Right To be a PARENT! a,Parent Coordinator,:BAD IDEA,Special Master,JUDICIAL EXTORTION, Family Law

The Supreme Court of the United States in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) said the following, Grand Parents and Family Members Have Rights to your children.

"The Due Process [fundamental fairness] Clause [of the 14th Amendment] does not permit a State [judge] to infringe on the fundamental right of [Fit] Parents to make Child rearing decisions simply because a judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made."

This due process violation happens daily in Las Vegas courtrooms. In the absence of findings of fact or Evidentiary Hearing-Trial (which then authorizes intrusion into the parent-child relationship by the court) a Trial Court’s lopsided Parenting time order is unconstitutionally overbroad.

"In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), the [U. S. Supreme] Court held that the State of Illinois was barred, as a matter of both due process and equal protection, from taking custody of the Children of an unwed father, absent a hearing and a particularized finding that the father was an unfit Parent." Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 247-48 (1978).

WIESE v. GRANATA, 887 P.2d 744 (1994)

Rooney vs. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, 853 P.2d 123 (1993) provides that the court cannot take custody away from someone without affording the non-moving party the opportunity to present evidence and to have an evidentiary hearing or trial to address the issues.

BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD RESIDES FIRST IN THE FIT PARENT, NOT IN THE STATE

In Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), the Supreme Court of the United States declared:

"[T]he best interest of the Child' resides in the fit Parent - not in the state: "Our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a Child is a "the mere creature of the State" and, on the contrary, asserted that Parents generally "have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their Children] for additional obligations."

"The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that Parents possess what a Child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead Parents to act in the best interests of their Children. 442 U.S., at page 602."

Accordingly, so long as a Parent adequately cares for his or her Children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that Parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that Parent's Children." See, e.g., Flores, 507 U.S., at page 304."

STATE LAW MUST CONFORM TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Supreme Court of the United States in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), at page 18, quoting Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), said the following:

"[T]he interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this [U.S. Supreme] Court ... is the supreme law of the land, and [the Constitution] makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." At page 19, "Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to [the Constitution] "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous [U.S. Supreme] Court, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State …"

THE STATE CANNOT PRESUME UNFITNESS

[The U.S. Supreme Court] "held that a state cannot presume a Parent is unfit or that a Parent's exercise of his rights is harmful to his Child." See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (cannot presume a Parent and Child's rights are divergent and that the Parent's exercise of his rights is thus harmful to the Child); see also Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (cannot presume an unwed [Parent] is unfit to have custody of [his/her] Children).

"In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), the [U. S. Supreme] Court held that the State of Illinois was barred, as a matter of both due process and equal protection, from taking custody of the Children of an unwed father, absent a hearing and a particularized finding that the father was an unfit Parent." Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 247-48 (1978).

The State has no interest in interfering with the Parental rights of fit Parents because such Parents are presumed to act in their Child's best interests. Parham v. JR, 442 U.S., at page 602 (The "natural bonds of affection lead Parents to act in the best interests of their Children."); see also Troxel, 530 U.S. at page 69, (applying the "presumption that a fit Parent will act in the best interest of his or her Child").

Courtesty of www.SayNoParentCoordinator.com
You may be entitled to be a part of our Class Action Lawsuit

Email us today by clicking on link bellow and we will get back to you, Please complete the Contact Us field and we will respond to you within 48 hours:

info@SayNoParentCoordinator.com

Share This: