• Board of Directors
• Executive Staff
• Success Stories

Success Stories

The following are thumbnail sketches of a few of the cases that our attorneys have handled and describe some of the problems facing our children.

As background, this young man's case was closed in June due to age. In spite of being told in court that he had been referred to closed case services, when I checked on him the end of July, he had not seen or heard from anyone. (I was calling him because I wanted to confirm he had signed up for the summer camp, which he had not done. The closed DHS services worker had no information. The current worker said she sent paperwork a few days prior to my call.

I filled out the paperwork for him and got him into camp. I also arranged transportation. The young man called to thank me after camp was over and indicated that he was now living in a different community and had enrolled at the local community college.

I have since arranged for other foster children to attend this camp.

This is a guardianship case involving the father and his sister. The referee terminated the mother's rights and left father with temporary custody, although he was in prison at the time. The 5 year-old had been left in the custody of the paternal aunt. When I got the case the father was out of prison and living with his sister and her husband, their son, and the temporary court ward. The father received some services, but never fully complied. He also was working out of state and wanted to bring his son with him, but the job wasn't permanent. As a solution, the father gave a guardianship to his sister so that the son could remain where he had been for the last few years.

This case involves a teenage boy who was afraid to return home to his father because he had been physically and emotionally abused by him. The child's mother died when he was very young. The child testified at the adjudication hearing to the constant physical and emotional abuse he suffered by his father. He further testified that he felt he would kill himself if the court sent him back home because he could not take the abuse any longer. The father testified and denied abusing his son. The protective services investigator testified that she wanted to return the child home with his father with "reunification" services. At the conclusion of the hearing, the referee denied the petition and recommended that the child be returned home to his father. The child became visibly distraught over the referee's recommendation and exited the courtroom in tears. He kept telling me, "I cannot go back! He will kill me if I go back home!" I immediately filed a petition for a judge to review the referee's recommendation and requested an emergency stay of the order pending the review hearing. The judge granted the emergency stay. While the review hearing was pending, the child attempted to slit his wrist with a disposable razor while at the foster home. He was evaluated at Children's Hospital. After hearing the arguments at the review hearing and listening to the audio tapes of the adjudication hearing, the judge reversed the referee's recommendation and made the child a ward of the court based on physical and emotional abuse by the father. The child is currently progressing towards emancipation.

This case involves a petition, alleging that the mother (the "mother") failed to protect her daughter (the "child") from sexual abuse. The petition alleges that the child reported to the Detroit Police that she had been sexually assaulted by her older brother ("brother") on a continual basis for several years. The petition further alleges that the child made her mother aware of the numerous assaults but asserts that the mother did nothing about it. The case was set for trial. After I performed a thorough investigation, which included interviewing the child and some family members, I learned there was not much evidence against the mother and that the brother could not be found. There was a warrant out for his arrest and he was on the run from the police. To complicate matters, the child was understandably very shy and reluctant to testify against the mother in court. However, I spent a lot of time talking with the child, reassuring her, and preparing her as a witness for trial.

On the day of trial, I was informed that the DHS worker wanted to dismiss the petition because there was not enough evidence and also because the worker did not think the child was credible and that she may be making up the allegations against the brother and the mother. Although it took a great deal of time and patience, the child was able to testify against the mother, at times barely audible as she gave her testimony. The findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court were that the child was forced by her brother to have sex with him on average of several times per week over the course of a number of years and the mother knew or should have known and failed to protect the child. The child is now in foster care and away from her mother and other family members who abused her and failed to protect her from this horrific situation.

This is a delinquency case where the child was placed at the juvenile detention facility and later transferred to another facility. While the referee was on vacation, I received a call from the court clerk stating that the child's mother called and indicated that her child was molested. After talking to the child and interviewing the case manager and director, the next day, the child was removed. He was then safely placed in a hospital program.

