The rights that children have to free and equal association with both fit parents...

...that should not be invaded by the State or infringed upon by another parent.

NO...STILL DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM? 

THINK THIS IS NOT TRUE?

WATCH THIS VIDEO ABOUT HOW FATHERS IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FAMILY COURT, IN FLORIDA,  HAVE TO "UNJUSTIFIABLY" PROVE "PARENTAL FITNESS"

The CEO of The Fatherhood Taskforce speaking before the Florida Supreme Court Committee on the Future of Florida's Courts.

How Divorced Parents and Children Lose Their Rights

Emery makes many good suggestions in his article called............ “How Divorced Parents Lost Their Rights” and has a good grasp on the process from a psychology perspective. We are, of course constitutional scholars and would like to offer a perspective that hopefully integrates and supports most but not all of what Emery says.

For instance Emery suggests that courts do not involve themselves with parenting disagreements between married parents because judges would make things a mess. They would of course  but that is NOT the legal reason that they stay out of it. The legal reason is that people have the right to make decisions free from government interference. These rights are called privacy rights. Parents have privacy rights to make decisions for their children and the State may not interfere unless the state can show a clear and present danger to the child from these decisions.

Why do family law courts treat married and divorced parents differently? Many people do not realize that parental rights do not depend on marriage and in fact cannot depend on marital status in any way. A hundred years ago this wasn’t so and our family law codes have not caught up with this concept. Up until the early 1970s some states still had bastardy laws on their books that tied the rights of parents and children to the marital status of the child’s parents. In a series of landmark decisions, the US Supreme Court stated very clearly that states may not create second-class parents or second-class children based on nothing more than the marital status of the child’s parents.

Family law has not caught up to this idea because of religious and cultural preconditioning. In other words our society builds into us a series of biases and prejudices against single and divorced parents that is so deep most people don’t even realize it is driving their behavior. Most people believe that it is completely legitimate to invade the privacy of single/divorced parents even where they believe that the privacy of married parents must be preserved. Constitutionally, this is a completely bankrupt idea. Unfortunately, judges, attorneys, and mental health professionals are almost universally so caught up in these biases they refuse to acknowledge their professional training and simply default to bigoted behaviors without even realizing that is what they are doing. (It’s easy to fall into following statistics to guide decisions. Individuals can choose to follow these as their guide. It is not how the law should be deciding individual rights.)

- See more at: http://www.fixfamilycourts.com/how-divorced-parents-and-children-lose-their-rights/#sthash.LeijUpEd.dpuf

Are you sick, tired, broke and frustrated with the difficulty of trying to get the courts to admit you have equal rights...
Posted by Protecting Parent Child Bonds 28th Amendment on Saturday, June 27, 2015

When this Amendment is passed parents will not have to reference countless Supreme Court opinions, they will only have to say I have 28th Amendment rights to be a parent and no Divorce Court can ever deprive me of those rights so long as I am a fit parent.This book is intended to be a tool for citizen activists who want change to the system but who may struggle with all of the technical arguments. Now all you have to do to support change is hand this book to your politician of choice and say, “I want this, make it happen.””

Post by parentalrights.org.

“The Termination of Parental Rights is the ‘Death Sentence’ of the Family Courts,” ~ Illinois Supreme Court

Parental Rights to Return to Supreme Court?

-- July 1, 2015

It’s a dilemma faced by too many already: What do you do when a social worker and a deputy stand at your door and tell you, “Let us in to look around, or we will remove your child(ren)?” According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the ultimatum does not constitute coercion. If you let them in your house, you have done so willingly and waived your Fourth Amendment rights in the process.

The Supreme Court of Illinois, which in the 1970’s declared that “the termination of parental rights is the ‘death sentence’ of the family courts,” might strongly disagree. So do our allies at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which is why they are appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reviews hundreds of cases every year for appeal and only selects to hear a few of those, so there is no guarantee that Loudermilk v. Arpaio will be heard. HSLDA, however, filed a petition for writ of certiorari last week seeking the Court’s attention.

“The Loudermilk case is key because the Supreme Court has never ruled that state social services employees cannot use a threat to remove children to coerce entry,” HSLDA said in a statement. But such a threat seems to be a standard technique used to separate scared and confused parents from their children without a warrant or imminent danger.

Background

Family Court child custody proceedings and family laws violate the rights of fit parents

Petitioning United States Supreme Court

Do child custody proceedings and family laws violate the rights of fit parents, and whether children have reciprocal rights to the care and custody of their parents?

Michelle MacDonald has filed a petition "United States Supreme Court: Grant Writ of Cert filed November 4 to determine whether child custody proceedings and family laws violate the rights of fit parents, and whether children have reciprocal rights to the care and custody of their parents?" and need your help to get it off the ground.
Will you take 30 seconds to sign it right now? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/p/united-states-supreme-court-grant-writ-of-cert-filed-november-4-to-determine-whether-child-custody-proceedings-and-family-laws-violate-the-rights-of-fit-parents-and-whether-children-have-reciprocal-rights-to-the-care-and-custody-of-their-parents

Here's why it's important:

Child custody proceedings are daily affecting the lives and fundamental and constitutional rights of millions of parents, children and families. Each year, 5.7 million domestic orders are decided in state courts, dominated by divorce. Add cases reopened to modify support, custody, visitation, and we have an epidemic.

You can sign the petition by clicking here.

Thanks!

michelle macdonald

United States

5050Rights

United States Supreme Court: Grant Writ of Cert 

www.change.org

La Enmienda De Derechos De Los Padres.

Por que necesitamos la Enmienda Parentalrights.org - Protecting Children by Empowering Parents

Ochenta años atrás el Tribunal Supremo declaró que:

“el niño no es la mera criatura del Estado; los que lo crían y dirigen su destino tienen el derecho, asociado con el alto deber, de reconocerlo y preparar [al niño] para compromisos adicionales.”  ~ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Treinta años atrás la Corte siguió esta línea de razonamiento al pronunciar que el...

“rol primario de los padres en la educación de sus hijos está ahora establecido más allá de toda disputa como una perdurable tradición americana.” ~ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Sin embargo, en el año 2000, cuando el estado de Washington concedió a cualquier persona la capacidad de invalidar la decisión de un buen padre sobre visitas diciendo simplemente que sería “mejor” para los niños permitir que una tercera persona tenga derechos de visita, en la Corte Suprema: 

•Hubieron seis opiniones diferentes y ninguna alcanzó una mayoría de cinco votos.

•El juez Thomas fue el único de la Corte Suprema que indicó claramente que los derechos paternos reciben la misma alta norma jurídica de protección que otros derechos fundamentales.

•El juez Scalia sostuvo que los padres no tienen derechos de cualquier índole que estén protegidos por la Constitución. 

La Corte actual ha minado seriamente el apoyo para un alto concepto de los derechos paternos. Como consecuencia, numerosas cortes federales inferiores rechazan tratar los derechos paternos como merecedores de protección al nivel de cualquier derecho fundamental. 

Al mismo tiempo, los Estados Unidos están considerando adoptar la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño de las Naciones Unidas. El presidente Obama apoya este tratado. La Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton ha sido una de las principales defensoras de esta Convención durante veinte años. La senadora demócrata por California Barbara Boxer ha “prometido” que este tratado será ratificado durante este mandato en el Congreso. 

Si este tratado es ratificado:

•Las leyes concernientes a hijos y padres en todos los 50 estados serán reemplazadas por esta ley internacional en virtud de una disposición específica de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos que declara expresamente la supremacía de los tratados sobre las leyes estatales.

•Los buenos padres no tendrán el derecho de la presunción legal que actúan en el mejor interés de sus hijos.

PADRES Y ABUELOS POR LOS NIÑOS SEPARADOS DE SU FAMILIA

- ROSARIO, ARGENTINA

CUSTODIA PATERNA *Audio institucional de nuestra organización:¿Que pedimos a las autoridades?Nuestra lucha se centra el derecho de los niños a un vínculo sano con sus dos padres y toda su familia luego de un divorcio o separación.

- ¡NO MAS NIÑOS REHENES DEL DIVORCIO!

Real Proof of Corruption is Beyond Reasonable Doubt ~ Stare Decisis in Family Courts

Grassroots advocates, public interest attorneys, and legal scholars gathered in October 2011 at the University of Baltimore for the debut symposium of "The Matthew Fogg Symposia On The Vitality of Stare Decisis In America." Convening such a broad and in many ways diverse audience, requires the program series to be worthwhile academically, yet have populist appeal. Towards that end, the event website explains: "It is both scholarly and practical to examine the current vitality of stare decisis as a legal doctrine in America."