first amended petition of quo warranto
TRANSCRIPT
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 1/57
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN,
ex relatione BEVERLY TRAN,Petitioner,
CASE NO:
v.
WILLIAM J. JOHNSON,SUPERINTENDENT,MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE, et al.
Respondent,
ADDITIONAL PARTIES:
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, GOVERNOR;
JOHN D. CHERRY, LEUITENANT GOVERNOR;MICHAEL A. COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL;TERRY LYNN LAND, SECRETARY OF STATE;
JAMES R. STOKES, DIRECTOR OF APPOINTMENTS;ISMEAL AHMED, DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES;MARILYN KELLY, SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE;
MAURA CORRIGAN, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE;
KATHERINE HANLEY, DIRECTOR OF ADOPTIONS;
JEREMY S. STEPHENS, STATE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR;
And THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Real Party in Interest.
BEVERLY TRAN,
Private Attorney Generalon behalf of THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN
8437 LumpkinHamtramck, MI 48212313-522-8213
Michael A. Cox
Attorney General
Thomas L. Casey (P24215)
Solicitor General
Michigan Department of Attorney General
Attorney for Michigan Department of Human Services,
Michigan Children’s Institute
P.O. Box 30758Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-7700
FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO
WARRANTO
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 2/57
Page 2 of 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…...........................................................................................3
QUESTIONS PRESENTED………………………………………………………………7
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO…………………...8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES…………..…………………….19
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………19
A. When Was MCI Created ………………………………..…………..…………19
B. When MCI Was Modified …………...………………………………………...21
C. Why MCI Was Modified ……………...……………………………………….23
D. Lack of Administrative Oversight ………...…………………………………..26
E. The MCI and Supreme Court Partnership…………………...……………….30
F. Major Implications…………………………..…………………….………….33
ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………..…………34
I. RELATOR TRAN HAS THE RIGHT, DUTY, AND AUTHORITY TOBRING AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BEFORE THIS COURT IN
RESPONSE TO THE ULTRA VIRES ACTS OF THESUPERINTENDENT OF MCI……………………………..................…37
II. THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM J. JOHNSON IS ANARTIFICIAL PERSON AND THEREFORE IS REPUGNANT TO THECONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN……………………………………..39
III. THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM J. JOHNSON HASUSURPED THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT………………...42
a. Usurpation of the Powers of the Governor ………………….……….42
b. Usurpation of the Powers of the Attorney General ……………...…..43
c. Usurpation of the Powers of the Court ………………………………47
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………….………….51
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 3/57
Page 3 of 57
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Carleton v. People, 10 M. 250………………………………………………….….……40
DeRose v DeRose, 469 Mich. 320; 666 N.W. 2d 636, (2003)…………………….…….33
Diggs v. State, 49 Ala. 311……………………………………………………..………..40
Erwim v. Jersey City, 60 N. J. L. 141……………………………………………………41
In re Cotton, 1994 Mich. App 180, 526 NW 2d 601…………………………….………24
In re Miller , 433 Mich. 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161, (1989)………………………...…….33
Johnson v. Manhattan r. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933)…………………….…………..37
King v. Dep't of Human Servs. (in Re Bell), 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 727(Mich. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2007) …………………………………………...….…31, 34,30
Newsom v. State, 922 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. App. Austin 1996)………….…………………37
People v. Parsons, 728 N.W. 2d 62 (2007)……………….…………………………31, 27
Pulskamp v. Martinez , 2 Cal. App. 4th 854, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 (2d Dist. 1992)….…….37
Rastall v. DeBouse, 736 A. 2d 756 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999)…………………………….37
Smith v. Dillion, 267 A.D. 39, 44 N.Y.S.2d 719 (3d Dep’t 1943);………………………33
State v. Carroll , 38 Conn. 449…………………………………………………..……….40
State ex rel. Angelini v. Hardberger , 932 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. 1996)……………..………37
State ex rel. Bruce v. Kiesling, 632 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1994)……………………..……….37
State ex rel. Cain v. Kay, 309 N.E.2d 860 (1974)………………………………………..38
State ex rel. Stenberg v. Murphy, 247 Neb. 358, 527 N.W.2d 185 (1995)………………37
United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508…………………………………………………40
Wayne Auditors v. Benoit , 20 M. 176……………………………………………………41
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 4/57
Page 4 of 57
STATUTES
15 U.S.C. 15 (c)………………………………………………………………...………..44
Mich. Cont. Article 2 § 7………………………………………………………..……….33
Mich. Cont. Article 3 § 2……………………………………………………….………..42
Mich. Cont. Article 3 § 6…….…………………………………………………………..27
Mich. Cont. Article 5 § 1………………………………………………………..………...9
Mich. Cont. Article 5 § 3……………………………….……………………........9, 12, 43
Mich. Cont. Article 5 § 8…………….………………………………………..………....15
Mich. Cont. Article 5 § 25…………….………………………………………..………...9
Mich. Cont. Article 6 § 3…………………………………………………………….13, 30
Mich. Cont. Article 6 § 27……………………………………………………………….30
Mich. Cont. Article 6 § 29……………………………………………………………….13
Mich. Cont. Article 11 § 5……………………………………………………….………16
Mich. Cont. Schedule § 1………………………………………………………………...11
MCL 3.711……………………………………………………………………………….24
MCL 4.84………………………………………………………………………….....10, 13
MCL 14.28……………………………………………………………………………….11
MCL 14.101……………………………………………………………………………...11
MCL 16.103…………………………………………………………………………...…21
MCL 16.107………………………………………………………………………...……22
MCL 16.553………………………………………………………………..….....22, 23, 33
MCL 21.171…………………………………………………..………………………….32
MCL 333.18504………………………………………………...……………………30, 33
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 5/57
Page 5 of 57
MCL 333.18509…………………………………………………………...…………28, 29
MCL 400.1……………………………………………………………………………….16
MCL 400.2…………………………………………………………..………..19, 21, 22, 38
MCL 400.3……………………………………………………………………………….16
MCL 400.202………………………………………………..………….………..19, 20, 42
MCL 400.207………………………………………………………..………...…32, 39, 40
MCL 400.209…………………………………………………………….………………25
MCL 400.215……………………………………………………………….…...……….21
MCL 400.216…………………………………………………………………………….21
MCL 400.221…………………………………………………………………………….24
MCL 450.2101 - 450.3192……………………………………………………………….45
MCL 556.112…………………………………………………………………………….23
MCL 600.219…………………………………………………………………………….14
MCL 400.221…………………………………………………………………………….24
MCL 600.4501………………………………………………………..………………….38
MCL 600.4505………………………………………………………...…………………38
MCL 710.45………………………………………………………..…...……30, 37, 42, 47
MCL 712A.19b…………………………………………………………………………..25
MCL 722.131 -722.140……………………………………………………...………48, 49
MCL 722.621-722.638…………………………………………..………………………44
COURT RULES
MCR 2.102(C)…………………………………………………………………………….7
MCR 2.105…………………………..………………………..9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 6/57
Page 6 of 57
MCR 2.203(A)……………………………………………………...……7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
MCR 2.613(C)……………………………………………………..…………………….33
MCR 3.306……………………………………………………………………………….38
MCR 7.212(C)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)………………………...……………………..30
MCR 7.203(C)(4)…………………………………………………………………………8
RULES
R 338.2907 -2909 et seq……………………………………………..………………28, 50
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
E.R.O. No. 1991-8………………………………………………………………….……24
E.R.O. No. 2004-4…………………………………………………………….…………16
EXHIBITS
Grant of Leave by Attorney General Cox, February 27, 2009…………………………..54
MCI Ward Adoption Consent Process CFA 820, March 1, 2009………………………..55
DHS Expedited Consent Criteria, March 1, 2009….........................................................56
MCI Expedited Consent CFA 850, March 1, 2009………………………………………57
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 7/57
Page 7 of 57
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. DOES RELATOR TRAN HAVE THE RIGHT, DUTY, AND AUTHORITY
TO BRING AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BEFORE THIS COURT INRESPONSE TO THE ULTRA VIRES ACTS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT
OF MCI?
2. IS THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON, THUS
BEING REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN?
3. HAS THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM J. JOHNSON USURPED
THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT?
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 8/57
Page 8 of 57
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
HERE COMES, Petitioner, State of Michigan, ex relatione, Beverly Tran,
citizen of the State of Michigan and Private Attorney General (hereinafter “Relator
Tran”), having been granted leave to proceed by the Attorney General Cox to bring forth
this First Amended Petition, pursuant to MCR 2.102(C) and MCR 7.203(C)(4), to apply
for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto to Michigan Children’s Institute (hereinafter
“MCI”) Superintendent, William J. Johnson, and all other relief which this Court deems
just and proper.
Relator Tran respectfully petitions this Court to grant the Writ of Quo Warranto and
doing so, order William J. Johnson forward to justify the position of MCI Superintendent
and his ultra vires acts. These acts include:
1. Violating the Constitution of the Michigan;
2. Usurping the power of the Governor;
3. Usurping the power of the Attorney General;
4. Usurping the power of the Courts.
Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory joiner of her
claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order William J. Johnson forward to
produce certification of the superintending control of MCI, including:
1. Public policies and administrative rules;
2. Any and all evaluations and performance reports;
3. Annual budgetary reports;
4. Identification of internal controls;
5. Decision Making Models;
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 9/57
Page 9 of 57
6. Any and all information on the Michigan Children’s Institute Trust Fund;
7. Protocol for application and/or retention of Social Security numbers of adoptive
children;
8. The number of child abuse and neglect incidents of state wards committed to
MCI;
9. The number of referrals to Child Protective Services of abused and neglected state
wards committed to MCI;
10. The number of referrals made to the Attorney General or County Prosecutor for
false claims, child abuse or neglect, and death of wards committed to MCI;
11. Terms and conditions of the position of Superintendent;
12. Autobiographical statement submitted to the Senate for the 2002-2006 and 2006-
2010 terms;
13. Letters of appointment from the Governor;
14. Certificates of appointment filed in the Repository of the Great Seal;
15. Oaths of Office;
16. Employment contract, state pension, and benefit contracts;
17. Specification of his fiduciary duties in Wayne County;
18. Policies of failed adoption decisions;
19. The length of time and number of failed adoptions;
20. Duties and responsibilities of the MCI Superintendent in the process of interstate
adoptions.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Governor Jennifer M.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 10/57
Page 10 of 57
Granholm (hereinafter “Governor”) forward to produce the certificate of appointment of
MCI Superintendent for her 2002-2006 and 2006-2010 terms of Office, and to produce
the official organizational chart of the Office of the Governor chart for her 2002-2006
and 2006-2010 terms of said Office.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order the Governor forward
to produce the Executive Orders and Certificates authorizing the transfer of parens
patriea from the Attorney General to the MCI Superintendent, for his 2002-2006 and
2006-2010 terms of said Office.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the
executive power of the State is vested in the Governor. Pursuant to Article V, Section 8
of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the Governor is responsible for ensuring that all
executive departments and agencies within the State, including MCI, faithfully execute
and comply with applicable state law. Governor Granholm maintains her principal South
Eastern Office of the Governor at 3022 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac Place, Suite 14-150,
Detroit, MI 48202, where she may be served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Lieutenant Governor
John D. Cherry (hereinafter “Lieutenant Governor”) forward to produce the letters of
advice and consent of the Senate of the appointment of the MCI Superintendent and
biographical questionnaires presented to the Senate of MCI Superintendent for his 2002-
2006 and 2006-2010 terms of said Office.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 11/57
Page 11 of 57
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Lieutenant Governor
forward to produce the letters of advice and consent of the transfer of parens patriea
from the Attorney General to the MCI Superintendent, for his 2002-2006 and 2006-2010
terms of said Office.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 25 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the
presidential power of the Senate is vested in the Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant
Governor is responsible for executing gubernatorial functions in the absence of the
Governor and serves as a member of the State Administrative Board.
Pursuant to MCL 4.84 the oath of office may be administered by, and taken and
subscribed before the Lieutenant Governor. Lieutenant Governor Cherry, by the principal
South Eastern Office of the Governor at 3022 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac Place, Suite 14-
150, Detroit, MI 48202, may be served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Attorney General
Michael A. Cox, (hereinafter “Attorney General”) forward to produce the Action
Transmittals of the Office of Attorney General on the representation of the MCI
Superintendent, and Official Opinions of the capacity of representation of the MCI
Superintendent, and Official Opinions of the contemporaneous representation of the MCI
Superintendent in the Executive and the Judicial Branches of the State.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Attorney General
forward to produce the Official Opinions and Certificates of the transfer of parens
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 12/57
Page 12 of 57
patriea from the Attorney General to the MCI Superintendent, for his 2002-2006 and
2006-2010 terms of said Office.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the
Attorney General is the single executive heading the Department of the Attorney General.
Pursuant to the Section 28 of the Revised Statute of 1846, MCL § 14.28 et seq. the
Attorney General shall: prosecute and defend all actions, in which the State and/or the
people shall be interested. The Attorney General is responsible for ensuring that all
executive departments and agencies within the State, including MCI Department,
faithfully execute and comply with applicable federal and state law. The Attorney
General duties and responsibilities include, but not limited to: Consumer Protection and
Criminal Prosecutions Bureau; and the Child and Family Services Bureau.
Pursuant to Schedule § 1 of Constitution of Michigan, the Attorney General “shall
recommend to the legislature as soon as practicable such changes as may be necessary to
adapt existing laws to this Constitution.”
Pursuant to Section 1 of the Intervention of the Attorney General, MCL §14.101, the
Attorney General of the State is authorized and empowered to intervene in any court of
the state to protect the right and interest of the people and the state. Additional powers
and duties are vested in the Attorney General in Public Employment, Elections and Tort
Division and Education and Social Services Division. The Attorney General maintains
his principal South Eastern Office of the Governor at 3022 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac
Place, Suite 10-200, Detroit, MI 48202, where he may be served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order the Secretary of State
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 13/57
Page 13 of 57
Terry Lynn Land, (hereinafter “Secretary of State”) forward to produce from the Official
Repository of Office of the Great Seal the letters of appointment of William J. Johnson as
the MCI Superintendent, letter of appointment of the Certificate of Authority as Notary
Public, and letter of appointment of the Apostille of the MCI Superintendent.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order the Secretary of State
forward to produce any and all records of public election of the MCI Superintendent.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order the Secretary of State
forward to produce the from the Official Repository of the Office of the Great Seal
Official Filings and Certificates of the transfer of parens patriea from the Attorney
General to the MCI Superintendent, for his 2002-2006 and 2006-2010 terms of said
Office.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the
Secretary of State is the single executive heading the Department of the Secretary of
State.
The Secretary of State maintains a branch Office at 3046 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac
Place, Detroit, MI 48202, where she may be served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Supreme Court
Justice Maura Corrigan, (hereinafter “Justice Corrigan”) forward to produce
documentation of any and all public appearances, including the transcripts, campaign
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 14/57
Page 14 of 57
material, disclosure of any and all public and private memberships, and publications,
thereof, pertaining to the MCI Superintendent.
Pursuant to MCL 4.84 the oath of office may be administered by, and taken and
subscribed before any Supreme Court Justice.
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 29 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, Justice
Corrigan is empowered to be a conservator of the peace. Justice Corrigan maintains an
Office at 3044 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac Place, Detroit, MI 48202, where she may be
served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Supreme Court Chief
Justice Marilyn Kelly, (hereinafter “Chief Justice”) forward to produce any and all State
Court Administrative Memoranda, Supreme Court Administrative Orders and letters of
appointment of the MCI Superintendent, including any and all documents authorizing the
transfer of parens patriea from the Attorney General to the MCI Superintendent.
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the Chief
Justice is the Chief Administrator of the Courts and is responsible for the administering
of the state’s district courts, its judges, Court Improvement Program, Child Welfare
Services, MCI, and the Foster Care Review Board, to faithfully execute and comply with
applicable state law. Pursuant to Section 219 of the Revised Judicature MCL § 600.219,
the Supreme Court has a general superintending control over all inferior courts to
facilitate the proper administration of justice. The Chief Justice maintains an Office at
3044 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac Place, Detroit, MI 48202, where she may be served,
pursuant to MCR 2.105.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 15/57
Page 15 of 57
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Director of
Appointments James R. Stokes, (hereinafter “Director of Appointments”) forward to
produce the letters of appointment of the MCI Superintendent for 2002-2006 and 2006-
2010 terms of the Governor.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the
Governor transacts business with the Director of Appointments. The Director of
Appointments, through the Office of the Governor at 3022 W. Grand Blvd., Cadillac
Place Suite 14-150, Detroit, MI 48202, may be served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Director of Adoptions
Katherine Hanley, (hereinafter “Director of Adoptions”) forward to produce any and all
documents pertaining to the duties and obligations of the MCI Superintendent, including,
in detail, the fiduciary relationship between the Director of Adoptions and the MCI
Superintendent, and all interdepartmental policies and procedures.
Pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the
Governor transacts business with the Director of Adoptions. Director of Adoptions
through the office of the Director of the Department of Human Services, 3040 W. Grand
Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48202, may be served, pursuant to MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order Director of the
Department of Human Services Ismeal Ahmed, (hereinafter “Director of DHS”) forward
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 16/57
Page 16 of 57
to produce the certificate of appointment of MCI Superintendent for 2002-2006 and
2006-2010 terms of the Governor, to produce the official organizational chart of the
DHS, and to produce any and all documents pertaining to the duties and obligations of
the MCI Superintendent.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order the Director of DHS
forward to produce the Official Filings and Certificates of the transfer of parens patriea
from the Attorney General to the MCI Superintendent.
As Director, he is responsible for the general supervision and operation of DHS and
the Wayne County DHS office, including oversight of the operations of the MCI.
Pursuant to Section 400.3 of the Social Welfare Act, MCL § 400.1 et seq. and
Executive Reorganization Order E.R.O. No. 2004-4, Director Ahmed is responsible for
administering all DHS child welfare services and program, assuring that all such services
and programs operate in conformity with constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
requirements. Director Ahmed maintains an office at the Department of Human Services,
3040 W. Grand Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48202, where he may be served, pursuant to
MCR 2.105.
In addition, Relator Tran, also, respectfully petitions this Court to grant compulsory
joiner of her claims pursuant to MCR 2.203(A) and doing so, order the State Personnel
Director of the Department of Civil Service Jeremy S. Stephens, (hereinafter “DCS
Director”) forward to produce the Civil Service Commission Certification of
Qualifications, pursuant to Article 11 § 5 of the Michigan Constitution, duties and
responsibilities of the position of the MCI Superintendent, the level of civil service
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 17/57
Page 17 of 57
classification and rate of pay, including any and all performance reviews, pay raises,
complaints, investigations and findings, and to produce the executed contract between the
State and William J. Johnson. The DCS Director maintains an office at the Department of
Civil Service, 3042 W. Grand Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48202, where he may be served,
pursuant to MCR 2.105.
A full hearing on the matter is necessary to expose the actions, motives and intentions
of William J. Johnson as they relate to the exercise of his position as MCI Superintendent
in accordance with the law, the legitimacy and constitutionality of the position and MCI
itself, the superintending control, and lastly, the necessity of the position and the
organization. There exists very little information on the operations, functioning and
fiscal integrity of MCI and the Superintendent himself. It is impossible to reform child
welfare and inconceivable to end false claims without total accountability and
transparency of MCI and the Superintendent.
The position of the Superintendent of MCI continues to accelerate the precipitous
climate of destroying families in the state and false claims of federal funding. As the
alleged legal parent to the children remanded to the guardianship of MCI, the
Superintendent has perpetuated a culture for abuse, neglect and murder of children to
thrive, having proven not to be qualified for the position. Because there are pending
decision for the Superintendent of MCI to render, time is of the essence. Relator Tran
respectfully requests that she be given full mandate under Michigan Rules of Civil
Procedure to present evidence and to examine witnesses.
There is no just, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the issuance of a Writ
of Quo Warranto. Judicial economy and sound administration of justice demand
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 18/57
Page 18 of 57
issuance of the Writ as this case presents a unique opportunity for the Court to clarify an
obviously important issue of law: “By What Authority” Does The Superintendent of MCI
William J. Johnson Exercise Dominion And Control Over Children Who Are Wards Of
The State.
WHEREFORE, Relator Tran makes this request upon the attached Memorandum of
Points and Authorities, all papers and pleadings on file, and any oral argument deemed
just and proper by this Court and asks that this Court issue the Writ of Quo Warranto.
WHEREFORE, Relator Tran, also, asks this Court to issue Order dismantling MCI,
transferring authority of title of parens patriea to the rightfully granted custodian, the
Attorney General.
Dated this ________ day of _________________, 2009.
____________________________________
ex rel. Beverly Tran Private Attorney General
8437 LumpkinHamtramck, MI 48212
313-522-8213 [email protected]
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 19/57
Page 19 of 57
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. When Was MCI Created?
Public Act 220 of 1935. MCL 400.202: In 1935, the State of Michigan enacted
legislation, MCL 400.2021, to create what is known as the Michigan Children’s Institute
(MCI). This was a brick and mortar building, residing in Coldwater, Michigan, which
housed orphans and unwanted children.
Social Welfare Commission: Subsequent amendments in 1939, MCL 400.2,
established the Social Welfare Commission2
. This was a body of 5 citizens, appointed by
1 MICHIGAN CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE (EXCERPT)
Act 220 of 1935. MCL 400.202 Children's institute; control by social welfare commission;
superintendent, officers and employees.
Sec. 2. The said Michigan children's institute shall be under the control and management of the
Michigan social welfare commission, hereinafter referred to as “the commission”, whose
appointment and duties are provided in Act No. 280 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being
sections 400.1 to 400.90, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and as further expressly
provided for in this act. The commission shall appoint the superintendent, and such other officers
and employees as it shall deem necessary, who shall severally hold their offices and positions
during the pleasure of the commission.History: 1935, Act 220, Imd. Eff. June 8, 1935 ;-- Am. 1944, 1st Ex. Sess., Act 8, Imd. Eff. Feb. 19,
1944 ;-- CL 1948, 400.202 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 220, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 2 THE SOCIAL WELFARE ACT (EXCERPT)
Act 280 of 1939. MCL 400.2 Michigan social welfare commission; powers and duties; appointment,
terms, and qualifications of members; governor as ex officio member; oath; removal; vacancies; conducting
business at public meeting; notice; quorum; meetings; failure to attend meetings; designation of chairperson
and vice-chairperson; compensation and expenses; availability of writings to public.
Sec. 2. (1) The administration of the powers and duties of the state department shall be vested in a
commission of 5 members which commission shall be known as the Michigan social welfare
commission. A member of the commission shall not be a member of another commission or
board, or hold another position with a state insti tution or department. Members of the commissionshall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, for a term of
5 years each. Of the members first appointed, 1 shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, 1 for a
term of 2 years, 1 for a term of 3 years, 1 for a term of 4 years, and 1 for a term of 5 years.
(2) Members of the commission shall be citizens and residents of this state for not less than 5
years who possess and have demonstrated sincere interest, knowledge, and ability consistent with
the responsibilities of the office, and not more than 3 of whom shall be members of the same
political party. The governor shall be an ex officio member of the commission. Each member of
the commission shall qualify by taking and filing with the secretary of state the constitutional oath
of office and shall hold office until the appointment and qualification of a successor. A member of
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 20/57
Page 20 of 57
the governor with advice of the legislature, with duties to oversee and appoint the
Superintendent of the Michigan Children’s Institute. The authority of delegation of
powers and duties to the Michigan Children’s Institute Superintendent was originally
delineated by what was termed as Michigan Social Welfare Commission. MCL 400.202
states in pertinent part:
Sec. 2.The said Michigan children's institute shall be under the control and management of the Michigan social welfare commission, hereinafterreferred to as “the commission”, whose appointment and duties are provided in Act No. 280 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended, beingsections 400.1 to 400.90, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and as further expressly provided for in this act. The commission shall appoint thesuperintendent, and such other officers and employees as it shall deemnecessary, who shall severally hold their offices and positions during the pleasure of the commission.
the commission may be removed by the governor for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in
office, after hearing. Vacancies in the membership of the commission shall be filled for the
remainder of the unexpired term, in the same manner as the original appointment.
(3) The business which the commission may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the
commission held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections
15.261 to 15.275 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of the time, date, and place of
the meeting shall be given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976. A
majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business. The commission shall meet on the call of the chairperson, or on a written request to the
chairperson signed by 3 members of the commission, or at times and places as are prescribed by
the rules of the commission. The commission shall hold not less than 12 meetings each fiscal
year, with an interval of not more than 1 month between meetings.
(4) The failure on the part of a member to attend 3 consecutive meetings of the commission,
unless excused by a formal vote of the commission, shall be considered by the governor as ground
for removal of the nonattending member, and upon removal, the governor may appoint a
successor. The commission shall annually designate 1 member to act as chairperson and 1 member
to act as vice-chairperson of the commission.(5) Each member of the commission shall be reimbursed for necessary travel and other expenses,
and shall be paid $15.00 per day when in actual session, to be paid in the same manner as expenses
of other state officers are paid.
(6) Except as prescribed in sections 35 and 64, a writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession
of, or retained by the commission in the performance of an official function shall be made
available to the public in compliance with Act No. 442 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections
15.231 to 15.246 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: 1939, Act 280, Imd. Eff. June 16, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 400.2 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 224, Imd. Eff.
June 13, 1978 Popular Name: Act 280
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 21/57
Page 21 of 57
This statute of 1935 designated the title of superintendent because his duty was
to superintend the actual institute: the physical building and the physical inhabitants,
orphans. The institute no longer exists as a physical brick and mortar building; the
institute is now a theoretical institution. According to The Social Welfare Act, MCL
400.2, the Superintendent is to be an appointed public official from the powers of a
public body.
Sec. 2.The administration of the powers and duties of the state department shall bevested in a commission of 5 members which commission shall be known as the Michigan social welfare commission. A member of the commission shall not be
a member of another commission or board, or hold another position with astate institution or department. Members of the commission shall be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, for a term of 5 years each. Of the members first appointed, 1 shall be appointed for a termof 1 year, 1 for a term of 2 years, 1 for a term of 3 years, 1 for a term of 4 years, and 1 for a term of 5 years.
The duties of the Superintendent were to supervise the public school institutions
where these children resided.
B. When MCI Was Modified
Removal of Land Usage of 1955: In 1955 legislation was passed, repealing MCL
400.215 and MCL 400.216, which amended the Michigan Children Institute by removing
land usage and the name “state public school”. This was a point of dismantlement of the
physical “brick and mortar institute, itself. By this time social programming was being
formulated to take over the ideology of the state housing and caring for children by
placing them within a “third degree of consanguinity or affinity” in the counties from
which they came, or restoring the child
Government Organization Act of 1965: In 1965, MCL 16.103, a Type III transfer,
transferred the administrative duties of the Superintendent to what is now called the
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 22/57
Page 22 of 57
Department of Human Services and, thus, the Social Welfare Commission was abolished.
Pursuant to MCL 400.2 the Michigan Court of Appeals has recognized the legitimacy of
the Michigan Children’s Institute, “The Michigan Children’s Institute is under the
control and management of the Michigan Social Welfare Commission, which is in charge
of the administration of the powers and duties of the Family Independence Agency.”
The issue of legitimacy becomes a public issue pursuant to MCL 16.553 of Public Act
380 of 1965 where the Michigan Social Welfare Commission was abolished:
“The Michigan social welfare commission and the office of director of the statedepartment of social welfare created under sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 280 of the
Public Acts of 1939, as amended, being sections 400.2 and 400.3 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, are transferred by a type III transfer to the department of social
services and the Michigan social department of social welfare are abolished.”
These type III transfers are defined pursuant to MCL 16.107 § 7(b) Public Act
380 of 1965 to specify the executive allocation and reallocation of duties and functions,
limitations, administrations, and rules:
“Except as provided by law or within this act, when any department, commissionor board or other agency is transferred by a type II or type III transfer to a
principal department, commission or board or other agency shall be
administered under the direction and supervision of the head of the principal
department. When a department, commission, board or other agency istransferred by a type II or type III transfer to a principle department all
prescribed statutory functions of rule making, licensing and registration including the prescription of rules, regulations, standards and adjudications shall be
transferred to the head of the principal department into which the department,commission, board or agency has been incorporated.”
