|
|
|
|
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/12/2008 1:06:44 PM | ""For those who are interested; the petition was signed by more than 4,300 people in thirty days.""
hmm geeze,, thats not much, i mean,, gosh, i have seen petitions to add a referendum to a ballot take less time to get 10 thousand registered voters signatures.
petitions effect change when they are signed by qualfiable registered voters. arbitrary type internet petitions usually dont hold much water because often you cant qualify who is signing them. and any nut job with a modem and a key board can sign it. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/12/2008 1:48:50 PM | | if the child doesnt have contact with the other parent doesnt autromically mean the parent who lives with th child is responsible for that to happen. In some cases we dont have choices, like in mine where my son has his grandfather and uncles very close and is very very hapy. If a child wants to find the other parent when of age then fine, but not all cases are as cold cut as a parent wont allow them to be in child life, theres issues in every case and all diff. not all the same as your own. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/12/2008 6:31:53 PM | ^^^^ This is absolutely true. Sometimes a parent bolts or has to be removed from parenting. Hats off to the responsible parent who picks up the pieces and does their best.
The petition is for the other cases.
The undersigned recognize that absent issues of abuse, neglect or abandonment, social and government policy must be structured in such a way as to promote and maximize the opportunity of all parents to contribute to the social, emotional, intellectual, physical, moral and spiritual development of their children
| |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:47:39 PM |
petitions effect change when they are signed by qualfiable registered voters. arbitrary type internet petitions usually dont hold much water because often you cant qualify who is signing them. and any nut job with a modem and a key board can sign it.
In the wake of the Virginia Tech Tragedy an online petition was started and resulted in significant mental health law changes in the Commonwealth of Virginia which were signed into law by Govenor Kain just last week.
The petition that you so dispise is an awareness tool as much as it is a call for change. You see, most people do not know anything about the family court systems and the flaws therein pertaining to awards of custody, visitation and support until they are in the middle of it. It costs literaly 10's of thousands of dollars and in some instances 100's of thousands of dollars to persue being able to be a parent in a childs life. Not many people have that kind of money. I know I do not. At one point I was paying over three thousand dollars a month in support obligations to my X. Strictly child support obligations (and no none of it was going in as arears payments) cause I believe support should be paid. How can a person pay support, provide medical and dental coverage, live and then have money to fight false alegations in court. You call me an inbred. Well that is your opinion and you have the right of freedom of speech to allow you to spew such garbage. This so called inbred loves his kids, all 10 of them. Thats right ten. I have raised them with love, good morals and much more. The unfortunate thing is, their mom went off the deep end at some point and has caused more detriment in our children's lives than I care to get into here. I have been arrested, locked up, released on self recog. bond, tried and found "not guilty" of criminal charges brought against me through her perjured allegations. I can hear it now........"you probably had a good lawyer." I did, myself. Me the retired from the U S Army construction worker. I have had a court send my five youngest children hundreds of miles away because I became injured and could not work for a while. Even though the state hands out money everyday to people who become injured and can't work. Because I did not have custody at the time CPS (no I did not sick them on her) decided they needed to be removed from her. I was offered assistance at first but then was told funding had been lost for the program. To them the cheapest thing to do was to send them to someone who they barely or in the little ones cases didn't even know. Now I am begining my fight to get them back. If you could only know what a person must go through to be in their children's lives when just one person does everything they can to destroy them. All it takes is that one minipulative person combined with the breakdown in the family court and social services systems. How would you feel if you were paying over $2,600 a month in direct support and found out your kids didn't have clean clothes or enough food. I know it costs a lot to raise kids but the rent for the big house we had was less than $600 a month. When the landlord finally got it back from my X he told me there was at least $10,000 in damages to the house and said it looked like animals wouldn't even have lived in it cause of the filth. The court issues protective orders, she ignores them, the court does nothing. The court issues visitation orders, she violates them, the court does nothing. She commits perjury under oath and is caught over and over again, the court does nothing. The kids don't go to school, the court locks up the kids. Ever had a kid in a gang? I have tried and tried and tried. I have had the cops called on me and called on me and called on me, sometimes when I have been nowhere near at all, hadn't made any calls, nothing ..... and I am still trying. You see if I give up I fail my kids. Then what kind of parent would I be. My older kids who are out on their own are close to me. They know what is going on. I still tell them, "She's your mom, she's the only mom you will ever have. Don't stop loving her, cause she's your mom."
