A Kid's Right & The United States
A lot of times this idea of "rights"
can be taken a bit too far. People can find support for anything
they want in the Constitution. Is there really any basis to the
claim we make on our Goal page that:
A child has a right to
be with their parents, a parent has a right to be with their
child. It is a substantial right protected by the U.S.
presumption requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt
presented to a jury of your peers. This right should not be
challenged by 51% of the "evidence", or just the
testimony of a few "experts".
For those of you who think this is hopeless, the
Supreme Court would never rule that way, there is TOO much case
law to the contrary. Just keep in mind that things do change, and
just because a lot of people think something is write doesn't
necessarily make it right. If you want to read something
"shocking", read the text from the Supreme Court decision that affirmed racial
separation, Plessey v. Ferguson (1896).
What we Seem to Accept:
That I can be a loving parent, and be loved
by my children; however, if my spouse is unhappy with me I
can be pulled into Court, a "preliminary" decision
can take me away from my children and the final outcome will
be left into the hands of a couple of lawyers, the Judge, and
a few experts -- and heaven help me if any of these people
just happen to form a bias against me. I don't have an
effective right to a jury, and a standard of proof
"beyond a reasonable doubt". I may not even have a
lawyer -- but that is the way it is.
Oh, and of course, the same few people can
find that it is in "the best interests of the
child" to be separated from a loving parent.
What the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
Do you think a child has a right to
contact with both parents. That a parent has a right to
contact with their child ... and the happiness that brings.
What the Constitution Says:
6th Amendment: In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in
his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
7th Amendment: In suits at common law,
where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the
right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried
by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the
United States, than according to the rules of common law.
Have we forgotten that Trial by Jury was installed
inorder to prevent "Trial be Judge" or "Trial
by Experts". That a few people couldn't just get
together and decide you are "guilty". For people
who have been through the "fantasy land" of Family
Law, do you wonder how much of it would make sense to a Jury
of regular people. How much of it made sense to you?
Don't you think these Family Law decisions are as
serious, if not more so, than a criminal case in which a
person my be thrown in jail for just a few days. Does a
childhood of separation from parent and child call for a
little more than 51% of the evidence.
In a system which gives credence to just allegations,
won't the allegations become even bolder?
9th Amendment:: The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the people.
14th Amendment: :
nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What some Prior Decisions have said:
- Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) - Court held void a Nebraska
statute prohibiting the teaching of modern foreign
languages in elementary schools. Justice McReynolds said,
"The liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
included the right to bring up one's children according
to the dictates of individual conscience."
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) - Court struck down a
law requiring children to attend public schools. Again
Justice McReynolds, "The statute ... violated the
rights of parents to educate their children as they saw
- Reitman v. Mulkey (1967) - Court upheld that California's
Proposition 14 was a violation of the 14th amendments
guarantee of equal protection. Justice White pointed out
the State had, "expressly authorized and
constitutionalized the right to discriminate."