Constitutional Challenge on Best Interest of the Child Statute–

The Best Interest of the Child (BIC) is used as a magical incantation that the states use to force parents into traumatic litigation. We show you how they have been tricking you, give you more information about what best interest really is, and offer you the secrets that attorneys don’t want you to know.

We use an excerpt from an appellate brief from one of our students. This mom is challenging and claiming that Connecticut’s best interest of the child statute is an unconstitutional state statute that allows a judge to determine “best interest of a child” despite the fact that the child has at least one fit parent; in fact he has two fit parents. We are doing this special segment on this appeal snippet because the example below still gets a few things a little confused. This mom has graciously put herself out there so that others can learn the best argument available to save them and their child from the extensive litigation trauma that she and her autistic son have been through, and we are very proud of her.

When this mother came to us, she had spent thousands of dollars on attorneys and not one of them told her that her rights allow her to object to a judge imposing their viewpoint on her, which is how the best interest statute was used in her case. She didn’t know to even question the judge until she found us and took our online course, got our book and motions, and attended our webinars. Before that, she had no idea about any of this at all really. Instead she was struggling to figure out the rules. She thought she had to please the judge, so she changed careers, got a new job, worked more, and changed her lifestyle. But this did not change her child custody and did not get her equal possession time. Attorneys weren't helping either. They were just making her broke. So she found us.

Most attorneys will tell you that best interest has been tested and found to be constitutional. Keep reading before you buy their claim. Literally, you are paying for attorneys to remain ignorant and in denial when you don’t do your homework first. We are going to let you in on the secrets that attorneys have been keeping from you.

Ron B Palmer after analyzing tons of caselaw, doing other research, and then analyzing further, he discovered that best interest of the child (BIC) is actually nothing more than viewpoint discrimination, nothing more than a judge’s opinion, and violates First Amendment rights. Ron’s revolutionary breakthrough allowed him to see that this problem was being argued all wrong by family law attorneys. So what you see in this appeal excerpt is the result of this mother having available to her Ron’s insights. This gave this mother information that was not available anywhere else because Ron is the first one to articulate best interest of the child as infringing First Amendment rights. This information allowed her to understand better ways to tackle her child custody problems, “the monster” as she puts it, and more effectively demonstrate to the appellate court that her family court judge violated hers and her child's civil rights and are acting unconstitutionally.

How did this mom get access to the information that helped her build her appeal pro se and make strong arguments? Ron created an online course, and some example declaratory judgment motions, white papers, and wrote some books, "NOT in the Child's Best Interest," "28th Amendment: Protecting Parent-child Bonds," and "Oath Breakers: Lies Family Courts Tell." All of these materials reveal breakthrough arguments, and tie these discoveries to language that federal appellate courts use to disprove what the states are doing, so that you can track the arguments to any state cases that might exist in your state as well, (if they are not already in our materials).

Ron’s teachings that best interest is over broad, arbitrary, and vague, and allows the judges to make up the rules as they go ex post facto, give you the foundation to make the argument that best interest is unconstitutional. Ron’s strategy of using First Amendment to fight the unjust practices create the paradigm shift necessary to destroy the family court lies. Ron’s breakthrough exposes best interest as nothing more than a judge’s opinion based on their personal beliefs. Ron leads you through viewpoint discrimination arguments as well as leads you through the legal language for a higher level of scrutiny.

Whatthis means is that the judge (who is a state actor) is not allowed tosubstitute its own judgment over the objections of either fit parent. Theseteachings led this mother to argue that her state statute was vague andoverbroad. Part of what makes a statute unconstitutional is overbreadth, andthat it is arbitrary, and nothing more than a judge’s opinion. In other words,it is viewpoint discrimination when a judge imposes his personal beliefs on youto violate fundamental rights.

Ronteaches that best interest of the child infringes on free speech andassociation protected by the First Amendment. Ron teaches that before a judgeis allowed to interfere with your fundamental rights there are more stringentand strict rules that require a constitutional balancing test to protect youand protect children from error.

Thisenabled this parent to find caselaw in her state that supports these parentalrights ideas. She learned that it is error and called “ex post facto” for ajudge to make up the rules as they go and then strip you of fundamental rightsbased on nothing more than the judge’s opinion of what is best for your child.She learned that being made to guess at what a judge wants or expects violatesyour rights. She learned that a judge telling you who to be or who not to beviolates your rights, and “violates the first essential of due process of law.”

In a nutshell, your judge’s discretion is limited by the constitution but the state statutes are extending unconstitutional power to judges. Legislators are not allowed to convey power to judges that the constitution prohibits, period, the end.

