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

The death of a child is indisputably one of the most incredibly horrible tragedies one can imagine. Whether by sudden accidental circumstance, or by a more lengthy cause as in illness, the loss of a child is undeniably painful to experience.Painful to the parents, parents to the family, and painful to anyone related to the child.

Never knowing the laughter of that child again or the tears, the joys and the accomplishments is a pain no parent should ever have to endure, and yet it happens. No one is to blame. It just happens. Imagine the same pain and the same sense of loss, with one exception-the parent is very much aware that the child is alive.

The effects of Parental Alienation Syndrome are very similar to the loss of a child due to accident or illness. For the parent who has been alienated from their child, the bereavement does not end. How do we know? Each alienated parent separately, and all of us collectively have lived with both the cause and the effect of Parental Alienation for countless years. Like a terminally fatal childhood disease, Parental Alienation rips the innocent child from your arms slowly.

You witness the suffering. You witness the effects. You can feel the impending doom is inevitable, but you are powerless to do anything about it. You try remedy after remedy hoping that one will finally rid your child of the "disease". You work like a person possessed in order to finance the efforts, and when the final blow comes, it is emotionally devastating. You question yourself. You blame yourself for the loss. You tell yourself you should have done more. The very sad part of the story, is it is not unique.

There are tens of millions of children and parents affected by PAS. We beg of those with the power to make people aware of this devastatingly horrible phenomena, to please do all they can to educate people on its effects, and to change the laws to protect the innocence of the children involved. Only then can we truly hope to keep children safe from the harmful side effects that are inherent with Parental Alienation itself. It's killing the spirit of family everywhere.

A Sober Thought

The Honorable Judge Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”

Federal entitlement programs are decimating the lives of children and trampling on the rights of fathers to the care and companionship of their kids. We must dismantle the Federal-State entitlement nexus that deprives men of their civil liberties. Here is what every man in America should know.

The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships

by Jake Morphonios (conservative libertarian) Wednesday, February 13, 2008 http://www.nolanchart.com/article2699.html Congress would feign admit its own dubious contribution to the suffering of America's children. Rather, these politicians promulgate the myth that they are helping children through federal and state welfare entitlement programs. It is, in fact, these very programs which are responsible for the out of control rampage against children.

Here is how the scam works. The federal government levies taxes against citizens to redistribute as welfare entitlements among needy applicants. Congress created the Social Security Act, a section of which is called Title IV. Title IV describes how tax dollars will be distributed among the States to subsidize their individual welfare programs. In order for States to tap into the federal treasure chest, containing billions of dollars, they must demonstrate that they are complying with Title IV mandates to collect child support revenues.

In other words, to get money from the federal government, each State must become a child support collection and reporting agency. Every unwed or single mother seeking welfare assistance must disclose on her application the identities of the fathers of her children and how much child support the fathers have been ordered by a family court to pay. She must also commit to continuously reporting the father's payments so that the State can count the money as "collected" to the federal government's Office of Child Support Enforcement. As with all bureaucracies, this process has developed into a monstrosity that chews up and spits out the very people it was designed to help.

1. States have huge financial incentives to increase the amount of child support it can report to the federal government as "collected".
2. To increase collection efforts, States engage in the immoral practice of dividing children from their fathers in family courts.
3. Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to mothers in 80%-90% of all custody cases, even when the father is determined to be just as suitable a parent?
4. It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent.
5. This means that the State "collects" less child support if parents share equal custody.
6. By prohibiting fathers from having equal custody and time with their children, the State's child support coffers are increased and federal dollars are received.

Opponents try to paint loving fathers as "deadbeat dads" for daring to challenge the mother-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of fathers is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support.

Any father that cares about his child will do everything in his power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father's loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect - even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the father is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration.

The truth is that most fathers don't care about the financial aspects of these family court verdicts nearly as much as they care about having their time with their children eliminated for nefarious government purposes. The root of this evil is a State-level addiction to federal tax dollars being doled out as entitlement monies by a monolithic federal government. In the wake of this horror are millions of children drowning for lack of the care, guidance, and companionship of their fathers.

Statistics and empirical evidence universally confirm that children forcibly separated from their fathers by family courts are considerably more likely to suffer anxiety and depression, develop drug addiction, engage in risky sexual activity, break the law, and commit suicide.

This travesty must end. Unconstitutional federal bureaucracy creates many of the societal ills it claims to be trying to solve. There are several steps incremental steps that could be taken to restore a child's right to the companionship of both parents. For example, citizens should insist that States abide by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

No father should be automatically deprived of his fundamental right to the custody of his children without due process of law. Being a male is not a crime. Absent a finding of true danger from a parent, family courts should order shared parenting rights and equal time sharing for divorcing parents.

These rights are fundamental and should not be abridged. The automatic presumption of custody-to-the-mother is unconstitutional. The history of America is brim with examples of the federal government denying basic rights to its citizens. Women were denied the right to vote until the women's suffrage movement secured the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Black Americans also were denied the right to vote and suffered myriad other cruel and humiliating indignities under the law until the civil rights movement brought about desegregation, put an end to Jim Crow legislation and compelled the enactment of the 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution.

In each of these examples, society was slow to recognize that a problem even existed or that some of our laws were unjust. It took considerable time, concerted effort, self-sacrifice and perhaps even divine providence to realign concurrent societal paradigms with the principles of liberty and justice for all.

Our generation is not exempt from similar assaults on liberty. While many just causes may stake claims for redress of grievances, one group, more than any other, pleads for immediate support. The need to defend the rights of this group of American citizens, reeling from the unjust consequences of state-sponsored oppression, is before us. It is time to stand up for the rights of children and demand their equal access to both parents. - - -

Jake Morphonios is a civil rights advocate and North Carolina State Coordinator for Fathers 4 Justice - US. The political opinions of Mr. Morphonios do not represent those of Fathers 4 Justice.
Neither Mr. Morphonios nor F4J-US provide legal advice or assistance with individual cases. Fathers seeking support or information, or other parties interested in becoming involved in the father's rights movement may contact
Mr. Morphonios at: jake.morphonios@nc.f4j.us

 

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