 |
| This is the internationally recognized symbol for accessibility (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The fundamental right to parent without interference is protected by the U.S. Constitution and balanced by the judicially recognized power of the state to interfere to protect the well-being of its children. Factors used in both dependency court and family court proceedings to determine whether children need to become wards of the state and to determine which parent is the more competent custodian may be reasonable. Nonetheless, these rules have not been objectively or justly applied to parents with disabilities.
Toolkit
Disabled Parents Toolkit (PDF)
Report
Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities: Technical Assistance for State and Local Child Welfare Agencies and Courts underTitle II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) are issuing this technical assistance to assist state and local child welfare agencies and courts to ensure that the welfare of children and families is protected in a manner that also protects the civil rights of parents and prospective parents1 with disabilities. This guidance provides an overview of the issues and application of civil rights laws, answers to specific questions and implementation examples for child welfare agencies and courts, and resources to consult for additional information.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)2 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)3 protect parents and prospective parents with disabilities from unlawful discrimination in the administration of child welfare programs, activities, and services.4 At the same time, child welfare agencies and courts have the responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect. The goals of child welfare and disability non-discrimination are mutually attainable and complementary. For example, ensuring that parents and prospective parents with disabilities have equal access to parenting opportunities increases the opportunities for children to be placed in safe and caring homes.
Read more
U.S. Department of JusticeCivil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
Remain an Equal Parent to your Child
In 2002 the United States Senate rejected ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. [NOTE: Our email erroneously named the Convention on the Rights of the Child rather than the CRPD.] The vote of 61 to 38 in favor of the treaty was short of the required two-thirds margin (66 in favor) necessary to ratify a treaty according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research
P.S. - The roll call list is available online here.
Less than an hour before the vote, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama testified that his office has received more than 1,000 letters and emails in opposition to the treaty – and only 40 in favor. This shows an amazing outpouring from defenders of parental rights!
While we recognize that our success in Alabama is not indicative of the support level in every state, we would not have achieved this victorious outcome without the overwhelming support of concerned Americans just like you. Thank you so much for your calls, letters, and emails to oppose this ratification!
We also appreciate your patience with us as we have filled your inbox over the last two weeks during the height of this struggle. Now that the immediate danger has passed, we will continue to keep you updated on this and other dangers to parental rights through our weekly emails. You can also follow ongoing conversation or timely updates on our Facebook page or our website.
Finally, we are grateful to these brave senators who stood firm to protect parental rights and American self-government even in the face of a loud and emotional plea from those who favored the treaty.
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research
P.S. - The roll call list is available online here.
Senate Vote This Week - Please Call Immediately!
Yesterday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) announced that the Senate will vote to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) this week. We need you to call your two senators immediately, and urge them to oppose the CRPD.
U.S ratification of the CRPD would subject our domestic law to United Nations standards and oversight, threatening parental rights and American self-government.
Thirty-six Senators have signed a letter stating that they “respectfully request that no treaties be brought to the Senate floor for advice and consent during the lame-duck session of the 112th Congress.” These Senators have promised in the letter that they “will oppose efforts to consider a treaty during this time.” Senator Reid has purposefully ignored this letter by promising to file cloture (so the filibuster cannot be used) and will make every attempt to proceed to the CRPD for ratification this week.
We are behind in this battle. Thirty-six is not enough to stop a cloture vote – that takes forty – and these thirty-six have not pledged to vote “No” on the treaty. They have only pledged to oppose its coming to the floor. If CRPD comes to the floor anyway, we have no guarantee that we have the votes to stop it.
We need you to call both of your U.S. Senators right now and ask them to oppose the CRPD. You can click on your state on our States page to find your Senators’ contact information, or use the Capitol Switchboard at . (I apologize for the incorrect area code in yesterday’s email. This is the corrected number.)
Please give them some or all of this message:
“I urge you to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats and will threaten parental care of children with disabilities. Our nation already has laws to protect disabled Americans. This treaty is unnecessary and will hurt families. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it would be the first time ever that the U.S. has ratified a treaty that obligates us to recognize economic, social, and cultural entitlements as rights under domestic law. The Senate should be more focused on avoiding the fiscal cliff than on ramming through a dangerous treaty that has not yet received the full study and legal review that it requires.”
Then, please forward this email to your friends and family and urge them to call, as well. Please also post this information on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc.) to help get the word out to every parent and freedom loving person in America.
For more information on the dangers of this treaty please visit our CRPD page.
Thank you for standing with us for freedom.
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research
P.S. – Our petition to oppose this ratification contained 10,195 names as of this morning. That’s more than 10,000 persons with disabilities or family members of persons with disabilities who oppose this treaty that is being rammed through in their name. We will deliver this information to the Senate this afternoon and hope they listen. Your immediate calls will help them hear us.
Parental Rights Amend. House Cosponsors
Includes HJRes110 lead sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks.
Latest added Oct. 25, 2012.
|
Parental Rights Amendment Senate Cosponsors
|
Senators Opposing Treaty Ratification Vote
Senators who indicate they will oppose cloture.
Latest addition Sept. 21, 2012.
|
Share This Online
   |
Support Our Efforts
 |
Join the Discussion
 |
The Struggles and Hopes of a Disabled Dad | All Pro Dad
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace. |
There is one general thing you need to understand and then one specific article you pay attention to. The one general thing is this: Americans should make the law for America. We do not need the UN to tell us to make Article 27 the law--it is already the law in the US and if it needs clarification, American lawmakers should pass American laws to do so.
ReplyDeleteArticle 7 is the one with the biggest concern for families. It takes away the ability of parents to make the decisions for their own children as a presumptive right until proven neglectful or abusive. Instead, it enacts the best interest of the child standard which is recognized terms of art which means that the government decides what it thinks is best for the child.
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Show Me The Law
ReplyDeleteby Panda Bear
If a legal team comes back and says no, nay, never, then ask them to show you the law.
Let that be your mantra -
Let them get out the statute, code, whatever from the state, and show you what the law is. Then you can check it out against the Constitution.
Remember:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489"
"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them. Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966)."
"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce
it. 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177"
"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison"
"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution." Reid v Covert 354 US l (1957)
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it... No one is bound to obey an
unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256
"When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all." -Justice William O. Douglas
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
ReplyDeleteRedress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS