Here is a selection of cites from various federal and state cases
on the fundmanental nature of parenting rights in the United States.
We hope that after you read these you will understand the purpose
of our quest in the protection of both children and parents!
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)
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)
Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within
protection of this amendment (first) which may not be interfered with
under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which
is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within
competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc,, 369 NE
2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 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).
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who
is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with
his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from
a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott,
98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978).
A parent's right to the preservation of this 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 loving, responsible,
reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983).
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 bases 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 LS Ct 1373, 1376,
(1975).
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).
There appears to be a wide gap between legislative intent and judicial
application for the Virginia Code 20-107.2 as amended states the following:
In awarding the custody of the child or children, the court may give
consideration to joint custody or to sole custody, but shall give
primary consideration to the welfare of the child or children, and,
as between the parents, there shall be no presumption or inference
of law in favor of either.
The State Bar Association, Family Law Section, addresses the bias
in the courts by saying it was just a coincidence. When we have judges
openly saying on record that "I don't award custody to fathers, children
need to be with there mothers" and "I believe that children under
the age of twelve need to be with their mothers and after twelve boys
need to be with their fathers and girls need to be with their mothers"
is not simply coincidence. Our children statewide are being raped
by the court system of their parents, their birthrights, their heritage,
and their civil rights.
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 pre-existing fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth
Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of
fundamental rights which 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 Constitution Amendment
IX in a long line of decisions, the supreme Court has recognized that
matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship
are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution.
Thus, that 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 undermining 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).
Defendant Judge Harris has deprived the Plaintiff Steinberg from
parental rights without due process or equal protection of the law
and ignoring the paramount issue of what is in the child's best interest.
Judge Harris by calculated, deliberate, intent has reduced the Plaintiff
father to the role of a second class parent without rights of a parent,
but with obligations of an indentured servant. In less than three
years the Defendants have taken the father from a caring, nurturing,
loving, full time parent and made him a visitor in the child's life
and say that this visitation now is a "privilege".
As presently stated in the Virginia Code 20-61, "A father has the
right at common law to maintain his children in his own home, and
he cannot be compelled against his will to do so elsewhere, unless
he has refused or failed to provide for them where he lives, and the
statutes providing for the punishment of a father (now spouse) for
the failure to support his children, were not intended to change the
common law, with respect to the duty of a father to maintain and support
his infant children, but merely to more effectually enforce the legal
duty." Butler v. Commonwealth, 132 Va. 609, 110 S.E. 868 (1922).
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).