UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DWAYNE B., a minor, by his Next Friend, John Stempfle, et al, for themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds v. No. 06-CV-13548 RICK SNYDER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, et al, Defendants. ________________________________/ STATUS CONFERENCE Detroit, Michigan - Thursday, June 8, 2017 APPEARANCES: Sara M. Bartosz Elizabeth Gretter Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 On behalf of Plaintiffs John J. Bursch Bursch Law PLLC 9339 Cherry Valley Ave SE, #78 Caledonia, MI 49316 616-450-4235 Email: jbursch@burschlaw.com On behalf of Defendants - - - Suzanne Jacques, Official Court Reporter email: jacques@transcriptorders.com 2 APPEARANCES(Continued) Kristin M. Heyse Michigan Department of the Attorney General 525 W Ottawa St. 3rd Floor P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 517-373-7700 Email: heysek@michigan.gov ALSO PRESENT: Monitors Kevin Ryan, Eileen Crummy, Pamela Murray State of Michigan DHHS: Debora Buchanan Nick Lyon, Herman McCall, - - - 3 I N D E - X Proceeding Page Status Conference Comments by Mr. Lyon 5 Comments by Mr. Ryan 7 Comments by Ms. Crummy 10 Comments by Dr. McCall 21 Comments by Mr. Bursch 23 Comments by The Court 41 Certificate of Court Reporter Case No. 06-CV-13548 44 4 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 Detroit, Michigan 2 Thursday, June 8, 2017 3 2:07 p.m. 4 - 5 6 LAW CLERK: versus Snyder. 7 8 Appearances, please. MR. LYON: Nick Lyon, director of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. MR. McCALL: 12 of Children's Services. 13 MS. HEYSE: Debora Buchanan, Department of Health and Human Services. MS. BARTOSZ: Sara Bartosz on behalf of the plaintiffs, Children's Rights. 19 20 Kristin Heyse on behalf of the MS. BUCHANAN: 17 18 Herman McCall, executive director defendants. 15 16 John Bursch on behalf of the Department. 11 14 - Case number 06-13548, Dwayne B. MR. BURSCH: 9 10 - MS. GRETTER: Elizabeth Gretter from Children's Rights for the plaintiff. 21 MR. RYAN: 22 MS. CRUMMY: Eileen Crummy, monitoring team. 23 MS. MURRAY: Pamela Murray with the monitoring 24 25 Kevin Ryan, monitoring team. team. THE COURT: Like old friends week. Case No. 06-CV-13548 I was 5 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 chatting with the monitors before we convened in here, and 2 Mr. Ryan reminded me it's been close to nine years that I've 3 had supervision of this case. 4 with everybody here. 5 It's been a pleasure working Mr. Lyon, I understand that you have some 6 remarks that you're going to make, and you have to leave 7 fairly soon. 8 speak before the parties speak. 9 10 And then I'm going to ask the monitors to MR. LYON: So go ahead. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Court. 11 In a minute, I want to introduce the new leader 12 of our Children's Services Agency, but first I want to 13 comment about the importance of the exit plan, as directer 14 of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. 15 As you know, improving our child welfare system 16 to better protect children and to meet the benchmarks was a 17 top priority for my predecessor, Maura Corrigan. 18 today to reiterate what an important priority this is for 19 me, and also is a top priority for my boss. 20 I'm here What our Children's Services Agency does is a 21 critically important part of the MDHHS mission; to provide 22 opportunities, services, and programs, to promote a healthy, 23 safe and stable environment for residents to be self 24 sufficient. 25 And I also want to thank those behind me from Case No. 06-CV-13548 6 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 the Department, who work in other Children's Services 2 Agencies as well as some of our partners, private agencies 3 who provide services, for joining us here today. 4 I am pleased that we can now better focus on the 5 most important benchmark for improving the safety and 6 wellbeing of children under the Implementation 7 Sustainability and Exit Plan, and I'm happy that the 8 Department can report our progress during the early months 9 of this new agreement. 10 In a little bit, Dr. Herman McCall will have the 11 opportunity to talk to the Court. It's my honor to 12 introduce him to the Court. 13 director of our Children's Agency. 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. LYON: 16 Dr. McCall also has 35 years of experience Dr. McCall is the executive The new Steve Yager? He replaced Steve Yager, yes. 17 helping children and families in Michigan, working both in 18 the public and private sectors. 19 new role, he headed the State's Juvenile Justice Program, 20 MDHHS, and has dedicated his career to standing up for 21 children who need a voice. 22 includes directing W.J. Maxey Boys Training School and 23 working for the former Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing. 24 In the private sector, he has held leadership and 25 executive-level posts overseeing a variety of child welfare, Immediately prior to his His previous state service Case No. 06-CV-13548 7 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 education, and community-based initiatives. 2 Dr. McCall has very impressive credentials. He 3 has a doctorate in education, a master's degree in 4 counseling, and a bachelor's degree in social work and 5 sociology. 6 issues related to youth, including When Successful 7 Alternative Students Disengage from Regular School, and he 8 co-authored Deep Brain Learning: 9 Challenging Youth. 10 11 He has also had several articles published on Pathways to Potential with He's also given presentations on topics such as Working with Children of Color. Needless to say, Steve Yager's retirement was 12 something that caused me stress as we looked for a 13 replacement, and I'm very fortunate, humbled, and lucky that 14 Dr. McCall agreed to replace him, and in a little bit, he'll 15 get to present to the Court, as well. 16 Thank you for the privilege of doing this. 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. RYAN: Mr. Ryan, Ms. Crummy. This is a monitoring report on the 19 matter of Dwayne B. v. Snyder. The report covers 20 performance by the Michigan Department of Health and Human 21 Services between January and June 2016, known as Period 10. 22 On February 2nd, 2016, counsel for the State of 23 Michigan and the Michigan Department of Health and Human 24 Services(DHHS), and counsel for the plaintiffs, Children's 25 Rights, concluded months of negotiations, and filed with the Case No. 06-CV-13548 8 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 Court a new agreement known as the Implementation 2 Sustainability and Exit Plan, called the ISEP for short, 3 that establishes performance standards for the improvement 4 of Michigan's Child Welfare System. 5 The ISEP focuses primarily on areas where the 6 State experiences challenges serving children in foster 7 care, and it xx includes areas such as worker training, 8 where the parties agreed Michigan demonstrated substantial 9 improvement since the onset of this case. The ISEP also 10 includes a number of new provisions that examine the 11 condition and the essence of the Child Welfare System's work 12 for children. 13 So, in short, the new agreement brings into 14 focus what have been the most difficult commitments for 15 Michigan to achieve, with a particular emphasis on 16 children's safety when they're in the state's custody, and 17 ushers in a broad examination of the quality of public 18 services and practices for these children. 19 The ISEP permits certain commitments to end on a 20 rolling basis before the Court terminates the overall 21 agreement, subject to the Court's approval, based on the 22 State's performance and the criteria specified in the 23 agreement. 24 25 There are now several important commitments that are eligible for exit from this agreement based on DHHS's Case No. 06-CV-13548 9 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 performance during ISEP Period 10. 2 achieved or exceeded the required performance for Caseload 3 Progression for New Employees in section 5.1; Permanency 4 indicator 2, for children who have been in foster care 5 between 12 and 23 months, Section 5.8; Permanency Indicator 6 3, for children who have been in foster care for 24 months 7 or more, Section 5.9; Permanency Indicator 4, tracking the 8 number of children who exit and then return to foster care, 9 Section 5.10; and Permanency Indicator 5, for children 10 11 Specifically, DHHS tracking their placement moves in section 5.11. These commitments are all eligible for rolling 12 permanent exit after a single period of compliance. 13 verified both systemwide data, and reviewed hundreds of 14 individual children's outcomes and placements to confirm the 15 state's performance, which, in each area, exceeded the 16 standard established in the ISEP. 17 recommend to the Court that these provisions permanently 18 exit the ISEP. 19 We Therefore, today, we Our findings confirm that, in general, 20 permanency has become a real strength of the Michigan Child 21 Welfare over the course of this case, and children who have 22 been in foster care for more than 12 months are much more 23 likely to leave Michigan's foster care system to a forever 24 family today than was true at the outset of this case. 25 The ISEP also captions provisions as To Be Case No. 06-CV-13548 10 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 Achieved and To Be Maintained, and allows provisions to move 2 from one category to another based upon performance. 3 on our monitoring of the State's performance, we also 4 recommend today to the Court that the Court order certain 5 provisions to move from To Be Achieved to To Be Maintained 6 based on DHHS's meeting the required performance standard 7 during ISEP Period 10. 8 Worker Qualifications and Training, Section 6.4; Treatment 9 Foster Homes, Section 6.11; CPS Investigations Commencement, Based These commitments are Licensing 10 Section 6.20; Caseload for POS Workers, Section 6.28; 11 Caseload for Licensing Workers, Section 6.29; Seclusion and 12 Isolation, 6.35; Education and Attendance, Section 6.37; and 13 Psychotropic Medication and Diagnosis, Section 6.53. 14 MS. CRUMMY: Your Honor, we encountered several 15 data issues that delayed the analysis and verification work 16 necessary to complete this report. 17 detailed in the report. 18 and make progress on these issues, many in consultation with 19 the monitoring team. Those issues are The Department continues to work on 20 The issues identified during the verification 21 process led DHHS and the monitoring team to develop a new 22 tool, the ISEP Metrics Plan, which is currently under way 23 and will set forth in detail the methods, descriptions of 24 the data, and descriptions of the calculations to be 25 supplied by DHHS to the monitoring team to assess Case No. 06-CV-13548 11 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 performance for many of the ISEP commitments. 2 append that plan to our next report. 3 We will In addition to the areas of strength we 4 described a moment ago, and detailed in our report, our 5 monitoring and verification work surfaced, for us, concerns 6 that DHHS at times has not accepted an allegation of 7 physical child abuse for investigation unless the allegation 8 affirmatively includes a specific reference to an observable 9 physical injury. 10 In some of the screening referrals we reviewed, 11 unless a physical injury was specifically alleged, DHHS did 12 not investigate the referral for child abuse and neglect, 13 even to assess whether such an injury resulted, and even if 14 the action hurt the child. 15 not investigating these cases was frequently written as "no 16 injury." 17 plan to monitor this area even more closely going forward, 18 by substantially growing the number of referrals to the 19 hotline that we review. The document justification for We include several examples in our report, and 20 As the Court is aware, published news reports in 21 the last month quoted former employees of DHHS alleging that 22 caseload data produced to the monitors by DHHS was 23 inaccurate because state officials assigned children's cases 24 to DHHS staff who were in fact on leave at the time. 25 are serious allegations. As the Court is aware, our Case No. 06-CV-13548 These 12 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 verification work includes an examination of data produced 2 by the Department as well as field interviews with staff and 3 supervisors across the state. 4 The Department has continued to make available 5 to us extensive data and information detailing the caseloads 6 for individual workers, as well as leave data for all 7 workers with any case assignments during any dates selected 8 for caseload analysis in the period under review. 9 Our field verification work has included 10 interviews with hundreds of individual social workers and 11 supervisors across the State of Michigan to confirm their 12 reported caseloads. 13 our caseload verification activities by interviewing 50 14 randomly selected staff in Wayne County. 15 verification work continues, and we are focusing, in 16 particular, on the counties identified in recent news 17 reports. 18 complete our review. Most recently, last month, we continued Our caseload We will report our findings to the Court after we 19 And finally, as Mr. Lyon said, we would like to 20 express, on behalf of the monitoring team, our appreciation 21 to Steve Yager for all the work that he did, certainly on 22 behalf of the kids of Michigan, but also with us. 23 finally, we look very much forward to working with 24 Dr. McCall as we move forward. 25 THE COURT: Thank you. Case No. 06-CV-13548 And 13 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 I would be happy to hear from Children's Rights, 2 and from the Department. 3 Ms. Bartosz. 4 MS. BARTOSZ: 5 afternoon. 6 Thank you, Your Honor, and good It's nice to be here in Detroit today. Your Honor, I'd like to start out by recognizing 7 an accomplishment, and the monitors have identified that 8 already. 9 settlement agreement have been met, and that the agency is Today, we can say that certain provisions of the 10 prepared, with the Court's approval, to exit on certain 11 measures, and they are about permanency. 12 The Court will recall when we filed this case 13 back in 2006, there were some 7,000 children waiting to be 14 adopted in a queue, and it was taking too long, and these 15 kids were stuck in the system. 16 that that number of kids with a goal of adoption in the 17 system is down to 2,241. 18 monitor's report. 