How to Challenge Temporary Orders

so I want to welcome everyone tonight we are doing the worst fears that you might have or might have encountered in your child custody battles so we are here tonight to talk about your worst Spears in child custody battles I would imagine that every single one of us has gone through some kind of fear that wasn't one that we expected when we got involved in trying to protect our rights and our children's rights and I think one of the primary ones for me was that I didn't expect to be getting attacked by my own attorneys I also didn't expect that other people were going to take over the rights to my child or my children and start telling

me what to do and I actually I didn't even think that it mattered if they tried I didn't expect a judge to actually entertain those things so there were a lot of things that happened that caused me to develop fears that I didn't originally even have in the process and one of these that created this fear is what they call the best interest Doctrine so we're going to go over that a little bit tonight and I'm Sherry Palmer I'm your host along with Ron Palmer where with fix Family Court you can contact us there anytime at fxf Family courts.com we're also authors and strategist we also help coach attorneys and parents oneon-one to help teach them

how to use their constitutional arguments even in the face of Judges that try to tell you that they don't have holding in their court that is incorrect and if you have any questions about that contact us and we'll tell you why so if you're in the beginning of this process you may have asked where do I start how much money will I need how long does it take what kind of help do I need and where do I find help we simplify this process for you no matter where you are in it even if you're not in the beginning where you start is always always always with your rights because that is what empowers you there are lots

of people out there that are going to argue with you and say your children have right and some somebody needs to protect those and when you're arguing with the other parent now somebody has to take over because you're not protecting the child's rights because all you're doing is thinking about yourself what do they tell you when you're on an airplane they tell you to put your mask on first if you have children and why do they tell you that because if you don't take care of yourself you won't be there to help them and isn't that what's been happening in these court cases is when you didn't protect your rights you're no longer

there with your child for your child and it's not usually by choice it's usually because somebody else took it from you so if you're not going to protect your rights they're going to give someone else power aren't they a lot of times it's the ex a lot of times it's a parent facilitator or somebody else so all of this goes back to creating fear it creates fear in you that now all of a sudden you've lost control and so what do you start doing you start spend ending money you start looking at who can help you get that power and control back and I think the first people you look at are attorneys you think the

attorneys are there to protect your ability to do that but what happens is you go to them as a victim you go to them and you say oh my God everything's out of control please help me and they're like well how much are you willing to pay and then they're like how much do you have how much is your house worth and then and you wonder why they're saying these things because you're asking them to come in there and save you from something but you're not asking them hey are you going to protect my rights what empowers me or any of that so you you don't have it straight in your own mind and they don't have

time or the money to educate you on that stuff do they because they're handling a lot of cases I'm not making excuses for attorneys I'm just kind of telling you the reality is that if you don't know what your rights are there aren't many people that are going to care you know it's no different than when a police officer pulls you over if you don't know that it's your right to decline having them search your car or letting them into your business then they'll come into your business now of course we have Miranda rights in criminal law but that's because people criminals appealed they pushed the issue they said we must have rights we want

them protected well that's the position parents are in right so how long will this take well some of that is up to all of you one is if you buy into the patterns that they've been using it might take a long time because they're going to want a bunch of studies and do a bunch of other stuff and I'm not going to take a lot of time on that because we cover that in other webinars we're going to get into some other stuff tonight what we're going to show you tonight is going to help you shorten this process and it's exactly what we've been saying to do so that gets to what kind of help

do I need that's what we're going to go over tonight we're going to show you that the Constitutional arguments that we wrote in our book do work that case from Michigan uses the arguments that we've written about so where do I find help you find it by talking to people that know your constitutional rights people that know the process and how to insert them into it you don't find help from other people that are working in the process and using the same patterns that they've been using for Generations that are hurting families and so those would be generally the mediators the gals the attorneys um so pretty much most the people that work in the process work in

the system are using the same process and procedures that they've been told must be used so if you want to challenge that they're probably not the right ones to do that with that could threaten what they consider their status quo right and a lot of you know you've talked about they make money and they do all these things but the way I look at this is not so much arguing that do they or don't they make money because everybody makes money doing something but it's are they or aren't they doing the job that you expected to be done so the fear that you've developed in all of this is because you're not getting the

help that you need you're running out of money and what happens when you run out of money you can't fight to be with your children anymore and some of you have gone a very long time without seeing your children so once you've embarked on this journey what do you need to know the first thing you should know you look to Stanley and you say the Constitution does not permit the state to presume rather than prove a parents unfitness solely because it's more convenient to presume than to prove so what's happening with most of you is you're going in you have these what they call hearings and they turn around and use low standards of proof and decide

sometimes it's just attorneys in the room the parents don't even get to go in and the judge decides one of you gets their rights deprive one of you doesn't get to see the children as much one of you gets to pay for the majority of this right well a lot of that is because you didn't have an attorney or yourself argue that that's not permitted and this case in re Sanders that we're going to look over in a minute says exactly that it may be a Michigan Supreme Court case but you guys can take the wording right out of it you can tell your judge look these are Supreme Court Justices from

another state I understand it's not controlling but this is not just argument made by them they took a lot of the argument from the Supreme Court of the United States and like I said we've written these arguments in our books and now you know they work and they're talking about fundamental things not things that just all of a sudden were given to us these are not new rights so you can ask your judge to consider using them and if that judge doesn't used the same procedure that this father in this case did he used an interlocutory AR argument he actually challenged based on uh before his case was final which is super super important because a lot of

you are getting stuck in the process I don't know if this particular parent here but one of them is is uh they keep having what they call status hearings or status conferences and all they do in those is decide what's in the best interest of the child right and the parent keeps trying to argue I decide best interest what happened is the state cut that step out they cut the step out where they were supposed to prove the fitness of the parent before they started deciding best interest for the child so because they cut that step out that parent now needs to go to the appell court and argue that that step was skipped and at

you know the rest of their rules in their state and put together a solid argument to challenge that that courts using jurisdiction over them without the proper due process and you'll understand it more again if you read INRI Sanders so all these things that they order in these hearings that most of you are going through psych vals family studies restrictions on your time with your child based on waiting for the results of the psych bells and the family studies and social studies anything else based on a facilitator's decision so they are not using proper D process but here's the other issue if you don't demand a fitness hearing then they can get away with this because there's other

people that tried to challenge this very same thing that this father did in Michigan and they didn't get hurt do you know why they didn't get heard well this court says why and in fact I'm going to go to that case real quick because I want to show you guys when you're demanding a fitness hearing you're not actually demanding a hearing you're demanding that they not take any action to deprive you of any of your fundal fundamental rights without first holding a hearing don't don't take that to mean you should demand and schedule a hearing force force it upon them it's their job to take the effort to prove you unfit and what you need to say is you cannot

deprive me of fundamental rights without first proving me unfit right right so first of all recognize that if you're getting stuck in status hearings status conferences judge keeps saying I want to wait for the next study I want to wait because they just made another claim then you need to push for that adjudication hearing so the the deal is when they make these temporary orders they're under their clock is ticking and they have to prove you unfit within a certain amount of time or they have to return your child to you and that's what you need to put before them do proc process demands that if you believe there is probable cause to think that

I'm harming my child or that I'm unfit that you prove that in a reasonable amount of time and if you fail to prove it you must return my child to me okay and here's here's let me go back real quick because I I said why did ma it's a case called inry Ma and we're looking at Sanders by the way and if you notice we're using scholar.google.com it's where you can find all these cases and real quick when you see inry what it means is that it wasn't a traditional appeal it was a mandamus or a habius petition and these are just different ways to get into the court into the Appel at court based on different

criteria and this mandame mandamus or mandamus as some people call it this was off of an interlocutory order which was temporary orders he was in status hearings so that's why I'm telling all of you that are here tonight this is beautiful news because we were all struggling with how do we get heard during the time that the court is saying I didn't make a final order so it's not right for appeal so they kept getting away with limiting your rights your time depriving you putting burdens on you without meeting the due process standards and you had nowhere to go and we knew that there was mandamus and things like that but we hadn't seen

anyone use it successfully yet and here keep in mind the rules when it comes to interlocutory appeals is they're different in each state an interlocutory simply means that your orders are not final these are non-final orders you're appealing and usually you have to appeal these orders through a mandamus proceeding if you happen to be in jail through contempt or whatever other mechanism then you would typically need to file a habus petition and I want to remind everyone Ron and I are not attorneys we're constitutional Scholars we do research and then we try to simplify cases that we read and show you what we believe would be the interpretation which is totally under your First

