No, this is a basic misunderstanding of constitutional law versus statutory law and case law. Constitutional law is the the underlying framework for our entire system of government here in the US. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice (NALNLA), but our Constitution is the permanent rules under which all other rights and statutes are to be decided. The US constitutional law has already declared the legal rights to your own child is a liberty protected interest, and 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 on the death of the mother without any showing of the father’s unfitness.
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 . . .encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and child.” 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.”
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). SCOTUS solidified parents rights to allow or disallow visitation between their children and grandparents.
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). SCOTUS determined what standard of evidence (or standard of proof) is required to find a parent unfit in order to take away their legal rights to their child. Here are five levels for the standard of evidence/proof and who has the initial burden (to prove the evidence) for some of them:
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 restricts or violates rights secured under the US Constitution is needed ( a compelling state interest such as to prevent the spread of Covid-19). The defendant also 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, that the law or regulation is 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 only 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 it.
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, and thus unconstitutional, how did the California legislature ever think that no one would 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, which would undoubtedly fail strict scrutiny (see above) and thus be found unconstitutional, used to deprive or restrict a parent of a constitutionally guaranteed liberty protected interest, the legal rights to their own child.