
court to bind the parties.” Omne Financial, Inc v Shacks, Inc, 226 Mich App 397, 402; 573 NW2d 641 (1997).

OUT OF STATE DAD HAD FILED IN ILLIONOIS
　
The parties signed an acknowledgment of parentage affidavit pursuant to the APA shortly after their child's birth.

The parties signed an acknowledgment of parentage affidavit pursuant to the
Acknowledgment of Parentage Act soon after their daughter’s birth. MCL 722.1003(1)
provides, “If a child is born out of wedlock, a man is considered to be the natural father of that child if the man joins with the mother of the child and acknowledges that child as his child by completing a form that is an acknowledgment of parentage.” As a result, “[a]n acknowledgment signed under [the Acknowledgement of Parentage Act] establishes paternity, and the acknowledgment may be the basis for court ordered child support, custody, or parenting time without further adjudication under the paternity act . . . .” MCL 722.1004.

CHILD CUSTODY ACT

The Child Custody Act [MCL 722.21 et seq.] is the “exclusive means” of pursuing
child custody rights, whereas the Acknowledgment of Parentage Act merely
establishes paternity, establishes the rights of the child, and supplies a “basis for
court ordered child support, custody, or parenting time without further
adjudication under the [Paternity Act, MCL 722.711 et seq.] . . . .”



Under MCL 722.1006, the plaintiff-mother had initial legal custody of the child.
As to the defendant-father's rights, since he was a resident of Illinois, the UCCJEA applied.

In this case, however, defendant is a resident of Illinois, and the UCCJEA, rather than the
Child Custody Act, “prescribes the powers and duties of the court in a child-custody proceeding involving this state and a proceeding or party outside of this state . . . .” Fisher v Belcher, 269 Mich App 247, 260; 713 NW2d 6 (2005) (internal quotations omitted).

INTERSTATE DISPUTE

For an interstate custody dispute, MCL 722.1201 sets forth the basic jurisdictional requirement for making an initial custody determination. Nash, supra at 109. MCL 722.1201 provides:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in [MCL 722.1204], a court of this state has
jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only in the following
situation:

(a)
This state is the home state of the child on the date of the
commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child
within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the
child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent
continues to live in this state.

(b)
A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision
(a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise
jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum
under [MCL 722.1207 or MCL 722.1208], and the court finds both of the
following:

(i)
The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least 1
parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection
with this state other than mere physical presence.

(ii)
Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the
child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.


The court concluded the APA and the UCCJEA could be read together as one law and thus, avoid a conflict. Under the APA, there was already an initial determination of custody by operation of Michigan law.

SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION

Giving this determination the same status as one made by a court, the issue became whether, where one party is out of state, a Michigan court can exercise continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Pursuant to MCL 722.1202(1)(a), this issue was "not dependent on whether Michigan is the home state, but whether the child or a party has a significant connection to Michigan."

DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION

While "significant connection" is not defined by the UCCJEA, the court in White concluded it "exists where one parent resides in the state, maintains a meaningful relationship with the child, and, in maintaining the relationship, exercises parenting time in the state."

BACKGROUND

The parties' child was born in Michigan and spent six and a half months here after her birth, until she moved to Illinois with her parents. Over the course of the year the child and plaintiff (who had legal custody) spent in Illinois, they routinely visited Michigan, where all plaintiff's family resides.

MOM VISITED FAMILY IN MICHIGAN

Thus, in this sense, plaintiff could be said to have "exercised parenting time" in Michigan. Further, the visits were often a week long, and on one occasion they stayed in Michigan a full month. When plaintiff initiated the custody proceedings, she had been back in Michigan for about five days. Thus, the court concluded she and the child still had a significant connection to Michigan and the trial court had jurisdiction to modify the initial custody determination existing by operation of Michigan law. The Michgian Court of Appeals Affirmed the local court decision.
　
Posted here
Terry Bankert
http://attorneybankert.com/

Sphere: Related Content