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?

Senate to VOTE on PARENTAL RIGHTS (UN Treaty) this session

Michael Farris
US Constitutional Attorney
Thursday, May 07, 2009
www.ParentalRights.org

If you cannot see this video, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i3MUFatgW8

If this treaty is accepted as federal "law" under the supremacy clause of the Constitution it would be the Supreme law of the land.

It would affect and effect massive child custody and CPS law in every state in the union. It would be a revolution, but not for the best. It would grant equal rights to children, in essence, leveling the playing .. But do we really see children between the ages of 0-18 capable of making decisions "in their best interest" ??

Only the parents should be left with those decisions, and certainly not the state barring "clear and convincing" evidence of abuse and neglect.

Parents need to contact their representatives in Congress to support the House Joint Resolution 42 (H.J.R. 42) and urge them to sign on as a co-sponsor to this legislation.

LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Parental rights already being lost
State could take over decisions on health, schooling, abortion

---

Posted: April 28, 2009
8:54 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Supporters of a plan to amend the U.S. Constitution to include parental rights are warning moms and dads across the United States they already are losing their rights to make decisions regarding their children's health, education, welfare, finances, sex education, access to abortion and even leisure time.

"The erosion is upon us," said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a college and a church and now a dedicated leader in the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.

Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, "the Supreme Court declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"

However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found "the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights."

The problem, says Farris, is the growing reach of domestic and international government into decisions about health, education, discipline and other issues that for millennia have been made by parents. In one recent case in the South, the parents of a 13-year-old juvenile were refused access to his medical records because the doctor decided against including the parents in the discussion.

According to Farris, the parents could only be granted access to their son's medical records with their son's permission.

"The Supreme Court has so muddied the waters … the growing practice is to treat parenting as a government privilege," he said.

Read an in-depth profile on Michael Farris, the founder of multiple organizations and campaigns, including the current move to protect parental rights in the U.S. Constitution, here. 

In another case that outraged parents, a federal court ruled that parents do not even have the right to withdraw their children from public school teachings that violate their religious beliefs.

Farris says the solution is the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution the description of parental rights as fundamental.

"Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served," the draft states. "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

(Story continues below)

Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving "faster then we thought we would."

Some of the key leaders in the GOP have signed onto the campaign, citing parental rights as a top concern. Democrat support has been far less, but the group has seen a large number of signs that the grassroots are becoming alarmed, pushing county and state officials to action.

Both the GOP and Democrats will be paying more attention as the groundswell of support expands, he said.

The local alarm is being raised on a number of converging issues, including the Food and Drug Administration's new decision to allow 17-year-old juveniles to purchase abortion pills over the counter. Also among the concerns are a long list of challenges to parents who want to homeschool their own children and medical information disputes.

Critics also point to a developing propensity for U.S. judges in cite foreign law in deciding domestic cases, because of the fundamentally different foundations on which other nations base their laws.

WND reported just this week on a case involving German parents who wanted to protect their daughter from sexually explicit teachings in the local school and were fined for it.

Alliance Defense Fund attorney Roger Kiska said such cases must be fought around the world "to keep bad decisions overseas from being relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America."

One of the more significant threats to parental rights in the U.S. is the possible vote on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lawmakers have refused to ratify the measure for the 20 years it has existed because of worries over what it could do to the entire structure of U.S. law and practice.

For example, it would turn parents who spank their own children into criminals under international law.

Sen. Barbara Boxer

But now there is word that Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wants to impose a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the radical international plan.

The document specifically would create "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which critics say would usurp the role of parents in directing their children's religious training.

Another concern is a congressional report that reportedly analyzed the treaty's provisions and forecast that it would be considered in this session of Congress.

Additionally, a symposium has been scheduled to promote the treaty in June at the Georgetown University law school.

"The reports don't appear by magic," Farris noted. "They come because somebody in leadership has requested it."

The Parental Amendment website notes 30 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court announced the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition."

But just nine years ago the state of Washington allowed any person the ability to override a good parent's decision about visitation simple by claiming it would be "best" for child.

At the Supreme Court level there was only one justice to state clearly that parental rights should get the same high legal standard of protection as other fundamental rights. One justice, in fact, said parents have no constitutionally protected rights.

The website notes if approved, the treaty would supersede "the laws of all 50 states on children and parents."

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

• A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

• A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

• Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.

"The people are waking up," Farris said.

According to the website, "The goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law. … This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, 'In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.' Every member of Congress who agrees with the president on this principle should be in favor of this amendment.

"The need to protect parents' rights has struck a nerve with the American people. In an era where congressional leadership and the administration offer the federal government as the only solution to the challenges we face, Americans are starting to realize that no sphere of their lives is off-limits from government encroachment. Specifically, parents are recognizing the real possibility of being told by the government how to manage their parent-child relationship," the organization said in a statement.



http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96022

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