| Family courts routinely deny one fit parent - | | | | presumably free republic. Only if there are no fit |
| overwhelming the father- his parental right to raise his | | | | parents can the court invoke the 'best interest of the |
| child. They tyrannically allege a right to deny father's | | | | child' doctrine to assign custody. |
| fundamental rights since they do so for 'the best | | | | In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979), the |
| interest of the child'. | | | | Supreme Court declared the 'best interest of the child' |
| Such family court claims are tyrannical and directly | | | | resides in the fit parent - not in the state: "Our |
| conflict with constitutional rights and protections - as | | | | constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that |
| this article shows. | | | | a child is a "the mere creature of the State" and, on |
| Fundamental or 'Constitutional' rights are enumerated in | | | | the contrary, asserted that parents generally "have the |
| the Bill of Rights, the further Amendments, and rights | | | | right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and |
| raised to that level by Supreme Court Case law. | | | | prepare [their children] for additional obligations." |
| Supreme Court case law overrides all lower | | | | In the 1978 case of Quillon v Walcott, the Supreme |
| jurisdictional laws including family courts procedures. | | | | Court ruled: "If a state were to attempt to force the |
| The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from | | | | breakup of a natural family, over the objection of the |
| depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property (i.e. any | | | | parents and their children, without some showing of |
| fundamental right), without due process of law." Due | | | | unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was |
| Process Clause "guarantees more than [a] fair | | | | thought to be in the children's best interest," the Due |
| process."Washington v.Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 | | | | Process Clause would clearly be violated. |
| (1997). It includes a substantive component to the | | | | In 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled in |
| process that "provides heightened protection against | | | | Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 2000: "[S]o long as a parent |
| government interference with certain fundamental | | | | adequately cares for his or her children (i.e. is fit), there |
| rights and liberty interests." Id., at 720; see also Reno v. | | | | will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself |
| Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301302 (1993). | | | | into the private realm of the family to further question |
| The Supreme Court consistently upholds parental right | | | | the ability of that parent to make the best decisions |
| as a fundamental constitutional right. And that's the | | | | concerning the rearing of that parent's children." |
| right to determine what the best interest of the child | | | | Under divorce and paternity actions, the 'equal |
| shall be. | | | | protection clause' of the 14th Amendment, requires |
| The Supreme Court asserted that the 'liberty' | | | | that one fit parent must necessarily retain all of his |
| protected by the Due Process Clause includes the | | | | fundamental rights to the extent that the other does. |
| right of parents to "establish a home and bring up | | | | But two disputing parents can't both exercise a few |
| children" and "to control the education of their own." | | | | decisions - such as where a child goes to school |
| Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923). So | | | | simultaneously - but these are few. |
| parenting includes both legal and physical custody of | | | | Now the level of scrutiny required for a family court to |
| your children. | | | | infringe upon fundamental rights of either parent is |
| To deny a parental right requires constitutional due | | | | "strict scrutiny", which requires the court to show that |
| process that proves he's either unfit or a clear danger | | | | the infringement serves a "compelling state interest" |
| to his children - proven with 'clear and convincing' | | | | and that there is no constitutionally less offensive way |
| evidence. As such, Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 | | | | for the state to satisfy this compelling interest. |
| (1982) emphasized to restrict a fundamental right of a | | | | The constitutionally least offensive way - by far - is an |
| parent to any extent, requires a showing of clear and | | | | equal partition of time parenting their child. So, during |
| convincing evidence that serious harm will come to the | | | | one's parenting time, that parent can control all |
| child. | | | | decisions about the child which parenting implies, i.e. |
| Family courts ignore all constitutional due process | | | | education, religion, medical, etc, as well as the typical |
| when they daily deny a fit father his right to physical | | | | day to day decisions. |
| and legal custody of his child - a right that every other | | | | The family courts deny a father's fundamental rights in |
| fit parent has. | | | | order to extort money from him and support a billion |
| Family Court claims to determining 'best interests of | | | | dollar industry based on such denials. |
| children' over fit fathers' rights are illegal in a | | | | |