Foster Care Review Board names three for exemplary child advocacy

Marquette County Probate Judge Michael J. Anderegg, attorney Rubina Mustafa and Department of Human Services caseworker Jeannine Benedetti have been named as recipients of Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) awards for their leadership and advocacy on behalf of children.

Jim Novell, who serves as Program Manager of the FCRB, said that the awards are given for exemplary rendering of service on behalf of abused and neglected children and families served by our state child welfare system.

“The recipients stand out not only for their professionalism and performance, but also for their dedication,” Novell said.

Anderegg received the board’s Jurist Award. The FCRB noted Anderegg’s “efforts to ensure safe and timely permanency for the children who come under his jurisdiction,” adding that the judge “has made significant contributions … in caring for our state’s most vulnerable children and families.”

Mustafa received the Lawyer-Guardian Ad Litem Award. The FCRB praised Mustafa as a zealous advocate who “goes above and beyond the statutory responsibilities of a L-GAL, remaining accessible to her clients at all hours and always looking for ways to push them toward
success.”

Benedetti was presented with the Foster Care Caseworker Award. In naming Benedetti for the award, the FCRB cited her “tireless advocacy,” noting that “she is a mentor, listening ear, and friend” who makes herself available outside of working hours to assist her young clients.

The FCRB, which was created by the Michigan legislature in 1981, serves as a statewide system of third-party review of the foster care system. The program is administered by the State Court Administrative Office, the administrative agency of the Michigan Supreme Court, and is comprised of citizen volunteers who serve on one of 30 local review boards throughout the state.

Advertisements

Mary Beth Kelly criticized as her appointment set to expire

From the Metro Times, several Wayne County judges and departments are apparently displeased with the leadership of Chief Circuit Judge Mary Beth Kelly, whose appointment as Chief Judge expires at the year’s end.

Critics of Kelly — who came to the bench as an appointee of Republican Gov. John Engler in 1999 — sometimes characterize her policies as part of an effort by outstate conservatives to control leaders in the more liberal Detroit. They say some of her actions reflect the region’s longtime inability to come to terms with racial issues. She’s not making the correct, albeit difficult, decisions about how to effectively manage governmental operations with limited dollars, they say. And she should be stopped.

"I say Mary Beth Kelly has got to go," Detroit City Councilwoman Brenda Jones told one gathering held to "learn about the injustices taking place in our court system."

Defenders in the story call her fair-minded and say that her biggest problem is that she “came to power in an unusual way.

State bill would freeze two local judge seats

“The verdict from Allegan and Ottawa counties is clear — they want to keep their circuit court judges,” The Holland Sentinel is reporting.

“A proposal in the state Senate designed to save money would reduce the number of judges in several counties, though not permanently….

“Ottawa County has four circuit court judges: Chief Judge Edward Post and judges Calvin Bosman, Jon Hulsing and Jon Van Allsburg.

“The bill would keep open any circuit court position now occupied by a judge over the age of 70 who, by law, cannot run for another term in the November election.”

Appeals Court affirms conviction of Sanford man in stabbing at Midland hotel

“A state Court of Appeals has upheld a jury’s conviction of a Sanford man serving 17 months to four years for felonious assault,” reports The Bay City Times.

“Aaron K. Miller, 42, claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim, Ryan Hackler, failed to show up to testify.

“A jury convicted Miller of one count of felonious assault stemming from the Oct. 27, 2006, stabbing at Valley Plaza Resort, 5221 Bay City Road in Midland.”

 

Sharply divided MSC amends judicial disqualification rule

The Michigan Supreme Court has published amendments to MCR 2.003 – Disqualification of Judge.

The upshot is that if a justice is challenged on conflict-of-interest grounds and decides no conflict exists, a party to the proceeding can ask that the entire Court vote on the matter.

The Court approved the amendments at its Nov. 5 public administrative conference although no order adopting the amendments was issued at that time.

The Court’s 4-3 order, issued last week only hours before the start of the long Thanksgiving weekend, consists of 3 1/2 pages of actual amendments and 54 1/2 pages of concurring statements, dissenting statements and appendices.

A sampling:

In adopting this rule, the Michigan Supreme Court has, for the first time in its long history, reduced to writing a rule to govern when a justice should not vote on a case. In the past, the justices wrote rules on recusal but applied them to other judges only, not to themselves.
Some of use have long believed that the interests of the legal community and of the general public are best served if a Supreme Court recusal rule is put in writing. In that way, all can see and understand something that has long been shrouded in mystery: how recusal works in the Michigan Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly

For the first time in our state’s history, duly elected justices may be deprived by their co-equal peers of their constitutionally protected interest in hearing cases. Starting today, those contesting traffic tickets will enjoy greater constitutional protections that justices of this Court. …
This is truly a sad day for this Court, the citizens of Michigan, and for the judicial elective system that our citizens have mandated.
Justice Maura Corrigan

Voting for the amended rule: Kelly and Justices Michael Cavanagh, Elizabeth Weaver and Diane Hathaway. Voting against: Corrigan, and Justices Robert Young and Stephen Markman.

Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice

From The New York Times, an interesting story about liberal and conservative groups that agree that law enforcement agencies are going too far.

In the next several months, the Supreme Court will decide at least a half-dozen cases about the rights of people accused of crimes involving drugs, sex and corruption. Civil liberties groups and associations of defense lawyers have lined up on the side of the accused.

Edwin Meese III, a former attorney general, once referred to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of the “criminals’ lobby,” but on this issue, he says, he is willing to work with the group.

But so have conservative, libertarian and business groups. Their briefs and public statements are signs of an emerging consensus on the right that the criminal justice system is an aspect of big government that must be contained.

The development represents a sharp break with tough-on-crime policies associated with the Republican Party since the Nixon administration.

Attorney who investigated Judge Steven Servaas will not face Discipline Board, grievance panel rules

From The Grand Rapids Press:

The state Attorney Grievance Commission has ruled that Judicial Tenure Commission Executive Director Paul Fischer does not have to face a disciplinary panel for his investigation of Kent County District Judge Steven Servaas.

In a terse pronouncement Nov. 17, the grievance commission reviewing a complaint against Fischer ruled “no further action is warranted.” As required in such cases, it gave no indication why.

More than a dozen prominent local lawyers, including former presidents of the Grand Rapids Bar Association, filed a grievance seeking sanctions against Fischer in July 2008. The attorneys alleged Fischer tried to extort Servaas’ resignation.

The grievance commission evidently did not agree.