Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules

Administrative Rules Division (ARD)

MOAHR-Rules@michigan.gov

AGENCY REPORT TO THE

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES (JCAR)

AGENCY INFORMATION:

Agency name:

Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential

Division/Bureau/Office:

Office of Early Childhood Education

Name of person completing this form:

Chanti Cole

Phone number of person completing this form:

313-820-7634

Email of person completing this form:

ColeC5@michigan.gov

Name of Department Regulatory Affairs Officer reviewing this form:

Melissa Horste

RULE SET INFORMATION:

MOAHR assigned rule set number:

2024-12 LP

Title of the proposed rule set:

Licensing Rules for Family and Group Child Care Homes

1. Purpose of the proposed rules and background:

These rules provide for the protection of children through the licensing of child care family and group homes. The

Child Care Licensing Bureau (CCL) anticipates introducing additional rules, amending, or eliminating existing rules to

address inconsistencies with current state statutes and federal regulations.

The rule set for child care family and group homes is complex due to federal and state requirements. Licensees and

applicants struggle with understanding the licensing requirements, which leads to difficulty in recruiting and retaining

staff, complying with the rules, and meeting the cost to comply with the rules. Changes to the rules will include or

address the lack of child care in the state, lack of staffing for child care, streamlining processes, and reorganizing

sections to improve the public’s understanding of the rules. CCL will also address changes required by the federal

Office of Child Care to comply with Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) requirements.

2. Summary of the proposed rules:

The proposed rules revise the structure of existing rules to properly group items by topic. In addition, the proposed

rules revise and add definitions to increase clarity, adds requirements for food allergy policies, provides flexibility for

school-age ratios, eliminates tuberculosis testing, provides allowances to incorporate Individual Family Service Plan

or Individualized Education Plans and 504 plans, and makes clarifications throughout.

3. List names of newspapers in which the notice of public hearing was published and publication

dates:

Grand Rapids Press, published 11/11/2025

Lansing State Journal, published 11/17/2025

Sault News, published 11/18/2025

4. Date of publication of the proposed rules and notice of public hearing in the Michigan Register:

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 2

12/1/2025

5. Date, time, and location of the public hearing:

12/5/2025 01:00 PM at Michigan Library and Historical Center, 1st Floor Forum, 702 W. Kalamazoo Street, Lansing,

MI 48915

6. Provide the link the agency used to post the regulatory impact statement and cost-benefit analysis

on its website:

https://ARS.apps.lara.state.mi.us/Transaction/RFRTransaction?TransactionID=1519

7. List of the name and title of agency representative(s) who attended the public hearing:

Courtney Adams, Director, Child Care Licensing Bureau, Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement,

and Potential.

Erika Bigelow, Division Director, Child Care Licensing Bureau, Michigan Department of Lifelong Education,

Advancement, and Potential.

Melissa Horste, Legislative Liaison and Regulatory Affairs Officer, Michigan Department of Lifelong Education,

Advancement, and Potential.

Chanti Cole, Executive Secretary, Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential.

Raquel Lovelace, Executive Secretary, Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential.

Tiffany Sheets, IT Liaison, Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential.

8. Persons submitting comments of support:

Johnnie Bennett

Jennifer Gaynier

Denise Yuncker

Dixie Pettis

Trisha Dart

Michelle Lindsay

9. Persons submitting comments of opposition:

Amanda Gonzales-Gravedoni

Kristina Shoens

Amy Diegel

Peggy Mashke

Jodi Clark

Trisha Dart

Anne Kuhnen

Anthony Bair

Michelle Lindsay

10. Persons submitting other comments:

Johnnie Bennett

Shelby Thorp

Deborah Dusseau

DeChelle Atkins

Jermaine Robinson

Erin Keener

Anthony Bair

11. Identify any changes made to the proposed rules based on comments received during the public

comment period:

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 3

Name &

Comments Made at Written Comments

Agency Rationale for Rule Rule Number &

Organization Public Hearing

Change & Description of

Change(s) Made

Citation

Changed

1

Anthony Bair,

Little Bucks &

Bobcats

R 400.1903 Licensee The department recognizes R 400.1903(1)(b)

requirements. (e) (b)

Removing the

the concern and reinserts the

requirement.

Daycare

Center, LLC

requirement to have a

replacement for the

licensee that is

CPR/First Aid certified

is another reduction in

child safety that all

childcare professionals'

market in their areas.

What is the benefit to

the child by eliminating

safety precautions?