What is remiss in this portion of the Executive Organization Act of 1965 is the
transfer of Executive powers of appointment for the position of Superintendent of the
Michigan Children’s Institute. The transfer of Executive powers to appoint the
Superintendent to represent the State of Michigan were never iterated; hence, William J.
Johnson has unconstitutionally granted consent and denied consent to adoption, devoid of
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 23/57
Page 23 of 57
any Executive authority of the Governor. Nowhere in MCL 16.553 is there clarification
or specificity of the transfer of powers of appointments. In accordance to MCL 556.112
§ 2 (c):
“Power of appointment means a power created or reserved by a person having property subject to his disposition which enables the donee of the power to designate,
within any limits that may be prescribed, the transferees of the property or the sharesor the interests in which it shall be received; but it does not include a power of sale, a
power of attorney or a power of amendment or revocation.”
This statute is applied as a civil designation and not one of a democratically elected
public official or as of an official granted powers by the Governor. Whereas, in respect
to these aforementioned laws, the position of the Superintendent of the Michigan
Children’s Institute is unconstitutional, making this an issue of the public.
C. Why MCI Was Modified
Governor G. Mennen Williams: Governor Williams was a staunch supporter for
dismantling commissions that were futile. His belief was to compress the functions of
government to allow greater access to citizens. During his terms of office, Governor
Williams focused energy in providing services to children to keep them in their
communities and families. This is apparent in the creation of children services for the
deaf and blind that exist to this day.
The Governor’s concern for children led him to dismantle the Social Welfare
Commission, the last annual report published in 1965. By dismantling MCI, disabled
children were no longer channeled through the institution of MCI for adoption, but were
able to remain in the family and community with availability of services.
Superintendent Richard Higley, 1975: As far as one can ascertain information of
MCI is dearth. It seems that sometime around the enactment of the 1974 Child Abuse
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 24/57
Page 24 of 57
Prevention Treatment Act, the state exhumed and reanimated the institution of MCI as an
administrative structure for adoption purposes by designating Richard Higley as
superintendent in 1975.
In 1978, Public Act 87, transferred of powers and duties of the Office of Children
and Youth Services as a single-purpose entity within the Department of Social Services to
the Department of Social Services, see E.R.O. No. 1991-8, compiled at MCL 400.221.
Finally, dismantling the remnants of the theoretical entity of MCI.
In 1984, The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), MCL 3.711 et
seq. was enacted into law stipulating that “appropriate authorities” are the actors in this
agreement between states for the placement of children. There exists no statutor y
provision for the MCI Superintendent to function in the decision making process for
interstate adoptions.
Superintendent Susan Leahy 1994: The powers of the Superintendent were
augmented In re Cotton, 1994 Mich App 180, 526 NW 2d 601, under the leadership of
Susan Leahy to implement the doctrine of “arbitrary and capricious”. This is applied to
challenge the decision of the Superintendent for adoption; it is not the “correctness” of
the decision, but if the decision was whimsical.
Superintendent William J. Johnson 1996: In 1996, William J. Johnson, took over
the helm of MCI. The intention of the Adoption and Safe Families Act is to clarify
Congress’s position regarding child welfare, including the requirement of “reasonable
efforts” and reaffirm its commitment to family preservation and reunification while
ensuring the safety of children. This Act shortens the time frames that a child may spend
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 25/57
Page 25 of 57
in the child welfare system and provides for increases in financial incentives for placing
children in adoptive homes.
Through the Binsfield Legislation Michigan passed the amendment to the Probate
Code of 1939 (Act 288 of 1939) that set a timeline for Termination of Parental Rights as
12 months, MCL 712A.19b3
in 2001. The federal government had already set a timeline
that ranged from 15 to 22 months for Termination of Parental Rights to be filed.
Michigan strongly departed from federally established policy for family preservation by
severely reducing the timeframe for parents to obtain assistance for reunification,
expanding the powers of the Superintendent. A point of departure was established for the
increase in the number of children being placed under the authority of the Superintendent,
as well as the causal linkage of uncapped federal funding being received under Social
Security Title IV-E.
Amendments to MCL 400.209, Public Act 470 of 2004 states in pertinent part:
(2) On the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, the
family independence agency shall discontinue the Michigan children's institute preliminary consent denial review process. (emphasis added.)
Inasmuch as the entire decision making process is unknown being non-accessible
to the public, it becomes impossible to ascertain to exactly what is or is not the
“preliminary consent denial review process”, thusly making it arbitrary and capricious for
3 Act No. 232, Public Acts of 2000, Michigan Legislation, January 1, 2001. AN ACT to amend 1939 PA
288, entit led "An act to revise and consolidate the statutes relating to certain aspects of the family divisionof circuit court, to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the family division of circuit court and its judgesand 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 andother 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 procedurein certain actions and proceedings in the family division of circuit court; to provide for appeals from certainactions in the family division of circuit court; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain statedepartments, agencies, and officers; and to provide remedies and penalties," by amending the title andsection 19b of chapter XIIA (MCL 712A.19b), the title as amended by 1997 PA 163 and section 19b of chapter XIIA as amended by 2000 PA 46, and by adding chapter XII.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 26/57
Page 26 of 57
lack of public clarity, public scrutiny, and the ability to subject the “process” to robust
analytical methodology.
D. Lack of Administrative Oversight
Question of Supervision: According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Superintendent
means “one who superintends or has the oversight and charge of something with the
power of direction; a manager”. The Michigan Children’s Insti tute fails to report to any
public body. How does this Superintendent derive its powers when it has not been
mandated by the Legislature? The question becomes: “Who superintends the
superintendent?” This authorization of the authority of the position is illogical. The
chain of responsibility is not clearly established; therefore, his authority is arbitrary and
capricious. Chain of command is in question and the MCI Superintendent’s decision(s)
to withhold consent of adoption should not be binding.
The Superintendent is documented as a civil servant, manager level, with an
annual salary of $73,2744, with a letter of designation of appointment from Marianne
Udow, the Director of the Department of Human Services. However, the appointment to
the position of Superintendent is stated in the statute to serve at the pleasure of the Social
Welfare Commission. The Social Welfare Commission powers have now been granted
to a singular individual: The Director of DHS. The appointment of the Superintendent
William J. Johnson is, therefore, unconstitutional. In light of the fact there is no Social
Welfare Commission, the Director of the DHS has usurped the authority of the Governor
and the Legislature in the personal appointment of the Superintendent.
4 Department of Civil Services
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 27/57
Page 27 of 57
This begs the question of enforcement and oversight, because complaints to
Michigan Children Institute are handled internally by Michigan Children Institute, as a
process of apparent self-review, furthering substantive evidence of arbitrary and
capricious decisions by the Superintendent. This challenges the abilities of the DHS
Director, who is not licensed in this area of Masters Level Macro and Clinical Social
Work. Therefore, the Superintendent of Michigan Children’s Institute reports to another
“superintendent”, the Director of the DHS, who has no authority to grant supervisory
powers to the superintendent without the authority and approval of the Governor and
the Senate. This is not a matter of public record because such an action of appointment of
the MCI Superintendent is not found in the official acts of the governor or the legislature.
Failure to Report: The current Superintendent is William J. Johnson, who,
according to state law, is not properly licensed and is not appointed by the Governor. He
has never generated an annual report of expenditures and has no oversight, meaning he
answers to no one. The other two staff members. Mary E. Rossman, whose duties are
unclear and Bruce Hoffman, who is now the Assistant Superintendent, for which his role
and duties are omitted from state policy, filled in as Superintendent until William J.
Johnson returned and continues to execute the duties of the MCI Superintendent by leave
of the MCI Superintendent.
The actual budget and expenditures for the department is a mystery, as is written
policy and procedures. In initial review of the adoption program, it is recognized as
successful if the state meets its previous years benchmarks in numbers of children
adopted to secure the projected fiscal year federal budget allocations. In deeper, cursory
analysis, the media tells an entirely different story. The number of injuries and deaths of
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 28/57
Page 28 of 57
children under the auspices of the state leads one to believe, with credibility, that the
program is not functioning properly.
Credibility of Social Workers: Problematic conditions in Michigan’s child welfare
system have manifested in the public outcry for enhanced mechanisms to ensure the
credibility of those actors who protect children who have been placed under the auspices
of state care. Reactionary legislation has been established to conduct more in depth
criminal background checks for foster care licensing, but this never addressed the
systemic conditions of lack of administrative oversight. Numerous county social service
workers handling delicate matters concerning the protection and well-being of children
and families are not licensed in accordance to state statutes and the MCI Superintendent
relies upon these entities to make his decisions as he does not physically meet the
petitioners personally involved, pursuant to MCL 710.45.
Licensing Regulation: From an initial investigation, it was found that the majority
of County Department of Human Services staff, dealing with Children and Family
Services, do not possess licensing, as outlined in General Rules of Social Work for the
State of Michigan, R 338.2907 -2909 et seq. of June 24, 2005. Public Act 61 of 2004,
effective July 1, 2005, MCL 333.18509, changed the regulation of the social work
profession under the authority of the Department of Community Health. Unfortunately,
the Bureau of Health Professions, Complaint and Allegation Division on has the power to
regulate the Community Health Agency. There is no provision for any complaint filed
against a direct child welfare worker due to the protection of Freedom of Information Act
regarding the release of information pertaining to child welfare. Therefore, complaints
are handled under civil servants codes, and for private institutions, complaints are
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 29/57
Page 29 of 57
handled internally. Thus, there is no formal venue to file grievance against the MCI
Superintendent.
