Just about a week ago an attorney in Illinois asked “Can you produce a single appellate or state supreme court decision, in any state court, dealing with family law, filed within the last 30 years, that has ever agreed with the positions taken…” His comment was in response to the rights (declaratory judgment relief) motions Ron and Sherry Palmer produced about 6 months ago. This attorney also claimed that our methods were “bizarre” and that parents should “trust” that an attorney
knows what he is doing!
says that this attorney, shows the classic ignorance of his kind and shows us a massive deficit in law school education.
Roe v. Wade started out as a declaratory judgement. The right of same sex couples to marry started out as numerous declaratory judgment suits.
The Fifth Federal Circuit has heard a direct appeal on a divorce case and has ruled that parents in divorce have fundamental rights that must be protected, “a valid reason (the preservation of the children’s right to maintain relationships with their father and his right to maintain parental relationships with them) existed for this change.”
Further, the Supreme Court of Texas in a divorce custody case has ruled that even broad powers of trial courts must be exercised within constitutional bounds, and that not even a statute “authorize them to invade constitutional guarantees.”
The only reason that there are not more cases affirming fundamental rights of parents in divorce is that attorneys are poorly trained, know next to nothing about the constitution, and make far too much money manipulating the emotions of judges.
It is not in this attorney’s financial best interest to protect his client’s fundamental rights and he likely has no clue how to do it.
This tool is very powerful. Multiple attorneys have filed these motions as written without modification and those cases are working their way through the system. They were created by us less than a year ago but have already altered the trajectory of multiple cases.
We have all been screwed by family law attorneys and judges who bleed us dry and take children anyway. I fought for and won 50/50 with my child for 9 years. She just aged out. I didn’t know any of these constitutional details at that time.
You can win also and we provide you the tools and information you need to completely destroy the outdated idea that parental rights depend on marriage or that they can be denied simply because you divorce. These attorneys have been fleecing parents for a very long time and they know it.
We show you how to put a stop to it once and for all, if you are willing to fight. If you still have significant time and rights to your child you may not want to rock the boat too much. If they have stolen your child already, then what more do you have to lose by fighting.
When they take your child from you they create the seeds of their own destruction by giving you the will to fight them, we provide the tools.
Whatever your feelings about same sex marriage, you cannot deny that LGBT people fought for and won their constitutional rights against all odds and against thousands of years of bias and bigotry against them using the federal constitution.
Single and Divorced parents can do the same thing in the same way using the same tools. No parent should ever need fear the loss of a child or a child fear the loss of a parent simply because the parents divorce and the attorneys are fearful impotent leeches on society who wouldn’t know a constitutional right if it slapped them in the face.
There are a few good family law attorneys out there who recognize that the constitution is being violated and who are open to learning the arguments to challenge these violations for you.
If your attorney is like the one we describe at the beginning of this post, run as fast as you can, and seek out an attorney who will actually fight for your rights as attorneys are supposed to do. If they need help crafting the arguments, come to us, we have developed these arguments extensively and many parents and their attorneys are using them now in multiple jurisdictions.*
USING THE RIGHTS MOTIONS to protect your rights and end unnecessary litigation:
There are two cases in PA that are excellent and support several of the key points we make in our motions and our books, “Curtis v. Kline, 666 A. 2d 265 – Pa: Supreme Court 1995 (14th amendment challenge to college tuition obligations, US Constitution was upheld and the obligation of the Obligor to pay for College was removed.) *of note prior to the constitutional challenge, obligors challenged, lost and paid (their family lawyers and court imposed obligation)* DP v. GJP, Pa: Supreme Court, Western Dist. 2016 (reaffirms fundamental parental rights, 1st, 14th US Amendments).”**
WARNING: This case, DP v. GJP, involves two parents who agree on their child’s best interest. If you and the child’s other parent do not agree on your child’s best interest you can only use this case with specific arguments that demonstrate why it should apply when parents disagree. These difficult arguments are what Fix Family Courts specializes in and what your attorney likely has little or no experience arguing. For help contact us here.
Of particular interest are the two dissents in DP. The first dissent says the court didn’t go far enough because it lacks any legitimate interest in treating fit divorced parents differently from fit married parents. This is one of our key arguments. Parental rights are individual rights that cannot be dependent upon the marital relationship. This key concept articulated by the Supreme Court since the early 1970’s will ultimately destroy custody battles in divorce forever. The second dissent brings up another key issue. The state’s compelling state interest must be narrowly stated or precisely stated. They cannot simply say they are protecting children from harm or even harm from a divorce. They must be very specific in justifying the harm they are protecting from. This is crucial for states such as California where strict scrutiny is applied but applied so corruptly as to have no meaning at all. Dissents can be very powerful. The concept of strict scrutiny itself came from the dissent in Korematsu. In Curtis, the court goes a long way down the equal protection argument that children can’t be treated differently because of their parent’s marital status. They found this using only the rational basis test. We propose addressing child support issues under the 1st Amendment as directly affecting the quantity and quality of communication between parent and child requiring at least the compelling state interest test and potentially least restrictive means as well. What is clear by these two cases is that our motions are even stronger in PA if your attorney is willing to add some argument specifically citing these cases. What is clear from the research we have done on specific state court cases is that Illinois, where this attorney seems to be from, is particularly dreadful in its application of federal constitutional principles. Their legal system is a mess.
Our motions are designed to present federal constitutional principles based on federal court precedent so that they apply in all 50 states. If you or your attorney do the research in your state, you may be able to make them far stronger, because state courts prefer to use their own precedent before addressing federal precedent.
These motions provide parents with the opportunity to try and prevent additional costly and lengthy litigation on issues that they never should have to litigate. “…a majority of Justices in Troxel recognized that such litigation can itself impinge upon parental rights, especially if it becomes protracted through the appellate process. (See Troxel)
Parents have choices that they are not being given by attorneys. Now parents can exercise these choices regardless of whether or not attorneys like it. Parents are learning that they do not have to go along with the continued extortion and false beliefs that the judges own their rights just because they are no longer in agreement with the other parent.
If this means that parents have to go through a prolonged fight to get these rights respected in their local courts, there are many who would rather do that than to be extorted for the rest of their child’s life and sometimes even beyond. Their choices are forever be under the control of a judge and their ex who takes advantage of their love for their child and their desire to continue to be with their child or fight like hell with everything their rights give them the power to fight for!
Ron and Sherry Palmer expose these practices and provide parents with effective ways to fight back.
Contact us for further training on understanding the cases in the context of fundamental rights.
You can contact Ron or Sherry Palmer at www.fixfamilycourts.com/contactus
*We are not attorneys. We do not practice law. You are responsible for what you use and how you use it. We are not responsible for your results. This is not legal advice. You are advised to seek the advice of an attorney for legal questions.
** Quote from Christian S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlgswOBZNq8