Parental Rights Are NOT Absolute!

Discussion of Issues

When you hear a judge tell you that your parental rights are NOT absolute the odds are very high that your judge is telling you that he or she is a criminal who has criminal mens rea to unlawfully violate your civil rights.

There is NO doubt whatsoever that a judge’s intentional violation of your civil rights is a crime and this is the crime, 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. See what the Justice Department has to say about this statute below.

What your judge is implying when they make this statement is that your rights are limited but their power is unlimited and this is anabsolute lie designed to cover up criminal behavior.

The Fourteenth Amendment exists to limit the power of all state government which includes executive power, legislative power, and judicial power. It requires that state child custody judges provide federal due process and equal protection standards to protect your rights and your child’s rights from any exercise of state legislative or judicial power.

When your judge enters your case predetermined to litigate the best interests of your nonparty nonlitigant child against your rights and predetermined to issue relief in your child’s best interests against your rights then your judge is entering the proceedings with criminal intent (mens rea) to violate your civil rights. This criminal distinction becomes especially important when we seek to demonstrate how "income-based" child support is felony forced labor under federal law, where abuse of law is an element of the crime.

Procedural due process mandates that judges provide fundamentally fair judicial process. The burden of meeting this duty falls to the judge and to the judge alone. This is why it is irrellivant whether the state or a private party initiates the suit. Either way, the judge bears the burden of providing fundamentally fair judicial process. The only difference when the state initates suit is that the executive official bringing suit will have additional "substantive" due process burdens to meet, that private parties are NOT held to.

What is fair about predetermined outcomes, outcomes that always serve the state's viewpoint regarding the arbitrary choice of "best"? What is fair about depriving you of rights under civil law policy mandates without permitting you to challenge that civil law mandate? What is fair about your judge acting as the state’s agent who is predetermined to impose the state’s civil law policy against your rights rather than protecting you from unlawful application of the civil law? The judge can NOT simultaneously be neutral, impartial, and independent from the state's interests while asserting state policy authority to impose that policy against you by presumption.

Procedural due process mandates that the state’s regulation of your fundamental rights is presumptively unconstitutional until the state appears and overcomes this constitutional presumption by entering testimony subject to your confrontation and cross-examination of that testimony. When your judge waives this burden of proof, your judge acts criminally. When your judge acts as the state, your judge acts criminally. When your judge issues final orders violating your rights without first adjudicating their legitimate authority to issue those orders, your judge acts criminally.

Substantive due process mandates that you are entitled to access to a state court where you can vindicate your federal rights before a neutral and impartial judicial decision-maker who is NOT predetermined to rule against your interests.

In child custody cases, the judge is on the state’s side against your interests and is acting as the state’s direct civil law agent imposing the state’s civil law as a state regulator against your interests and in the process the judge deprives you of your fundamental right of access to a neutral and impartial judicial decision-maker in your case.

Where the Supreme Court has held that your parental rights are fundamental rights, substantive due process mandates that the state demonstrates a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored state authority before it can limit your rights. Even then, the means the state uses must be the least restrictive means or option available to the state. Until this standard is met through adjudication, your child custody judge has zero judicial jurisdiction to limit your rights. Any resulting orders are advisory orders that are nullities under law. The reality is that every child custody and child support order in this country is likely an absoult nullity. The consequences of this simple fact are staggering to comprehend.

Judges know that they act criminally when they knowingly act without jurisdiction and they know that their resulting orders are advisory orders that are absolute nullities under law.

Your judge should know full well that all the way back in 1984, the Supreme Court heard a child custody modification appeal and held that the state’s goal of acting in the child’s best interest was merely a “substantial” state interest which is less than “compelling” and therefore insufficient to justify infringements of fundamental rights protected by the compelling state interest test.

This means that the judge’s opinion of your child’s best interest has zero power to legitimately deprive you of your fundamental rights such as close family speech and association that are protected by the compelling justification standard against child custody order prior restraints on speech and association.

Your judge knows that only narrowly tailored state authority can be applied to limit your fundamental rights. Yet, your judge claims “broad discretion” to determine your child’s best interest to violate your rights justified only by that merely "substantial" best interest goal. “Broad discretion” to determine "best" is literally the polar opposite of narrow tailoring.

Your judge has a duty to know the law and a duty to honestly apply the law. This duty is spelled out in your state’s Code of Judicial Conduct. Violations of this code are sanctionable and when you file complaints against your judge, this is the standard that your complaints should call out.

In most states, child custody judges are authorized to impose NO Contact orders against parents based entirely upon the judge's best interest viewpoint regarding matters of conscience in child-rearing and the judge's broad authority. As you can imagine, a NO Contact order is the polar opposite of least restrictive means and unquestionably a viewpoint-based prior restraint on parent-child speech and association. Never in the history of the Supreme Court has it ever found a viewpoint-based prior restraint to be justifiable.

All of this is imposed against you because the state classified you and your child as being undeserving of the same constitutional guarantees of all other parents and children. In Texas for instance, fit parents are reclassified as "conservators" and rather than protecting the existing rights of fit parents as conservators, Texas presumes that the rights of conservators are defined by the state and that your rights to make childcare determinations are absolutely nullified and conveyed to the court alone. This nullification of your rights happens the instant the child custody suit is filed and even though they hide the fact, Texas compels the filing of the child custody suit in divorce cases, Texas Family Code 6.406.

Your parental rights are “individual” rights established individually by each parent through different methods and protected by the federal constitution as private rights of the individual with zero dependence upon a marriage between the child’s parents. Yet your state’s family code presumes that only the rights of married parents and their children are constitutionally protected and the rights of unmarried parents or divorced parents and their children are de facto terminated by the absence of a marriage between the child’s parents.

This is the classic Bastardy Code relabeled to hide from the constitutional prohibition against Bastardy Codes. In Kansas for instance, they simply disallowed the use of the term "illegitimate child" as used in bastardy case precedent while continuing to impose the exact same disabilities on the child as they did under the illegitimate child label. Your child is treated asa bastard child regardless of the state’s uses of other labels or protestations that your child is not an illegitimate child. What thestate actually does rather than what the state simply claims is the true constitutional test.

It is unconstitutional for your state court judge to compare your rights as a divorced parent against the rights of married parents and claim that you are not similarly situated to married parents and thus your rights may be infringed while theirs cannot. Your state court judge has a duty to know this simple inescapable rule of law.

It is straight up marital discrimination to claim that married parents have rights but unmarried parents or divorced parents do not. The criminality of the child custody courts is so blatant and so obvious that it is extremely difficult to believe that these judges could be so brazenly criminal, but they are undeniably acting intentionally criminally.

If your judge is NOT being intentionally criminal, then the alternative is that your judge is so incompetent in the basic law of this country that he or she is unqualified to serve as a judge under the standards they publish. These are the only two available options, judges are either openly criminal or stupidly incompetent.