Amendment right to interpret what your beliefs are and how you understand these interpretations you can share this with anyone if you do it yourself as well as long as you are not practicing law you are not trying to do pleadings for someone else and you're not trying to represent them so just and that's a very technical legal argument so don't take that as saying we're telling you you're able to do something the first amendment allows you to communicate political ideas it allows you to associate to petition the government and when you file pleadings you are petitioning the government the the judicial branch is a branch of government so but they are they jealously guard their their

Monopoly in this area and they like to punish people for doing these things so be very very careful if you go about help helping people or writing things up for people that's not what we're telling you to do okay and how how are we doing Tommy can you all still hear us oh yes I can hear you I can see you um but um I'm absolutely confused that I personally have been doing this for seven years and I don't understand how I didn't know what Ron was just talking about why is it a secret that I don't have the right to say prove me to be unfair and then we can have this

conversation because they they confuse everything in family law they say oh what about the children oh my God we have to save the children the children the children and what they do is they use that to go about destroying families and they've been doing it they they were doing it before the 14th amendment was passed and they've never adjusted what they've done based on the 14th Amendment and one of the things that's basically what we're to do is force the courts to recognize the 14th amendment in family law and to abide by it and that's what I'm going to show you here Tommy because remember this this ruling that we're showing you right now it's brand new it

just happened 2014 that's a that's a state court now so anybody in Michigan this is controlling for you outside of Michigan you can just use it as reference for the logic and the legal thinking but what but what we're telling you is these arguments that this attorney used in this case are the same arguments we make in our book so that's why we're saying these arguments work and so what this does for you is when you go before a judge or you speak to another attorney the opposing attorney and they say oh you're full of it you don't know what you're talking about you bring up you pull out the case with the United the

Supreme Court of Michigan says exactly the same thing I'm saying so I can't be that full of it if one of the Supreme Courts of a state says the exact same thing and then you would say and by the way they reference let we go up to they reference Stanley they reference Troxel they reference uh Eldridge yeah Eldridge test we have all of those in our book so we explain them a little more than what they do in this because as you see this their explanation for this case basically ends uh let me see if I can find it's not a very long opinion it's the desent that wrote a long opinion after okay this opinion

ends right here okay and if you look on the right side you'll see that that's not very far down this opinion goes all the way down to here and then they have you know their citations and references what that means dissenting by the way is this Justice disagreed with something and in fact he agreed with a lot of stuff but what he disagreed with was the fact that they were saying that this these statutes that they were using were unconstitutional he wanted to argue that it's for 70 years they've been using them and this um judge Markman is on the side of now you just made it more difficult for um courts to protect children and

parents and and to take jurisdiction over the child but I don't I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember but I'm a child of the 70s and Miranda came about in in either the late 60s or early 70s and everybody and their brother were up in arms about how much crime we would have because Miranda would be letting criminals go because some Cop made a technical error and at least one or more of the dirty hary movies played on that concept but we found over the decades since then that that simply is isn't the case that that was a bunch of hot air that is very it's very doable for the police to read

people their rights and then to convict criminals of crimes they simply have to follow the rules and that's all we're saying about family court you have to follow the rules it's that simple and they say that in this case they say that in the most recent case that they made a ruling on in the US Supreme Court about the buffer zones on the East Coast they they just ruled the buffer zones um they couldn't use those and they said we understand that some of these rulings make it more expensive for the state you know like let me give you another a better example some of you might be not familiar with that but you're probably

familiar with they just made a ruling saying that that um they had to get a warrant to search your phones and they said we understand this might make it more difficult to prosecute a criminal because they prosecuted a guy whose they went through of a pretty heinous crime I think it was a shooting or something they prosecuted him because they found pictures or something in his phone and so they said we understand that this might make it more difficult but what this does is this protects people from erroneous judgments and in fact that's in here and I'll get back to Mae so but if you look up erroneous if you notice I use control F

to search cases it protects people from the risk of error okay and I'm going to go up to the first one because uh that's not where I want to be and there's a standard that they use and it depends on what rights that you're talking about as to how much protection they want to give somebody against risk of error and uh as an example and we use this example in the classes that we teach is if you're talking about a money dispute they may use a lower standard of proof because the risk of error people don't care about quite as much because it's not a life you know it's not something that's life-altering

like maybe the death penalty um it's also not as life altering as taking away one of your Liberties like your time with your child so they lower that standard and they allow for you know lower proof preponderance of evidence things like that in those cases about money when it comes to criminal stuff they rais the standard because there's more at risk okay so let's go back to maiz so real quickly when they worry about it's going to be harder to do something it would be much easier for the police to get convictions if they were allowed to beat confessions out of people but clearly that is something we're not willing to tolerate in a free

society and so every argument has its EX and the police can't simply come in and say well it's got to be super easy for us to convict criminals even if it means we hurt a bunch of innocent people so what well that argument just doesn't fly but that's basically what they're doing in in parenting and family law they're saying you know we think we're protecting children it doesn't matter if we destroy 20 families to protect one child they're saying that cost is okay and the Constitution says that cost is not okay justices actually say that they say okay so it might be a little more expensive for the state to have to

adjudicate a parent before they can take over the care custody control decisions of a child but they said the Constitution demands that and because it does they are bound to the Constitution so they say you cannot put in a procedure or a process that allows the state to say it's less expensive this way to do it or we can protect one side or one party this way but we have to violate due process for someone else they said we're sorry that is not allowed so now you have an additional argument when you're going through this and that judge tells you as I know they've done to several of you they say we're sorry but we're going to wait for

the coun the child's counselor to bring us back a report well you know what they didn't even they even have the right to do that yet if they didn't properly adjudicate you and determine that you were unfit they don't even have a right to take over that care custody and control do they so you would use this to argue and here's here's why I wanted to bring up ma is because this denter because you notice we're down in the middle so judge Markman who didn't agree with the opinion wrote that this person ma didn't get heard for a very similar argument that L which is the father in sand this Sanders case lard got heard on it here's

why Mae didn't get heard Mae did not preserve the argument the court did not address the issue in maze because the appellant father had failed to preserve the issue in the trial court or the court of appeals you know how many times we've told attorneys you need to preserve error and you know you just said Tommy how come I didn't understand the the interlocutory or this or that or or that you know these arguments well how come the attorneys aren't understanding that you need to preserve your rights and the due process violations in order to raise them so ask yourself that because they're trained in this so when you bring it up now bring

this case up and say absolutely not I'm not going to wait because a lot of them say well let's wait and see if we lose first at this hearing you tell them I'm going to show you this case and I want you to use this so just tell them pull arguments out of it copy arguments from this so I just wanted to point that out because we say that over and over and over again and everybody's always saying prove it prove it prove that I have to do it that way that's why I'm saying this case right here proves all the arguments we've been seeing here you go right here constitutional parental rights now this

is in the actual opinion that agreed the parents have constitutional rights this is not in the dissension now this is in the opinion that ruled this is in the opinion that one the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that states shall no State sorry shall deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor Deni any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws included in the 14th amendment's promise of due process and they go on and which and they use Washington versus gburg didn't they so I wanted to point this out that's a United States Supreme Court case and one you'll find in our book and Meyer versus

Nebraska same thing United States Supreme Court case and in our book so you'll see that they derived their argument from the US Supreme Court case this is a beautiful case that teaches you how to tie in your arguments in your state you see here they pulled State cases that they backed these up with that is how you do it you don't have to put up with that delay anymore you don't have to sit there and let them make decisions about your child in those hearings anymore but you can't expect to argue constitutional rights in a dispositional hearing or status conference and here's why is well they say it in here and that's why I tell people all the time we

don't make this stuff up we find it in these cases and then we tell you guys about it it makes sense yeah it is it is and that's why we we simplify it for all of you okay dispositional hearings what is the purpose of them the purpose of them is for the court to determine what's in the best interest of the child so does a parent get H on their rights no not in those why because the court had to make the assign asson that the parent is unfit in order to make those determinations this case says it the court had to make that assumption so here you are standing before the court

saying hey I'm a fit parent I can make these decisions you know what they're doing they're just skipping that step did they find you unfit they'll tell you no we didn't but yet they're using a process that is only used for parents that are unfit so what would you argue you would argue excuse me respectfully your honor and this is just how I would do it okay so we just make suggestions respectfully your honor but I believe this is the kind of hearing that you would only use after I've been adjudicated to be unfit and they'll be all pissed off of course and say baloney and then you'll pull this out your honor they use United

States Supreme Court cases I understand this is from a different state but I'm telling you this is the way things are supposed to be done I understand it's not how it's been done and guess what else you have in this case go down to the dissension go down here to the bottom was hoping to find that dispositional thing for you real quick this is stuff that I pull out for people taking our labs in our classes but they actually described what a dispositional hearing does but I pretty much covered it for you um but as soon as they say this isn't how it's been done you say yeah I understand this because judge Markman

explained the way it's been done but these justices have finally seen the light you could say they finally understood that it's our liberty interest and a liberty interest requires higher standards of due process which are covered by the 14th Amendment right and the bottom line is they cannot deprive you of rights to your child unless they have proven you unfit or that they have proven that you are are a harm to your child and the only exception to that is in short-term limited situations where they have probable cause to believe that you are unfit or you are a harm or danger to your child and even in those situations due process Demands a very rapid

turnaround where they have a series of hearings very quickly and they have to prove sufficient evidence to continue to hold your child and that failure to prove that they must let you go kind of like being indicted for a crime they can arrest you but if they can't indict you if the grand jury says no there's not enough evidence they have to let you go and it's the same thing in these hearings with these children but let me tell you what this father did in the case that we just showed you in the father's name is lard they tried to do that to him they put him in those dispositional hearings they order that

he had to do a service plan because CPS or DHS was trying to take his child and they were telling him that he had to do you know psyche vows drug testing and all kinds of things because they had jurisdiction over the children because the mother had already signed paperwork that she had neglected or endangered the children because she was a drug addict and here here's the key thing right here between these dispos dispositional hearings and a hearing on Fitness before they can get to those hearings where they can order you to take psych vowes and do all these things they have to prove you unfit if they prove you unfit then they can determine whether they're

going to take your child from you completely or make you go through jump through a bunch of Hoops before you get your child on limited or pered permanent basis and Most states require them to jump through those hoop right so the the hearings I'm talking about are the hearings where they have to prove you unfit or prove you a danger to your child before they can do anything against you they cannot punish you they cannot force you to jump through hoops until they prove you unfit okay let me get back to you this is what they did to lay I was trying to cover that um what they did with lard is they tried to tell

him he had to do these things and most of you parents this is what's happened to you they said you know what I hear what you're saying but that's too bad this is the way we do it we're allowed to require you to do a service plan and and all these things that we're telling you to do lard said no you're not you have to find me unfit I want an adjudicative hearing he pushed so much and so hard for that guess what they did they dropped their unfitness claims because they were claiming well you're unfit so we got to do all this because the mom's unfit right he pushed and pushed and pushed they dropped it and

they continued to say he had to do those things we dropped it but you still have to do what we say because we're the all Mighty we're in charge of your best interest of the children of your children he said no you aren't and he's still pushed and this is what I what I mean when I tell parents and what Ron means when he says they must have a fitness hearing do not be afraid of that Fitness hearing if you're going into it knowing you're right be very afraid of it if you don't know your rights because they will take advantage of that the only thing that gives them Authority is proving you unfit or proving you are

danger short of that they have no Authority they have raw power they have the ability to intimidate you into doing these things but they have no legitimate Authority so they dropped it hoping he wouldn't notice and just said well but if you do these things this is going to be a lot easier and quicker and then you can get back with your children and most the parents do that that's where he didn't he said no and he filed the mandamus we're assuming it was a Mand damus we haven't actually seen what he actually filed but because it was interlocutory there's only a couple things you can do with that to challenge a non-final order so he filed that they

were violating his due process and he argued it on the basis of what they call a one parent Doctrine and the reason this is important is guess what that one parent Doctrine is just about as broad as the best interest Doctrine so all you some I mean there's a couple little tweaks You' need to make but for the basics for tonight when you read this case think of this case as saying best interest Doctrine and you'll start to see the similarities in how you can fight this right now tomorrow with your courts telling them no more status hearings no more of these things you didn't prove this I want you to prove it

