19 Oct Should parents support an amendment to the US Constitution solidifying their rights? What rights?
No, this is a basic misunderstanding of our Constitution versus statutory law and case law. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice (NALNLA), but our Constitution is the permanent rule under which all other rights and statutes are to be decided. The US Constitution already declared that your legal right to your own child, as his/her parent, is a liberty protected interest, Statutory law confirms this in most instances (except California’s “best interest of the child standard of evidence”).
Here is case law that further confirms that this is what the US Constitution already says:
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) explained that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects parents rights to teach their children foreign languages, a liberty protected interest, incorporating “the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.”
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). SCOTUS solidified right of parents to select private or parochial schools for their children.
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972). SCOTUS upheld unmarried fathers rights to the care and custody of their children.
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). SCOTUS upheld an Amish father’s rights to take his 15-year-old children out of school to complete their education in Amish ways at home.
Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 825 (2d Cir. 1977). The Second Circuit Court of Appeal held “[T]he right of the family to remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome power of the state …”. The court explained that children have the constitutional right to avoid dislocat[ion] from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association with the parent.”
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). SCOTUS solidified parents rights to allow or disallow visitation between their children and grandparents.
Here are six standards of evidence and who has the initial burden to provide enough proof. Unbelievably, the most vague, lowest standard is used to take away a parent’s custody of their own child from them in California, the “Best Interest of the Child” (numb
- Strict Scrutiny (Unconstitutionality of a state law or standard): It is the highest and most stringent standard of review placed on a state governmental defendant who has a duty to show that the law, regulation or standard that deprives state residents of their right secured under the US Constitution is needed ( a compelling state interest). For example, state enforced confinement in order to prevent the spread of Covid-19. The state needs to show that the law or regulation is narrow (focused on achieving the spread and not for a variety of other reasons). It can’t be vague and it can’t be overbroad. Finally, the law needs to be the least restrictive means available (arguably the least restrictive means of stopping the spread of Covid-19 might have been the 6 feet of social distancing and the wearing of masks instead of confining a majority of California residents to their homes).
- Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal, rarely in civil): It is the highest standard that most people are aware of. The burden of proof is initially placed on the prosecutor who has a duty to prove each element needed to convict a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt as required by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
- Clear and convincing (civil, rarely in juvenile dependency courts): It means that the evidence must be highly more substantial than not, and that there is clear and convincing evidence to prove the wrong committed.
- Preponderance of the evidence (juvenile dependency courts, rarely in family courts): Basically it means that there is almost an equal chance that the judge will get it wrong as there is for the judge to get it right.
- Substantial evidence (appeals of governmental agencies and administrative judges decisions): Basically, relevant evidence can and will be used against you.
- Best interest of the child (family and juvenile dependency courts): It is so vague. How did the California legislature ever think that no one would ever question the unconstitutional vagueness and overbroad aspects of this standard? RaiseYourRights, has and will continue, to expose this standard of evidence for what it really is. An unconstitutional standard created by the California legislature. It will undoubtedly fail strict scrutiny (see above). Nevertheless, it is used to deprive a parent of a constitutionally guaranteed liberty protected interest, the legal rights to his/her own child and it needs to be reviewed under strict scrutiny and abolished, #PreventUGI (unwarranted governmental interference) in families. Join RaiseYourRights today.