DRM has serious

concerns about R

400.1903(h). It appears ADA implication. The

to discriminate against department deleted the

individuals who have

obtained treatment “for

an emotional, mental,

or substance use

2

Michelle

Lindsay,

Disability

Rights

The department recognizes R 400.1903(1)(j)

the concern and the potential in the current

ruleset which is

R 400.1903(1)(h)

in the draft rules

presented at the

public hearing

Michigan

subdivision.

disorder during the last

2 years,” by singling

out those individuals

and requiring “a written

statement verifying the

individual’s fitness to

care for or be

associated with

children.” No such

medical verification of

fitness is required for

an individual who has

experienced a medical

disorder (such as a

heart attack or back

injury). It stigmatizes

mental health needs,

and could discourage

individuals from

obtaining treatment that

allows them to maintain

their mental and

emotional well-being. ꢀ

This rule also

potentially requires

employers to violate

provisions of Title I of

the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

For example, for job

applicants, the ADA

prohibits medical

examinations or

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 4

inquiries as to whether

the job applicant is an

individual with a

disability. So, under the

ADA, an employer

would arguably be

prohibited from asking

whether the individual

had been treated for an

emotional, mental, or

substance abuse

disorder during the past

2 years. ꢀFor existing

employees, an

employer may only

make disability-

inquiries or require a

medical examination if

it is job-related and

consistent with

business necessity.

According to guidance

from the Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission, this

standard requires the

employer to have a

reasonable belief,

based on objective

evidence, that (1) an

employee’s ability to

perform the job will be

impaired by a medical

condition; or (2) the

employee will pose a

direct threat due to a

medical condition. But

the rule arguably

requires the employer

to initiate a disability-

related inquiry and then

potentially require a

medical examination

without any reasonable

belief based on

objective evidence that

the employee’s ability

to perform the job is

impaired or that the

employee will pose a

direct threat. Thus, the

rule appears to be

overbroad and may

require employers to

violate Title I of the

ADA.

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 5

3

Michelle

Lindsay,

Disability

Rights

R 400.1903(i) has

similar problems. DRM the concern. The department in the draft rules

supports the intention deleted the subdivision.

of the new rule, and

The department recognizes R 400.1903(1)(i)

presented at the

public hearing

Michigan

shares the desire to

protect the safety of

children in care.

However, any observed

behavior that raises

concerns about the

safety of children or the

fitness of staff must be

addressed, regardless

of the genesis of the

behavior. The draft rule

puts the burden of

accurately identifying

those behaviors, and

responding to ensure

safety, entirely on the

licensee.

4

5

6

Michelle

Lindsay,

Disability

Rights

Additionally, the word The department recognizes

“active” (above) should that the word "active" could 400.1901(1)(ss)

be removed. The word be confusing to providers as

R

is unnecessary and

implies that an

individualized

it does not correctly describe

an individualized education

program. The department

Michigan

education program or deleted the word "active" as a

individualized family qualifer of an individualized

service plan could be education program in R

“inactive.” A child either 400.1901(1)(ss).

has a plan, or they do

not; including the word

“inactive” is

unnecessary and

potentially confusing.

Anthony Bair,

Little Bucks &

Bobcats

Daycare

Center, LLC

R 400.1904a This

The department agrees with R 400.1920(3)

entire section related to the concern. The department

eliminating the child

had intended to streamline

care staff member age the ruleset by addressing the

of 18 and have

certification under training,

but we recognize that training

does not equate to

CPR/First Aid and

other training is not

something that

certification. The department

childcare professionals reinserts the requirement of

want. This lessons the newly hired child care staff

safety aspect of quality members to have a valid

childcare and could

certification in R 400.1920(3)

lead to potential risk for as is currently required and

children.

renumbers the subsequent

subrules.

Anthony Bair,

Little Bucks &

Bobcats

R400.1904b Removal The department agrees with R 400.1921(3) ꢀ

of this section is

another reduction in

the concern. The department R 400.1923(2)(n)

had intended to streamline

Daycare

Center, LLC

Safety for children and the ruleset by addressing the

is not wanted by certification under training,

childcare professionals. but we recognize that training

does not equate to

MCL 24.242 and 24.245

Agency Report to JCAR -Page 6

certification. The department

reinserts the requirement of

newly hired child care

assistants to have a valid

certification in R 400.1921(3)

as is currently required and

renumbers the subsequent

subrules. Additionally, the

department clarifies that the

new hire is not required to

receive training if they can

present a valid certification

pursuant to that subsection.

7

Michelle

Lindsay,

Disability

Rights

DRM supports the use The department recognizes R 400.1936(4) ꢀ

of “child with a

that the language has

R

disability,” as the

standard language

throughout the rule

evolved and that "children

with disability" is a more

modern and appropriate

400.1939(2)(h) ꢀ

R 400.1943(7)

Michigan

package. It is currently term. "with special needs"

used in only one place: was replaced with "with a

R 400.1901(ss). This

disability" throughout the

language is consistent ruleset.

with other federal and

state laws, rules, and

regulations. “Child(ren)

with a disability” should

replace “child(ren) with

special needs”

throughout. That

outdated language is

currently used in

several rules, including

R 400.1939(2)(h) (page

44) and R 400.1943(7)

(page 49).

12. Date report completed:

5/7/2026

MCL 24.242 and 24.245