So if you do not agree with what I have asked people to do, please do not do it. But please don't claim to be so smart about what goes on outside of your circle cause you just don't have a clue.
Respectfully,
Kenny | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 5:40:49 AM | im not sure where you get your numbers, but mine come from the united states census bereau. it says that half of all first marriages end in divorce within the first ten years and two thirds of second marriages end in divorce within the first ten years also. so your.............:
""You see, most people do not know anything about the family court systems and the flaws therein pertaining to awards of custody, visitation and support until they are in the middle of it.""
..........can't even come close to being true. unless, i doubt seriously you meant this, but unless the kids of the divorce have no knowledge of their parents custody battles over them and dont realize the drama of it all until they themselves, as adults, become embroiled in a custody dispute themselves .
as you so graciously offered, and what i suspected, this petition to you is nothing more than a personal vendetta. if you were of a clear mind you could see how that petition serves only to drive a further wedge into an already fractured system. it only shifts the tide to the other side, it doesnt solve any of the real issues.
""But please don't claim to be so smart about what goes on outside of your circle cause you just don't have a clue.""
seriously pal, your logic doesnt work. i havent been to iraq lately either, but i know whats going on. i dont have to have it "within my circle" to be aware of the assortment of horror stories that abound in family court. your novelette focused on "you" more than it did of your kids. oh and just for the record,, i have compassion for ppl with mental disabilities and emotional impairments. your side of the story is only your side, i do expect seriously that you have omitted much in an effort to shift the tide again.
funny,, hmm,, when mom gets ill, you attempt to take the kids. makes ya wonder how much good that did for her mental state. i do have to wonder just how much you gave a *amm to help her thru her crisis. if you had,, what message do you think that would have sent your kids about being a decent parent/father/human/ adult. how can a person (ncp) say they are all about their kids when they dont bother to find out how the person is doing who has physical custody of those kids. if the custodial parent isnt ok, how on earth do you expect the kids to be ok? | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 6:08:03 AM | Eh, Trish, I suspect you are being deliberately argumentative. Seems to me OP offered some details of his story to illustrate how things can get derailed.
I'm sure we have all heard stories where people have used their children in a war with their ex. Or where the cumbersome and adversarial nature of the court system has complicated situations more than it has helped. I hope we all have also heard stories where the two parents worked out a satisfactory arrangement without the needs of lawyers and courts.
Although the tide is gradually turning, and I for one think this is a good thing, many courts still presume female = custodial parent, and many courts still do little if the cp interferes with the ncp's access. In Ontario, although not at the point where shared custody is automatically considered, more agreements every year do use the model of shared parenting. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 7:02:09 AM | | margo, your suspicions are wrong. and the op isnt unique, we all have a story. what part each of us played in that scenario is whats important. not one sid opposing the other. while you say the tide is turning,, i will agree, but its not turning in favor of the children, its turning in favor of the fathers. i have said it before and ill repeat myself for those who missed it>> personally i would like to see a system that does not care about the rights of either parent and focuses soley upon the rights of the child. children have certain moral rights, but no one, not even the courts seem to take that into account. these children, who will grow up to adulthood one day are being treated like chattle instead of human beings. the op has a tale of woe,, SO WHAT! we all have one. and still i ask, did it ever occur to him to intervene on behalf of his ex wife to ensure as much as he can for her stability for the sake of his children? or did he just see an opportunity to take them from her when she was down? seems to me, based on all he has claimed and said, to be the latter and not the former. sorry if thats too blunt for ya, but i am just going by what he said. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 8:32:55 AM | No, you are not going by what I am saying. You are doing everything you can to argue with everyone who sees things differently than you do.
To clear the air; yes I attempted to help my X through whatever happened to make her become that which she became. As a matter of fact, I could have taken the children from her in the very begining but did not because I am not a vindictive person. As far as helping her through her as you put it, "illness", I did more and put up with more than most who have witnessed could imagine. This is not all about me. It is about the children. If it were about me I could do just like most parents (moms and dads) who find themselves in this type of situation and walked away from all of the physical and mental abuse. I could just move away, pay the least amount of child support I could get away with and not give one rats behind about what happens to her or to the children. That is not who I am. I have been a father for twenty three years. I have never claimed to be a perfect person or perfect father. There are no such people or parents. I did not elaborate nor will I on the devistaion inflicted upon my children because this is not the place to do so. I have, up to this date, not taken the children from her. Never said I did. I have, however been denied visitation, been unjustly charged, arrested and tried because of her actions, not mine. And Much Much More. You know what made her file perjured allegations against me? I went to the school where three of my daughters attended to have Thanksgiving lunch with them because I love them, I care deeply for them and I knew that I would not be allowed to see them any other way. She happened to show up at the school and found that I was there. The cops were called and to keep peace at my kid's school, I left, voluntarily. The cop became one of my witnesses at trial, as did school personnel. I got to eat with one daughter that day. How do you think the other three felt?