19 Today, we can proudly say That's the number that's in the Great strides have been made in more timely 20 getting kids back into stable family homes where they can 21 thrive and develop the way we want them to. 22 terrific, and I congratulate the agency for the efforts 23 we're putting to get there, I congratulate the private 24 provider community that worked hand in hand with the agency 25 to make that happen, and, of course, am very grateful to the Case No. 06-CV-13548 That's 14 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 monitors for the technical support and work they did hand in 2 hand with those players to make this happen. 3 happy event, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: So that's a It is a happy event, and everyone 5 involved should feel proud of what's been accomplished. 6 truly is amazing the reduction in children waiting for 7 permanent placement, particularly in the categories of 12 to 8 24 months, and beyond 24 months. 9 work to be done on the short-stay kids, but I know that work 10 I guess there's still some is being moved forward in that area, as well. 11 So congratulations to everybody who has worked 12 on that. 13 saying congratulations to her, too, because it was her 14 passion to move that in the right direction. 15 16 17 18 19 It And even though Maura is not here anymore, I'm MS. BARTOSZ: And Your Honor, let me add my praise to Mr. Yager, who worked very hard, and -THE COURT: And Mr. Yager, I should have -- I didn't mean to -MS. BARTOSZ: And I will say he worked very hard 20 and helped move this permanency accomplishment forward, as 21 well, so we're glad to be able to speak to that today. 22 23 But, Your Honor, there are real, live, serious challenges that lie ahead -- 24 THE COURT: Yes. 25 MS. BARTOSZ: -- if this state is to meet its Case No. 06-CV-13548 15 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 promise to keep children truly safe when they're taken into 2 state foster care custody. 3 So I'd like to address the issue of safety, 4 which is the primary thing we're trying to accomplish here. 5 Keep kids safe. 6 family homes that are unsafe, by all means let's keep them 7 safe in foster care. 8 9 If we're going to pull kids from their That is fundamental. And Your Honor, I won't address all the items in the monitoring report. I'd like to address three items, 10 now, that plaintiffs are really quite disturbed about, 11 concerned about, frustrated that we find ourselves in the 12 position we do today. 13 First is the issue of kinship placements. When 14 this suit was brought, there were thousands of kinship 15 homes, hundreds of kinship homes being utilized without 16 licensure, and the parties got together and agreed that that 17 should be attended to, that safety and supports are as 18 important in kinship homes as they are in other foster 19 homes, and an agreement was reached to implement a process 20 to get more and more of these kinship homes licensed, and to 21 ensure their safety. 22 And Your Honor will recall that, historically, 23 kinship homes have disproportionately contributed to the 24 numbers of substantiated cases of abuse or neglect in care. 25 This is an area that really deserves focus and urgent Case No. 06-CV-13548 16 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 attention. 2 And Your Honor, today we're here, the State 3 committed to ensure that at least 80 percent of kinship 4 providers, kinship homes with children in place either have 5 a live license, or have submitted an application for a 6 license timely, with a child in their home for less than 180 7 days, and, Your Honor, performance on that measure is at a 8 low 39 percent. 9 process, that's eye popping. 10 Your Honor, eight years into a reform That is a far cry from compliance. 11 Additionally, DHS committed in the ISEP, that 12 when a child is placed in a kinship home, certain safety 13 precaution safeguards would be taken right away. 14 would be an initial visit in the home, there would be 15 criminal background checks and CORI checks to make sure the 16 home did not have adult perpetrators residing in the home, 17 and within 30 days, the State committed to do a full home 18 study. 19 measures, or the data for this performance measure in the 20 monitoring period report shows only 44.7 percent compliance. 21 Very low, very concerning on essential safety. There Again, Your Honor, the data or the performance 22 And, Your Honor, it's not just a matter of 23 numbers. There are real dangers to children here, and the 24 monitors have reported on that. 25 looked at 50 sample cases to see what's going on here, and They looked at cases, they Case No. 06-CV-13548 17 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 found kinship homes that had criminal and child welfare 2 history checks that were incomplete, they found insufficient 3 numbers of beds for the children in the home, they found 4 unsecured firearms and ammunition in these homes, they found 5 carbon monoxide detectors that were not working, and 6 unresolved substance abuse issues with adults living in the 7 home. 8 9 This is not the way to treat children in Michigan, and this is not moving toward compliance with 10 these important kinship commitments. 11 about that. 12 We're very concerned Your Honor, next, on safety, I'd like to address 13 the issue, and Ms. Crummy, Monitor Crummy identified it: 14 Screening. 15 calls come in for the benefit, the safety of children, 16 report an allegation that a child may be in harm's way, and 17 here's the first place the State can interact with the 18 community and bring safety to the life of that child. 19 The Child Protective Services hotline where The State's committed to do screening and proper 20 investigations for all kids in foster care, and what we see 21 in this Period 10 report are serious, serious issues with 22 respect to the judgment and practices that are being applied 23 at the hotline. 24 numbers. 25 neighborhoods in the State of Michigan. And again, it's not simply a matter of These are real kids, and real homes, and real Case No. 06-CV-13548 18 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 These reports were not deemed adequate to get a 2 child safety investigation here in Michigan by the 3 Department, nine years into this reform: 4 A report was made that a foster parent kicked a 5 nine-year-old foster child in the genitals. 6 a Child Protective Services investigation. 7 in a state-provided foster care setting. 8 of a child that was whipped in foster care. 9 no investigation. That didn't get That child was There was a report Screened out, Similar reports that children in homes 10 with caretakers that frequently smoked marijuana right in 11 front of, right in the presence of the children. 12 out. 13 14 Your Honor, that's not safe practice. Screened We must address this issue with urgency. 15 Your Honor, there's a two-fold problem here. 16 This is danger, this is bad for individual kids that we 17 ought to care for, but, also, this means that when the State 18 reports aggregate data on safety, we can't trust it. 19 don't investigate, you can't substantiate, and the numbers 20 that are reported don't include these incidents. 21 are there? 22 what's found. 