For the complete U.S. Constitution
Click Here
Lots of case law relevant for
parents and divorce
On this
page you will find the real
law, which family courts ignore
every day for their own convenience
and personal agenda. Know
your rights and fight for
them!! If you do not you have
no one to blame but yourself.
This requires much work and
study and attorneys will
generally not help you here
for fear of upsetting judges
but your children are worth
this effort as it is scientifically
proven that children do ENORMOUSLY
better in virtually all ways
when they have equal access
to both parents in a shared
parenting relationship.
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).
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).
<Verify citation>.
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. Reynold
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).
The 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).
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 or 426 US 390 <check
cite>; 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, 255-56,
(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, 1242-45; 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, 595-599; 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; 4340 US 268 <check
cite>, (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. 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).
From: petes
farms <petesfarms@...>
Date: Wed Jul 13, 2005 7:07
pm
Subject: An "On Topic" story
from Pete. petesfarms
Offline
Send Email Send Email
THE CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED
RIGHT TO BE A PARENT
www.connecticutDCFwatch.com http://www.dadsnow.org/legal/custcit2.pdf
http://www.winchildcustody.com/paternity/_disc107/0000043d.htm
http://www.wvve.org/issues/quotations.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/families/sprmcrt.htm
http://www.gigglesandfrog.com/CaseLaws.html
http://www.ncfc.net/ja-cite1.txt
http://www.extralove.com/flasupreme.html
http://www.ancpr.org/caselaw.htm
[URLs and
Hyperlinks added, and some
citations corrected by Mark
R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
http://www.billstclair.com/ferran
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).
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).
Parent's
rights have been recognized
as being "essential to the
orderly" pursuit of happiness
by free man." Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 U.S. 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, 255-56, (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, 1242-45; 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, 595-599; 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, ;
466 US 429, 104 S Ct 1879
(1984). 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, 440
US 268, 99 S Ct 1102 (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. 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).
I learned a lot a little too
late-Do not learn as I did,
take care & beware-FTG
The sun shineth upon the dunghill,
and is not corrupted. We fear
things in proportion to our
ignorance of them."
For the complete
U.S. Constitution
Click
Here
Supreme Court Case Challenging
Best Interest Doctrine
More Parental Rights Citations
|