Request for research: Fathers and Children

[planetmark]

Hi all,

I wonder if anybody has already collected this sort of thing, or would be willing to contribute to the effort:

I'm looking for a TON of quotes, cites, references from every possible source that has an ounce of credibility (i.e. psychology, religion, medical, social commentators, government publications, state legislators, family research organizations, economic studies, etc.) that deals with the relevance and importance of fathers to their children. I'm looking for both positive and negative affirmations of the need for fathers in a child's life. (i.e.: Positive = "children are better off with dad around". Negative = "children are more likely to commit crime with no dad around.)

My reasoning is simple. The courts are bound by their holy grail of "best interest of the child" mantra. So I think it would be a good idea to compile a source do***ent 3 inches thick to drop on the judges desk referencing the need and value of having the father actively present in the child's life. This would be exceptionally valuable in cases like mine where the mother has the opinion that dad is irrelevant, and has shown herself willing and capable of abusing her own children by damaging, hindering, or attempting to eliminate altogether the child's interaction with their father.

1) Dad is important.
2) Mom hates dad
3) Mom in charge = no dad
4) No dad = troubled child
5) Courts bound to "best interest of child"?
-----
6) Dad should have custody

I know this isn't always the case, but very often it is, and this would make a good resource to show judicial bias, guardian bias, and general exposure of the court's willingness to break their own laws. I want to put together one comprehensive and authoritative do***ent that shows overwhelming research on this subject that the judge can't ignore.

If you have some such thing, let me know. Or if you come across a good article, post a quote of the good parts with a cite to the article here. Quotes from state statutes, judges, or Supreme Court rulings would be very effective too.

[gldskr]

planet

Here's a good place to start for case law http://ancpr.org/caselaw.htm lots of other info too.

See this thread for some of my thoughts on this subject http://www.suijuris.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5898

It is my opinion that the first hurdle in getting an equitable remedy is to have the case heard in a judicial venue. The psuedo - judges, referees, magistrates or whatever they are called, are there only to assemble the record and shuffle you through the system. The real judge will then rubber stamp whatever this administrator recommends. Once in the system snap on your nose ring.

Marriage has a special status in jurisprudence. There are many fundamental rights at stake that are intertwined. The state wishes to abrogate those rights in order to streamline the process, thereby increasing their profits. Make no mistake, divorce is a profit making venture for them, and they've constructed a system that ensures job security for decades to come.

Our job is to express the terms of an implied contract (marriage) before they do. That means we must insist upon a judicial proceeding where there is no third party presumption by the state. Only when the proceedings are between husband and wife can any equitable remedy be forthcoming.

90+% of divorces ( divorce is the proper word, dissolution is statutory ) are initiated by women, where they engage the system and use it to their advantage.

The first rule of investing; don't lose your capital

The first rule of sovereignty; don't give up your rights.

gldskr

[Livefire]

There are some real gems in that page gldskr! Would be appropriate in many legal situations I think

[gldskr]

Livefire

That's the beauty of being a sovereign, you can write your own ticket.

gldskr

[planetmark]

I read your other post gldskr. Good info. I agree totally with you about getting a divorce case out of administrative process. I've been dragged around, wrung out, and bled dry of all resources by this process.

I was thinking this same thing when I started this thread, but given the propensity of the courts to walk right over people, I figured the research information would be useful for us IF we get dropped back into the process. Or on the other hand, it would make an interesting and useful project for providing ammo for those other unfortunate people who haven't or won't wake up. Last line of defense, give those thugs no wiggle room for obscuring "best interest of the child". Let's define it for them - IF it has to get to that point.

I really want more info on your SMJ work in a divorce case! I need a lot of help putting the paperwork together, as I am ready to try this RIGHT NOW. I'm in a position where I need to be making some important efforts immediately in my case. SMJ would be perfect.

You said this in the other thread:

Draw up your own petition for divorce and file it if the court rules in your favor. If not, then you will have to appeal. If your SMJ challenge is done properly it will be unrebuttable. Absent a contract, the state and your ex have no standing.

Help me with this. What do you mean "draw up your own petition for divorce and file it"? Does that not put you back into their jurisdiction, and the mess starts all over?


Another interesting tidbit I just saw on another new post here, links to an article dealing with Washington's "RCW" is not law. More ammo that can be used in an SMJ hearing?