Lack of Licensing: The question of competency arises when inappropriately
trained, uneducated, and unlicensed actors are not held to the same standards of
“providing for the necessary needs of the child” as birth parents. An extension of the
aforementioned question must be presented to focus attention to the problematic concerns
of operational efficiency. The institutional norms of the DHS have allowed the veiled
efficacy of the licensing statutes to perpetuate the practices of false claims. The genus of
protecting our children originates with the acceptance of accountability and proper
management of the system. Until oversight is achieved, there can be no legitimacy of
operations. There is no oversight of the MCI Superintendent.
William J. Johnson only possesses a Bachelor's of Social Work and has proven
incapable of performing the duties of a Master of Social Work (Clinical and/or Macro).
The other individual, and the only other administrative staff person, Bruce Hoffman,
does not even possess a Bachelor of Social Work. The responsibility of guaranteeing
Michigan meets its previous year’s benchmarks in number of adoptions are placed in the
hands of individuals who are unlicensed by law.
A licensing search was conducted through the Department of Community Health
to verify the licensing of William J. Johnson. It was found that he only possesses a
Bachelor’s of Social Work. Since he is not in possession of the proper education and
training, he executes the duties of a person in a supervisory position in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. According to the Public Health Code, Public Act 61 of 2004, MCL
333.18509, there is a definition of the practice for each level of regulation. In the capacity
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 30/57
Page 30 of 57
of Superintendent, the responsibilities mandate Macro and Clinical Master Social Work
licensing.
Pursuant to the Public Health Code, Public Act 368 of 1978, MCL 333.18504,
amended as Public Act 61 of 2004, effective July 1, 2005, it explicitly states:
(1) An individual shall not engage in the practice of social work at the bachelor'sor master's level or use a title described in section 18503 unless licensed orotherwise allowed under this part.(2) The department shall issue a license or registration under this part for aduration of 3 years.
As of April 30, 2007, Superintendent William J. Johnson’s licensing for Bachelor
Level Social Work has lapsed.
E. The MCI and Supreme Court Partnership
Supreme Court Administrative Office: The question of supervision was previously
addressed as nonexistent, but in further analysis, the duty of oversight belongs to the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Article 6 § 3 of the Michigan Constitution, who
appoints the Chief Administrator for the State Court Administrative Offices (SCAO), the
judicial, not the executive branch. SCAO oversees the Foster Care Review Board
(FCRB), on which the Superintendent of MCI, William J. Johnson, functions as a
decision maker. Neglecting to provide the public with concise written statement of
ministerial obligations over the FCRB and decision making associations with the MCI
Superintendent provides ground to question the impartiality of the Chief Justice
participating in the decisions to deny Petitioners pursuant to MCL 710.45, of any and all
child welfare matters leave to appeal. People v. Parsons, 728 N.W. 2d 62 (2007).
Public Judicial Advocacy for a Defendant: On June 15, 2007, Justice Maura
Corrigan publicly advocated the activities of the Superintendent of Michigan Children’s
Institute, on radio station WJR 760 AM. Justice Corrigan publicly denied having any
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 31/57
Page 31 of 57
knowledge pertaining to the question of authority of the MCI Superintendent, when the
very matter, King v. Dep't of Human Servs. (in Re Bell), 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 727
(Mich. Ct. App., Mar. 15, 2007) was simultaneously pending before the Michigan
Supreme Court.
Justice Corrigan, further, went on to publicly defend the administration and
functioning of Michigan Children’s Institute in a commentary to the Detroit News, July
2, 2007. In the public pronouncements she jeopardized her ability to decide the case at
the very same time that the court was faced with an internal decision: the opportunity to
protect children in the foster care process. Justice Corrigan purported her own public
issue of a successful foster care system in one of Michigan’s largest newspapers, rather
than remaining impartial on a matter pending before the Court that rendered its decision
in King v. Dep't of Human Servs. (in Re Bell), supra, on July 18, 2007, reconsideration
denied September 24, 2007. The private membership of Justice Corrigan on the Pew
Foster Care Commission 2004 should not have allowed her to decide on any public
matter dealing with foster children and adoption as it challenges the integrity of Article 3
§ 6 of the Michigan Constitution. Neglecting to provide the public with a timely concise
written statement of previous ministerial obligations over the FCRB and decision making
associations with the MCI Superintendent, as former Chief Justice, who also has run her
campaign for Chief Justice on the privately funded platform of foster care and adoption,
provides ground to question the impartiality of Justice Corrigan participating in the
decision to allow Relator Tran’s application for issuance of Writ of quo warranto.
People v. Parsons, supra.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 32/57
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 33/57
Page 33 of 57
Further reading of the act will demonstrate that no money of the trust goes to
children, but to programs for the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Annual reports
do not detail the activities of the Michigan Children’s Trust Fund because they have just
recently been made available to the public because it had previously been a mystery when
inquiring into the names of membership. The Michigan Children’s Trust Fund does not
philosophically function as it was originally designed under the Michigan’s Children’s
Institute Trust Fund: it does not operate to benefit the children of MCI.
There is no available information to confirm the life existence of the MCI trust.
F. Major Implications
Invalidity of Court Decisions: It is the responsibility of the lower court to
establish the credibility of witnesses who appear before it, MCR 2.613 (C); see also In re
Miller , 433 Mich. 331, 337; 445 NW2d 161, (1989). Lower courts neglect to examine the
proper licensing required for the position of Superintendent. Public Health Code Act 368
of 1978, MCL 333.18504. Therefore, family courts fail to establish the credibility of the
Superintendent and due account should be taken of the rule of prejudicial error in the
revisiting of all adoption decisions made under this Superintendent. DeRose v DeRose,
469 Mich. 320; 666 N.W. 2d 636, (2003).
Denial of a Public Issue: It has now become a public issue since the Supreme
Court has failed to address the public issue of the authority of the MCI Superintendent.
This judicial body should have seen the open and obvious question of authority in the
abolishment of the Social Welfare Commission in 1965. MCL 16.553 of Public Act 380
of 1965. The mandate in answering this public question of authority is enumerated in the
Michigan Constitution Article 2 § 7. The common law and the statute laws now in force,
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 34/57
Page 34 of 57
not repugnant to this constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own
limitations, or are changed, amended or repealed. Principles of common law and
tradition to uphold the constitution and protect the well being of citizens are challenged
when, due to conflict of personal interests, Justices do not recuse themselves.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is proper when addressing the authority of
a public official. William J. Johnson is not a public official and has not been appointed
by the Governor, with advice and consent from the Legislature; therefore, from a
technical analysis, the court is correct in its statement that this is not the proper
jurisdiction. In addressing the legitimacy of authority, this Court erred to respond to a
public issue, made apparent in the public postulations of Justice Corrigan in the media.
King v. Dep't of Human Servs. (in Re Bell), 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 727 (Mich. Ct.
App., Mar. 15, 2007); In re Bell Minors, Michigan Supreme Court Case Nos. 06-21802,
06-21803, 06-21804, Where the case caption was identified by the Clerk of the Court to
be a question of superintending control of the MCI Superintendent, pursuant to MCR
7.212(C)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) and (9). The application for leave was denied with no
finding of facts or conclusion of law. In essence, the silence of the Justices “appoint”
authority of the MCI Superintendent, contrary to the Article 6 § 27 of the Constitution of
Michigan.
ARGUMENTS
Below, Relator Tran demonstrates to this Court the need for intervention and a
more definite statement of the authorities and superintending control of the
Superintendent of MCI, William J. Johnson. Quo warranto is the vehicle for this Court
to properly litigate this matter. The Superintendent has no authority to represent the State
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 35/57
Page 35 of 57
of Michigan as the de facto legal guardian of children who are wards of the State; the
MCI Superintendent has no authority to function as the de facto final decision maker in
matters of adoption; the MCI Superintendent has no authority to hold the title of
Superintendent.
For the first time in the history of the State of Michigan the veiled functioning of
Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) is being addressed. Because there has been
absolutely no administrative oversight since its inception in 1935, the time has come to
present to the general public the arbitrary and capricious pattern of practice of the sole de
facto legal guardian of Michigan's children awaiting adoption as a result of termination of
parental rights: William J. Johnson, the sole de facto guardian of almost 7,000 children
under the auspices by the state and is the de facto legal representative for the State of
Michigan of all children entrusted to the Michigan Children’s Institute.
As the de facto legal representative for the State of Michigan of children, whose
parents’ rights have been terminated, the Superintendent is neither appointed, elected, or
a servant of the court. The position is classified as a civil servant, not a public official.
The statutory standard of authority has been exhumed and reanimated without legislative
review. The Social Welfare Commission grants authority to the position of the MCI
Superintendent through appointment. Powers of appointment for the Social Welfare
Commission hail from the Governor, with advice and consent of the Legislature, but in
1965, the Social Welfare Commission was abolished. This is the year of the last annual
report of MCI. There has never been an audit of MCI.
The Superintendent has come to claim authority from the Supreme Court, under
the supervision of the Chief Justice for the Supreme Court Administrative Office
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 36/57
Page 36 of 57
(SCAO). As a de facto finial decision maker in the court process of adoption, the
Superintendent simultaneously holds authority of review with membership of a citizen
review board, Foster Care Review Board (FCRB).
Not possessing the proper licensing or education, as required by state law, the
Superintendent practices certain areas of social work, including development of policy, in
concert with the Supreme Court Justices. To date, the Supreme Court refuses to respond
to the public question of the legitimacy of authority of the Superintendent of MCI in its
refusal to review and hear any and all cases of child welfare. The Superintendent has
never been held accountable for the deaths of children under his care, nor has he been
held accountable for the malfeasance and misfeasance of his decisions.
