Not an Attorney, consult an Attorney for legal advice.
In one of the worst periods of Harris County Family Court History, many parents, including myself, fell victim to evil perpetuated by family courts, including courts 309, 310, and 264.
CASE 201535489
1. The Constitutional Foundation of Parental Rights
Parental rights—the care, custody, and nurture of one’s children—are recognized as fundamental liberties protected by multiple amendments to the United States Constitution. Courts have consistently affirmed that these rights cannot be infringed upon without violating the essential principles of liberty and justice embedded in the foundation of American civil and political institutions.
In Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 (U.S. D.C. Mich. 1985), the court held that a parent’s right to raise their children is safeguarded under the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This right encompasses the freedom to guide a child’s moral, educational, and religious development without arbitrary government interference.
2. The First Amendment and Parental Autonomy
The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion and expression, which extends to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children according to their beliefs. The Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), emphasized that the states hold no greater authority to restrict individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does Congress itself.
Furthermore, the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even temporarily, constitutes irreparable injury. As held in Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), the government bears the burden of demonstrating an interest of “vital importance” when attempting to limit these rights.
3. Equal Protection and Gender Neutrality in Parental Rights
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids discriminatory treatment in the application of laws. The landmark case Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), declared that even laws that appear fair “on their face” are unconstitutional if enforced “with an evil eye or a heavy hand.”
Applied to parental rights, any denial of custody or parental authority based solely on sex is discriminatory. The Constitution, therefore, demands that both mothers and fathers be treated equally in custody determinations and parental involvement.
4. Due Process and the Protection of Family Integrity
The Supreme Court in Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), held that the state must establish clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights. This high evidentiary threshold reflects the seriousness of depriving a parent of the “vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of family life.”
Similarly, Langton v. Maloney, 527 F. Supp. 538 (D.C. Conn. 1981), affirmed that a parent’s liberty interest in maintaining custody of their children cannot be infringed upon absent full due process protections.
The Due Process Clause requires “rigorous protections for individual liberty interests” when the state intervenes in family relations. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984), underscored that ex parte proceedings or summary actions that deprive parents of custody without notice or hearing are constitutionally invalid.
5. Custody and the Preservation of Family Bonds
Courts have long recognized that a parent’s right to custody of their children is a protected liberty interest. In Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 68 Ill. 2d 419 (1977), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that legislative actions interfering with parental custody under the guise of protecting public welfare must bear a reasonable relation to legitimate state objectives. Arbitrary interference violates constitutional protections.
Likewise, In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P.2d 437 (Kan. App. 1980), held that even temporary deprivation of custody inflicts a grievous loss upon parents and therefore warrants extensive due process protection.
6. Associational and Visitation Rights
The First and Fourteenth Amendments also safeguard the right of parents to associate with and maintain meaningful relationships with their children. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F. Supp. 620 (E.D. Wis. 1973), recognized that a father’s right to associate with his children is constitutionally protected, even where other factors—such as incarceration—might complicate visitation.
In Jarrett v. Jarrett, 101 S.Ct 329 (1980), the Court noted that custody may shift where a parent’s conduct adversely affects the welfare of the child, yet such determinations must respect constitutional principles and equal protection.
Furthermore, several appellate decisions—including Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170 (1981), and Daghir v. Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191 (N.Y. 1981)—held that a custodial parent may not relocate in a manner that destroys the noncustodial parent’s meaningful relationship with the child.
7. The Supreme Court’s Recognition of Parental Companionship as a Precious Right
In May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court described the right to “companionship, care, custody, and management” of one’s children as “far more precious than property rights.” This recognition underscores that the bond between parent and child is not merely emotional but constitutionally enshrined as a fundamental liberty interest.
8. Conclusion
Parental rights are not privileges granted by the state—they are fundamental liberties anchored in the Constitution. These rights encompass the freedom to raise, educate, and maintain the companionship of one’s children without unwarranted government interference.
From Doe v. Irwin to May v. Anderson, the courts have consistently ruled that parents must be afforded due process, equal protection, and freedom from arbitrary state intrusion in matters of custody and upbringing. Any government action that seeks to limit these rights must be justified by compelling interests and carried out with rigorous procedural safeguards.
In one of the worst periods of Harris County Family Court History, many parents, including myself, fell victim to evil perpetuated by family courts, including courts 309, 310, and 264.
CASE 201535489
It is left to all Americans to make the determination as to the Constitutionality of the USA Family CUT system.
Key Cases Cited:
Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 (D.C. Mich. 1985)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
Langton v. Maloney, 527 F. Supp. 538 (D.C. Conn. 1981)
Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 68 Ill. 2d 419 (1977)
In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P.2d 437 (Kan. App. 1980)
Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205 (7th Cir. 1984)
Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F. Supp. 620 (E.D. Wis. 1973)
Jarrett v. Jarrett, 101 S. Ct. 329 (1980)
Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170 (1981)
May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1952)