You need not answer to any of this because I and most likely everyone else reading this thread know that you will find something to argue about or to disagree with.
Respectfully,
Kenny | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:25:42 AM | As far as helping her through her as you put it, "illness", I did more and put up with more than most who have witnessed could imagine.
doubt that seriously. you say you could have taken the kids early on,, but because you are so not vindictive (again coughSUREIBELIEVEYOUcough), you didnt,, NO , sure you didnt, you wait until she has presented with some mental issues to then step in and suggest taking them, at least thats what you suggested you had done. heres a tip dude,, carry your custody/visitation papers with you. on the one hand you make her out to be a tyrant, but then you show up at the kids school and the cops get called. hmmm,, seems to me, theres a hell of a lot more to that story than you are letting on. there are three sides to every story, the left, the right and then the straight down the middle void of any personal agendas right in your face TRUTH OF THE MATTER!
again, off the topic, YOUR PETITION IS NOT SERVING THE GREATER GOOD, it only serves to bend the tide to the other side, not in favor of the children, but in favor of one parents "rights".
the question still on the table is, WHO IS GIVING A RATS A$$ DAMM ABOUT THE KIDS RIGHTS?
AND AGAIN, seriously,, i really dont care what issues you and your ex have had, what dramas have played out between the two of you or what wringers you have put eachother thru. seriously, i dont. in my opinion, anyone who does that to eachother should not be allowed near their own children until the get a huge grip and get over themselves. its all a lotta tit for tat bull$hit!
p.s.>> helping her thru her crisis doesnt include suggesting you take the kids off her hands till she feels better, or anything like that. ten kids together and you cant manage to keep a marriage alive?? im sorry, but something is clearly awry here and its not just your ex-wife. it takes the same two ppl to make a relationship work as it is the same two to kill it. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:29:30 AM | "You are doing everything you can to argue with everyone who sees things differently than you do."
i dont have to agree with you. no one has to. i can disagree without it becoming an argument. do you see this as an argument?? cuz i dont. i dont agree with you,, so what! do you expect everyone to agree with you? i guess in your opinion when one doesnt agree with you its then an argument. interesting concept. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/13/2008 3:16:52 PM | | hi, i have been divorced since 2002, our children are now 13 and 10 and Mark and I still have family days, celebrate kids birthdays together etc. My new addition is 17 months old and his dad is not interested but luckily Mark treats him the same has his older siblings. When i have been struggling as a parent Mark propped me up and when he was struggling I propped him up, so then the children don't need to worry about there parents. | |
|
| |
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 5:20:14 AM | careful there phoenix,, when i said things went well for me raisin mine, i was accused of being perfect .
sounds like you and mark have it together, kudos, but i expect that even if you two didnt have it together as much as you do, you would do whatever was necessary to provide a stable environment for your kiddies, including being able to put male adult models in thier life without the court's intervention. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 7:09:06 AM | The only answer is to stop arguing with the nay-sayers and trying to change the mind's of the radical femenists and merely take the argument that kid's need both parents to Washington and shake the tree from the top.
Men and Father's: We have been successful and continue to be successful in our movement to take back the sanctity of Fatherhood and to case the balance, which has far too long now favored women on an unreasonable basis, back to center.
The same femenists who argued in favor of leveling the playing field when it came time to leave the home and enter the workforce, the very same who argue in support of equal rights when it affects THEIR paychecks and THEIR taxes, are the very same ones who argue against a fair, just and equitable approach to the best interest of our kids.
They do this by arguing to leave the so-called "Family Law" system the way it is so that it continues to arbitrarily extract fathers from the lives of their children and panders to the mother, practically giving her a blue-print for stay-away orders, false accusations, etc.
I have seen fathers, and concerned mothers, overthrow legislation giving unmitigated move-away power to mom's; and I have also see father's force media to stop this backwards portrayal of dads to a more just and fair representation of dads as vital and good for their kids.
Arguing with the femenist only leads to pointless whining over the fact that Men and Fathers are taking back our rights to protect our children.