23 deep into this issue, and plaintiffs intend to make sure 24 that that occurs with the monitors' assistance and the 25 State's assistance. If you How many This was a mere sample of 50 cases, and this is Deeply disturbing. We need to get very, very We're sure that management wants to Case No. 06-CV-13548 19 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 take this up. 2 THE COURT: 3 MS. BARTOSZ: Your Honor, finally, and this is a 4 safety issue: 5 brought the suit, there was a system called SWSS, S-W-S-S. 6 It was old, it wasn't working, frankly, it was dilapidated. 7 No one liked SWSS. 8 Director Corrigan for this, the State committed to get rid 9 of SWSS and let's bring in a modern child welfare data 10 Data. I'm sure. management system. 11 The Court will recall that when we Eventually, and I applaud former That system is called MiSACWIS. The Court will recall it was supposed to go 12 online in 2013, the fall. 13 into the spring of 2014 to turn the light green. 14 occurred, and here we now are, three years down the trail, 15 and on numerous, basic outcomes that have to do with safety 16 for children, it is reported the state cannot deliver data. 17 There was a six-month extension That We understood that putting in a new computer 18 system was a big lift, and we've been very honest with the 19 Court that we've not been, early on, terribly frustrated 20 with management because we knew there was going to be 21 troubleshooting, and there would be bugs to debug, but three 22 years in, it's time to start asking, when is data going to 23 be there? 24 courtroom. 25 decisions to make? And it's not simply to drive this process in this How does management know, day to day, what You're driving a bus in the blind. Case No. 06-CV-13548 20 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 We are extremely concerned about this, and this 2 has been a movie we've seen too many times in this case, and 3 urgent action -- I keep using that word urgent, urgent 4 action is needed. 5 So those are a handful of areas, Judge, in this 6 report that really raise big, giant red flags that we want 7 to get on top of. 8 Your Honor, frankly, these -- 9 THE COURT: My understanding, actually, is you 10 have some comments on other areas, too, but I know Mr. Yager 11 was working very hard on the data issue, spent a tremendous 12 amount of time on that, particularly in the last year or 13 two, so I assume it's an issue that will be taken up either 14 by Mr. McCall, or by somebody who he designates to follow up 15 with the good work Mr. Yager was doing to try to move that 16 particular area of disappointment forward in a positive 17 direction. 18 MS. BARTOSZ: Well, we certainly look forward to 19 working with DHHS management and Director McCall. 20 today for the first time. 21 with my colleagues, to working with you, and to address this 22 data and the other issues. 23 THE COURT: 24 MS. BARTOSZ: 25 point: We met I very much look forward, along Right. And Judge, this brings me to this In plaintiffs' view, and based upon the terms of the Case No. 06-CV-13548 21 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 ISEP, we could trigger an alternative dispute resolution 2 process right now that might lead to motion practice. 3 Honor, plaintiffs will forebear on that for a time. 4 we are extremely agitated about these issues, there's new 5 management, and we feel it right to sit down with them, to 6 talk these things through to see what strategies they have 7 to get at this stuff to fix it, and we are set to meet with 8 the monitors and DHS in June, on the 21st, to begin those 9 discussions. Your Though 10 So we're committed to working this hand in hand, 11 working it collaboratively and get there, and we'll forebear 12 for a time, but we will need to see forward progress on 13 these critical matters, or the day will come where we have 14 to course correct, but our intention right now is to really 15 try to sit down and work through these issues and see how 16 solutions might be developed and implemented. 17 THE COURT: Well, that's great. We certainly 18 made a lot of progress with that kind of approach to the 19 problems over the last nine years, and hopefully it will 20 continue to be productive in these very serious areas, very 21 serious issues that I know the State wants to resolve as 22 much as you do. 23 Thank you, Ms. Bartosz. 24 MS. BARTOSZ: 25 THE COURT: I appreciate the Court's time. Mr. Bursch, are you going to speak, Case No. 06-CV-13548 22 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 or Dr. McCall? 2 3 MR. BURSCH: I will, but Dr. McCall is going to DR. McCALL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. first. 4 I 5 appreciate an opportunity have a few minutes to say a few 6 words. 7 First, I'd like to thank Director Lyon for his 8 vote of confidence and his kind words. 9 working with you, Your Honor, and Kevin Ryan, Eileen Crummy 10 and the team from Public Catalyst, as well as Sara Bartosz 11 and Elizabeth Gretter and the Children's Rights team. 12 believe it's fair to say we all share the same very 13 important goal, protecting the safety and wellbeing of 14 children in Michigan by continuing to improve the State's 15 child welfare system. 16 I look forward to I The leadership team and staff at the Children's 17 Services Agency has led Michigan to some great 18 accomplishments that have put us on a path of exiting 19 federal court oversight. 20 pledge to continue pushing for improvements that are 21 necessary not just to exit federal court oversight, but, 22 most importantly, to keep our children safe. 23 Passionate about the work, I I was fortunate enough to transition into this 24 position as Steve Yager was exiting, and I'm pleased to say 25 we both share the same high opinion of our leadership team Case No. 06-CV-13548 23 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 and staff. 2 a child welfare team in place, with great staff all around 3 the state who are doing what's in the best interests of 4 children so that they will remain physically and emotionally 5 safe. 6 private agencies, judges, court administrators, attorneys 7 and service providers. 8 9 10 We absolutely understand success is about having I am confident we have such a team that includes our I would be happy to answer any questions you have for me today, and please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if you have additional questions. 11 THE COURT: 12 DR. McCALL: 13 Thank you, Dr. McCall. Presenting for us today will be John Bursch, our attorney. Thanks again for your time. 14 THE COURT: 15 Mr. Bursch. 16 MR. BURSCH: 17 Bursch on behalf of the Department. 18 again. 19 Thank you. Good morning, Your Honor. John It is good to see you I'm pleased to report that there are many 20 wonderful things happening in the Child Welfare Agency as 21 reported in the ISEP Period 10 report and otherwise, and I'm 22 going to touch on some of those. 23 address the serious allegations made in the Lansing State 24 Journal article about alleged caseload manipulations. 25 Before I do, I do need to We have investigated those allegations, and Case No. 06-CV-13548 24 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 there is no evidence of caseloads being manipulated, and we 2 have provided substantial data, as well as our findings, to 3 the monitors, and they are going to vet those, but I think 4 it's important to publicly just walk through those 5 allegations and tell you what we have found. 