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,
state has 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).
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).
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).
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,
have a fundamental constitutionally
protected interest in continuity of
legal bond with their children. Matter
of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma
(1980). <Verify citation>.
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).
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. Reynold v. Baby
Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill
2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598,
435 US 963, IL, (1977).
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
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).
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
United States Supreme Court noted
that a parent's right to "the
companionship, care, custody and management
of his or her children" is an
interest "far more precious"
than any property right. May v. Anderson,
345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840,843,(1952).
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.
Court stressed, "the parent-child
relationship is an important interest
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
rights have been recognized as being
"essential to the orderly pursuit
of happiness by free man." Meyer
v. Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390 <check
cite>; 43 S Ct 625, (1923)
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, 255-56, (1978).
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).
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,
1242-45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985)
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).
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, 595-599; US
Ct App (1983).
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).
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.
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
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; 4340 US 268 <check cite>,
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).
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
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).
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).
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).
rights of parents to parent-child
relationships are recognized and upheld.
Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593,
(1956); Brennan v.Brennan, 454 A 2d
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)