Recently, I received an email concerning support for the federal Parental Rights Amendment.

This is House Joint Resolution 42 in the US Congress, sponsored by Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan. The question concerned why support? the PRA since it does not have to do with divorce or child custody, which are traditional state matters under federal law.

In my response I stated: "Divorce and child custody are state matters once parents "invite" the state in during divorce proceedings. A federal parents rights amendment (PRA) would place a parents right to control "the best interest of the child" over the states'. Custody would be a civil right. It might also force states to recognize childrens' rights to have both of his parent's in their lives under the 14th Amendment.

Supreme Court ruling have already done so, (see Parental Rights and Due Process) yet the states continue to ignore SCOTUS rulings because of the massive federal funding to support child care enforcement. A PRA would force the federal judiciary into the family court business, entitling parents to jury trials, since a PRA would make parental rights a constitutional right.

In due course, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would be moot, as other "domestic-relations" hindrances to parents rights over the state "interest in the child."

At the very minimum, jury trials for civil rights matters at the federal level would become a routine matter, and place the burden of proof for "domestic violence" and "false allegations" to a higher federal level of "clear and convincing" evidence.

Certainly, throwing men and women in jail for not paying "child support" would come to an end, since criminal due process procedures would be forced upon the states by federal case law. You don't throw debtors in jail for bankruptcy, why child support?

You might even see states complying with the a Federal court decision in In re Barry, 42 F. 113 (1844) in which family courts become courts of common law and not just courts of equity in which either a plaintiff or respondent has the right to request a jury trial with criminal procedures in place certainly for "domestic violence" or "false allegations." The federal case In re Barry, 42 F. 113 (1844) was upheld by SCOTUS in Barry v. Mercein, 46 US 103 (1847) and In re Burrus, 136 US 586 (1890) making domestic relations cases under common law jurisdiction.

What do you think?

by Mark Godbey
March 21, 2009

Are we on the cusp of a revolution? Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan's 2nd District will be reintroducing his Parental Rights Amendment, this time with a different twist. It’s not just about protecting homeschoolers anymore, but all children and all parents.

After meeting with parental rights supports recently in Michigan, including advocates from the parentalrights.org group, and hearing from across the parents rights activists across the nation, Congressman Hoekstra will reintroduce the legislation soon. This time including parental rights for children in divorce, juvenile, and custody situations.

The introduction of the House Joint Resolution 97 (H.J. 97) in June 2008, included language directly aimed at deflecting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty signed by 193 member nations with the exception of the United States and Somalia, but for parental rights activists, it didn't go far enough.

For those familiar with UNCRC, the treaty has been pushed forward by the Obama Administration after laying on the backburners of the Senate for years, principally because of its odious nature. The UNCRC strips parents of their rights to parent their children, putting children on “equal” paring with children. There is now a push to get this treaty out of Senator Barbara Boxer's subcommittee, who approves taking away U.S. parents rights, and placing them in international hands.  The treaty remains a high priority item with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barak Obama who also support taking away U.S. parent's rights.

The treaty also ends U.S. sovereignty on parent’s rights.  Under terms of the treaty, the federal government would become more intrusive, and once a parent ask for government help to “help you raise your children” the government, under treaty terms, could take over for you.

The ratification of the UNCRC is dangerous. To quote from our friends at Parentalrighs.org: “This poses a serious threat both to parental rights and to U.S. sovereignty, as the UNCRC dictates not only that the federal government must intrude into the family sphere to an unprecedented degree, but also how the federal government is to monitor and govern the actions of our families. Parental rights would be replaced by “the best interests of the child” as defined, ultimately, by an international committee of 18 people in Switzerland.” This is Article 18 of the UNCRC.

So what’s wrong with that? Well, equality is one thing, but children are not our mental, physical or emotional equals in any way, and giving them equal status, rather than a protected status, strips parents of the primary role for which only they are best suited. It also puts children on par with other children. Would our courts would be jammed with children suing children? This is possible.

Next: Parents and Children’s Rights After Divorce