Family Court Judgments against a Father’s Parental Rights are Illegitimate
by Shane Flait (2011)

 

The fundamental right to parent your child is an unalienable right – one for which our country was formed to secure. It can’t be denied to you unless the full constitutional due process is invoked to prove you ‘unfit’. Here’s what it means and why the family court judgments are illegitimate.

 

Let’s see what due process should be in effect when your fundamental rights like parental rights are at issue – as in the family court. Due process is the legal process that’s ‘due’ to litigants. When fundamental rights are at stake, a high level of due process is required.

 

Criminal behaviour comes under criminal law. Its due process is well-known. However, in civil processes, it’s still supposed to be difficult for the state to deny or impair an individual’s fundamental right. Fundamental rights require ‘substantive’ due process whenever they’re at stake in an action at law.

 

Substantive due process rests on two conditions:

 

First, the state has to have a ‘compelling interest’ to deny your fundamental right. ‘Compelling’ connotes a grave circumstance – like death is imminent if the right is not withheld.

 

It’s usually invoked when a child may die unless if he’ not operated on but the parents refuse the operation.  Compelling interest doesn’t mean that the child may be better off financially or socially in another setting – as determined by the court. That’s a rational or legitimate reason. And such a reason is not sufficient.

 

That’s because our rights are OURs; they’re inalienable. The government can’t impair any right if it thinks it could handle things better!

 

Remember that point. That’s what freedom and unalienable rights are all about. It also means there is no obligation for either a moron or an expert at court to determine what’s best for you or your children.

 

We’ll see that as long as you’re not proven ‘unfit’ to parent – and what that means – it’s not anyone’s business about how you care for your kids.

 

Second, if the compelling interest is at hand, then the state can only impair your fundamental liberty in the “least possible way” to the extent necessary to ameliorate the compelling interest.

 

The ‘least possible way’ is necessary, again, because are fundamental rights are so important to each of us. In the case where the state forces an operation to save the life of a child - a compelling interest – the state must return the child to the parents’ custody once the operation is over.

 

Three subsidiary requirements must be met in these determinations.

 

First, the compelling interest cannot be vaguely stated, but must be precise, so that citizens may know beforehand what behavior will invoke impairment of their liberties. It must be obvious to the general public what actions are serious enough to deprive us of our rights.

 

Incidentally, if a law jeopardizes our fundamental rights because it imposes what’s not obviously a serious crime to reasonable citizens, then it’s bad law.  That’s why our founding fathers demanded a jury for our protection against bad law.  

 

The ‘best interest of the child’ standard is classically void as a reason to deny a fit parent his parental rights because it’s vague. And, it’s why the best interest of the child standard is supposed to serve only when there’s no ‘fit’ parent available. The ‘conditions’ it uses to help determine custody are rational reasons for choosing to award custody of a child to somebody. They don’t map out wrongs or serious endangerments to the child.

 

Second, the burden of proof is on the state (or the person asking the state to impair the fundamental liberty of someone). It is a high burden of proof - at least “clear and convincing” (90%) in civil proceedings and certainly not “preponderance of evidence” (51%). It’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings.

 

So you don’t have to prove you’re a good parent or a better parent. The state must prove you’re an unfit parent- not just a poorer parent or a second choice parent. That’s important!

 

Third, the state must particularize the case with detailed findings of ground level facts and clear causal connections to show just where the compelling interest is justified. It can’t be a general excuse of sorts.

 

That means the court has to show exactly how you’re an unfit parent. Again, that means you’re seriously injurious to the life of your child. It’s a condition that something everyone would recognize as life-threatening behavior. And it must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. 

 

So you can see that substantive due process required for impairment of a fundamental right has strict standards. Any court that doesn’t use such standards cannot make any judgement that negates, or limits any of your fundamental rights – including your parental rights. OR that court’s judgments are invalid and treasonous. 

 

Fit parents under divorce and the equal rights clause

If under a divorce or paternity suit where each parent has an unalienable right to their child and neither is proved unfit under the substantive due process mentioned above, neither can either be denied his rights. No one has the right to deny another person his fundamental rights.

 

Under the equal rights clause of the 14^th amendment and the ‘least possible way’ condition when a right maybe limited, the parental rights of both parents must be equalized if a court judgment is invoked. This probably would imply a 50% allocation of full parental rights over some relatively short time span such as a week.

 

Of course if those fit parents decide on any other arrangement of alternating or sharing parental rights, it should be their decision - and not the courts.

 

Family court judgments are illegitimate and treasonous

Fathers – and mothers – who participate in family court actions can readily see that the judgments that deny or restrict parental rights overwhelmingly of fathers are unfair and do not follow the necessary substantive due process. These judgments are illegitimate and, in fact, treasonous. They are destroying fathers and children, and families and freedom. 

 

These anti-father judgments are prompted by feminist-instigated state-imposed corrupt court processes. This injustice will continue as long as fathers comply with illegitimate judgments.  

 

 

END

 

Shane Flait is a writer and educator