Uniting and forcing change in The Court and The Media - this is what we are doing as Men and Fathers and tomarrow promises a Golden Age of the return of the Sanctity of the Institution of Fatherhood nationwide. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 7:50:45 AM | that was all well and political dreamboat,, but why are you so fixated on fathers rights and havent given one comment to the rights of the children?
this is all i have been saying all along,, this should not be about the mothers rights, or the fathers, but rather about the children. do be very clear, that all too many mothers and fathers fall very far short of being "parents" and probably should not be the significant model for their children.
and lets do be fair : "taking back our rights to protect our children", thats about fathers and not the kids, and its not about protecting children. its about protecting " THE SANCTITIY OF FATHERHOOD" ( that is what you called it, right?). we can't lop everyone and every circumstance into the same seething pile, it doesnt work that way. it only serves to cause more gaps and holes in an already seriously fractured system. while this side and that side is fighting for this parents rights and that parents rights, the kids get caught in the shuffle and no one, including family law and court is actually doing whats in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. you want to shift the pendulum back the other way,, fine,, do so,, but remember,, you are also responsible for everyone and every child who gets lost in your effort to shift the tide in favor of one parent over the other. what purpose does that serve? how is that any more right than the shift now< ( in favor of mothers)?
ya know whats really funny about all this,, the making out of these women/custodial moms, to be monsters, to be persons bent on excluding men from their children for absolutely no other reason but a whim. sorry pal, but the logic doesnt pan out on that, there has to be some ownership in your part of your specific situation. she didnt just randomly decide one day that you are a louse and decide to toss you out and banish you from your children. that is the the stuff of a grimm fairy tale. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 8:42:48 AM | P-trishthedish on 4/14/2008 wrote:
"...that was all well and political dreamboat,, but why are you so fixated on fathers rights and havent given one comment to the rights of the children?...
P-trishthedish, in answer to your question, I am focused on father's rights because I am a single father of a child from a divorce and I am concerned about my rights. ALSO, I have discovered how FATHERS CAN MAKE CHANGE IN THE GOVERMENT to allow Fathers to remain actively involved in their children's lives, thus reducing and even eliminating the need for trumpt up child support rulings.
I have personally been involved in several actions to cause repeal of legislation which was detrimental to Men and Fathers while promoting the overindulgent, over-inflated sense of entitlement of mothers where custody is concerned.
Why wouldn't I focus on it? However you statement that I focus on the rights of fathers at the exclusion of the rights of children is in error and shortsighted.
If you have read any of my past posts, you would have seen that the majority of my data which I have successfully used but in legislative repeal as well as in my own case which I have won, is from THE CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL.
I encourge fathers who are winning their cases every day to always put "...the best interest of the child..." argument to good use (the feminists always do - and it works).
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 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).
I divide the philosophic, arm-chair activist jargon from the "rubber-meets-the-road" reality of how things work in the so-called "Family Law" system.
I will happily discuss how parents need to be good parents - but it needs to be a forgone understanding that fathers are as good for kids and in most intances even better for the kids than the mothers in divorce.
AND YET, mothers are routinely given the kids (even when it is clear to everyone AND the judge that this is not in the best interest of the kid).
1. Fathers are being subjected to gender bias and I will no sooner silence my outrage and that damage this does to our nations children as I would if the courts were routinely taking land from Jews, or Blacks or... Japanese. Fathers need to be treated justly in courts.
2. A nation whose children have been taught that mothers who rely on the system for their sustanance are more favorable than fathers who love them is bound for trouble and we are already seeing the result, The Columbine shooters = fatherless families, over 80% off ALL deathrowe inmates = fatherless families...
1984 by George Orwell:
'They can't get inside you,' she had said. But they could get inside you. 'What happens to you here is forever,' O'Brien had said. That was a true word. There were things, your own acts, from which you could never recover. Something was killed in your breast: burnt out, cauterized out. (III.6) Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me. There lie they, and here lie we Under the spreading chestnut tree. (III.6) But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother. (III.6)
| |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 8:47:29 AM | You rant and you rave, yet you offer nothing.
Children should get to be with their parents and not removed from either parent unless that parent is harmful. And one parent should not get to be the sole decision maker as to whether the other parent is harmful.
What do you think should happen when a mother is unfit but doesn't think so, and a father is willing and able to be the primary caregiver to the children? I think we would all feel quite a bit better about your ability to be objective if you could answer that question free of ranting. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 10:00:57 AM | ksr61 i think this all about your personal issues how ur relationship withy child mother went not everyones issues are the same.
you've said your piece let it lie and end the case. some fathers see their kids, others dont whether walk out and choose not to be found or just a xcrap parent etc.
you're not the one to decide every fam,ily is individual - let it go!!!!!!! | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 11:04:32 AM | Guy, you are the last person to be chattering about objectivity, not to mention ranting.....