Seems that there is a lot of really good foundation material on this forum for breaking the state's deathgrip on families through divorce. If there were no financial incentive (for either the mother or the state), I think families would be a lot stronger, and divorce would stop being a tool of vengance for women who "become unhappy in the relationship".

[Jerseee]

People,

I think the situation is much deeper than what is being discussed.

To participate in this game only lends legitimacy to what they are doing.

First things first....get rid of the interlopers. They as well as the legislature have no business in the relationships of private people. To encourage women to separate the children from the father in lieu of payment is criminal. this is the bottom line. They are basically extorting the situation. Have the woman grant jurisdiction and force the man to participate by holding the children hostage/for ransom.

Second, I believe a counter suit should be brought against the judges as well as the officials whom drafted and applied such measures. Kill the roots and the plant dies.

Third, the mother (even though this is stern) should be part of the suit. using a system to abridge the rights of another is criminal as well.

I believe we need to take control of the whole situation and leave nothing to be debated about. Our children our not up for debate, sale, ransom, or political pawns. F*ck the courts and go after the politicians, judges, and mothers.

Just my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

People,

I think the situation is much deeper than what is being discussed.

To participate in this game only lends legitimacy to what they are doing.

First things first....get rid of the interlopers. They as well as the legislature have no business in the relationships of private people. To encourage women to separate the children from the father in lieu of payment is criminal. this is the bottom line. They are basically extorting the situation. Have the woman grant jurisdiction and force the man to participate by holding the children hostage/for ransom.

Second, I believe a counter suit should be brought against the judges as well as the officials whom drafted and applied such measures. Kill the roots and the plant dies.

Third, the mother (even though this is stern) should be part of the suit. using a system to abridge the rights of another is criminal as well.

I believe we need to take control of the whole situation and leave nothing to be debated about. Our children our not up for debate, sale, ransom, or political pawns. F*ck the courts and go after the politicians, judges, and mothers.

Just my thoughts.

I agree Jersee. Thank you by the way for pointing me in the right direction, even though I have a few things left to figure out, I feel personal freedom just over the horizon.
Thanks again
Dan

Fathers: Safer and Better Parent:

<http://www.divorce-for-men.com/draft1.pdf>

(The above Canadian site quotes mostly, recent USA statistics and alludes to the fact that if both parents can not parent, the Father should be the primary parent.)


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm

Joint Custody:
<http://www.dadi.org/apajoint.htm>
<http://www.gocrc.com/research/spgrowth.html>
<http://www.gocrc.com/research/jcbib.html>
<http://www.gocrc.com/research/custpolicies.html>

Parenting Plans:
<http://www.goodmanlaw.com/custody.htm>
<http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/pplan8.htm>
<http://www.paralegal-plus.com/custody.htm>
<http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/pplan7.htm>
<http://www.spig.clara.net/p-plans/parentin.txt>

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS):
<http://www.education.mcgill.ca/pain/>

<http://www.mesacanada.com/alienlnk.htm>

<http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/turkat95.htm>

<http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/reader082002.htm>

<http://www.rgardner.com/refs/pas_legalcites.html>

More reports:
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/battery/s...om.html#oleary <http://www.vix.com/pub/men/battery/studies/newsom.html>
<http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/articles.asp?ID=365>
<http://www.glennjsacks.com/domestic_violence_a_2.htm>
<http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/sodhi040802.htm>
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm#pgfId-1335888 <http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm>
Men and Women Equally Violent:
Resources:
<http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm>
Women More Violent:
<http://www.vix.com/pub/men/battery/studies/oleary-etal.html>
Miscellaneous Links:
<http://www.angelfire.com/home/sufferingpatriarchy/index.html>
<http://www.dadi.org/apajoint.htm>
http://www.FathersAreAwesome.isCool.net <http://www.fathersareawesome.iscool.net/>
<http://www.glennjsacks.com/father_care_the.htm>
<http://www.nfpainc.org/kidcosts.html>
<http://www.dadsdivorce.com/law/index.html>
<http://www.gocrc.com/researchF.html>
<http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/cs-myths.htm>
<http://www.rcfp.org/taping/>
<http://www.dadi.org/apajoint.htm>
<http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072302.htm>
<http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/>

The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

"Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody." May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).

FROM THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, 1910
In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: 'The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.' Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh'; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional cir***stances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)