[NOTE: WHILE WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT YOU COPY THIS APPELLATE BRIEF ARGUMENT INTO YOUR APPEAL, we do recommend that you learn from how other parents are interpreting these concepts, go to the source where they learned about these parental rights, and create your most powerful manuscript, write your story to the appellate court more effectively, and ensure that your grievance has the best shot to prevail. THERE ARE SECTIONS THAT YOU WILL NEED TO ARGUE DIFFERENTLY. IF YOU WANT THE MOST PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AND YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOUR RIGHTS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT YOU FROM LEGAL ABUSE GO HERE You will also find the information you need to adjust the argument there. DO NOT COPY THE FOLLOWING APPEAL EXCERPT DIRECTLY INTO YOUR APPEAL. BECOME A MEMBER and find out why. GET THE BENEFIT OF THE MOST UP-TO-DATE PARENTAL RIGHTS ARGUMENTS TO HELP YOU WIN* PROTECTION OF YOUR EQUAL RIGHTS IN SHARED PARENTING as a Member.]

–BEGINNINGOF APPEAL SNIPPET– [We added the bolding to call your attention to some of theareas that need updating. Plus there are additional steps that you need to knowbefore you challenge a statute.]

“Plaintiffchallenges the constitutionality of state statue §46b-56(b) that allows thecourt to determine what is in the child’s best interests and substitute itsjudgement over the judgment of a fit parent.

Therequirements placed on parents in a custody dispute are patentlyunconstitutional in that parents don’t know the “rules” of their case untilafter judgement is rendered. When two fit parents are forced to litigate topreserve their natural rights in state court, the ultimate best intereststandard comes down to nothing more than an opinion of a state judge, who,under the privilege of wide discretion, applies ex post facto rules to the“losing” parent. The best interest standard is used as a penal code because it isused as a tool to strip a parent of civil liberties and should be treated assuch for purposes of challenging it. §46b-56(b) isunconstitutionally vague in violation of the United StatesConstitution. "Under the requirements of due process of law mandated byour federal and state constitutions, a penal statute must besufficiently definite to enable a person to know what conduct he must avoid.” Statev. Proto, 203 Conn. 682, 696, 526 A.2d 1297 (1987). In Proto, itwas concluded that "persons of ordinary intelligence" lacked fairwarning of what conduct was illegal and what was permitted. The ConnecticutSupreme Court concluded that the statute in question was impermissibly vague,in violation of the Defendant's constitutional rights to due process of law.See also: State v. Pickering, 180 Conn. 54, 59-60, 428A.2d 322 (1980); see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 77, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976). “[A] statute which either forbids or requiresthe doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence mustnecessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates thefirst essential of due process of law.” Connally v. GeneralConstruction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926); Statev. Williams, 205 Conn. 456, 469-70, 534 A.2d 230 (1987). "'[P]erhapsthe most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demandsof a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionallyprotected rights. If, for example, the law interferes with the right of freespeech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.' HoffmanEstates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489(1982)." State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 803-804,640 A.2d 986 (1994). Because the “best interest” standard is designed toinfringe on free family association, a stringent vaguenesstest should apply to §46b-56(b).

Thecourt applied the best interest standard set forth in §46b-56(b) to deprivePlaintiff and her son their rights, using a mere preponderance of evidencestandard. The statutory best interest standard is not a trigger for thestate to intervene in a fundamental liberty interest. There’snothing “standardized” about the best interest standard, and it’s not a set ofrules any parent can refer to and reasonably uphold. Under the “best interest”standard, fit parents lose fundamental rights for failing to live up to theopinion of a judge for parental or lifestyle choices made within the marriageand were perfectly legal and acceptable within the marriage. In this instantcase, even if the court’s negative opinions about the Plaintiff were true, thecourt applies ex post facto punishment to the Plaintiff, because she could nothave predicted that her private thoughts and feelings that were not in evidencewould later be punishable. The “rules” in her case were formulated at the timeof the final judgement. This is commonplace in Family Law.

Plaintiffasserts that under the best interest standard, there is no legal standard orstatute an otherwise fit parent to live up to, to win the theoretical approvalof a judge that will rule in future proceedings. The “best interest” standardis unconstitutional and can only be applied in the context of parenspatriae when the child has no fit parents, or with the application ofthe constitutional balancing test. Parents entering divorce proceedings aresubject to a higher scrutiny by the state on their parenting style, theirhealth, hobbies, and personalities, all in the clear absence of unfitness. It’sunconstitutional for fit parents to be subject to loss of rights for theprotected choice to dissolve their marriage.”