I pray you put your children first,it is not often one comes across such an ego as yours...
I have followed your posts,and I really feel for your child, and your child's mother
You really have issues with women, and children, and have no tolerance for anybodies opinion but your own.
Look at what you have written on these posts ,and try and not be so very subjective | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 11:22:08 AM | ""I am concerned about my rights""
EXACTLY MY POINT, you are only concerned about whats right for you and what you are entitled to, NOT WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED TO OR WHATS RIGHT FOR THEM.
Why wouldn't I focus on it? However you statement that I focus on the rights of fathers at the exclusion of the rights of children is in error and shortsighted.
why wouldnt you?? easy answer,, cuz you actually put the rights and welfare of your children as the primary objective and leave what is right for you out of it. . as well, it is neither short sighted or arrogant to say that since you are fixated on your rights you are not taking into account that of the child and it is directly to the point. YOU ARE FIXATED ON WHAT IS RIGHT FOR YOU, you are not putting the rights of the children as your primary objective. if you were, you would be able to be more objective about this. as it is, you are treating your children as chattle as much as you types claim the custodial mothers are doing. you have stated that quite directly here that your rights are your concern, not your kids rights and welfare. you have not given as much of, if even a little bit of ferver about what is right and good for the child. again, you are on and on about your rights over that of the childrens mother, not at all willing to conceede both for the sake of the child.
what you types fail to understand is going back and forth to court over this is more detrimental to the child than your absence albeit temporary or not. what earthly good do you honestly think it does for them to see dad battling mom over them? further, you dont fight the fight for the betterment of the system or the greater good, you fight because you want to be RIGHT! and lets be fair, this whole thing to you is about what is right for you, or what you feel you are entitled to. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 11:23:49 AM | ""You rant and you rave, yet you offer nothing.""
who are you speaking of, rather to whom are you referring when you say "you" in that statement? just to clarify. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 2:16:10 PM | p-trishTHEdish writes:
<div class="quote"> EXACTLY MY POINT, you are only concerned about whats right for you and what you are entitled to, NOT WHAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED TO OR WHATS RIGHT FOR THEM.
You intentionally evade the facts as I have stated, and restated them.
The common thought held by most courts, child care experts, decent free-thinking individuals of a reasonable mind, and of course yours truly is that THE RIGHT OF A CHILD IS TO HAVE BOTH IT'S PARENTS IN IT'S LIFE.
I really fear the mind that must have that self-evident fact pointed out, nonetheless there it is.
Further, to illustrate, edify and support THE RIGHT OF THE CHILD, I have directed the readers to: The Children's Rights Council:
http://www.crckids.org/ CRC works to assure a child the frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with two parents and extended family the child would normally have during a marriage. We work to strengthen families through education, favoring family formation and family preservation. Unlike many other organizations with some of the same concerns, CRC is genderless; we are not a women's group nor a men's group. Rather, we advocate what we believe to be in the best interests of children including the Children's Bill of Rights.
And finally, I spoke my peace as regards my rights as a father.
It amazes me how some people of a particular political vantage point will insist to address the rights of all parties but those who are having them violated - almost as if there is an agenda at hand, wouldn't you agree?
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. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 2:25:58 PM | SPEAKING OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDREN to maintain a meaningful relationship with their biological fathers...
Men/Fathers: don't forget to site the following in your papers to gain sole custody:
1. The custodial parent frsutrates existing orders of the court by enforcing parental alienation (CONTEMPT OF COURT).
and
2. The Right of The Child to enjoy their constitutional right to a continued and meaningful relationship with both parents can only be assured by granting custody to the biological father...
http://www.childrensjustice.org/cases1.htm
The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent
Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.
________________________________________
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) | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 4/14/2008 2:46:17 PM | You intentionally evade the facts as I have stated, and restated them.
IM NOT EVADING ANTHING,, ,,, ALL YOU KEEP STATING IS WHAT YOUR RIGHTS ARE, NOT THE CHILDS.
GOOD GRIEF MAN, GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF.
""Father enjoys the right to associate with his children ""
THATS WHAT YOUR GOAL IS,, TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS. thats all you have said, REPEATEDLY! | |
|
| |
|
| Page 4 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
