COMMITTEES UPDATE

BY KATE WEAVER (OAKLAND)

SBM Judicial Ethics Committee - Referee Ilyssa Cimmino (Oakland)
In the spring, we initiated a Judge training for MJI on Artificial Intelligence and on the JI-155 Artificial Intelligence ethics opinion.  We presented in many counties across the state (I was one of the presenters at the Plymouth training along with Judge Savin).  Prior to that we were working on creating a Judicial Campaign Guidebook with resources and FAQs related to campaigning and following the Cannons.  There were still some revisions that needed to be worked out, so it’s still a work in progress. We are presently discussing the Proposed Amendments to MCJC 4 and 6, which proposes expanded financial disclosure requirements by Judicial Officers.  We are working to advise the Board on whether we support, reject or have any proposed amendments to suggest for consideration. 

SCAO Juvenile Justice Partnership Committee - Referee Lisa Harris (Oakland) and Referee Holly Spoelman (Muskegon) - update from Referee Spoelman  
The committee has been meeting monthly beginning in November, 2023. The committee is comprised of representatives from various agencies, courts and community groups.  Each of the members also participates in one or more workgroups and subgroups.  The workgroups are Training, Data & Quality Assurance, and Policy & Procedure.  The subgroups are Screening & Assessment Tools, Diversion and Consent, and Juvenile Probation and Case Management Standards.  I have been serving on the Training workgroup. The workgroup has been planning and conducting monthly webinars.  The work group reviews and discusses he evaluations and comments the month following each webinar. The recorded webinars as well as “Training in a Minute” videos (prerecorded power points with audio can be accessed on the Child Welfare Juvenile Justice website.  Several of the workgroups and subgroups have completed their initial directives/deliverables and are winding down.  The Training workgroup will continue meeting and planning webinars that will be held throughout the upcoming year. The Training group already has a substantial list of potential training topics. However, if any RAM members have any training topics they would like the Training workgroup to consider, I will be happy to bring those requests to the next Training workgroup meeting.

SCAO Family Court Plan Workgroup - Referee Michelle Letourneau (Oakland) 
Initially, I was appointed to the SCAO Family Court Plan Work Group in January 2024 – the goal of the workgroup was to look at how (and whether) SCAO’s internal process for setting guidelines for family court plans could help make things better for families.  We reviewed and made amendments to SCAO’s guidelines for approving and revising family court plans.   Our last meeting was in March 2024.  This workgroup morphed into a second workgroup for those of us interested/willing to continue.  We used the SCAO guidelines to assist in drafting a model Family Court Plan in an effort to make Family Court Plans easier for courts to draft and to encourage some consistency.  Our last meeting was in May 2024.  We have not heard back from Justice Cavanagh’s office as to whether either of the drafts have been approved/adopted, but I believe we are done with the workgroups. 

SCAO Safe Access for Victims’ Economic Security (SAVES) Workgroup - Referee Lynn Perry (Kent)
We reviewed the proposed legislative text we are submitting to SCAO Administration and identified two areas to change. The two changes:

1. Regarding the new Domestic Abuse Prevention and Recovery Act (DAPRA), the court must consider additional factors to determine how the abuse affects the family and determine whether the abuse caused a factor to weigh for the perpetrator or against the victim. The court is also required to “order services as appropriate for the family in the custody order and order measures to protect the victim and children.” We have added language requiring the court to hold review hearings to monitor compliance with court-ordered services to protect the child(ren) and abused parent.
2. We received a comment regarding concerns of the court ordering joint counseling, especially if the joint counseling were to occur before the abuser has not completed individual domestic abuse counseling/treatment.  While discussing this concern, it was determined that joint counseling is most likely to be ordered when there are claims of parental alienation.
   1. In the DAPRA section, Child resisting parental contact, we are adding language saying that the court shall not order joint counseling involving the parents unless the abusive parent has first successfully completed counseling or treatment designed to address the parent’s abusive behavior.
   2. We will address other possible situations where a court could order joint counseling by issuing SCAO policy. The policy will strongly recommend that the court not order joint counseling until the abuser has successfully completed counseling or treatment designed to address the parent’s abusive behavior.

NCSC MI Weighted Caseload Study - Referee Erin Magley (Ottawa) and Referee Kelly Ward (Van Buren)
Referee Ward and Referee Magley attended meetings in February and August, and 8 other Referees participated in an April focus group with the National Center for State Courts regarding the structure of the time study categories and how the work we do as referees might be categorized and captured for the purpose of weighing various case types. All Referees (Judges and, new this year, FOC, juvenile court workers, and clerks) are participating in a 4-week time study intended to provide weights to each case type based on macro-level data and averages across the state. This information will be used later to weigh cases and assign judicial resources to counties based on the numbers of cases they have in each case type. Some of the Referees are participating with the judicial group starting 9/16/24 and some FOC Referees are participating with the FOC data gathering 10/16/24. The advisory committee and focus group members had input into the type of categories and definitions of tasks that were used based on the work that we do across Michigan, including specialty courts. In addition to the time study and focus groups, there will be other qualitative information gathered by the NCSC through surveys, additional meetings, and feedback over the next six months. The RAM representatives will continue to meet as part of the advisory committee for judicial officers and welcome your questions and input into the process.
​
SCAO Commission on Well-Being in the Law - Referee Linda Harrison (Macomb)
Referee Harrison was appointed as the RAM delegate to the Commission on Well-Being in the Law effective December 21, 2023, for a 3-year term.  The Commission was created following a task force study regarding the physical and mental toll that the practice and study of law has on Jurists, lawyers, law students, and those who surround them personally and professionally.   The data collected was staggering as to the exponential rates of substance abuse, suicide, and career burnout in the legal profession when comparing to other professions.  The Commission is chaired by Justice Megan Cavanagh and the vice-chair is Molly Ranns, State Bar of Michigan. The Commissioners are comprised of Judges, quasi- judicial officers, practicing attorneys, law students, representatives from law schools, the Attorney Grievance Commission, Judicial Tenure Commission, and mental health professionals. The Commission has developed 4 pillars to proceed upon:

• Eliminate systemic stressors,
• Eliminate stigma,
• Train stakeholders to understand and promote wellness, and
• Continuously measure and understand the well-being of Michigan’s legal community to develop data driven strategies to further the work of the Commission.

These pillars will be addressed in action steps developed in the following work groups:  Incentivizing Well Being, Prevention and Promotion as well as Well-Being Programming.
Overall, the task force, which called for the creation of the Commission, calls for the following: The Commission will foster an environment that encourages members of the legal profession, law students, and court staff to strive for greater mental, physical, and emotional health. The Commission will address the recommendations outlined in the report from the Task Force on Well-Being in the Law and continue to work with stakeholders to identify and implement additional strategies to reduce the stresses to mental health in the legal profession; eliminate the stigma associated with help-seeking behaviors; educate judges and court staff, lawyers, and law students on well-being issues; and take incremental steps to enhance well-being within the profession.  Systemic change is difficult work.  But the gravity of the situation calls upon the entire legal profession to look for what it takes to create a professional environment wherein those practicing are physically, financially, and emotionally healthy.