A Kid's Right & The United States Constitution

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. Constitution.

Overriding this 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 Says:

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 happiness…

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 district … 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 defense.

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 fit."
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."