Below
are excerpts of case law 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. This is a partial list!
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)
Parent’s
rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free man.“ Meyer v. Nebraska 262 U.S. 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923)
Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 (1925)
Prince
v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
Moreover,
the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her
child is an interest far more precious than any property right, May v.
Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1952)
Fantony
v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956)
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 Sate 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
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 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972)
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)
Wisconsin
v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205, 232-233 (1972)
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)
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)
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)
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; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US
963, IL, (1977)
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. A due process violation occurs when a state-required breakup of
a natural family is founded solely on a "best interest" analysis that
is not supported by the requisite proof of parental unfitness. Quilloin v.
Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 U.S. 246, 255^Q56, (1978)
The
United States Supreme Court has stated: “There is a presumption that fit
parents act in their children’s best interest, Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584,
602 (1979)
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)
Parents
have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal
bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980)
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 P2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980)
As
such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably
warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection,
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981)
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)
Wise
v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981)
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)
Brennan
v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982)
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 (9th) and Utah’s
Constitution, Article 1 * 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982)
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)
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)
The
Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that severance in the
parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous
protections for individual liberty interest at stake. Bell v. City of
Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984)
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)
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 (1st) and Amendments 5th, 9th, and 14th. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp
1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985)
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)
Michael
H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 120-121 (1989)
“No
case authoritative within this circuit, however, had held that the state had a
comparable obligation to protect children from their own parents, and we know
that the obligation does not exist in constitutional law.” K.H. through Murphy
v. Morgan, 914 F.2d 846 (C.A.7 Ill. 1990)
“Rights
to marry, have children and maintain relationships with children are
fundamental rights protected by the fourteenth Amendment and thus, strict
scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair
those rights.” P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)
There
is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself
into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability
to make the best decisions regarding their children Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S.
292, 304 (1993)
“Parents
right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental
component of due process.” Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F3d 935
(9th Cir. 1997)
Washington
v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997)
The
“liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their
children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest” recognized
by the U.S. Supreme Court, The State may not interfere in child rearing
decisions when a fit parent is available.
Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999), (99-138) 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
A
parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so
fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments
of the United States constitution. In re: J.S. and c., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129
NJ Super, at 489
No comments:
Post a Comment