Support the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.

Children need parents.

We all know that. Parents positively impact a child’s physical, mental, and emotional well-being. Up until 2000, the Supreme Court consistently upheld parental rights.

The “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Parental rights are now unprotected.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the law in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 and came to a split decision that left no clear standard for future cases and has caused massive confusion in the courts regarding parental rights.

Now, sadly, the protection of parental rights is left up to individual judges, leaving the door open for abuse.

Did you know…

Children have been taken away from parents who have done nothing wrong.

There is a growing tendency to undermine parental rights and assume someone other than the parent knows best.

Connect with Us and Join the Movement that Unites Parents Across America.

We need to take action now.

The Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution will protect children by guarding a parent’s rights unless the parents have been proven inadequate. It will solidify in the courts a right Americans have long held dear: the right of parents to raise their children.

It states that: “The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right,” and that “Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest...is of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

According to a poll by Zogby Polling in 2010, 93.6% of all Americans agree with this statement:

“In general, parents have the constitutional right to make decisions for their children without government interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect.”

Let's make sure the parental rights we all hold dear are protected.

Share This Online

Join the Discussion

P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org

Parents are being refused access to their children's medical information.

Both the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) include ambiguities with a lot of room for interpretation – which means that to protect themselves, both states and private interests have interpreted them in ways that deny parents access to important information about their children. Learn more

Watch the video, and read some stories of children taken away.

Who's Running For Judge in 2016?

• Important Election Information

  
  

  http://equalrightsforfathers.tumblr.com/post/149543966831/justice-building-blog-judicial-elections-2016

How to get the most signatures to get judges to be accountable to the people?

By concentrating our resources wisely by going to the precincts with the most number of voters.

Here is a list of the precincts with number of votes: 

Defend Yourself Be That ONE Small Voice:-- End of PARENTAL RIGHTS?? Thanks Scalia!!

The article below was a recent email from the Parental Rights Organization.

Gotta say, Protests won't do it.

Complaining about the law and those involved in the legal arena won't do it.

We ALL MUST keep in mind "It is not about Justice. It is about the Law." PLUS being that One Small Voice and Educating Yourself to counter those that are Acting in the Color of Law.

It's one case at a time, and one precious family at a time.