6 In Marquette County, the allegation is that 7 while one of our workers was on medical leave, 12 cases 8 remained on her workload while she was off, but, in fact, 9 that staff person was only supposed to be on a short leave, 10 and the county director decided, rather than reassign them 11 for a short period, to assign a second worker to handle them 12 while she was out. 13 was extended, and the cases continued to be handled by the 14 secondary worker, and no new cases were assigned to that 15 person while they were on leave. Subsequently, unexpectedly, that leave 16 That allegation is false. 17 In Muskegon County, an allegation was made that 18 12 new cases were assigned to an employee who was out of the 19 office on leave on October 31, 2016, the same day that we 20 were reporting caseloads to the monitors. 21 because the cases were assigned to the worker because she 22 was returning to the office the very next day, and she did. 23 Now, she told the Lansing State Journal that the cases were 24 subsequently transferred back to another worker. 25 true, but it was a mistake that the supervisor quickly Case No. 06-CV-13548 Well, that's That's 25 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 corrected. 2 back in 2016, and no grievances were filed because nothing 3 wrong had happened. 4 All of this was reported to the UAW at the time In Barry County, there was a worker who made 5 three allegations. 6 in 2015 where drug screening wasn't done appropriately. 7 There was a father in that same case who said that he 8 couldn't reach anyone with the state for months. 9 also said that she inherited what she called a ghost load of 10 She said that she had inherited a case The worker cases that were not being worked. 11 Taking those in turn, it's true that there was 12 no hair follicle drug test that was performed on that child, 13 but there were other drug screenings that were done in place 14 of that test. 15 evidence that the children were in danger. 16 home, and they've been fine since that time. 17 The prosecutor stated that there was no other They've returned With respect to the father, our case records 18 reflect that there was ongoing contact with our workers and 19 him. 20 documentation. That allegation is completely refuted by our 21 As for the caseload, the ghost load, our manager 22 verified that all of these were, in fact, being worked on by 23 caseworkers. There were some issues in 2015 with caseload 24 assignments. For example, we had a supervisor who 25 inadvertently failed to reassign cases after a worker Case No. 06-CV-13548 26 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 departed. 2 fixed. But all of those were quickly reassigned and It was just a simple and quickly corrected mistake. 3 In St. Clair County, a former employee claimed 4 that supervisors were hiding cases about the time that 5 MiSACWIS came online. 6 August of 2016. 7 there was any practice of hiding or misassigning of cases, 8 and he's asked that all staff members bring concerns 9 immediately to his attention. She ended her state employment in Our St. Clair County director refutes that There's was one little thing 10 that was resolved the same day, but there's no systemic 11 issue there at all. 12 That same employee made allegations that these 13 same types of things were happening in Wayne County. 14 County has no evidence of that. 15 her supervisors in Wayne County. 16 supervisors, and they never received one of these 17 complaints. 18 Wayne She said she reported it to We've contacted all the As far as they can tell, it never happened. In Ingham County, a former worker who left her 19 job in 2015 said that supervisors were assigning cases to 20 workers who were out of the office, and assigning to the 21 wrong people, things like that. 22 that she had raised with our supervisors three years ago, 23 and the county director investigated at that time and found 24 no evidence that any of this had happened, and he's 25 continued to follow up with his managers to make sure it Well, this is a concern Case No. 06-CV-13548 27 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 never does happen. 2 Finally, in Monroe County, a former employee 3 said that the supervisors would often shuffle cases around 4 near count days, assigning them to workers on medical leave, 5 licensed workers and adoption workers, and then reassigning 6 them back to the original workers, that this is a persistent 7 problem, and that she complained to supervisors and to the 8 UAW about the practice. 9 June 2015. She retired from the department in 10 And in Monroe, cases were only moved when a 11 worker was scheduled to be on leave for more than three 12 weeks, which is entirely appropriate. 13 that no caseload shifting has taken place there. 14 the allegation that this had been reported to numerous 15 people, there are no supervisors that recall a complaint 16 ever being raised, and the local UAW representative confirms 17 that she never received a complaint from this employee about 18 that practice. 19 The county confirmed Despite So the monitors are looking at the bigger data 20 set, which will look at employee leaves and case 21 assignments, and that will back up all this anecdotal 22 evidence, but so far, our investigation has uncovered no 23 evidence of caseload mismanagement, and I could not be more 24 clear about that. 25 THE COURT: Yeah, I had a conversation with Case No. 06-CV-13548 28 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 Public Catalyst, the monitors, before we came in here, and 2 we chatted about the Lansing State Journal story. 3 troubling. 4 made. 5 do plaintiff and the monitors, and my suggestion to the 6 monitors, because I had seen this list that you've kind of 7 gone through just now of, incident by incident, and what the 8 resolution was. 9 I think, over the next reporting period. It is I mean, it's troubling to have these allegations I know that the State takes them very seriously, as It just needs to be watched very carefully, I've asked the 10 monitors to step up their supervision a bit, and just keep 11 an eye on it and make sure that if such allegations are made 12 that they're followed up aggressively and quickly. 13 14 MR. BURSCH: from the list -- 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. BURSCH: 17 We completely agree, and as you saw You've done that. -- we've done that, and we did it at the time that allegations have ever been raised to us. 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. BURSCH: Okay. I'm satisfied. So with that, I do want to turn to 20 the ISEP report. 21 want to touch on -- child safety, caseloads, healthcare, 22 visitation and data/MiSACWIS system -- I do want to put this 23 report in a little bit of context. 24 25 Before I get into the five areas that I As you'll recall, the whole purpose of this agreement was to eliminate literally hundreds of provisions Case No. 06-CV-13548 29 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 under the previous consent decree that the Department has 2 already satisfied, so we could have a laser-like focus on 3 the things that still needed to be done. 4 while we continue to make progress under the new agreement, 5 I don't want the public or the Court to lose sight of the 6 tremendous work that has already happened. 7 So as a result, Second, this report covers Period 10 which 8 begins January 1, 2016, runs through June 30, 2016. As you 9 know, the parties didn't even submit the agreement to the 10 Court for your approval until February 2, 2016, a month into 11 that monitoring period. 12 training or measures designed to focus on these new things. 13 To the extent that we've accomplished stuff and had things 14 move out of the agreement, that was entirely because of 15 organic changes that had already taken place, and we'll see 16 future improvement in future monitoring periods. 17 So this period does not reflect any Third, because some of these measures of 18 performance are different, there's been a need to develop 19 new data protocols. 20 Sometimes this results in a lack of available performance 21 data, as I look in more specific detail. 22 of a systemic problem with MiSACWIS or data reporting, but 23 simply a transition, simply a transition. 24 monitors and the department have worked very closely on this 25 ISEP metrics plan that Ms. Crummy mentioned. We've heard from the monitors on this. Case No. 06-CV-13548 It's not because And then, the I think you'll 30 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 see many of those data issues working themselves out. 2 Despite all of those things, there's still 3 substantial progress. 4 policies have been maintained. 5 issues, all the To Be Maintained things have been 6 maintained. 7 decree entirely, and we've actually satisfied eight of the 8 To Be Achieved commitments, again, without any policies or 9 training reflecting what those commitments are, simply 10 You saw that all the structures and Other than a few data Several are even rolling out of the consent organic improvement. 11 Now, turning to my five areas. The first is 12 child safety, and as you know, one of the primary reasons we 13 had a consent decree in the first instance was because of 14 the number of children who were neglected or abused while in 15 Department custody. 16 perfect system, with more than 13,000 children in it, but 17 our safety performance has improved dramatically. We all know it's impossible to have a 18 The data that monitors are vetting right now 19 will show that instances of maltreatment in care dropped 20 from 152 in fiscal year 2013 to 111 in '14; 105 in '15; and 21 77 in '16, a decrease of 50 percent over three years, 22 bringing us within one tenth of one percent of the national 23 standard. 24 25 Same improvement with recurrence of maltreatment. We've reduced the number of kids who have Case No. 06-CV-13548 31 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 experienced recurrence of maltreatment by 169, from the 2 MSA-6 period to the Period 10 report, bringing us within 3 2,500th of a percent of the national standard. 4 Now, responding specifically to some of 5 Ms. Bartosz' comments, first, on kinship placements, we're 6 absolutely trying to make sure that all of those placements 7 are vetted and licensed. 8 to get licensing if they don't want to, but all of the 9 support that we apply to licensed families applies equally 10 to unlicensed families. 11 abandoned. Of course, we can't force anybody It's not that these kids are being 12 Some of the specific instances about 13 insufficient beds, unsecured firearms, and the like, and we 14 could go case by case and rebut each one of those 15 allegations, but the fact of the matter is we are keeping 16 kids safe, and I don't think this is a forum where we need 17 to have a trial on allegations where there's a lot of 18 background that the Court would need to understand. 19 Also, we want to reiterate, in response to the 20 monitors' comments, that it has not, and never has been, the 21 Department's policy to reject a complaint of abuse for lack 22 of physical injury. 23 monitors to ensure that our policy is comprehensively 24 implemented everywhere. 25 We'll be working very closely with the We completely agree on that. Ms. Bartosz talked about the screening and the Case No. 06-CV-13548 32 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 hotline review. 2 child had been whipped, and then the person who was taking 3 that report just threw it in the discard file, is offensive 4 to our workers. 5 extensive, immediate investigation when one of these 6 complaints come in. 7 close to the line. 8 to say we're just ignoring instances of physical abuse is 9 not accurate. 10 11 To say that someone got a report that a That is not what happens. There's And sure, there are cases that are We may not all agree on the outcome, but Data, I'm going to come back to with respect to MiSACWIS system at the end of this presentation. 12 Next, I would like to focus on caseloads. 13 During ISEP Period 10, we met two of the caseload 14 commitments To Be Achieved. 15 Be Maintained. 16 5 percent of the goal. 17 will not be vetted for several monitoring periods, I can 18 report that our compliance internal numbers show a 19 decreasing overall caseload compliance rate of 92 percent 20 and rising. 21 Both of those are moving to To In traditional categories, we were within And while our current performance So that's going excellent. Healthcare, in the MSA 6 report, we didn't even 22 have the ability to give you data on a systemwide basis. We 23 had to do a limited case review study, and based on that we 24 fell far below our own expectations. 25 happened since then which have dramatically changed the way But two things have Case No. 06-CV-13548 33 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 healthcare is delivered to these children. 2 established 34 permanent health liaison officers, you may 3 have heard of them referred to as HOO's, to promote and 4 facilitate improved health outcomes for children. 5 addition, we have this computer system now called Care 6 Connect 360, that connects directly into Medicaid so that 7 the department can track when appointments are happening. 8 So as a result of that, during Period 10, more than three 9 quarters of the children admitted into the system received 10 medical exams within 30 days of entry, 85 percent within 45 11 days, 70 percent had their initial dental examination within 12 90 days, and nearly 80 percent of all children in care had 13 timely well child visits, which is consistent with data 14 statewide for children of all households. 15 First, we In These are stellar numbers for the department, 16 and they're going to get better because the Care Connect 360 17 program has now been expanded to our private agencies, and 18 they make up half the caseloads, so you're going to see that 19 continue. 20 On visitation, due to some back and forth 21 between the monitors and the Department, we didn't have all 22 that data. 23 I can tell you that we've significantly improved in the area 24 of visitations. 25 the federal government verifying that we met the 95 percent That's going to be reported in the next cycle. In fact, we recently received a letter from Case No. 06-CV-13548 34 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 federal standard for caseworker children visits for the 2 fiscal period from October 1st, 2015 to September 1st, 3 2016. 4 improvement. That's never happened before. 5 Finally, the data. It's an incredible As we've discussed in the 6 past, the complexity of the MiSACWIS system is deeper than 7 even the software that Amazon.com uses, so it's difficult, 8 but it's continuing to mature, and workers are learning how 9 to use it. A few data points will demonstrate that. 10 When the system first went live in the spring of 11 2014, it had what the Department considered 186 important or 12 significant defects. 