Make Parenting a Constitutional Protected Right

The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

It is time for good parents, both mothers and fathers to unify to codify the rulings of state appellate and federal district courts and even U.S. Supreme Court rulings that affirm from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional rights to parent your children.

Consider a state constitutional amendment to codify parent's rights.

Here are some excerpts from case law.

• 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). .
• 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. Regenold 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).
• "Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody." 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 US 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^Q56, (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^Q45; 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^Q599; 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; 440 US 268, (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 THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
• In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: 'The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.' Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
• The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh'; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
• Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)

The Child Support Ponzi Scam

Your rights to parent your children free from government interference has taken a drastic step downwards on the disastrous fall toward Socialism. Lenin said, "Destroy the Family, destroy the country."

That is what our government has decided to finance. Family destruction. Yes, paid for with your tax dollars.

The most effective way devised yet by your government is the Child Support Ponzi Scheme.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from profit. The term "Ponzi scheme" is used primarily in the United States , while other English-speaking countries do not distinguish colloquially between this scheme and pyramid schemes.^[1]" from Wikipedia.

In this county, we began that Ponzi process around 1969 with the first no-fault divorce law passed. That was in California. Since that time, the welfare of children has become increasingly dependent upon the state, and in the 90s, under the Clinton Administration, states were dragged into the welfare racket by the federal government subsidization of "child support payments as welfare."

For many women on welfare in the 70s and 80s, proof of fatherhood gave them access to money, food stamps, etc. from "deadbeat" dads. These were those men who abandoned their responsibilities as fathers, since after all, the state was the "father of the child." But thing got drastically worse for "responsible dads."

To quote a friend of mine who put it spot on:

"Under the welfare reforms of the 1990's, state governments were drafted into the child support collection racket. The federal government began providing millions of dollars to state governments that met child support collection quotas. Because states are largely free to use this money to fund their budgets as they wish, child support collection became a very lucrative business. It came as no surprise that as states competed against each other for federal funds they began to impose outrageous child support orders against more and more men - thus increasing the pool of potential "deadbeats" from which they could demand money. Pulled into this Orwellian nightmare were millions of middle and upper class men who had never abandoned their children and had no history of abdicating parental responsibilities. The original intent of Title IV-D was now history, and no man was safe from the insatiable addiction of state bureaucrats to free federal monies.

Have you ever wondered why fathers lose custody of their children in more than 85% of all family court custody cases? Well now you know. The government, including family courts other parties in the divorce-for-profit industry, receives an avalanche of funding by systematically separating men from their children. The less time a man is given with his child, the more child support he is ordered to pay - and the more money that the government can forcibly collect from him." said Jake Morphonios in his blog on the Liberty Tree. http://www.nolanchart.com/author232.html

There is much more to the scam than this, and that is exactly what it is, a scam. Children taken from home where 85 percent of the time, the father, who was a good, loving father was reduced to a criminal, forced to pay child support, not so much to support his children, but to give incentive to the state to grab more money from the federal government to enforce child support laws that destroy families.

It is a type of Ponzi scheme. Eventually, the state will run out of children to steal, and the system will collapse when marriage becomes obsolete.

As a Native American, I know it was not until 1978, the state government stopped stealing Indian Children from reservations to give money to foster homes, and instead left them in Indian "domiciles" with the passage of that portion of U.S.C Title 25, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). But that did not apply to divorce cases, just custody. And that too, is a failure since Indian children are still be stolen. Including mine.

Now they are going after the rest of America's children. God help us all.


Technorati Favorites">

Parental Alienation is Real

by Mark Godbey
March 6, 2009

Why do some parents falsely accuse other of hurting their own children? And why is this abuse systemic in Family Court and Juvenile proceedings? As a fit parent, I know to call the police to investigate crimes against my child, but why do other only report these crimes to psychologists or Child Protective Services (CPS)?

Many reasons exists for a mom/dad to accuse the other parent of child abuse during divorce. Anger, hate, and rage over the divorce. And the most effective way to destroy a child's relationship with the other parent is to accuse the parent of a crime against the child or a crime against the parent.

In some municipalities, this initiates a long CPS investigation, in which the accused parent is stripped of his/her procedure due process rights, and the child is taken away, sometime for months or even years.

One of the more common causes of false allegations lie in a Borderline Personality Disorder (PD), or any other kind of PD in which therapy never corrects or alleviates. In many of these cases, the false accuser desperately attempts to alienate the child further, in what has been described as the Parental Alienation Syndrome, first proposed by Dr. Richard Gardner.

Parental Alienation is "is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." to quote Dr. Gardner.

In the vast majority of cases, the allegations are unfounded, and as a result, criminal charges are never brought against the alleged perpetrator. But even more disturbing is the lack of criminal charges against the parent who makes the false allegation.

Many times, these false accusers are placed on supervised visitation and they rage against the world since in their mind (only) what they believe is true. They ally themselves with family and friends and other groups of similarly disturbed mentalities, to attack the world.

Ofttimes, the attacker focuses against the psychiatric evaluator, or Child Protective Services, for not taking their side and protecting the child. A close examination of the psychiatric testing reveals some disturbing personality disorders about the false accuser that makes him (or more likely her) , a real danger to the child.

What can be done to protect parents and children? A parental rights amendment, of course. This would give both parents and the children the right to a jury trial. In cases of allegations of abuse, the children would be treated like "real" witnesses and protected by law enforcement from further contamination by the accuser. The accused would have the right to bring in expert forensic witness to validate the claims of child or disprove them, and the extent of indoctrination or brainwashing by the other parent.

Children's & Parental Rights in Family Court

by Mark Godbey
March 5, 2009

Over the past decades, parent's rights and children's rights in family and juvenile courts have been affirmed by many courts. But still parent's and children's rights are trampled on by the state in the areas of education, divorce, custody and religion.

It is time to codify the courts' rulings. We need a Parental Rights Amendment.

One case in particular, Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). comes to mind:

To quote, "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. The Supreme Court noted its "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

Yet, for most parents, Constitutional procedural protections have not been extended to parents, in fact, the have been legislated out of existence for more transient political purposes, for example, domestic violence. Domestic violence restraining order are not issued in criminal court since domestic violence is a matter before a criminal judge. When was the last time that a married couple was dragged before a "family court" judge for an incident of domestic violence? They are not. They go before a criminal judge, where Constitutional due process rights are upheld. Not in family court, however.

But if you are getting divorced, suddenly domestic violence becomes not a "real crime" but a tactic to keep children away from one parent or the other. In criminal court, you have the 6th amendment right of confrontation and physical evidence must be produced for a crime to have been committed. The evidence must be "clear and convincing" in most cases, and in some "beyond a reasonable doubt". In family court, this evidence standard is ignored.

"Clear and convincing evidence" is evidence that is not self-contradictory or vague and tends to prove the fact for whose proof it is tendered. It would normally involve not only an unequivocal allegation as the central fact but be accompanied by accurate peripheral detail which would allow the court to see that the evidence is consistent with the external factual matrix, of which the nature is known independently of the witness, " so says my friend Barbara C. Johnson of False Allegation.com.

The Santosky decision held that a "clear and convincing" proof standard is constitutionally required in parental termination proceedings.

Santosky, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 455 U.S. 745, 769-770 (1982). "Few forms of state action are both so severe and irreversible." Id. "The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land, any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law." Id.

"`The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State.'" Youmans v. Ramos, 429 Mass. 774, 777 n. 7 (1999), quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982).

To quote another case:

"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 [the First] amendment and Amendments 5, 9, and 14." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (l965).

So where does that leave us here in the United States of America? In the 50 state, Puerto Rico and other Territories? According to the many state laws enacted, almost nowhere. The states have gobbled federal dollars to enforce court-ordered "supervised visitation and court ordered child support payment, and there is no incentive for them to stop.

Stop to think about it. If the federal judiciary is saying that what the states legislatures and state courts are doing is wrong and illegal, then why does the federal legislature keep creating piggy bank legislation to do just what the federal judiciary says is un-Constitutional?

The answer is simple, we need state laws that mirror Constitutional law regarding civil rights, and due process rights that the US Supreme Court states that "we the people" have.

It is time for state parental rights amendments.

California Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1. The right of biological parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their biological parents is a fundamental right.

Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect, abandonment or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Family, not Socialism, is the Answer

By Mark Godbey
March 3, 2009

"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." said Vladimir Lenin. This is the philosophy of socialism and it has become the family philosophy of the American Left. From the very beginning of the socialist takeover of Russia, the ability to destroy a family has been a part of the communist doctrine and was exercised ruthlessly by the state.

Here is United States; it has become almost the same as socialist Russia. The rise of no-fault divorce since 1969 first in California has created the Obama-generation of children that see hopelessness in family since almost half of all children since 1969 have grown up in single parent homes. The single-parent home has become the single largest breeding ground for crime, depression and suicide.

The creation of the heinous family court systems, and foster care child care system subsidized by Social Security Code Title IV, has lead to a disastrous rise in crime from children, murder, unwanted babies, and depression and suicide among children and parents, mostly fathers.

What will it take to stop this slide in to the destruction of this country and the moral backbone of this country, the American Family?

We all can agree, parents do not own their children. We are, however, responsible for their growth and well being. For us, the parents of our children assume the "natural" responsibility that existed before law was created to rear children.

Before countries were created, religions organized, and “rights” were written down, parents have reared their children. Marriage between a man and woman existed before laws. Children were reared by their parents. They were taught by their parents. The village acted in concert with the parents, and each supported the other.

It remains to the most fundamental right that human beings have. It has Never been necessary to make it into a law. Good parents have always taken care of their children to the best of their ability. And at time, a small minority of parents fails. This is when the doctrine of “patria parens,” (the state is “father to the children”) takes effect. But far too often both in education, divorce, and in juvenile justice, the state has over reached its authority, and has taken children from good parents.

We have all heard the atrocities of bad parents, but most parents are good parents. And when confronted by the state most good parents loose custody of their children, during divorce, interventions by school authorities and child protective services, without every going through a jury trial.

Even here in America, you can be accused of a crime, never tried by a jury, and lose your children. Most are granted “visitation”, which is just another name for “termination” of parental rights.

This right existed before the creation of any man-made law. Yet over the centuries of this government, we have seen the actual destruction of this right by the many states of the United States and enforced and mandated by the forces of socialism.

That is why a parent’s rights amendment is necessary. Under the US Constitution, family and parents rights have been left to the state, yet in order to destroy the family, the states accepted money from the federal government for visitation centers, child support and supervised visitation.

This is a direct violation of the 10th Amendment. Federal government interference in family matters. Federal government interference in rights reserved for the state. Parental rights, marriage, juvenile courts, and education of our children is a state matter, a matter for “we the people.”

The long history of family values and parents rights has been layed out for us by the US Supreme Court in many decisions. Here are a few of the decisions have defined our rights for us.

• Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
• Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct
• 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
• Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
• Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980).
• Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
• Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98
• S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
• In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
• Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
• Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
• May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
• In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
• Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
• Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
• Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
• Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
• Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI,
• (1985).
• Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
• Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
• Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
• Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
• Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
• Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
• 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct
• App MN, (1972).
• Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
• In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
• Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956);
• Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982).
• Wise v. Bravo, 666 F. 2d 1328, (1981).

I would urge any reader to take a long look at supporting a parental rights amendment in your state. Family values, education, religion, and rearing of children, absent a criminal act against one parent or the other, or their children, deserves the protection of the state, and the protection of a trial by jury for any a parent is charged with for termination of parental rights.

It is time for the state of California to stop taking money from the federal government for the “destruction of the family,” as Lenin stated.

Parental Alienation: How Common Is It?

From time to time, I come across articles by professionals involved in family custody and juvenile court struggles over the issue of Parental Alienation.

Simply put, parental alienation is...."...is any behavior by a parent, a child's mother or father, whether conscious or unconscious, that could create alienation in the relationship between a child and the other parent. Parental alienation can be mild and temporary or extreme and ongoing. Most researchers believe that any alienation of a child against (the child's) other parent is harmful to the child and to the target parent. Extreme, obsessive, and ongoing parental alienation can cause terrible psychological damage to children extending well into adulthood. Parental Alienation focuses on the alienating parents behavior as opposed to the alienated parent's and alienated children's conditions." to quote my friend Chrissy.