Almost five years ago, I met my young client upon his discharge from hospitalization for his safety and the safety of others. He had been in several residential and foster care placements after relative placements fell through. His then DHS worker believed that residential placement was the only alternative for him. I believed that he had never been provided the services necessary to stabilize his behavior, improve his school performance and help him maintain a long-term placement. I fought for placement with his grandmother, which did not work out because services were never timely implemented for a successful transition from hospitalization. He went back to residential and had to be moved to another facility when that facility closed. I persisted and persuaded an agency to accept him into its specialized foster care program. From there, he was placed with a foster father who began to lay the foundation for his eventual reunion with a relative. I had to fight for an IEP and the educational services he required. I coordinated the efforts of his foster father, the Foster Care Review Board, a CASA, briefly, his caseworkers, therapists and finally school officials. Several relatives remained involved in his life and his behavior began to stabilize. He is now placed with a relative, playing basketball and enjoying high school life. He has many challenges, but is happy and making plans for his future in the automotive field.

This situation involved extreme environmental neglect. A foster parent had moved three children to a home that was not suitable for habitation by anyone.

Each time I would do a visit with the kids, the visit would take place at a new home because the foster mother kept moving.

I scheduled yet another visit with the foster mother and was informed that she once again had moved. I took down the new address and arrived on said date and time.

When I arrived at the new home (the exterior of the home appeared very dilapidated and I could see that the windows were boarded up). Upon my arrival, I could see that the foster mother had the children all loaded up in her car with the car running. She stated to me she was in a hurry to get to the drugstore and then would be taking the children to school. I told her that I needed to go inside the home to determine suitability. She stated to me that was a problem because "the heat had just gone out". I told her I still needed to see the inside of the home. She reluctantly agreed to let me in.

After going inside the home, the foster mother explained to me that she and her husband had just purchased the home and that it "needed some work".

The home was not only totally unsuitable, it was also dangerous. Walls were torn out with studs and nails exposed and large pieces of drywall strewn about, there were no window panes in the windows--they were covered up with plywood or mattresses, electricity only worked in parts of the home, the heat was not working and the home was being heated by the kitchen oven set on full blast with the oven door open (the entire home was freezing inside), electrical wires were exposed, many of the electrical outlets and switches did not have faceplates and wires were hanging out, the bathrooms did not appear to be functional, the flooring of the home was unfinished and rough.

Fortunately, the hearing for this case was the same day. When I received the court report from the worker, the recommendation was for the children to continue as temporary court wards with the same foster parent in their current placement. Neither DHS nor foster care had done a visit or been in contact with the foster mother prior to this hearing.

After said hearing, the jurist ordered the workers to go to the home and inspect it and look into the licensing of the foster mother if the home was found to be in the condition that I described during the hearing. The workers did immediately inspect the home after the hearing and found it to be in the condition that I described (they later told me I was too kind regarding my description of the home in court). After the children got out of school that day, the workers picked them up from school and placed them in a different foster home (suitable of course), and the foster mother ultimately lost her foster care license.

This case involved a teenager who had been in care for two years. Initially, she was removed due to physical abuse. She was placed with a relative, but was removed after several months, then placed at a facility that subsequently closed. Her mother passed away when she was young and her father was not involved in her life. A hearing was held because the youth was currently at another facility and was prescribed medication to control her behavior. Her transfer to supervised independent living had been delayed several times because the worker or therapist brought up some incident. The youth indicated that she should not have behaved like she did, but she felt others had far worse behavior, but were given supervised independent living (SIL) and leave.

A Medical Authorization hearing was held because the foster care worker filed a petition wanting the court to authorize the youth to take a psychotropic drug. The psychiatrist, foster care worker and Therapist were present. The youth indicated that she really did not want to take any medication, especially when her behavior was not that bad and she promised to behave better. She was concerned about the side effects and risks involved with the medication. She did indicate that she would take the medicine voluntarily if it guaranteed her SIL. I did not feel that this youth should have felt forced to take medicines that I did not believe she needed. After testimony was taken the court ruled that this youth should not be authorized to take the medicine, once the psychiatrist outlined the risks and side effects, such as weight gain and other health risks. The youth was given an opportunity to get her behavior under control.

A client had a Team Decision Meeting scheduled because his residential placement facility filed a 30-day notice to have him removed. The placement had some complaints about his behavior although the most recent court report filed regarding him only mentioned some minimal concerns. He was a senior in high school and was doing well there. At the TDM I pointed out that the complaints raised by the 30-day notice were inconsistent with the previous court reports regarding his behavior. At the meeting I suggested that the writer of the letter, the placement's director, should have been present to discuss his allegations as the representative from the organization who was present was unable to really discuss them. My client did a good job of stating why the complaints were questionable. Since he was within a few months of graduation I suggested that the placement keep him until then. Unfortunately, the placement's representative said that she couldn't make decisions like that.