—-END OF APPEAL SNIPPET —–

You can learn to argue like this too. Discover the path that we took this parent on that helped her understand parental rights, revolutionize her thinking, and write this appeal. Go into our member site to see the secrets attorneys keep from you. This appeal brief argument should not be copied into your brief as is. The vagueness argument is not the strongest argument you can make. Ron discusses best interest being used to punish you in his courses in a way to communicate a concept. This should not be mistaken as a penal code. If you use it this way it can hurt you. You want to be as technically precise as you can in order to have the best shot at winning your appeal. You can get this and more information in the members only site and make the best argument you can make so that you can fight for justice and overcome the abuse and suffering the courts have put you through unconstitutionally. Be the best by making the best argument. You and your child deserve the full protection of this country’s promises.

We are proud of our students and how they are using the information that we teach. This mom has graciously put herself out there so that others can learn the best argument available to save them and their child from the complex litigation trauma and high conflict that she and her autistic son have experienced.

After studying some of our earlier training materials and discussing them with us personally, this parent has done one of the better jobs that we have seen with getting some of the basic ideas that we teach into her brief (we do not teach you to argue best interest as a criminal code). These are difficult concepts to grasp and that’s why we are adding additional training to clarify these concepts based on how we see people understanding them. We are continuously improving these arguments for your benefit. When we started there was nothing. We are the original architects of the core concepts, ideas, and arguments that this mother makes in her brief and her video. While she does a decently good job, remember the ways that they got argued in this appeal snippet may not be precise enough or technically correct, may not apply the way the parent has argued them, and may be incomplete, so we are developing more training here to help you be the one to make that successful appeal argument in your brief that prevails and changes this forever for everyone.

If you want to fight this way, you don't have to struggle anymore, your first steps are to get on our member site and get the basic knowledge through our training, then you can more effectively work with us one on one to iron out specifics and to help your attorney get these arguments right.  

We encourage all of you to do your best with the arguments as you can. We know that this is not something that you were trained to do, or ever thought you would need to learn, and it is sad that attorneys won’t do it for you. But that's why we try to make it as easy as possible for you and give you examples and templates to help simplify and speed up your progress.

Attorneys go to school for several years to learn to understand law. Unfortunately, they are only required to spend a semester or two on constitutional law. Because it is so difficult for parents to find an attorney who will acknowledge these rights, let alone argue them, parents throughout the United States are being forced to learn parental rights pro se. We encourage you to learn from what other parents are doing by becoming a member here where you will have the most revolutionary, persuasive, breakthrough arguments available today. Always check what you have learned before you use it with an attorney however. Yes, they may be resistant, but they can provide you with how they believe the law is applied and their feedback can help you identify if one of your arguments needs some work. Also, the technical rules in your county may require some customization from the federal arguments we make here. We make the federal arguments that you and your attorney can adapt to the specific rules of your state. Remember that federal laws and the federal constitution overrule any state law or state constitutional provisions, but you must still follow your state and local rules when arguing these federal issues. Your attorney is always the best source of information for technicalities in local and state rules. You don’t have time to mess up. You might not get another chance before your child ages out.

If youhave taken our course, read our books, and used argument from the samplemotions, we would like to see how you interpreted what you learned. Please send ushow you are arguing your rights in your appeal so that other parents canbenefit from your learning as well.

Aruling has not been made on this appeal yet. Becomea member to receive updates. Do not be complacent in thinking thatthis is all you need to challenge the constitutionality of a statute. We willshare with you the simple steps we use to formulate a comprehensive argumentand why you need to get as much argument into your trial court record beforeundergoing an appeal.

If you choose to continue to do this alone and without the support and shortcuts you get as a member, you need to know where to start. Each state has different rules for challenging statutes. Please consult an attorney to find out what those rules are. For instance, in Texas, a parent must notify the Attorney General when they are challenging a statute. There is a government form to do this. If you do not follow these rules you could have your argument thrown out, dismissed, or denied.

Also check out our daily tool post we made on challenging the best interest of the child doctrine in your family court trial.

*There are no guarantees in any legal case of winning.

DISCLAIMER:We are not attorneys, are not trained in the law, do not practice law, and arenot a substitute for an attorney. These arguments however are unique to us andthey did not exist before we started teaching them. These arguments arecopyright protected. Please get permission before you re-print or re-publishany of our materials. You may use the materials for your own case as you seefit. If you would like someone else to use the argument please refer them to usso that we can make sure that they are getting the most up-to-date information.