and then if they try to continue to pose those burdens on you use the rest of the argument that lard worked in here it's already worked once all you got to do is set Yours up right now and use it as well so here's the deal when it comes to the best interest of the child the court only has authority to act in the best interest of the child in a dispositional hearing the court can only conduct a dispositional hearing once it's proven you unfit or a danger to your child therefore they do not have Authority Under the best interest of the child in an adjudication hearing okay so we're going to go back to the

presentation I hope that explains that a little more and tells you why we're so excited because we knew that so many parents that come to us are so stressed out afraid of challenging them afraid that they're not going to know what to do next because they hit them with these ideas and they didn't know what authorities to look for and this one was so easy and simple so the dispositional hearings the status conferences those are the ways they're delaying and costing you money and what are they using to do this to you best interest and foren Patriot they talk about both of those in that case also I want to address since we're running out of time

here what's different in divorce than in termination because they might say well that's all fine and great but that was the father uh the mother had been terminated they were trying to terminate the father it wasn't a divorce issue they'll always come back at you with that so you go and you look for authorities in that to argue and one of them that I found was the first one that says the private interest that's affected by their action and the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures they're using and the probable value this is all coming from this first quote here if you can see it of any additional or substitute

procedural safeguards the government's and and finally the government interest including the function involved and the fiscal administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail I know I kind of read that out of order the reason I read that to you is because you have to argue with them that they can't lower the standard just because they're saying that they're only limiting your rights and that it's different in divorce it's a private interest that they're affecting and it's a liberty interest look at the bottom of this slide you are defending a liberty interest go back to the case in re Sanders download it from Google from scholar. gooogle unfortunately I didn't set up the little

link to help you download it tonight download that case and look at how they argue private interest and liberty interest they say in that case that your children and your care custody control your decision-making Authority regarding your children falls under Liberty and interest remember in the past we said historically it fell under property right that stopped being the case so now you're children fall under Liberty interests that just raised up that standard on them that just also raised the state's burden they now have to prove your unfit or clear and present danger so that's how you get there okay so they're just using divorce as a vehicle to authorize their Authority the

other reason they're doing it is you are very very emotional in divorce and when you're in that emotional state you are very easy to take advantage of so they know this and what's easier even more for them is if you don't know your rights for them to take control and tell you what to do so the state's forgetting one of their duties it's their Duty first is to defend the privacy of your family and then to take jurisdiction of a child only after after there's no parent to look over their rights and protection they're also forgetting that that duty to protect the privacy of family means each parent and child not the nuclear family that came from the

creation of the child or during the marriage or even if there wasn't a marriage during the relationship that's not where the duty to defend privacy resides it resides with each of you individually as it resides individually with your child so look at it this way too they look at your child as an individual why are they not looking at you as an individual they're looking at you and the and the other parent as a unit that they can just sweep under the rug if they find one parents ridiculous they can they can throw both parents out if they want right so question that so rights in conflict with the other parent we've covered this in the

past before but I wanted to bring it up again because they'll throw that at you as soon as you diffuse their argument that they can't violate due process and divorce just because it's not termination then they'll say well you're not agreeing with the other parent you both have the same rights you do have individual rights that are the same but they're not in Conflict if they use the least restrict well I take you back they are in conflict but the state is only authorized to use the least restrictive means which would mean equally respecting and protecting both your privacy and Liberty interests equally and here's an important point when you're married are you ever

in Conflict do you do you ever argue with your spouse over what's best for your child of course you do parents argue all the time there is always conflict about the rights of of the parents on who's going to decide what on who's going to have the child at any given time on who's going to have the responsibility to take care of the child primarily who's going to make more money for the family all of those things can come into conflict none of that in a marriage allows the court to come in and deprive you of your rights why then can they do it if you're divorced and the only thing that comes

into play is that with a marriage you have a natural mechanism to help resolve these disagreements because you both have hopefully a vested interest in maintaining the marriage and coming up with an a reasonable outcome in divorce you have you don't have that marriage mechanism so what you have to do is have a more formal process for dividing that time and those rights and the court cannot order anything other than equal time unless and this comes from the latest case that we uh just mentioned earlier that July of this year Sanders no the M Mulla not Mulla um the buffer zone M Mallen I mentioned it earlier it just came out July of this year Well you

