Safety of Children in Florida ~ Letter to Governor Rick Scott

Contact Florida Governor Rick Scott - 2016Letter to Governor Rick Scott, State of Florida – Safety of Children – Public Statements – The Voter’s Self Defense System – Vote Smart

By: Alcee Hastings, Sr. Patrick Murphy Lois Frankel Ted Deutch – Location: Washington, DC

Congressman Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) sent the following letter to Florida Governor Rick Scott after the recent deaths of five children previously involved with the Department of Children and Families (DCF). In each instance, the parents charged with the safekeeping of these children had histories of neglect or abuse, but were deemed suitable custodians of the children by DCF investigators. Joining Hastings as co-signers of the letter were Representatives Ted Deutch (FL-21), Lois Frankel (FL-22) and Patrick Murphy (FL-18).

The Honorable Rick Scott
Governor
Executive Office of Governor Rick Scott
400 S. Monroe St.
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Dear Governor Scott:

The past few weeks have been marred by the deaths of several young children who previously had contact with the Department of Children and Families (DCF). When looking at the function of child protective services and the responsibilities the state has when intervening in families, the foremost precept has always been safety. Unfortunately, the circumstances surrounding these deaths indicate that at some point, the safety of children lost its status as the prime operating principle of DCF in South Florida.

The facts of several of these cases as reported are disturbing. Not simply for the terrible manner in which these children died, but also for the fact that there were points where had investigators engaged in meaningful intervention, these children might be alive today. These tragic deaths are a signal that something beyond investigator judgment, assessments, forms, and follow through is wrong. We have been through this cycle of death, outrage, and reform before, and we are in the midst of this cycle again.

This cycle too easily devolves into foster care panic, where front-line social workers and investigators fearful of castigation needlessly remove children from their homes. Family preservation and child trauma are important considerations when determining the type of intervention the state will impose on a family. Certainly, there are many cases which warrant in- home services and supervision over removing children from their homes. These considerations should not fall by the wayside and be replaced with a removal fits all mentality. Conversely, this cycle must not lead to yet another form or assessment for child-welfare workers to fill out that ultimately leads to no real change or reflection.

State Senator Eleanor Sobel called for hearings and you have accepted former DCF Secretary Wilkins’ resignation. However, hearings may lead only to promises and overhauls that “work” until another scandal occurs. If Florida is to have a responsive, functional child-welfare system, the response to this string of deaths must lead to comprehensive reforms both with DCF and Florida’s treatment of children in general.

Governor Scott, we urge you to convene an independent panel to study child well-being within the state and make recommendations as to how we go about making Florida a state that truly nurtures and cares for its youngest. Florida must recognize and embrace prevention measures and become proactive.

Continue reading

Abuses of the Florida Family Courts

https://www.facebook.com/TheLoveAndIronProject/photos/a.256371791120035.62529.256359997787881/405790026178210/?type=1&permPage=1Let's Defend Our Families!

For Family Restoration and Protection We are Patriots who love our constitution and families We are Regular citizens. We are Patriots; we love  God, U.S.A and the U.S Constitution We are Not…Read More

Children's Rights Public Group Dedicated to the proposition that children are bes... 16,150 members www.facebook.com/groups/ChildrensRightsFlorida/

We are a coalition of ordinary Florida citizens from all walks of life very concerned with the safety and well-being of our children and families. We believe that we must unite to defend our families for their is great power in unity.

What’s causing the children’s death under the DCF and the separation of our families? One word summarizes it: GREED.

The same greed motivation is behind the forced separation of parents in family courts. If one of the parents has less than 50/50 time sharing, he/she is forced to pay child support, and for every dollar the states spend in child support, the federal government reimburses 66 cents back (so for every $1 the states spend, they receive $1.98 dollars back, a 98% ROI) plus millions in incentives to the states, as per Title IV-D of the social security.

1) If you or someone you know has been affected by DCF or Family courts, join CAPRA as one of the lead plaintiffs in an upcoming landmark federal class action lawsuit against all 50 States and the Federal Government, because you qualify as:

(1) a biological parent whose child custody was unconstitutionally removed without due process; and,
(2) you have been directly impacted by that during the last four years, i.e., within the statute of limitations. This class action is on behalf of *both* types of “family court” – for wrongful victims of divorce-and-similar-with-kids *and* for wrongful victims of child protection services – and includes suing on behalf of ANY parent affected by either “family court” type. It’s totally free to join, and the federal court relief being demanded includes the full restoration of our child custody rights under law, plus a nice share of the large amount in civil damages expected.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading

Revamp Laws That Damage Families

9b7e2-we2bthe2bpeople2b-2byour2bvoice2bin2bour2bgovernment

causes.com/campaigns/93161-stop-courts-denial-of-reasonable-parent-child-contact0a1fa-purple2bkeyboard2Let’s Join Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform!

The Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform!

Alienation is a crime - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44305-world4justice-lobby-forum-justice4children

Let us make the politicians and media aware of all the knowledge we have of Family Court and Child Protection

Family Court System Reform – Revamp Laws That Damage Families and Only Benefit Matrimonial Lawyers and Court “Experts” Families & Children are being devastated by family court system greed. Over 120,000 families per year are bankrupted by predatory matrimonial attorneys and the family court system through self serving laws and court rules. 05691-knowtheindustry2521

Adopt Uniform Parenting Time Guidelines
Repeal Inconsistent Rules and Presumptions – Ask the Family Court to adopt uniform rules requiring equal parenting timeff7d4-well2bbeing2bof2bchild Joint Legal Custody and Dealing with the Difficult Ex By their very nature, divorce and custody matters are generally contentious. causes.com/campaigns/44294-enact-uniform-parenting-time-guidelines-separated-parentsBut what if one of the parties is a particularly vengeful and bitter ‘ex.’ Equal Parents - 2015How does that change the nature of the game?

logo-2-20163

Stand Up For Zoraya
Bring awareness, celebrate, and support Father-Daughter Relationship Education

Celebrates the love fathers have for their daughters, inspiring them to embrace the important role they hold in their daughters’ lives and to provide the love, nurture, and emotional support that only they can give.Mother Teresa - Causes - 2015
Zoraya name - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/93161-stop-courts-denial-of-reasonable-parent-child-contact

The Cause “Stand Up For Zoraya” celebrates the love fathers have for their daughters, inspiring them to embrace the important role they hold in their daughters’ lives and to provide the love, nurture, and emotional support that only they can give.Stand Up For…

Get the News Media Attention on Family Law Reform

Children, Families and Society as a whole are being undermined by the effects Family Law Courts, Child ProtectionCauses - Raise your right hand and read aloud the following - 2015

Mandate 50/50 physical custody nationwide of all FIT Parents, in initial custody issues, make BOTH Parent equally responsible for raising a child. “There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families, which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood,” Obama said.

World4Justice – Lobby Forum- Justice4ChildrenCauses - World4Justice - Lobby Forum- Justice4Children - 2015.png FAMILY JUSTICE REFORMED: DEVELOPING A NEW PROCESS AND EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, THE MEDIA, AND THE POLITICIANS.
Fair4Families - 2015

The Right of a Parent to make decisions regarding upbringing, education and care of their child AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Advancing the cause of Parental Rights. Law to establish the Right of a Parent to make decisions regarding upbringing, education and care of their child AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. It does so all the while while protecting kids at risk, because it continues to…

STOP ABSOLUTE DISCRETION OF FAMILY COURT JUDGES
Demanding that Family Courts fulfill public’s right to fair, efficient justice with dignity, professionalism, courtesy.

“The greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.” —Chief Justice John Marshall Should any Man or Woman be above the law? For far too long, the judicial branch of government has operated above the very laws they seek to enforce on society. They sit in judgment of citizens with no check and balances. This is clearly not…

Bring awareness to Parental Alienation in Family CourtParental Alienation is Abuse - Causes 2015 Parental Alienation deprives children of their right to be loved by and showing love for both of their parents

Emotional Abuse Warning Signs - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44302-stand-up-for-zoraya

Exposing The Methods | Brainwashing Children Isolation. The act of isolating, or the state of being isolated, insulation, separation; loneliness. Manipulation. A method of changing an individual’s attitudes or allegiances through the use of drugs, torture or psychological techniques, any form of indoctrination, alluding to the literal erasing of what is in or on one’s mind. Brain Washing…Read More

Dysfunctional Family Courts 2 - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44302-stand-up-for-zoraya

Reform Family Law ~ Stop Hurting Parents and Children
World4Justice : Cyber Protest! Put Family Justice and Child Welfare Reform at the top of Politicians Agenda! 

Demand Family Court Reform Florida - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/93161-stop-courts-denial-of-reasonable-parent-child-contact

“The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right.” Support the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.

family court in focus - 2015

causes.com/causes/409526-children-s-rights

Add 28th Parental Rights Amendment to U.S. Constitution

28th Amendment - Causes 2015.png Dedicated to the proposition that children are best served by having unfettered EQUAL access to BOTH parents.

Alienated Parents - Call to Action - 2015

causes.com/campaigns/44303-get-the-news-media-attention-on-family-law-reform

Join us in stating that children are best protected by two equal fit parents whose rights are strongly protected.

The judge incorrectly calculated my wife’s income and now I am left paying child support even though she makes much more than me. What can I do?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Hatred. It has to be taught.

I’m not the best Father in the world, but I’m yours.

Google Community FR Pic5 - 2015

Now Available from Cumberland House Publishing

This blog will tell you about the growing family crisis throughout the Western world. It will concentrate on the increasingly dangerous divorce machinery being operated by Western governments, as described in my recent book,

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family   (Cumberland House, 2007).

I will continue publicizing these abuses in established, mainstream publications (see more than 80 published articles and studies on my internet site). But I also want to highlight here the increasingly totalitarian trajectory of the divorce regime, which I don’t think is being emphasized adequately by others.0e907-afla2bcauses2bto2bblog2b4-2b2015

What Frederick Douglass once observed of the slave power’s menacing expansion throughout the political system can now be seen in the cancerous spread of the divorce machinery: It is “advancing, poisoning, corrupting, and perverting the institutions of the country, growing more and more haughty, imperious, and exacting.

Radio Interviews on Taken Into Custody  ~~  Over the next few weeks I will be doing a series of radio interviews based on my book Taken Into Custody. These are arranged with help from a generous benefactor with the cooperation of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC). The firm helping with arrangements, Spence Media, report that “your topic really hit a cord” with producers, and they are eager to have me on. This indicates that we should be much more aggressive in pursuing media for our cause. The media and the public are sympathetic and anxious to hear our message.

10 Custody Myths and How to Counter Them

Any attorney who represents clients in custody matters will recognize at least SOME of the following unfounded clichés about domestic violence and custody.

Here are some resources that the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence provides for practitioners to use when representing victims of domestic violence.

MYTH 1:
Domestic violence is rare among custody litigants.

IN TRUTH : Studies show that 25-50% of disputed custody cases involve domestic violence.

Ref: S.L. Keilitz, National Center for State Courts, Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes: A Resource Handbook for Judges and Court Managers (1997); J.R. Johnston, High-Conflict Divorce , 4 Future of Children 165 (1994).

Continue reading

Mediation and Agreed Orders ~ Your Only Hope in a Child Custody Case

The injustices that are perpetrated in divorce courts in the U.S. and many other countries.

iINGUANZO V. ROSE - CAUSES 2015

So many divorces, yet no one seems to notice how unjust they are, especially to the men. Most men–including legislators and judges–believe it is their duty to protect the poor woman and children at the cost of the men being divorced.

Perhaps they do not realize they are ruining the lives of these men along with our society and usually the women and children they are purporting to protect. Bringing this information into public view can hopefully create the social will to change it. Everyone can see the problems in society. Few are able to correlate the root cause.

Let’s face it. The deck is stacked in favor of the mothers. There is no such thing as equal parenting or doing what is in the “best interest of the children.” This is a moneymaker for government, lawyers, social workers the list goes on and on, at the ultimate expense of children. The truth is, they are not “family court” trials, they are kangaroo courtspersonal attacks and unscrupulous methods are used lawyers against parents in family court. In family court, parents can get dozens, even hundreds, of “trials,” if we count, as he does, every time an innocent parent is hauled into court without having committed any legal infraction and issued with some “order” about how he must conduct his private life if he wants to stay out of jail.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Many parents are forced to appear in court on a regular basis, each time ordered to open their wallets to attorneys and pay other exorbitant “debts” they have done nothing to incur. Indeed, family court has so many ways to criminalize parents that they can just keep “trying” them until they are found guilty of something.

Do any of these numerous trials involve a jury? Is there ever a formal charge? Are parents ever declared innocent and left in peace? Or are these quickly improvised hearings, in which parents are barely permitted to speak before the judge takes away their children, confiscates their savings, seizes their homes, attaches their wages, and jails them without any semblance of what most Americans consider a fair trial or due process of law?

America’s family courts are ideologically driven kangaroo courts. These feminist tribunals are the shame of American justice. They are creating a police state that will only expand along with the federal funding that drives them until other media follow The Free Lance-Star and expose this appalling abuse of government power.

Closed Court precludes any balance analysis of proceedings and when Jack Straw as our one time Justice Minister attempted to ‘Open’ the Court, he was met by derision by the very Judges who should have been called to account. Camilla Cavendish, who won an award for her Family Law column in The Times, was one of the first Journalists to be invited into Family Court in Ipswich and it was clear to me that at that time the same safeguards put in place for sensitive criminal cases could apply to Civil Laws, i.e. Child A, Family XYZ or even a serial number Journalists could refer to a case when given out to news of Parliament. Judges either willingly or otherwise collude with Barristers and Solicitors in perpetuating this corruption where financial gain can be achieved by their Court, rarely do they benefit either party, least of all the children involved and due to the closed nature of these Courts there is no accountability (if you appeal is it likely one Judge will contradict another). Money is the fuel to injustice and closed courts hide this fact from public scrutiny!

