The Census Bureau reported in 2002 21.5 million parents had custody of children and 13.4 million children with other parents. Family court judges controlled the private lives of 48.3 million . The Census Bureau reported $40 billion dollars in transfer payments were made between State and family legal institutions from house holds this money transfers are either controlled or initiated by Family Court judges, in many instances associate judges.
These shocking statistics show that family courts are now an arm of government that routinely exercises virtually unlimited power to dictate the private lives and income of millions of American citizens who have committed no actionable offense. The reason these figures are so extraordinary is that family courts exercise the same power to dictate the private lives and income of parents who are self-supporting, law-abiding, and responsible in the care of their children, as family courts exercise over parents who are none of those things.
Major social trends of the past three decades, including no-fault divorce, illegitimate births, the feminist movement, the redefinition of domestic violence, and aggressive enforcement of household-support laws, have vastly increased the number of Americans who come into family courts. Decisions of family court judges are seldom reported in law books and seldom appealed or reviewed. Not only do few people have the funds to finance an appeal, but since decisions are a matter of judicial discretion, the chances of overturning a family court judge are close to zero unless gross judicial abuse can be proved.
Divorcing parties who separate amicably and reach a private final agreement to divide their property may not realize the power of the family court. Decisions about child custody and household support are never final and are always subject to attack by either parent. One parent can challenge a private custody agreement at any time for any reason. The family court has the power to ignore private agreements about child custody, even if in writing and signed, and order new custody and support terms on Judges Take Over Parents’ Rights the theory that new circumstances require the court to reevaluate its prior decision.
Family court judges amassed these powers by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: “the best interest of the child.” The original concept of the best interest of the child comes from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in , who said that parents are presumed to act in their own children’s best interest. Courts honored parents’ rights by recognizing a legal presumption that the best interest of the child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and that a court should not second-guess a parent or substitute its own opinion. About thirty years ago, as states revised their family-law statutes, the concept of best interest of the child became disconnected from parents’ decisions.
Family courts got the idea that they have discretion to make independent decisions about what is in a child’s best interest, especially for children of divorced or unmarried parents, even though little or no objective standards are set forth in statutes. The concept that persons other than parents are better able to decide what is the best interest of a child is illustrated by the slogan “it takes a village to raise a child.”
The notion that the “village” should make childrearing decisions rather than parents is manifested in the way the public schools have taken over many responsibilities tradi- tionally in the domain of parents, such as providing meals, healthcare, and pre-kindergarten services. Public schools notoriously assert their right to override parental decisions about the assignment of books that parents find immoral or profane, the use of privacy-invading questionnaires, teach-
No comments:
Post a Comment