mentioned it to Tommy we weren't in webinar I'm sorry um we'll we'll provide that case it just came out uh this this month actually and what then it was about the uh First Amendment rights and the buffer zones and they discussed the least restrictive means test and what they said that because the state had not proven that other least restrictive means would work to solve the problem that then their action was unconstitutional therefore if the state has not proven that equal shared parenting is a solution to the best interest of the child then they are unconstitutional in their actions yeah uh here's the part that I was looking for on this slide you may have already

read through it and this is the dispositional phase where uh DHS or that's their CPS that's their child protective Services was arguing back when lard said you're violating my due process they argued the dispositional phase obviates an unadjudicated parents right to a fitness hearing they were basically saying that their procedure was allowed and therefore they didn't have to find whether or not he's fit or unfit because they already took jurisdiction over the child because the mother was unfit so they tried to sweep his rights under the rug and this court the Supreme Court of Michigan said no sorry um they because this Supreme Court also overruled one of their court of appeals decisions as remember he had to

go to the Supreme Court because the appell court denied him they agreed with DHS the child protective services he had to go to the next step which is the Supreme Court who then overturned the Precedence of their appell at court and this was their explanation and this paragraph right here is what I'm saying insert best interest standard and tweak it a a little bit and use that argument against best interests as saying that it's unconstitutional that it fails to recognize the Constitutional protections look at the bottom here well close to the bottom under a put in best interest standard fails to recognize the unique constitutional protections that must be afforded to unadjudicated parents that

means parents who have not been found unfit irrespective of the fact that they meet the definition of whatever else they're talking about there this one here any adult that's the definition they use in the one parent doctrine that they just overturned with this ruling so that's how you use your argument to counter their idea of best interest let's go to the next slide um stay away from the better parent argument because that sucks you down that that funnel of opening up their their ability to use bias and prejudice against you and to lower those standards and to say that you didn't preserve error that you were asking them to make these decisions

remember as we always tell everyone you can forfeit your rights and if it appears that that's what you're doing then the appell Court's not going to help you not even in a mandamus so don't forfeit your Liberty it's it's up to you if you want the right to make your decisions and to be a participant in your child's life or you don't but you do have the right to wave it but be careful that you're not doing that so don't use the better parent argument what happens when your relationship is strained now due to the delays unfortunately we're out of time so we don't have enough time to go over this anymore so I'm going to skip through it

but if all of you want more information I also recommend read santosi you want more information on how to use more of this stuff we teach this every single week in some classes we have the book that we mentioned called not in the child's best interest and I will plug these slides in with the presentation that I send out to you so that you'll have the rest of these and this is this is about our classes which you can go to our training. fix family courts.com to look and see more information about them but we teach protecting family rights creating your blueprint and how to overcome Family Court abuses of power and I'm going to go off of this because

I want to be able to answer a few questions and um like I said we have the book and I'll throw that up there so that you guys can click on that if you would like to get that book and learn your rights we also have the courses as I said and I think I'm just going to send those out to everyone because I want to get to some of your questions here so let me see if I can go back to this chat um okay so a couple questions that we have is what if you have a salt to a family that goes back to 2004 can they use that against you to say that you are

unfit they have to hold an adjudicative hearing and they have to meet the standards that are in those statutes David they can't just go ahead and and decide that because you once did something that's going to be held against you forever because there's there's a couple of things when they hold an adjudicative hearing they like I said they have a different process they have to follow don't let them lower it in the family court get a real hearing of fitness and if they can't find you unfit I believe that the guy layed he had some things against him in there and those didn't get to get used against him because they dropped it they didn't hold

the hearing so it would all matter on whether they can get you um convicted of that if they don't get you convicted then move forward fight for your rights for your children um what kind of thing do they look at to consider you an unfit parent they may try to tell you different things in Family Court than what they actually should be using remember they're going to try to keep their power so what I would suggest David again is go to the child abuse statutes go to the statutes that CPS or any child protective service in Michigan it's DHS go to the statutes that they would use to take your child from you that should

not be lowered in the family courts but you have to fight to keep those as being used you have to fight for that standard okay someone asked you ask for a fitness hearing after a temporary orders is decided ask for it at any time if you didn't know to ask for it ask for it now reframe your case they may try to stop you they may say you know we've already gone this far that's when you have to raise I was unaware of my rights so there's a whole another argument you can make about unknowingly waving your rights but now if you're still in the trial court you have time to put those

in there if you don't put them in there is when you're going to lose them so put them in there and if they deny you as they did this father because remember a lot of people say I did it but they still said no they still forced me to do these things well they can't force you to say you're unfit they can't force you to go through their service programs that's why this father used the Appellate Court to challenge those temporary orders okay so you'll have to do that you'll have to decide if that's something that you're going to be able to do here's the um parental rights book for any of you

that want to read through it because I I can tell you that if you read this first you'll get a better foundation and you'll be able to see some of these arguments a lot faster is if you just go and start reading cases which you can do too it took us a long time to process that it took us a long time to figure out what does that exactly mean or how does that work so we helped simplify that in the book so that's one thing that you can go to I also have the the course package here so if you want that Weekly interaction and learning how to integrate those rights and use those

rights then you're going to want to look into the courses and we do break them down into monthly payments as well because there's a total of 28 weeks in these classes you can choose to only take one class or two classes but if you do all three then you actually get a discount because we throw one of the classes in here's the triple package you just you can click on it check it out send us questions if if a psyche vow has been ordered should you submit to any specific testing that could possibly be used against you in court my feeling is and the way I would do it absolutely not if they had not held an adjudicative

hearing and proven me to be unfit then they have violated your due process and they don't have any they don't have any grounds what what are they doing that for they're looking for something to use against you that's like a warrantless search isn't it I wouldn't do it I would file uh if I can't get the court to agree with my argument as long as you've presented the argument to the court your objections and put it in the file and given them first try at ruling on this argument that we're bringing up to you tonight if they deny you that and they still want to push you to do it then I

would file with the Appel court now there are a few states that do not let you challenge temporary orders in fact we know one of the attorneys that has a ciori in the United States Supreme Court right now challenging the fact that that parent cannot challenge temporary orders so if you're in one of those States let us know we'll connect you up with her so you can stay in contact and get the results from that because there are it is up to the state whether or not they they have a process for you to challenge those temporary orders but obviously in Michigan you can do it you can do it here in Texas

okay someone said if one and yes Justin if you have not been proven unfit Steve says if one is pro how can one use the client attorney agreement and enter these Concepts into the court okay I didn't show you guys the the parent attorney agreement so let me put that up on the screen real quick and I know we didn't go over it but we do go over it in the webinar that I sent to all of you earlier and Confused everyone making them think they've missed this way webinar this is the free attorney parent agreement click on that it should download for you so let me get back to your question

so how do you use it pro you would take those rights and put them into your arguments in court you would also put them into pleadings I when I was proos I liked putting them into my motions and pleadings because there were times when the court would cut me off or I was afraid I would get too nervous and not say the argument and I wanted to make sure it was in the record because if I ended up appealing everything that's in the record the pellet Court can look at so then it would be in the record and preserved that's how you preserve error so I always recommend that you put it in

there I know there's some attorneys that don't like to do that but it really worries me because so many of them don't understand how to do this and they don't and then you didn't preserve a and it disadvantages you tremendously it forfeits your rights Christy I'm not sure what your question is on that I I I see that you're comparing the statutes to your from our book to the South Carolina statute U if you're finding that the statutes are taking over your rights your care custody control decisions to your children without proving you unfit and having a proper Fitness hearing that's what we're suggesting that you look into is to hold those proper hearings before they're

allowed to make those decisions and I think that's all we're going to have time for if I missed anyone's question please email it to me but I do appreciate everyone attending appreciate it all of you have a great night I hope I helped you with some of those fears and I hope you can sleep better if you are going to make these challenges feel free to let us know if you need some of our one-on-one help to help you go through your argument again we can't practice law for you but we're happy to share any knowledge and information that we've learned to help you strengthen and Empower and give you as much leverage as possible so that you

can get your time back and your rights and your Authority back with your children so all of you have a great night thanks again bye now [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] a [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] n [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] question