This morning an article from the UK came across my TwitterFeed on TCOT in California that needed posting. It is important that we recognize that both men and women alienate children from the other parent. It is a gender-neutral illness, but women seem to be singled out since they statistically since are "awarded" custody 80% of the time, but both men and women alienate.

Here is the article:

http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm

A GUIDE TO THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
by
Stan Hayward FNF Research Officer

What is it?

The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the systematic denigration by one parent by the other with the intent of alienating the child against the other parent. The purpose of the alienation is usually to gain or retain custody without the involvement of the father. The alienation usually extends to the father's family and friends as well.

Dr. Richard Gardner in his book 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome' states (P.74) "Many of these children proudly state that their decision to reject their fathers is their own. They deny any contribution from their mothers. And the mothers often support this vehemently. In fact, the mothers will often state that they want the child to visit with the father and recognise the importance of such involvement, yet such a mother's every act indicates otherwise. Such children appreciate that, by stating the decision is their own, they assuage mothers guilt and protect her from criticism. Such professions of independent thinking are supported by the mother who will often praise these children for being the kind of people who have minds of their own and are forthright and brave enough to express overtly their opinions. Frequently, such mothers will exhort their children to tell them the truth regarding whether or not they really want to see their fathers. The child will usually appreciate that "the truth" is the profession that they hate the father and do not want to see him ever again. They thereby provide that answer - couched as "the truth" - which will protect them from their mother's anger if they were to state what they really wanted to do, which is to see their fathers. It is important for the reader to appreciate that after a period of programming the child may not know what is the truth any more and come to actually believe that the father deserves the vilification being directed against him. The end point of the brainwashing process has then been achieved.

Please use the link above to read the rest of the article.

Thanks,

Mark

California Parental Rights Amendment

To create a parental right to rear your children free of government interference and to enjoy that right unless removed by a jury upon a finding of abuse or neglect "beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/224467/16238298

Positions:

1. Parental rights existed before "positive law" and come from our Creator
2. Constitutional rights protected under the US Constitution have never included marriage, family and children. These rights are reserved to the people.
3. The 4th, 5th and 6th, 14th Amendments rights are routinely violated by the states. This amendment would codify these rights at the state level.
4. Family courts and other quasi-government agencies violate parent and children's right daily. It is time to stop it !!

It is almost next to impossible to have a federal Parental Rights Amendment passed to amend the US Constitution. For that to happen requires the US Congress to pass a proposed amendment to the states. The state governments would not pass it for one main reason:

It would cut into their budget windfall from the federal government. As long as the federal government subsidizes state interference in family matters, the state governments will continue their atrocities against the people of their state and the children of their state.

However, a state Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment would be extremely passable and almost unchallengeable from state governments and agencies if it were based on federal court decisions and the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution supporting children's and parents rights.

Proposed California Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1. The right of the parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their parents is a fundamental right.

Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Gay Marriage and Civil Unions Are Unconstitutional

By David R. Usher on (Sep 27, 07)

The legal assault on heterosexual marriage must be met with constitutional arguments…

Shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Court forced same-sex marriage on folks living Down East, I realized why defenders of marriage lost the case: they litigated morals and tradition in front of a secular court looking for an equal rights argument.

I quickly realized a principle that could have won the Goodridge case, and prevented subsequent losses in other states. The principle was first published in my February 2004 article “Why Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional”.

“[Heterosexual] marriage is the first, and the greatest guarantor of human equality in history. It is the only civil rights institution that eliminates all natural and culturally-imposed social, economic, physical, and gender disparities of men and women. It is heterosexual marriage which forms the whole cloth of the human race.”

Forty-five states have enacted constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, for good reasons beyond the most dangerous civil one: If any two women can marry each other, marriage will eventually become a feminist monopoly.

Feminists dearly want feminist marriage because it would feature at least six incomes: the earnings of two mothers, at least two sets of child support orders, and two sets of welfare entitlements. Feminists have invested tremendous resources litigating, whining, and screaming “discrimination” since the late 1980’s when they decided same-sex marriage was the best way to finally end all social attachments to men, ending poverty for single mothers, while making feminist marriage handsomely profitable.