May you find strength in your Higher Power,

Granpa Chuck

National Coordinator

National Family Advocacy Team. (NFAT)

~~~~email from the Parental Rights Organization~~~~

Scalia Would End Parental Rights

-- November 19, 2015

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, were it left to him, would end the Court’s recognition of parental rights as constitutional rights.Based on remarks he presented to the Georgetown University School of Law this week,

According to an article at Education Week, Scalia told a group of first-year law students that “many important rights are not contained” in the Constitution. “For example,  my right to raise my children the way I want. To teach them what I want them taught, not what Big Brother says. That is not there.”

Scalia warned that “the notion that everything you care a lot about has to be in the Constitution is a very dangerous notion.” From there he attacked the substantive due process theory on which fundamental parental rights currently rests. “[D]on’t get me started on substantive due process,” he offered.

At least Scalia is consistent. In his dissent in the Supreme Court’s most recent parental rights case, Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), he claimed that “I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon” parental rights (emphasis in original).

In that dissent Scalia admits that he believes parental rights are “among the ‘unalienable rights’ with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims ‘all men…are endowed by their Creator.’ And in [his] view, that right is also among the ‘othe[r] [rights] retained by the people’…” under the Ninth Amendment. Nevertheless, he would rob parents of constitutional protection on the basis that the right is implied rather than enumerated in the Constitution.

If this is the position of the Court’s bastion of conservatism, what hope do parents have with its more progressive members?

Scalia’s dissent is not binding. The plurality opinion in Troxel continues to recognize fundamental parental rights established in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). But they denied them the same strict scrutiny protection afforded other fundamental rights.

As a result, parental rights are subjected to the whims of judges on a case by case basis, with different standards applied all across the country.  

Judges must call them “fundamental,” but can treat them however they like. This is why we need the proposed Parental Rights Amendment (PRA), which will soon be filed in Congress.  

The PRA will restore one high legal standard for parental rights in every courtroom in America, protecting “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children [as] a fundamental right.” But we need your help to make it happen.

Will you please consider a special one-time gift of $35, $50, or even $150 to continue ParentalRights.org’s drive to protect parental rights?

We cannot afford for Scalia’s view to continue to spread unchallenged. We cannot afford to see parental rights left to the whims of the same Court that has done so much to erode them in the first place. Even worse, we can’t let them be pushed aside simply because they aren’t spelled out in the black and white of the Constitution’s text.

Your donation today will support our efforts to secure parental rights sponsors on both sides of the congressional aisle.

 With bipartisan support, we can answer Scalia’s challenge by putting parental rights into the text after all.

We must combat Scalia’s message with one of support for traditional parental rights. Can we count on your help today?

Sincerely,

Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

P.S. – If you can’t help today or if you plan to give again, consider “Giving Tuesday,” coming December 1. We know as parents you give every day – especially to your children. If you donate to charity this “Giving Tuesday,” consider helping us give back to you.

Share This Online

Join the Discussion

P.O. Box 1090 Purcellville, VA 20134 * (540)-751-1200 * info@parentalrights.org

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher, Collector
Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer

SOURCE~ Defend Yourself -- Be that ONE Small Voice: End of PARENTAL RIGHTS?? Thanks Scalia   

Legal scholar said the Father’s Rights Movement led to reform in family law. Really?

Little is known about how heterosexual men navigated dramatic changes in the legal regulation of families in the 1980s.

Dinner

In a new paper forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review (2016), Deborah Dinner, JD, PhD, associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, provides the first legal history of the father’s rights movement, analyzing how middle-class white men responded to rising divorce rates by pursuing reform in both family law and welfare policy.

“The Divorce Bargain: The Father’s Rights Movement and Family Inequalities,” offers insight into the relationship between the private law of divorce, which regulates largely middle-class families, and public welfare state policies, which have the greatest effect on poor families.

How the legal system often ignores the constitutional rights of parents

How the legal system often ignores the constitutional rights of parents

At Above the Law, Sam Wright notes that family law bureaucrats and judges routinely ignore the constitutional rights of parents in making decisions on…

WASHINGTONPOST.COM

In a recent post on the notorious Maryland case where authorities have repeatedly detained two children in order to force the Meitiv family to stop them from walking home alone, I noted that the parents have the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent on their side. At Above the Law, experienced public interest lawyer Sam Wright agrees that the parents have the Constitution on their side, but cautions that bureaucrats and lower court judges routinely ignore such petty issues as constitutional rights when it comes to enforcing the their conceptions of “the best interests of the child”:

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, law professor Ilya Somin notes that the application of child welfare laws is subject to some (seemingly) robust constitutional constraints: there’s case law providing that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit and that it also, in the words of Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in Troxel v. Granville, creates a “presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.”

Contact Denial is Child Abuse ~ Name and Shame Your Abuser

This site is for the naming and shaming of contact deniers - parents, solicitors, judges, Cafcass officers, MP’s and any other parties involved in contact denial and the forcible separation of children from their fathers.

It is clear to us that the lack of enforcement of legally binding court orders between children and their fathers is encouraging resident parents to deliberately break the law with impunity, often with the encouragement of their legal representatives. No longer. Where court orders have been breached and where contact has been denied for no good reason, the names of those concerned will be published here along with the names of anyone else involved directly or indirectly with contact denial. Contact denial is a serious human rights violation.

When naming parents, you will need to be in possession of a court order for contact which we may need you to supply. Please note, all content is moderated so there will be a delay before your content appears.

UPLOAD YOUR CONTENT TO OUR NAME AND SHAME WALL

How To Look Credible While Being Dishonest Corrupt Judges

- "The role of the government is to PROTECT rights that cannot be taken away"

Sadly, restraining order abuse has recently emerged as a very potent tool to gain tactical advantage in divorce or separations. Those on the receiving end of restraining order abuse typically find it to be extremely disruptive in their lives, limiting access to their children and property.A restraining order is a court order limiting the contact of one individual with another or, as in a case involving children, several others. This includes direct physical contact, phone and mail contact, contact in the home, contact at work, etc. For instance, a restraining order may prohibit a person from coming within 100 feet of their own home. These are brought on by litigants claiming they need protection from abuse or stalking from another person. 

It is far easier for a party to get a restraining order now than ever before because federal laws have changed substantially within the last 15 years. In addition, many states have enacted other laws making for wide disparities among the states as for abuse potential.

Collectively, this greatly reduces the burden of proof needed to get restraining orders and otherwise exploit them.The burden to prove that a restraining order is not called for or the terms of it are not reasonable has largely shifted to the recipient of it who must then fight for their rights through lengthy court proceedings and expensive legal representation. 

Often this occurs while simultaneously being homeless and having their personal property under the control of the accuser. "Separation from their children" during stages in the litigation can be very lengthy and lead to "parental alienation." The resulting hostility between separated legal combatants can be tremendous and can certainly spill over to affect their innocent children.Many restraining order injunctions appear to be misused as one form of dirty tricks or as a method to harass the other party or to gain custody of minor children.

My concern is for men that are wrongly convicted on restraining orders with no proof to support these allegations or based solely on the word of an angered ex-partner.Worse still is the way the the law has no consequences when the woman violates her own retraining order. I feel women should be held accountable for their actions also, and in most states they are. Victim services and Eugene courts need to know both sides and have proof before making decisions that impact peoples lives.

http://fairfamilylawab.tumblr.com/post/150368275223/equalrightsforfathers-judgewhogetspa-from