Michigan Attorney General has been usurped of the authority of parens patriae by
the Superintendent in representing the State as the legal authority of children committed
to the state as wards by the courts. It is the Attorney General that possesses the proper
authority, as executed only in Wayne County, the Child and Family Services Bureau and
the Adoption Section, where the courts are the final decision makers in whether to grant
or withhold consent to adopt. Unlike the rest of the state where the Superintendent is the
final decision maker in state ward adoptions, the Attorney General represents Wayne
County Department of Human Services by presenting the recommendations of the
contractual child placing agencies in adoption decisions to the court. The Attorney
General Division of the Child and Family Services Bureau is proof that the position of
MCI Superintendent and the MCI are financially futile, an illegitimately redundant waste
of state resources, fiscally irresponsible expenditure, and a multiplicative catalyst in the
shrouding of federal false claims.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 37/57
Page 37 of 57
I. RELATOR TRAN HAS THE RIGHT, DUTY, AND AUTHORITY TO
BRING AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO BEFORE THIS COURT IN
RESPONSE TO THE ULTRA VIRES ACTS OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF MCI.
The common law remedy of quo warranto is brought to bear in determining the right
of an individual to hold public office or to challenge a public officer’s attempt to exercise
some right or privilege derived from the state. The United States Supreme Court had this
to say regarding the action:
Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority
unlawfully asserted, not a correction of what already has been done under it or tovindication of private rights. It is an extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in
nature, and in this instance could have been brought by the United States, and byit only. For there is no statute delegating to an individual the right to resort to it.
Johnson v. Manhattan r. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 502 (1933); see also, State ex rel. Bruce v.
Kiesling 632 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1994); Rastall v. DeBouse, 736 A. 2d 756 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
1999) (quo warranto complaint is a vehicle designed to test whether a person exercising
authority is legally entitled to do so); State ex rel. Angelini v. Hardberger , 932 S.W.2d
489 (Tex. 1996). Quo warranto is intended to prevent the exercise of powers that are not
conferred by law. State ex rel. Stenberg v. Murphy, 247 Neb. 358, 527 N.W.2d 185
(1995).
An action in the nature of quo warranto is derived from the common law writ
used in England by the King’s Attorney General to test the validity of franchise on claims
asserted by subjects of the crown. Pulskamp v. Martinez , 2 Cal. App. 4th 854, 3 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 607 (2d Dist. 1992). The ancient writ was a high preogative writ of right for the
King against one who usurped, misused, or failed to exercise some office or franchise.
Smith v. Dillion, 267 A.D. 39, 44 N.Y.S.2d 719 (3d Dep’t 1943); Newsom v. State, 922
S.W.2d 274 (Tex. App. Austin 1996), reh’g overruled, (June 12, 1996) and writ denied,
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 38/57
Page 38 of 57
(June 27, 1997). Even in its ancient form, the writ of quo warranto safeguarded of
governmental functions; a proceeding in nature of quo warranto was an action by the
crown inquiring “by what authority” an office-holder supported his claim. State ex rel.
Cain v. Kay, 309 N.E.2d 860 (1974).
Michigan’s version of the ancient writ is defined by statute and reads in pertinent
part:
MCL 600.4505 (1) In actions brought against persons for usurpation of office, the judgment may determine the right of the defendant to hold the office. If
a party plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to the office, the court may decide whichof the parties is entitled to hold the office.
(2) If judgment is rendered in favor of a party who is averred to be entitled to
the office, he is entitled, after taking the oath of office, and executing any official bond which is required by law, to take the office. Such party shall be given all the
books and papers in the custody of the defendant, or within his power, belonging to the office.
MCL 600.4501 The attorney general shall bring an action for quo warranto when
the facts clearly warrant the bringing of that action. If the attorney general receives information from a private party and refuses to act, that private party
may bring the action upon leave of court.
Relator Tran has been granted leave to proceed in this instant action for quo warranto
by the Attorney General. This jurisdiction is proper pursuant to MCR 3.306.
Relator Tran has more interest in this matter than that of a public issue. It has become
a personal issue, as a citizen of the State of Michigan and a graduate student of Wayne
State University Department of Political Science, a public institution, to proceed in this
matter of quo warranto as part of her formal research as a policy analyst.
Quintessentially, this matter of quo warranto is the intellectual property of the State of
Michigan as a tool in the reform of child welfare policies in the state.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 39/57
Page 39 of 57
Therefore, Relator Tran’s ask that a Writ of Quo Warranto be issued to MCI
Superintendent William J. Johnson.
II. THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT IS AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON, THUS
IS REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN.
As William J. Johnson has never been appointed by the Governor with advice and
consent from the Senate; as he has never been appointed by a public body of a
commission; as he has never been elected by the people; the causal connection has
delineated him to be an artificial person in an artificial position. MCL 400.207 (2) states
in pertinent part:
“The superintendent is the authorized agent of the department to implement this
act.” (emphasis added.)
Authorization of the MCI Superintendent to be an agent for DHS originates from
the principle entity, the Social Welfare Commission, which has been dismantled. As it
stands, the MCI Superintendent has never, nor is currently, empowered by statute or by
the people to represent the State of Michigan. Beyond the lack of public authorization to
be an agent of DHS, the issue stands that there needs to be identification of the principle
to fully establish the fiduciary relationship of the Superintendent to the Director of DHS
and the people of Michigan. MCL 400.207 § 7(6) states in pertinent part :
“An agreement entered into with a person for the care of a child who is a ward of the Michigan children's institute shall provide that the department may cancel the
agreement if, in the department's opinion, the interest of the child requires it. If a parent or relative within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of a child
who is a ward of the institute establishes a suitable home and is capable and willing to support the child, the department may restore the child to his or her
parent or relative. The institute may assist the parent or relative with the support of the child if the aid is less than the cost of care the institute would otherwise
provide.” (emphasis added.)
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 40/57
Page 40 of 57
Without further invoking clarity on the matter of the superintending control of the
MCI Superintendent, reason is called upon to scrutinize why, even if William J. Johnson
does aver his legitimacy to hold the position, he has never followed the rule of law, MCL
400.207 § 7(6), to “restore” and “assist”, which is absolutely contrary to the execution of
his de facto position as MCI Superintendent.
The de facto doctrine is based on the paramount necessity of protecting the public.
State v. Carroll , 38 Conn. 449. With regard to the public the acts of a de facto officer are
as valid as those of a de jure officer. (where no officer de jure is provided for there can be
no officer de facto: Carleton v. People, 10 M. 250. To force outsiders to deal with the
former at their peril or to try his title to office on every occasion would be grossly unfair
and thoroughly impracticable. Such considerations have led the courts to extend the
older and more technical definition of de facto officer to include any one who without
legal authority is performing the duties of an office, and “has the reputation of being the
officer he assumes to be.” The public is also more fully protected if such an officer is
held to strict accountability. His defective title, therefore, does not release him from
liability from such acts would be torts or crimes, if done by the de jure officer. ( Diggs v.
State, 49 Ala. 311.) The MCI Superintendent shall be considered a de facto artificial
entity.
Although he might thus incur many burdens, the common law gave him no
corresponding benefits. For he could not deny that he was in fact an “officer.” In this
matter the common law was rigid but perfectly consistent. A public office was a
delegation of certain sovereign powers (United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508.) and was
treated in a way analogous to a grant of land. The holder was said to be “seised of his
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 41/57
Page 41 of 57
office.” If he was removed, his office still continued. If a salary was annexed, it was an
office “coupled with an interest.” Under such a view, the de facto holder was no better
than a disseisor, and it followed logically that he was not entitled to any salary, or if it
had, in fact, been paid, it could be recovered from him by the de jure officer. Such is the
prevailing law at the present time. The MCI Superintendent has never been delegated
certain sovereign powers; ergo, he cannot be the legal guardian of the child wards of the
state. William J. Johnson has never been granted any authority, particularly granted
sovereign powers of parens partiea, which were granted exclusively to the Attorney
General; ergo, he is de facto granting and withholding consent of adoptions.
But there has been a certain tendency to treat offices, and particularly the minor
ones, as analogous to contracts of employment. ( Erwim v. Jersey City, 60 N. J. L. 141.)
Certain courts have felt that an officer is a servant of the people, his salary ought to
depend upon the services he has rendered them. Such considerations have caused them
to relax the older common-law rule and permit the de facto officer to recover the salary of
the office where there was no de jure claimant. The MCI Superintendent is a civil
service classification. The only true de jure claimant is the Attorney General.
He only is an “officer” to whom the sovereign power has delegated sovereign
functions. A person actually obtaining an office with the legal indicia of title is a legal
officer until ousted, so far as to render his official acts as valid as if his title were not
disputed: Wayne Auditors v. Benoit , 20 M. 176. Alas, William J. Johnson has never
obtained, nor has he made any effort to obtain legal indicia of the title of MCI
Superintendent.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 42/57
Page 42 of 57
Therefore, Relator Tran’s ask that a Writ of Quo Warranto be issued to MCI
Superintendent William J. Johnson.
III. THE MCI SUPERINTENDENT WILLIAM J. JOHNSON HAS
USURPED THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT
A. Usurpation of the Powers of the Governor
A search of the public record has not indicated a public appointment from either
the Governor or the Legislature of the Superintendent and as such it is clearly evident the
Superintendent is not a “representative”. This Section 710.45 is part of the Probate Code
of 1939. The term “representative” is then to be understood as a designee or
appointment of the court. As written in MCL 400.202, the Superintendent is to be
appointed by the Commission established under MCL 400.2. Section 710.45
immediately becomes clearly evident as constitutionally invalid, for it violates the
separation of powers of the branches of state government, enumerated in Article 3 § 2 of
the Michigan Constitution. The position of Superintendent derives and exercises powers
GRANTED by the Governor and therefore cannot “exercise powers properly belonging
to another branch except as expressly provided in this constitution.”
An elementary understanding of sunken costs is when one continuously pumps
more money into a dysfunctional system. A more graduate understanding of sunken
costs is when a collective body opens new funding streams to flow into a dysfunctional
system that has zero performance indicators and only meet the previous year’s
benchmark to meet the federal mandates for the future year’s funding. In this regard, the
MCI Superintendent wields the budgetary power of the state by exceeding the previous
year’s adoptions of state wards by granting consent to maintain and or exceed the
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 43/57
Page 43 of 57
previous year federal funding, a furtherance of the usurpation of the Governor. More
intuitively understood, authorizing the legitimacy of MCI by increasing budgetary
appropriations is constitutionally repugnant and may only be corrected with the issuance
of Writ for quo warranto.
He is not a representative of the people of Michigan through a democratic process
of election and in not appointed by public designation of the official duties, or rather, the
best interests of children. The official powers of the Governor and the Senate have been
usurped by the Michigan Children Institute, not in accordance with the just powers
delineated in Article 5 § 3 of the Michigan Constitution. William J. Johnson serves at the
pleasure of no one, not even the public.
Therefore, Relator Tran’s ask that a Writ of Quo Warranto be issued to MCI
Superintendent William J. Johnson.
B. Usurpation of the Powers of the Attorney General
Parens patriae is a Latin term for "father of the people". In law it is the set of
rules or norm of conduct, which forbid, permit or mandate specified actions and
interpersonal relationships among human and organizations. For this area of public
policy, it is applied to the fundamental principles that underpin the operation of the child
welfare legal systems in the State.
It is the Attorney General, as comparatively analyzed amongst the states, who
represents a state in child welfare matters; it is the Attorney General who petitions to
courts decisions surrounding matters of protecting its citizens.
A legal guardian is a person who has the legal authority to care for the personal
and property interests of another person, called a ward, or informal caregiver, and to act
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 44/57
Page 44 of 57
as the parent of any child or individual who is in need of protection, such as a child
whose parents are unable or unwilling to take care of him or her, or an incapacitated and
dependent individual. The MCI Superintendent William J. Johnson assumes this de facto
role of legal guardian of state wards. By and through the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust
Improvement Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 15 (c), granted the moniker of parens patriae to
permit the State attorney general to bring parens patriae suits on behalf of those injured
by violations of Child Protection Law, MCL 722.621 - 722.638. In this manner, the
Attorney General executes the duties of representing the State, protecting its citizens, and
superintending the legal obligations, and the state wards, of the adoption process as the
guardian of the Constitution, and not the MCI Superintendent. The execution of these
parens patriae powers are visibly demonstrated in the Children and Youth Family
Services Division of the Office of Attorney General in Wayne County, yet there is no
statewideness in the execution of the parens patriae, as these powers have been usurped
by the MCI Superintendent, making all other counties a de facto territorial franchise, as
the prosecution of child welfare matters are handled by the Counties Prosecutor, with
judicial decision made by the MCI Superintendent.
A furtherance of usurpation of the Attorney General will demonstrate an
unnecessary economical burden placed upon the State. As it currently stands, the
Superintendent is the legal guardian of over 7,000 children committed to MCI. It is
physically impossible for one individual to “superintend” the administrative functions
necessary to “protect and serve” this many children. A matter of this magnitude has
created temporal obstacles in establishing permanent placement (adoption), causing
children committed to MCI to linger in foster care. An immediate transference of the
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 45/57
Page 45 of 57
parens patriae powers to the Attorney General will reduce the lengths of stay for children
who have been adjudicated to be wards of the state, because:
1. The Children and Youth Family Division has in its possession an existing
model to achieve state uniform adoption protocol;
2. The quantity of Assistant Attorney Generals, in the aforementioned division, to
state wards is a far better term than the 1:7,000 relationship with the MCI
Superintendent to state wards, thereby significantly reducing by expedition the
transitional period from foster care to adoption.
3. The courts are made whole again as arbitrators and final decision makers.
4. The Attorney General will become empowered through legitimacy of the
parens patriae powers to solicit and access an increase in federal funding, further
bringing accountability and transparency to child welfare in the Michigan.
The Nonprofit Corporation Act 162 of 1982, MCL 450.2101 - 450.3192, created
duties for certain state agencies. For the purposes of the matter of unlicensed social
service individuals, the Attorney General possesses the regulatory authority to monitor
contract compliance for child welfare agencies, and in this situation, counties. It is
evident from the results of licensing check for social workers dealing with the lives of
children and families, that there has been a lack of monitoring of statutory compliance.
This lack of monitoring of statutory compliance is due to the usurped powers of
the Attorney General by the Superintendent of MCI. Empowered by the Supreme Court
through its Administrative Offices, the Superintendent is the individual to negotiate,
grant, and monitor state contracts of child placing agencies through his position of
Adoption Services.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 46/57
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 47/57
Page 47 of 57
C. Usurpation of the Powers of the Court
Through what act of Michigan Legislature does the Superintendent derive his
judicial powers? This begs the question from whence of the Michigan public body oes
the Michigan Children Institute Superintendent derive his power for granting authority to
adoption. The MCL 710.45 does not acknowledge that the Superintendent is a
representative of any public body or court and does not denote his established powers to
grant or withhold consent for adoption. These powers were self-granted, in essence,
under no Michigan public body’s review. The powers have been self executed with little
or no basis of credibility and all cases decided by the MCI Superintendent since his
usurpation of the position should be revisited.
MCL 710.45 explicitly states:
(1) A court shall not allow the filing of a petition to adopt a child if the consent of arepresentative or court is required by section 43(1)(b), (c), or (d) of this chapterunless the petition is accompanied by the required consent or a motion as provided in subsection (2).(2) If an adoption petitioner has been unable to obtain the consent required bysection 43(1)(b), (c), or (d) of this chapter, the petitioner may file a motion with thecourt alleging that the decision to withhold consent was arbitrary and capricious. A motion under this subsection shall contain information regarding both of the following:
(a) The specific steps taken by the petitioner to obtain the consent required and the results, if any.(b) The specific reasons why the petitioner believes the decision to withhold consent was arbitrary and capricious.
(3) If consent has been given to another petitioner and if the child has been placed with that other petitioner according to an order under section 51 of this chapter, amotion under this section shall not be brought after either of the following:
(a) Fifty-six days following the entry of the order placing the child.
(b) Entry of an order of adoption.(4) In an adoption proceeding in which there is more than 1 applicant, the petition for adoption shall be filed with the court of the county where the parent's parental rights were terminated or are pending termination. If both parents' parental rightswere terminated at different times and in different courts, a petition filed under thissection shall be filed in the court of the county where parental rights were first terminated.(5) The court shall provide notice of a motion brought under this section to all interested parties as described in section 24a(1) of this chapter, the guardian ad
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 48/57
Page 48 of 57
litem of the prospective adoptee if one has been appointed during a child protection proceeding, and the applicant who received consent to adopt.(6) Upon the filing of a petition to adopt a child and the motion described insubsection (2), the court may waive or modify the full investigation of the petition provided in section 46 of this chapter. The court shall decide the motion within 91days after the filing of the motion unless good cause is shown.
(7) Unless the petitioner establishes by clear and convincing evidence that thedecision to withhold consent was arbitrary and capricious, the court shall deny themotion described in subsection (2) and dismiss the petition to adopt.(8) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the decision to withhold consent was arbitrary and capricious, the court shall issue a written decision and may terminate the rights of the appropriate court, child placing agency, ordepartment and may enter further orders in accordance with this chapter orsection 18 of chapter XIIA as the court considers appropriate. In addition, thecourt may grant to the petitioner reimbursement for petitioner's costs of preparing, filing, and arguing the motion alleging the withholding of consent was arbitraryand capricious, including a reasonable allowance for attorney fees. (9) If the consent at issue is that required of the court under section 43(1)(c) of thischapter, the motion shall be heard by a visiting judge assigned according to section
8212 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.8212.(10) The court's decision on a motion brought under this section is appealable byright to the court of appeals.
The power to withhold consent for adoption is vested in a “representative” or a
“court”. There is no definitive explanation as the Superintendent being this
“representative”. The Superintendent has taken on these powers without any authority
enumerated in the Michigan Constitution. Who is he representing, when he is not a
qualified member of the required level of the academic community; thus, he has not
achieved proper levels of authority, since he has not been granted licensing of Masters
Level Macro and Clinical Social Work by the State. The Superintendent has seized the
role of a policy maker sans the will of the people.
William J. Johnson is a member of the Foster Care Review Board. The
Superintendent is a member and a stakeholder of the decisions of this body. The
Superintendent failed to disclose the conflict of interest by being a participant in the
decisions of a citizen review board. The Foster Care Review Board, MCL 722.131 -
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 49/57
Page 49 of 57
722.140, is to be comprised of the members of the community. As Michigan Children
Institute Superintendent is tasked with being the sole legal guardian of Michigan’s
children whom are awaiting adoption, yet he advocates for foster care in his official
capacity Superintendent. He is not to advocate foster care because he is supposed to
remain objective, but he thus enters the legal arena with skewed objectives. He is required
to enter into these important decisions of human lives without prejudices, but his very
membership on the Foster Care Review Board belies otherwise. The Superintendent is
the final decision maker in adoption decisions, with the authority to override the decision
of a judge.
The Superintendent is a member and a stakeholder of the decisions of this body.
The Superintendent fails to disclose the conflict of interest by being a participant in the
decisions of a citizen review board. The Foster Care Review Board is to be comprised of
the members of the community. As Michigan Children Institute Superintendent Johnson
is tasked with being the sole legal guardian of Michigan’s children awaiting adoption, yet
all the while he has advocated for foster care for children in his official capacity
Superintendent. He is not to advocate foster care because he is supposed to remain
objective, though he enters the legal arena with skewed objectives. He is required to enter
into these important decisions of human lives without prejudices, but his very
membership on the Foster Care Review Board belies otherwise.
The powers and duties of the local foster care review board, MCL Public Act 422
of 1984, section 722.137, are so extensive that the Superintendent is required to disclose
his affiliations with the Foster Care Review Board with the lower court. This calls into
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 50/57
Page 50 of 57
question the honesty of his responses to questioning of the attorneys of record. The
superintendent is on the advisory committee of the Foster Care Review Board for the
state; therefore, his participation in recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature
becomes a clear and convincing fact of evidence that there is bias inherent in decisions,
taken or advised. The following section is taken from the Foster Care Review Board
Annual Report 2003-2004:
“Michigan’s Foster Care Review Boards have been given the responsibility for the first level of appeal. A panel of at least three FCRB members is convened to
hear from both the foster parents and DHS, or private agency staff. The panel then decides whether they agree with the agency decision to move the child or
whether they agree with the foster parents. If FCRB agrees with the agency, the process ends with that decision. If FCRB agrees with the foster parents, the
matter is set for a hearing before a judge/referee, or, if the child is a state ward,
the subsequent review is done by the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI).
(emphasis added).
William J. Johnson is holds no Juris Doctorate nor is he registered with the
Michigan State Bar, yet, he usurps the powers of the judiciary as a final decision maker
throughout the State, with the exception of Wayne County, where the courts are the final
decision makers. William J. Johnson has represented as a member of the Adoption
Services, the Foster Care Review Board, and as Superintendent of Michigan Children
Institute, and therefore, functions in an arbitrary and capricious pattern, as a result of
conflicting interests. From an initial investigation, it was found that the Superintendent,
William J. Johnson of Michigan Children’s Institute, directly while dealing with Children
and Family Services, does not possess the appropriate licensing, as outlined in General
Rules of Social Work for the State of Michigan, R 338.2907 -2909 et seq. of June 24,
2005. Public Act 61 of 2004, effective July 1, 2005, which changed the regulation of the
social work profession under the authority of the Department of Community Health.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 51/57
Page 51 of 57
Unfortunately, the Bureau of Health Professions, Complaint and Allegation Division only
has the power to regulate the Community Health Agency. There is no provision in
Michigan law for any complaint filed against the Superintendent to be investigated. Thus,
this state’s courts have over burdened with oversight of decisions taken by the
Superintendent without oversight by the public representatives who were rightly
beholden for their actions to the citizens of Michigan.
Therefore, Relator Tran’s ask that a Writ of Quo Warranto be issued to MCI
Superintendent William J. Johnson.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Relator Tran respectfully submits that under the circumstances there
is no just, speedy, or adequate remedy at law other than the issuance of a Writ of Quo
Warranto. Judicial economy and sound administration of justice demand issuance of the
Writ as this case presents a unique opportunity for the Court to clarify an obviously
important issue of law: “By What Authority” Does The Superintendent of MCI William
J. Johnson Exercise Dominion And Control Over Children Who Are Wards Of The
State?”
1. Order William J. Johnson to relinquish his position of MCI Superintendent;
2. Order the Attorney General to assume the powers of parens patriae in the
transference of all duties and responsibility of the MCI Superintendent to the
Office of Attorney General Children and Youth Division.
3. Order the State Auditor General to conduct a single program audit of MCI;
4. Order the Director of DHS to refer any and all violations of material provisions of
law and policy by MCI to the Attorney General for investigation and prosecution;
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 52/57
Page 52 of 57
5. Order the Attorney General to make immediate recommendation and opinion to
the Legislature to review and take immediate action of all MCI statutes;
6. Order the Courts to assume its rightful powers as final decision makers in all
adoption decisions;
7. Order review of all decision to grant consent and withhold consent of adoptions
made under the de facto tenure of the MCI Superintendent William J. Johnson.
Each and every question is continuing in its application. Accordingly, Relator Tran
respectfully submits that no authority exists for the MCI Superintendent William J.
Johnson to perform any of these functions. Therefore, Relator Tran’s ask that a Writ of
Quo Warranto be issued to MCI Superintendent William J. Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated this _______ day of __________________, 2009
____________________________________
ex rel. Beverly Tran Private Attorney General
8437 LumpkinHamtramck, MI 48212
313-522-8213 [email protected]
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 53/57
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 54/57
Page 54 of 57
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 55/57
Page 55 of 57
MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE (MCI) WARD ADOPTION CONSENT
PROCESS CFA 820
ADOPTION SERVICES MANUALCFA 820 2 of 2 MICHIGAN CHILDREN’SINSTITUTE (MCI) WARD ADOPTION CONSENT PROCESS ADOPTION
SERVICES MANUAL STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMANSERVICES CFB 2009-003 3-1-2009
1 of 2 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CFB 2009-003 3-1-2009 OVERVIEWThe authority to grant consent to adoption for state wards rests with the MCIsuperintendent. State wards include children who have been committed to the statethrough involuntary termination of parental rights in the Family Division of a CircuitCourt (1935 PA 220), or through release of parental rights by the legal parent(s) or private child placing agency to whom the child has been previously released (1974 PA
296).The request for consent from the placing agency is a recommendation that a specifiedfamily be granted consent by the MCI superintendent. In requesting consent for theadoption of a child, PCA 309, Consent to Adoption by Agency/Court, and DHS-3217,Adoption Consent Request (RFF 3217), must be completed and sent with requireddocumentation to the MCI superintendent in the Department of Human Services (DHS)central office. The Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) superintendent must review andapprove or deny the recommendation for adoption of any MCI ward.Best Interests of the ChildThe following “best interests” factors [MCL 710.22(g)] may be considered by theMichigan Children’s Institute (MCI) superintendent (or the court for a permanent court
ward) when granting or denying consent to an adoption:•The love, affection and other emotional ties existing between the adopting individual(s)and the adoptee.•The capacity and disposition of the adopting individual(s) to educate and create anenvironment that fosters the religion, racial identity and culture of the adoptee.•The capacity and disposition of the adopting individual(s) to provide the adoptee withfood, clothing, education, medical care (or other remedial care recognized and permittedunder Michigan laws in place of medical care), and other material needs.•The length of time the adoptee has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and thedesirability of maintaining continuity.•The permanence as a family unit of the proposed adoptive home.•The moral fitness of the adopting individual(s).•The mental and physical health of the adopting individual(s).•The home, school and community record of the adoptee.•The reasonable preference of the adoptee, if the adoptee is 14 years of age or older.•The ability and willingness of the adopting individual(s) to adopt the adoptee’s siblings.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 56/57
Page 56 of 57
1 of 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CFB
2009-003 3-1-2009 EXPEDITED CONSENT CRITERIA
Expedited consent requests allow for expedient processing of approvals to avoid delays inachieving permanency. A request of the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI)superintendent for “expedited” consent may be granted when the request meets certain
criteria and there are no extenuating circumstances involved.All requests for expedited consent must have supervisory approval that verifies all of therequirements below are met:•The recommended family is the only family requesting to adopt the child. There are nocompeting families for adoption.•The child is residing in the adoptive home and all his/her physical and emotional needsare being satisfactorily met.•This is the only child available for adoption or all available siblings (i.e. permanent courtwards or MCI wards) are being adopted together.•Record checks and clearances for all adults residing in the home are current. (See CFA520, Background Checks, Clearances, Criminal History Checks, and Fingerprinting.)
•There is no history of criminal arrests or convictions.•The family has no previous foster home licensing or CPS complaints involving the careof a child.•Three references recommending the family for adoption of the children have beenreceived.•There are no “circumstances requiring additional documentation” as defined byAdoption Family Assessment policy. (See CFA 510, Circumstances Requiring AdditionalDocumentation/Review.)•Marriage and divorce verifications and medical evaluations of the adopting parent(s) arein the case record.
8/14/2019 First Amended Petition of Quo Warranto
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/first-amended-petition-of-quo-warranto 57/57
EXPEDITED CONSENT CFA 850
ADOPTION SERVICES MANUAL
1 of 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CFB 2009-003 3-1-2009 INTRODUCTION
The superintendent of the Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) represents the state asguardian of state wards beginning with the date of the child’s commitment andcontinuing until the age of 19 (MCL 400.203). The MCI superintendent is authorized toconsent to adoption, juvenile guardianship, medical procedures, marriage, or emancipation (MCL 400.209 and 712A.19c).MEDICAL CAREThe superintendent is authorized to consent to elective medical care for an MCI ward if the procedure requires the approval of a guardian. These procedures include:•Elective surgical procedures.•Administration of anesthesia.•Consent to abortion.
•Decisions to limit, restrict or terminate medical care.Policy and procedure details for Medical Care for MCI wards are found in CFF-722-11,Foster Care - Delegation of Parental Consent.Routine Medical CareRoutine medical care must be monitored and approved by the child-placing agency that isresponsible for case management services. (See CFF 722-11, Foster Care - Delegation of Parental Consent.)Authorization for Psychotropic Medication and Informed ConsentSee CFF-722-11, Foster Care - Delegation of Parental Consent for specific policiesregarding psychotropic medications and Informed Consent.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MICHIGAN CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE
(MCI) CFA 800
ADOPTION SERVICES MANUAL •Any other factor considered to be relevant to a particular adoption proceeding.