Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    And A Little Child Shall . . . Obtain An Injunction


    By The Wizard of Laws, Section Multimedia
    Posted on Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    Tags: family, Gretchen Whitmer, personal protection order, PPO, SB 734 (all tags)

    Cross-posted in The Wizard of Laws

    In the continuing search for solutions without apparent problems, the lovely and talented Gretchen Whitmer has done it again. Our erstwhile attorney-general-wannabe has taken laptop in hand, not to play solitaire, but to craft legislation that will permit 12-year-olds to get personal protection orders without telling anyone!

    Here's the background -- when children have legal rights to pursue in court (if injured in an accident, for example), they sue through a device known as a "next friend." A next friend is a person who acts on behalf of someone who lacks the legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf. When a child brings a lawsuit, typically a parent or close relative will act as next friend. In many courts, the term "guardian ad litem" (meaning guardian for the litigation) is used.

    Personal protection orders are authorized by Michigan law when a court determines there is reasonable cause to believe that the person to be restrained (the "respondent") may commit or threaten to commit an act of violence against the person seeking the order (the "petitioner").

    PPOs are available to restrain a spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom the petitioner has a child in common, a person with whom the petitioner has had a dating relationship, or an individual residing in the same household as the petitioner.

    If a child needs a PPO, then the child -- who lacks the legal capacity to sue -- needs an adult to serve as his or her "next friend." Makes sense, right?

    Cue Gretchen Whitmer.

    On August 18, in the midst of a recession and an impending budget crisis, Whitmer zeroed in on a problem apparently more pressing -- all those 12-year-olds who want personal protection orders -- and introduced SB 734, which would amend the law to say:

    If the petitioner for a personal protection order . . . is a minor 12 years of age or older, the petitioner may proceed under this section without a next friend.

    So, your 12-year-old can go to court for a personal protection order without you -- or any other adult -- knowing anything about it. Is there any reason for this?

    You might say, " Hey, Wiz -- what about a case where a 12-year-old is being abused by a parent? Shouldn't the child be able to go to court without the abusive parent being notified?"

    There are a couple of problems with that argument. First, PPOs are ordinarily forbidden where the putative respondent is the petitioner's parent. Second, if the parent cannot be the next friend, there are other adults -- relatives, neighbors, teachers, social workers -- who can be. Third, there are other, more effective alternatives for children in that situation, and fourth, the parent will be notified in the event the PPO is issued, effectively mooting any advantage to a lack of notice.

    Ah, but you come back with, "Look, Wiz, isn't the child better off if he or she at least has the option of a PPO?" Maybe, but maybe not. What happens when the child, upset that he can't go to a party, swings by the courthouse to falsely accuse his mother of abuse and to ask for a PPO? Do you think his parents might be just a tad upset when they find out what he tried to do?

    "Tsk, tsk," you say. "Most children don't know where the courthouse is, let alone have the wherewithal to get there or to ask for a PPO." Exactly. So why propose to let them do it?

    Parents are responsible for their children's protection. If the parents cause harm, they are liable. But these problems are few and far between, and they cannot be remedied by PPOs.

    Permitting children to act without their parents' knowledge and participation erodes the family. We would never think of letting children have surgery without parental consent (unless, of course, it's abortion, which the left reveres above all). Why would we consider letting children start lawsuits without their parents' knowledge or approval, or at least the knowledge and participation of an adult?

    There is an ongoing legislative effort in this country to circumvent parents and the family, to empower children to a degree for which they are unprepared, and in the process to further degrade the institution of the family. The Great Society programs have destroyed the poor family in America, a development directly related to poverty, crime, and unemployment.

    Perhaps this PPO legislation will have no effect at all on the family. Given Whitmer's track record, it will never even see a Senate vote. But we need to stand firm wherever the family is challenged, starting right here at home.

    < 9.11.01 "Never Forget" Memorial Event in Lansing As Part of Nationwide Remembrance | Statewide Organization Seeking Executive Director >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    Parenting (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rougman on Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    Parenting is being discounted by the notion of a large do all government.  

    From the 9th Circuit that basically said that parents have no rights in the educating of their children (thankfully overruled) to the myriad programs that government provides that essentially remove the responsibility of parenting from parents, Whitmer is simply following a sad national trend.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search