13 The average number of health desk tickets has dropped by 14 nearly a thousand every month compared to when we kicked 15 off. 16 an answer on a call to the help desk was 15 minutes. 17 it's 23 seconds. 18 Today, that number is down to two. When the system went live, the average time to receive Today, Now, I do want to let you know that our initial 19 contract to build the MiSACWIS system was with Unisys. That 20 contract term recently expired. 21 go through a competitive bidding process. 22 that process, the job of maintaining and further improving 23 MiSACWIS has been awarded to Xerox, which is the largest 24 provider of technology services to state and local 25 governments in the United States. Under state law, we had to As a result of There was a competitive Case No. 06-CV-13548 35 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 bid system. 2 highest on all the metrics, and they've successfully 3 maintained Maryland's SACWIS system since 2010. 4 great confidence that it's going to be even better. 5 Even when you excluded price, they scored the We have So again, this comment that here we are, three 6 years later, with inadequate data, it's not that the system 7 is not providing data. 8 working on with the monitors about how that data is 9 delivered so that we can provide everything that they need We've had some issues that we are 10 in a way that they can receive it, but it is not true to say 11 that MiSACWIS is not working and that we don't have data 12 available. 13 I'd like to conclude with some broader 14 accomplishments that are not necessarily reflected in the 15 ISEP commitments. 16 We've successfully implemented a MiTEAM Practice 17 Model, a very significant shift in the way that our folks do 18 business. It improves practice in key child welfare 19 outcomes. We've implemented a Foster Parent Bill of Rights 20 and the Foster Child Bill of Rights. 21 children and families. 22 which is extremely helpful with the software that allows 23 front-line supervisors and staff to track case requirements 24 and ensure children and families receive all of their 25 services timely. These help support We created a Book of Business tool We've introduced strategies to screen for, Case No. 06-CV-13548 36 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 assess and treat trauma that we did not previously have. 2 We've expanded Family Preservation and 3 Prevention services, including a family reunification 4 program now available in 73 counties, and a parent partner 5 program in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Genesee and Washtenaw 6 Counties. 7 pertaining to abuse, neglect or exploitation, resulting in 8 consistent statewide response so that we don't see any 9 variability in how reports of abuse are being handled. 10 We've centralized all of our intake procedures We've enrolled nearly 900 kids in our Michigan 11 Youth Opportunities Initiative. 12 capabilities, education, employment, housing, health, mental 13 health and transportation. 14 Scholarship program which has provided more than 15 $3.6 million to 2,000 children in foster care. 16 Helps them with financial We've had a Fostering Future We successfully completed the merger of the 17 Division of Mental Health Services to Children and Families 18 into the Department's Children Services Agency, enhancing 19 access to mental health services. 20 complying at a 99.9 percent rate with the psychotropic 21 medicine provision in the ISEP. 22 As a result, we're We were in substantial compliance with the 2016 23 federal government's Title 4E review which examines our 24 child and provider case records to determine our compliance 25 with federal requirements in all kinds of areas. Case No. 06-CV-13548 37 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 In the government's opinion, all cases in their 2 review were found to be in compliance in the areas of 3 licensing and safety. 4 That's the federal government. We now have an executive level data team to 5 promote the long-term continuous improvement in child 6 welfare by monitoring key performance indicators. 7 of that, we're working with the University of Michigan and 8 their School of Social Work Child and Adolescent Lab to 9 gather and analyze data so we can improve practice statewide 10 by identifying trends and predicting what's going to happen 11 in the future. 12 As part And, of course, we have our new executive 13 director, Dr. McCall, who is a lifetime advocate for 14 children. 15 Yager and that Maura Corrigan both began, and I think that 16 the Department is in great shape. 17 He's going to build on the work that Director Now, we do have these two outstanding legal 18 issues. 19 to hear anything on that? 20 We submitted the supplemental briefs. THE COURT: No, not really. Do you want I have your briefs. 21 I don't think I need argument. I'll try and get something 22 out to you within the next two to three weeks. 23 MR. BURSCH: Great. 24 One point that I'll emphasize, then, just in 25 response to their supplemental brief, and this has to do Case No. 06-CV-13548 38 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 with the requirement that parents who have their children 2 back on a trial reunification basis somehow still count 3 towards compliance with medical and dental records -- or I'm 4 sorry, visits and appointments and things like that. 5 so that we're crystal clear on this, the Department has no 6 legal authority over those parents and those kids once 7 they've been reunified. 8 the door and said, "Have you taken your child to the doctor 9 this year?" Just Literally, if a worker walked up to The person could say, "I have, but I don't have 10 any documentation for that, you'll have to take my word for 11 it," and we could do nothing about it. 12 they take the child to the doctor, but we have no ability to 13 enforce that. 14 We could insist that Only if we see abuse and neglect and we go 15 through the process of filing an entirely new CPS complaint 16 with the court and actually have their legal custody taken 17 away from the parents again, do we have that kind of 18 authority. 19 THE COURT: Isn't the issue kind of one step 20 back from that; that is, in a trial reunification, the 21 children who are in that program, where the reunification 22 isn't final, they haven't been discharged, aren't they still 23 members of a class? 24 25 MR. BURSCH: I don't believe that they are because I thought the class was defined as those who are Case No. 06-CV-13548 39 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 within the legal custody of the Department. 2 kids have been put back in their parents' custody, we still 3 have supervisory authority, our workers still go and visit 4 and make sure they're getting services, we work with the 5 parents, and if we see any evidence of neglect, we will 6 actually file a court action to take them back. 7 no legal authority anymore, and that's the key distinction. 8 We literally would have to file a new complaint and have a 9 court order them removed from the home in order for us to be 10 11 And once those But we have able to take them to the doctor. THE COURT: Well, if it's a trial reunification, 12 I mean, I guess I don't really know enough about it at this 13 point, but if it's not a permanent reunification, that is, 14 the child has not been discharged from the foster care 15 system, what triggers a change in making it a permanent 16 reunification? What's the status in that transition period? 