There is a case in Michigan that captures what many parents complain is a child protective system that strips away basic due process rights and at times defies both logic and controlling authority. There may be no better example than the treatment of Gordon “Steve” and Maria Green after their 6-month-old baby girl, Bree, was taken away from them. The reason is the determination that the parents have marijuana in the house. It was not hard for the case worker to find: the Greens have a right to medical marijuana protected under state law. That did not matter to the Department of Human Services however and their baby was taken away from their Lancing home.
You may recall the last time we encountered child protective services in Michigan when a professor lost his son and was banned from his house because the boy mistakenly picked a hard lemonade drink thinking it was just regular lemonade.
It appears that the Green case is one of dozens where caseworkers have said that parents can have medical marijuana under state law but must surrender their children. It is the type of problem discussed in a recent column on the rise of the administrative state.
When the caseworkers went to the home, they demanded to see the grow room, which the family refused (citing state law that only one person at a time could have access to such rooms). The DHS then moved to remove the child.
The state law expressly states
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving [marijuana], and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:
(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician’s professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of [marijuana] to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition;
(2) The patient and the patient’s primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of [marijuana] that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition; and
(3) The patient and the patient’s primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of [marijuana] or paraphernalia relating to the use of [marijuana] to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition.
What is particularly alarming is that the petition from the Children’s Protective Services was granted by Ingham County Family Court referee to remove the child due to the marijuana in the home. These reviews are often perfunctory and judges often rubber stamp the demands of agencies. Steven Green says that the referee granted the petition on the grounds that “someone with a gun could break in.”
While not discussing the specific case, Dave Akerly, acting communications director for DHS, said that they must consider “what kind of choices (parents are) making that impact their kids.” In this case, the parents are presumably using medical marijuana to relieve pain. Notably, they would not be in any difficulty if they had a full-sized bar with hundreds of intoxicants in the home. Likewise, you could have an arsenal of legal weapons in the home without fear of the loss of custody. Clearly, if Green’s account of the preliminary hearing is correct, the family court judge could claim that people with guns could also break in from booze or guns or cash.
The article below reports that almost two dozen medical marijuana cases are being tracked by public interest organizations.
Source: Lansing Journal
GH,
Good catch…. Make a comment on the corrections page…. Look for it… Lol
Grammer Hammer who needs a life. You should be embarrassed. Prof. T is very busy, and is churning out articles fast for all of us who live a fast paced life so we do not have to scour the newspapers. Like texting,mistakes will be made when things are done fast. We do not mind, so stop being so anal.
“We didn’t love freedom enough”. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipalago.
You really need a copy editor. The number of grammatical and spelling mistakes in this post should be embarrassing.
Yes folks, govt is evil. Allowing ourselves to be governed by coercion and violence leads to this kind of evil. We need to wake up. And yet these events continue and people rationalize the need for this evil.
The removal of the child because of the legal marijuana was a heinous act. This is especially true because the foster care systems around this country are very often worse than the home the children are removed from. This case disgusts me because the well-being of the child has nothing to do with the actions of the Child Protective Agency.
The bureaucratic machine chews up and digests people. Audrey must be their mascot and role model.
The Prohibition Industry is getting desperate.
dkenner,
Oh you’re not going to get any argument out of me on that one…. Heck yes I know that…. What I see happening is the use of other laws to get to them…. Because this was an amendment to the Michigan Constitution…. The locals have been enforcing the possession, use and sale differently from county to county, city to city…. But so far this is the first time I’ve heard of the child protective proceedings being used to back door the MML….
John: Amazing that they let ANYONE take their child….there is a line that no one should cross….and this is certainly one for me.
Are you going to attack a cop and get shot dead? Will that do something for your child? In the face of the potential use of lethal force, legal or not, the right thing to do is fight it in court, which you would not be able to do if dead.
anonymously yours: I, too, am not surprised the judge is a Republican appointee. But remember that raids on med marijuana shops and prosecutions of med ganja users has gone WAY UP under Obama. Those who supported that thug have no reason to be smug.
Unless you just want to pretend that the theft and tyranny that occurs under The Chosen One is just tea party propaganda. That seems to work for most lefties I know.
John,
In removals they take LEOs with them…. The cops explain that if they deny them entry they can be charged with a felony or misdemeanor from catch this…. Resisting, Obstructing…… And the biggie…. OPPOSSING and duly commissioned LEO….. And because the kids are already a temporary ward of the court…. Kidnapping…. I kid you not…
Amazing that they let ANYONE take their child….there is a line that no one should cross….and this is certainly one for me.
Dredd,
I may have caused one or two to lose employment….. Including a probation officer that committed perjury…… No surprise they got a job with the state prosecutors association….which writes the policy’s…..
Gene,
When I read this I was like wtf…. But then again the state senator is a former sheriff… The AG is a stupid person…. I don’t say that lightly…. The referee is a former prosecutor…. And the judge is a Republican appointee…. That has never met a government action he did not support….
They do not like the MM Laws and have prosecuted for even the slightest of infractions…..
I recall one case where the licensed dealer got busted for having 25 pounds of medical marijuana at his home rather than shop…. He was prosecuted for this….
What AY said. (Nice catch.)
AY,
Good find.
The officer in the child protection unit should be sued.
What’s interesting is that medical marijuana use is an affirmative defense in a criminal case but in a neglect abuse case it has no bearings….
Unfortunately, parental rights can be terminated even for misdemeanor drug convictions….
The police state is now punishing those who perform legal acts. That’s the very slippery slope that government induced fear has created. People are now afraid of shadows and will allow their liberties to be destroyed without a fight. As is the case with Wall Street and Main Street; government rewards lying and punishes truth telling.
And the fact that homes with children can chain-smoke cancer causing tobacco cigarettes, or have many unsecured toxic chemical cleaning products is just fine. Child protection in the case mentioned above is a farce that endangers the children far more than legal medical marijuana.
This is absurd….
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BILL SCHUETTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT:
MICHIGAN JUVENILE CODE:
CUSTODY:
Application of Michigan Medical Marihuana Act to child-protective proceedings
A properly registered patient or primary caregiver, who engages in the “medical use” of marihuana “in accordance with” the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26421 et seq., may invoke the protections provided in sections 4(a) and (b) of the Act in a child-protective proceeding under the Michigan Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1 et seq. MCL 333.26424(a) and (b). But the protections are subject to the exception in section 4(c) of the MMMA for behavior that creates an unreasonable danger to a minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated. MCL 333.26424(c).
Whether a person’s actions associated with the medical use of marihuana present an “unreasonable danger” to a child under section 4(c) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26424(c), is a fact-specific inquiry dependent upon the circumstances of each case. Any assertion that a person’s behavior associated with the medical use of marihuana presents an unreasonable danger to a child must be clearly expressed and supported by evidence.
To invoke the protections provided for in sections 4(a) and (b) of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26424(a) and (b), in a child-protective proceeding under the Michigan Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1 et seq., a patient or primary caregiver must have been issued and possess a valid registry identification card. The affirmative defense provided for in section 8(a) of the MMMA only applies in a criminal prosecution, and thus is not available in a child-protective proceeding under the Juvenile Code. MCL 333.264248(a).
The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, MCL 333.26421 et seq., does not permit a court in a child-protective proceeding under the Michigan Juvenile Code, MCL 712A.1 et seq., to independently determine whether a person is a qualifying patient. But the court may review evidence to determine whether a person’s conduct related to marihuana is for the purpose of treating or alleviating the person’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the condition. MCL 333.26424(d)(2). If the person’s use or possession of marihuana is not for that purpose, and thus not “in accordance with” the MMMA, the person is not entitled to invoke the protections offered in section 4(a) in a child-protective proceeding. MCL 333.26424(a), MCL 333.26427(a).
Opinion No. 7271
May 10, 2013
Honorable Rick Jones
State Senator
The Capitol
Lansing, MI 48909