Same-sex marriage has been official feminist doctrine since January 1988, when the N.O.W. Times highlighted a cryptic mandate issued by Sheila Cronin instructing normal women to pretend they are lesbian and to actively help realize the final goal:

“… The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be {identified} as a lesbian to be fully feminist. …” [emphasis added]

In the same-sex marriage battle, gays and lesbians are merely straw mannequins propped up in courtrooms for introduction of a scurrilous equal-rights argument. This sham is revealed in the Goodridge decision, which orders the state to marry any two humans who walk through the door regardless of their sexual proclivities.

Same-sex marriage and civil union equivalents would hyper-magnify disparities between the sexes and effectively segregate them into two classes of “haves” and “have nots” based on “marital preference”. Powerful economic motivators combined with racy sexual-liberation ideologies of radical feminism would propel women to take the final, pre-emptive step to fully control family, economic and health resources, politics, and law. It would also spell a secular end to religion as we know it.

Heterosexual marriage is weathering unrelenting legal assaults by multi-purpose feminist organizations who are misusing Violence Against Women (VAWA) and other federal program entitlement dollars to force same-sex marriage on America.

Seattle activists hope to weaken the legal tenet that marriage is synonymous with procreation by passing an inititiative requiring dissolution of any heterosexual marriage if a child has not been born within three years of marriage.

New York Mayor Bloomberg hopes to slyly make same-sex marriage legal by permitting anyone to arbitrarily change the sex listed on their birth certificate.

Despite not finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the New Jersey Supreme Court overstepped its authority ordering the legislature to create a civil simulation thereof The National Organization for Women promptly declared a qualified victory—insisting it will not settle for anything less than full same-sex marriage rights.

Phyllis Schlafly warns that President Bush must “un-sign” the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW]. Like the language of the ERA, equal-rights mandates in CEDAW could be applied to force same-sex marriage by international fiat.

Until same-sex marriage and civil unions are found unconstitutional, heterosexual marriage will slowly be whittled away by cities, legislatures and the courts. I am confident that my explication on heterosexual marriage, if fully developed by legal scholars, could be applied to stop same-sex marriage and civil unions, because it immediately proves that same-sex marriage and civil-union equivalents would commit grotesquely unequal wrongs in the name of equal rights.

One conservative legal scholar suggested that I am wrong in believing that same-sex marriage could be found unconstitutional. I disagree vigorously. Where establishment of same-sex marriage will unquestionably turn marriage into an institution that disenfranchises men in the family and society, pre-empting parental and economic rights simply because they cannot bear children from their own bodies, is to establish a separate and unequal form of government based on sex.

Men and women are unquestionably and tremendously different. The human species requires a strong civil and moral instrument guaranteed to automatically mitigate all differences that exist between the sexes, harnessing them collaboratively for pro-social purposes under God.

Feminism is the most dangerous indigenous cult in America. Its dual agenda of entitled liberation and predatory victimization continue to propel the growing divorce and illegitimacy crisises. Predatory feminism operates on the principles of repressive tolerance, espoused by Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse.

Evidence now proves that organized feminism has left more women and children in helplessness and poverty, living in dangerous streets, than any war in American history. America’s report card is found in UNICEF’s report “An Overview of Child Well-Being In Rich Countries”. Despite massive federal expenditures on the welfare-state nearing a half-trillion annually, the United States ranks number 20 out of 21 nations.

We must vigorously oppose any and all political candidates who support either civil unions or same-sex marriage, regardless of their positions on other issues. America cannot survive if we permit it to be run by entitled feminism.

We must not permit feminists to conveniently monopolize the institution of marriage after having gone to extraordinary lengths to destroy it. The answer to the majority of our socio-economic problems begins with protecting the civil institution of traditional marriage. Once this is accomplished we must reform federal and state policies that seriously weaken marriage via an acid combination of no-fault divorce laws and automated entitlements for illegitimacy and divorce.

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network

http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=A4102_0_1_0_M