I asked the court to schedule an earlier hearing for the client. At that hearing, I suggested that the placement either keep him, given that his behavior wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, or provide him with transportation to the school he was attending so that he could graduate on time. The result was that the placement was ordered to keep him until graduation, but, if that did not occur, the Department of Human Services was ordered to provide him with transportation to school. The client was unhappy with continuing at the placement so he was placed with a relative and school transportation was provided for him. He did graduate and is presently attending Community College.

My client was removed from his mother's home due to her drinking problem. He was placed with another relative. The mother took her drinking problem seriously, was determined to change, and demonstrated that she had overcome it with consistent negative drug screens. Within a year's time, my client was reunited with his mother.

My client was born to an unmarried mother and father who had mental health challenges. Parental rights were terminated after which a paternal aunt adopted this minor. He is in a very loving home.

After trying for a year to get my client to work towards his GED, I was finally able to convince him to do so. He passed easily. The worker advised me he had been trying for months to enroll the client, without success, in a GED prep program. I suggested a university where he could attend tuition free. Although the client has aged out of the system, I continue to monitor his progress in college.

This case involved 7 children. The petition alleged that the 4 girls were victims of sexual abuse by a live-in boyfriend of the mother's sister. The parents knew about this and did nothing about it, not even having them examined by a doctor. CPS history went back many years. Also, the home was environmentally neglectful with trash and clothes strewn everywhere and only small amounts of food available. Both parents were severely mentally and cognitively delayed, as were all the children, except for two of them. The only income came from both parent's SSI and at least 2 of the children's SSI. A cousin who works at the Juvenile Detention Facility was the main witness on behalf of the parents and stated that she was the most "pro-active" relative in helping to sustain this household. On cross-examination, I questioned this witness about how the children benefited from her so-called "pro-activism." She not only aided and abetted this neglect and abuse, but unlike 3 other family members, she refused to have any of the children placed with her in her home. I then brought up whether she was aware that the SSI funds for this family were being stolen and used by other adults coming and going within that home. Of course, she claimed not to be aware. Then I put on the father's sister, a nurse, who knew that her brother's SSI was being stolen. She was by far the most credible witness to take the stand, and described the conditions the children lived in. She made it perfectly clear that the mother and members of her family constantly victimized her brother. I also put on the stand some of the responsible maternal relatives whom the children were placed with and they explained how much these children were learning about basic essential hygiene and basic kindergarten and 1st grade concepts. Parental rights were terminated and all the children are thriving in their placements.

In this case, the physical abuse perpetrated by the mother was outrageous but she tried to fall back on the defense that these horrible beatings were accepted in her homeland. I put on a family member from her native country that totally contradicted testimony and the Judge terminated the mother's parental rights. Subsequently, a wonderful Aunt and Uncle adopted this beautiful and extremely bright child.

An expectant mother offered her baby for adoption to multiple couples simultaneously, taking money from them all. MCLC intervened when the state social service agency refused. After the child was born, MCLC asked the state court to place the child in protective custody. We worked with detectives and prosecutors. The mother was criminally convicted. The child was ultimately adopted by one of the initial interested couples.

The supplemental petition for permanent custody alleged that both parents physically abused and allowed the son of one of the parents to sexually abuse one of three siblings. The parents denied the allegations. They argued that based upon the fact that the petition did not claim they had abused the other two children supported their denial. The Court found that this child had been physically abused. This finding was based upon two hospital reports, which disclosed several fractures and scars, which were the result of non-accidental trauma. The Court referred to evidence that the father's son had sexually molested this child. The Court also cited Clinic for Child Study evaluations, which gave the parents a poor prognosis for being able to care for this child in the future. Legal research turned up a Michigan case, which upheld the termination of parental rights where one child had been treated differently than the siblings.

Subsequently, this child was placed with a family, which ultimately adopted her.

In July 2006, the Court terminated the parental rights of the father, mother and stepmother to several siblings after finding that they had sexually abused, physically abused and/or failed to protect at least one of the older children. In February 2007, the Court's decision was upheld on appeal. The child in question has been in 17 different placements since being removed from her parents' home. Through an informal network pursued by the GAL, this child is now being placed in a foster home, where the foster parents want to adopt her.