17 MR. BURSCH: 18 want you to think about two balls. 19 jurisdiction ball, and then there's a supervision and 20 take-care-of-the-kids ball. 21 And that's a great question, and I There's a legal So when trial reunification takes place, the 22 legal jurisdiction ball moves from the Department back to 23 the parents. 24 remains with us to assist those parents and watch over the 25 kids to the extent possible. The supervisory and take-care-of-the-kids ball However, in order to get that Case No. 06-CV-13548 40 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 jurisdictional ball back, the one that allows us to take the 2 kids out of the home and physically take them to a doctor 3 appointment, or to force something to happen, we would have 4 to file an entirely new CPS complaint with the court and 5 have that jurisdictional ball brought back to the 6 Department. 7 So when it goes from transition to permanent, 8 that's when the supervision ball joins the legal 9 jurisdiction ball in the home of the parents and then we're 10 completely out of the picture, we're not going for visits 11 anymore. 12 THE COURT: Well, I'll take a close look at it 13 and get something out to you on both of these pending legal 14 issues within the next few weeks. 15 MR. BURSCH: Wonderful. 16 questions about any of these things? 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. BURSCH: 19 MS. BARTOSZ: Do you have any No, I think I'm pretty up to speed. Terrific. Thank you, very much. Your Honor, in our brief we've 20 cited to law and contract language from the State that 21 provides for continuing placement and custodial care to 22 children during the trial reunification period. 23 24 25 THE COURT: So you think the legal jurisdiction ball stays with the Department? MS. BARTOSZ: The statutes provide that during Case No. 06-CV-13548 41 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 the trial reunification period, the Court still has 2 jurisdiction over the child. 3 And as DHS itself states in the contracts with its private 4 providers who attend to many of these homes, "Trial 5 reunification is a court ordered placement where the child 6 is returned from out-of-home placement to the care of the 7 parent or guardian from whom he or she was removed. 8 child remains under court supervision during the trial 9 reunification period with MDHHS retaining placement care and 10 11 The case has not been closed. The custody." And the policy of this department requires that 12 case workers, this is a quote, "The case worker must 13 continue to monitor the family and visit the children after 14 they are returned home until -- 15 THE COURT: 16 MS. BARTOSZ: 17 THE COURT: 18 MS. BARTOSZ: 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. BURSCH: 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. BURSCH: 25 Yes. That they need to visit and monitor. Yes. The question is do they have enforcement power, legal enforcement power? 21 24 I think everyone agrees with that. Can I briefly respond to that? No. Obviously, I disagree with everything she just said. THE COURT: Really? Shocking. Case No. 06-CV-13548 No, actually, 42 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 you guys have been getting along remarkably well. 2 you for that. 3 I just have a couple of comments. I applaud Obviously, 4 there are still some challenging areas. 5 placements are a problem. 6 know the same problem, but aspects of the same problem since 7 the very beginning; the licensure and placement and 8 supervisory responsibility, home checks and home studies all 9 remain a challenge, and a serious challenge that affects 10 11 safety. The kinship It's been the same -- I don't I agree with that completely. The screening issue is a problem. There at 12 least is some claim that there's been a failure to 13 investigate complaints of problems with a some of the 14 children in the absence of observable physical injury. I'm 15 going to ask the monitors to look at a lot more cases. They 16 only looked at, I think, 50. 17 over the next period. 18 We need to look at a lot more One aspect or one issue that wasn't really 19 addressed directly but I think continues to be a challenge, 20 is that there are some areas in which performance standards 21 are still not agreed to. 22 mind are the continuity of education, the issue of an 23 education appropriate to a specific child's needs, and the 24 provision of services to children that is sometimes 25 shorthanded as QSR. The specific ones that I have in Those are three issues that I'm going Case No. 06-CV-13548 43 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 to ask the monitors to keep an eye on over the next 2 reporting period, as well. 3 We talked about the Lansing State Journal 4 allegations. 5 reporting others' allegations. 6 is taking an aggressive approach to that. 7 certainly stay on top of it, as well, and will bring to my 8 attention any serious problem that continues in that 9 caseload data area. 10 11 It wasn't their allegations, they were just I'm satisfied that the State The monitors will I've talked briefly about the motions and briefs. 12 The data system, still a problem with this 13 MiSACWIS. 14 but it's really been a lot more daunting than anyone 15 expected it to be to utilize it to its full capacity. 16 Definitely an improvement over the old system, I understand that there are data experts who 17 have been brought into the picture by both sides, that 18 they're working hard to move that problem to resolution, and 19 I know it's in everyone's joint interest to get that data 20 system working as efficiently as possible, and that everyone 21 is working to do that. 22 So I guess the one other thing that I still need 23 to do is approve the discharge of the specific ISEP areas 24 that are, that are met. 25 the report prepared by the monitors. I have a list from the summary of Is that a Case No. 06-CV-13548 44 Status Conference June 8, 2017 1 comprehensive list I can just read into the record? 2 MR. RYAN: 3 Did you prepare a stipulated order? 4 MR. BURSCH: 5 Yes, we submitted a stipulated order. 6 7 Yes it is, Your Honor. THE COURT: sign the order. Did you? Great. Then I'll just I don't have to read it into the record. 8 MR. BURSCH: 9 THE COURT: Perfect. And then there are other commitments 10 that are being moved from To Be Achieved to To Be 11 Maintained. Is that in the order, as well? 12 MR. BURSCH: 13 THE COURT: 14 15 It is. Then we're all set. I thank everyone for your hard work. I look forward to staying with you on this and 16 eventually, hopefully, resolving it to everyone's 17 satisfaction. 18 Thank you, very much. 19 (Proceedings concluded 3:05 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case No. 06-CV-13548 1 - - - 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 5 I, Suzanne Jacques, Official Court Reporter for the United 6 States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern 7 Division, hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct 8 transcript of the proceedings in the above-entitled cause on the 9 date set forth. 10 11 12 13 s/ Suzanne Jacques__ Suzanne Jacques, RPR, RMR, CRR, FCRR Official Court Reporter Eastern District of Michigan 14 15 - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case No. 06-CV-13548 June 23, 2017 Date