Closed Court precludes any balance analysis of proceedings and when Jack Straw as our one time Justice Minister attempted to ‘Open’ the Court, he was met by derision by the very Judges who should have been called to account. Camilla Cavendish, who won an award for her Family Law column in The Times, was one of the first Journalists to be invited into Family Court in Ipswich and it was clear to me that at that time the same safeguards put in place for sensitive criminal cases could apply to Civil Laws, i.e. Child A, Family XYZ or even a serial number Journalists could refer to a case when given out to news of Parliament.
Judges either willingly or otherwise collude with Barristers and Solicitors in perpetuating this corruption where financial gain can be achieved by their Court, rarely do they benefit either party, least of all the children involved and due to the closed nature of these Courts there is no accountability (if you appeal is it likely one Judge will contradict another).
Money is the fuel to injustice and closed courts hide this fact from public scrutiny!

legallybrunettefl

What is Mediation and why does the Judge in my family court case want me to attend at least one time or even more than once?

Mediation is a process by which two people (and possibly their attorney’s) come together in a joint session with a Mediator. The parties usually start out together in the same room while opening remarks are made and then sometimes the parties move into separate rooms and finish the mediation in what is known as a caucus. The Mediator will act as a facilitator and go back and forth between the parties to try to reach a resolution. If a resolution is reached, then the agreement can be reduced to writing.

In family cases where there are minor children, the mediation is a wonderful opportunity to work out a weekly time sharing schedule, a vacation and holiday time sharing schedule, child support and every other issue…

View original post 511 more words

The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

Stop Family Court Civil Rights Violations - AFLA Blog2016Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.” K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990.

“Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights.” P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.” Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997)

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

 

The United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304. The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980).

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld.05691-knowtheindustry2521

Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).

One of the most precious rights possessed by parents is the right to raise their children free of government interference. That right, “more precious than mere property rights,” is a liberty interest, protected by the substantive and procedural Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Moreover, the fact that the custodians are grandparents rather than parents is legally insignificant, because families headed by extended family members are entitled to the same constitutional protections as those headed by parents, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (1977) Even relatives who are licensed as foster parents enjoy the same constitutional rights as other custodial relatives. Rivera v. Marcus, 696 F.2d 1016 (2d Cir. 1982).

Because of the magnitude of the liberty interests of parents and adult extended family members in the care and companionship of children, the Fourteenth Amendment protects these substantive due process liberty interests by prohibiting the government from depriving fit parents of custody of their children. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 824 (2d Cir. 1977); Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1991). In the United States Supreme Court’s view, the state registers “no gains toward its stated goals [of protecting children] when it separates a fit parent from the custody of his children.” Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652.

Grandparents are also entitled to procedural due process. “An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.’” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed.2d 865 (1950)).

The grandchildren have a Fourth Amendment right not to be seized by the government for child protective purposes unless it has probable cause to believe that the children have been neglected. Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1098, 120 S.Ct. 1832, 146 L.Ed.2d 776 (2000). Probable cause exists only if the officials have persuasive evidence of serious ongoing abuse and reason to fear imminent recurrence. Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1987).

Grandparents cannot be dismissed from the dependency case because the dependency case is the only legal way that the state can interfere with their custody. The state must prove that they are abusive or neglectful and that the children would be at risk of immediate serious harm if returned.

FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910

In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: ‘The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.’ Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.

The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through ‘bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh’; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child. Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)

Source: Constitutional Rights Parents ~~  American Family Rights :: The Voice of America’s Families©

florida-election-topic-20152

FamilyRights.us

Pro-family, Pro-justice, Pro-freedom, Parenting Information, Legal Self-Defense, Family Interest NewsFamily court needs to change - 2016

Fight Corrupted Family Courts and CPS

The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

No case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we now know that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.” K.H. Through Murphy v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1990.

“Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights.” P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)

“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental…

View original post 2,974 more words

Central Florida Judge Orders UCF To Release Study On ‘Gay Parents’

Click on the image above to read the full article.HRC: Florida judge orders university to turn over records from study used to ‘demonize’ gay parentswww.facebook.com/groups/ChildrensRightsFlorida/

HRC reports that a Central Florida judge has ordered the University of Central Florida to turn over records related to a 2012 study by Mark Regnerus about gay and lesbian parents.

Regnerus is an associate professor of sociologyat the University of Texas at Austin.  Bilerico Project journalist John Becker sued UCF for the documents.

Becker on Tuesday wrote that “Mark Regnerus’s dubious and discredited New Family Structures Study falsely claimed to show that children of same-sex couples do worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples.”

Stop Family Court Civil Rights Violations - AFLA Blog2016Here is the HRC news release and the court opinion:

Continue reading