Posted on Aug 14, 2017
Gun Rights and Foster Care Restrictions Collide in Michigan
956
13
12
3
3
0
Grandparents told they must give up their right to carry firearms in order to foster their grandchild. It's important to note that the grandparents were approached to foster their grandchild by the State of Michigan. Should one lose their rights @ to foster their grand child?
Gun Rights and Foster Care Restrictions Collide in Michigan
Posted from uppermichiganssource.comPosted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Concealed Carry
2nd Amendment Concealed Carry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
This is insanity at its finest...foster parents and carrying a weapon are apples and horseshoes, not even in the same realm. One has nothing to do with the other.
S/F
S/F
(4)
(0)
1
1
0
SSG Gerhard S. I understand the reasoning behind these bans, and it is not bad reasoning. I completely disagree with making people choose between helping a child and their constitutional rights. Realistically it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. If it is a troubled child, prone to violence, then by all means place the restriction that firearms need to be stored unloaded and separate from the ammo. It makes sense under those circumstances, especially if the foster parent is just meeting the child. In the situation where a grand parent is taking in a grand child, the child is (hopefully) not unknown to the grand parent. Government should butt out as much as possible in that situation. NEVER should a foster parent (or potential foster parent) be asked to choose between fostering a child and owning a firearm. Additionally, firearms could be something for the child to bond with the foster parent over. My grand father took me shooting when I was a kid. It was one afternoon for a period of about two hours. In that time I learned to respect and love firearms. A love and respect I still have today. Shooting requires control, coordination, practice, discipline, and respect. All things that a child going through a rough time can benefit from. Further, as skills improve, the child can see that improvement, giving them a tangible sign of success. Small successes can build on top of each other and become a tangible desire for success.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
I think the issue will be decided based on how foster parents are viewed...as private citizens, or as "employees" or "representatives" of the State. (That's "State" with a capital "S".)
That will likely be the basis upon which the state of Michigan will defend their stance.
However, they will have to prove in the courts that foster parents are, in fact, "employees" or "representatives" of the State. To do this will require answering a few questions, I would imagine.
For example, are foster parents paid employees? They do receive subsidies as foster parents, but it's just that...a subsidy, not an income. It is intended to cover ONLY the needs of the child(ren), and often barely that.
A foster parent is NOT an adoptive parent. Foster parents have no legal parental rights or parental custody of the children placed in their care. This, too, may be a factor Michigan may leverage in their favor.
In effect, the State, having legal custody of said children as "wards of the court", has the parental rights to these children. And foster parents are licensed by the state to act as caretakers of the foster children...but with no parental rights...pretty much they're glorified babysitters for the state. That gives them a lot of power with respect to the environment they may allow the children to be in.
(No offense to any foster parents out there...this is not to imply foster parents are simply babysitters, only an analogy that foster parents pretty much have the same rights as baby sitters.)
That will likely be the basis upon which the state of Michigan will defend their stance.
However, they will have to prove in the courts that foster parents are, in fact, "employees" or "representatives" of the State. To do this will require answering a few questions, I would imagine.
For example, are foster parents paid employees? They do receive subsidies as foster parents, but it's just that...a subsidy, not an income. It is intended to cover ONLY the needs of the child(ren), and often barely that.
A foster parent is NOT an adoptive parent. Foster parents have no legal parental rights or parental custody of the children placed in their care. This, too, may be a factor Michigan may leverage in their favor.
In effect, the State, having legal custody of said children as "wards of the court", has the parental rights to these children. And foster parents are licensed by the state to act as caretakers of the foster children...but with no parental rights...pretty much they're glorified babysitters for the state. That gives them a lot of power with respect to the environment they may allow the children to be in.
(No offense to any foster parents out there...this is not to imply foster parents are simply babysitters, only an analogy that foster parents pretty much have the same rights as baby sitters.)
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Foster parents are paid employees, the State is required by law to pay you so the civil laws come into play rather than criminal. The ban on concealed carry for foster parents has been around for a long time and won't go away anytime soon. In some cases like this it seems ridiculous, but in many cases the foster kids create a situation where access cannot be permissible, particularly for the safety of the foster parents. Difficult situation where the biological family members become the foster parents for sure. In my case I just stopped carrying around my kids, and kept the ammo and gun locked in a safe. CPS only cared to see that I wasn't armed and the kids couldn't access the weapons. After the adoption is finalized the restrictions go away.
You are exactly right foster parents are simply babysitters from a legal standpoint. Paid to do a service the way the State wants you to perform it.
You are exactly right foster parents are simply babysitters from a legal standpoint. Paid to do a service the way the State wants you to perform it.
(0)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
MAJ (Join to see) - I'm going to disagree with you on this one, Jaren. (The "foster parents are paid employees part.) Google the subject however, especially with respect to your own state in case there is something different in your jurisdiction.
Foster parents are not paid as employees. They receive subsidies for the children in their care, and that's it. It's not reportable income for any commercial use (such as loan applications), nor for income tax purposes. They're not paid for their time.
I will grant this with respect to firearms in foster homes: the children come in all ages and all backgrounds. There are times when it simply would not be safe to have firearms around certain individuals. Foster parents, from what I understand of the process, are made to understand this restriction during the licensing process, which means they agree to this when taking on the role of foster parent. Which means people essentially have to make that choice when considering becoming a foster parent.
Foster parents are not paid as employees. They receive subsidies for the children in their care, and that's it. It's not reportable income for any commercial use (such as loan applications), nor for income tax purposes. They're not paid for their time.
I will grant this with respect to firearms in foster homes: the children come in all ages and all backgrounds. There are times when it simply would not be safe to have firearms around certain individuals. Foster parents, from what I understand of the process, are made to understand this restriction during the licensing process, which means they agree to this when taking on the role of foster parent. Which means people essentially have to make that choice when considering becoming a foster parent.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CPO Glenn Moss - correct for a tax and legal definition of employee, but due to the financial transaction they are held to the civil law rather than criminal law for their behavior, main difference is beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases or preponderance of evidence for civil cases.
Every state requires significant amount of training before foster certification it absolutely is something that is explained in detail. They also provide child specific training based on the known behaviors of your specific placements. Problem in this case is a biological relative has the same restrictions as any foster parent which leads to issues when individuals who normally would never want to be a foster parent apply in order to keep their family members from being placed into a home with complete strangers, many of which are poor parents themselves. Often it is those same individuals who made the report to CPS in the first place.
Every state requires significant amount of training before foster certification it absolutely is something that is explained in detail. They also provide child specific training based on the known behaviors of your specific placements. Problem in this case is a biological relative has the same restrictions as any foster parent which leads to issues when individuals who normally would never want to be a foster parent apply in order to keep their family members from being placed into a home with complete strangers, many of which are poor parents themselves. Often it is those same individuals who made the report to CPS in the first place.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google