Family Court Judgments against a
Father’s Parental Rights are
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
Substantive due process rests on two
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 -
“clear and convincing” (90%) in civil
proceedings and certainly not
“preponderance of evidence” (51%). It’s
“beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal
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!
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
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
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
Under the equal rights clause of the 14th
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
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
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.
Shane Flait is a writer and educator