Overview: Parent and Child Rights are NOT in Conflict
If your attorney is telling you this, they might be presuming that your rights are in conflict with the other parent.
Want to know more about what you might face in family court, come and see us at:
In standard family court litigation, fit parents are routinely told that trial judges have unbounded discretion to divide custody and assign possession schedules. However, controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence strictly establishes that natural parental rights cannot be denied, stripped, or nullified without proving unfitness under strict scrutiny. Understanding these core constitutional protections empowers parents to hold attorneys and trial judges accountable to the law.
Executive Summary & Key Takeaways
- ✓ Exposes the procedural and constitutional defects in standard family court custody proceedings.
- ✓ Explains why fundamental parental rights are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
- ✓ Equips parents with actionable legal arguments to counter judicial overreach and preserve the record for appeal.
Key Topics & Video Timestamps
Navigate directly to specific topics, arguments, and strategic insights covered in this presentation (1 indexed chapters):
Full Presentation: Parent and Child Rights are NOT in Conflict
Complete presentation (06:42) covering core parental rights and strategic legal arguments.
Constitutional Principles & Controlling Precedents
This presentation directly implicates fundamental constitutional guarantees and controlling appellate precedents:
Cited Judicial Precedents
Constitutional Protections Invoked
Companion Article The state is NOT permitted to presume that your rights and your child's rights are in conflict. Without this c... Read Written Guide ↓ Hide Written Guide ↑ ▼
The state is NOT permitted to presume that your rights and your child's rights are in conflict. Without this conflict, the courts have no jurisdiciton to litigate the best interests of the child.
Full Video Transcript
[Music] another family-court myth is parents rights and child's rights are in conflict right and that's absolutely not true the Supreme Court has said that the state must presume the rights of the parent and the rights of the child coincide in the adjudication phase that means until state has proven something against a parent they must presume that you are fit they must presume that you are acting in your child's best interest they don't have a choice about this legally and constitutionally now they're going to do everything they can to avoid it but they don't have this option your rights your child or your child is protected by having rights they benefit from you
having rights they benefit from being in your care custody and control they are harmed when the state gets involved and starts screwing with things right and if they were in such conflict and that was something that the state courts could step into and why do you let's say Brokaw versus Mercer that's on page 11 out of our book on the side we put things on the side as you can see we take quotes out of cases this is the book by the way quotes out of cases that are important to the content that's on the page and so if it was true that parents and children's rights were in conflict and the parent no longer then
had any rights and the court could just sweep it away then why did Brokaw vs. Mercer County in 2000 US Court of Appeals seventh circuit say that the that the courts were not allowed to interfere until they have proven until the state proves parental unfitness right they didn't say until the parents go through divorce did they right so it's very essential that you realize that you or they make these presumptions they're not allowed to make them right the attorneys are just worried because they think that you're going to be punished more if you or they tell you you're going to be punished more if you inflame the judge or if the judge gets
upset at you raising your rights and like Ron said earlier it's not that you're going to be punished more because they're already going to put you through these things if you don't like the idea that your non-primary it's that the attorneys get punished the attorneys they talk about them they talk about them behind chamber when they're back there going what the hell's wrong with you why would you do this what you just you know letting us go through the status quo process so they get mad at the attorneys the judges treat them differently when they come before the money they make any more difficult for them yeah I actually heard one attorney
actually was an amicus talking to the attorney that was representing the parent that was using our arguments and that attorney actually tried to make the attorney tried to stroke the attorneys ego while at the same time telling that attorney I just didn't you you just came on the case and that's what I thought with your good reputation I figured you would never have filed something like this in this way that you didn't understand all the details of it so she tried to make the attorney feel like it tried to give him an out to say yeah you're right shouldn't have filed all all of that stuff in the motion what was I thinking
right when really what this amicus did didn't want to be off the case because when the rights are protected here's what an amicus key can't come in do exploratory searches there goes the attorney welfare yeah an amicus is nothing right welfare for attorney yeah Broncos am kiss attorney welfare because they're they don't have to do anything they're not accountable the client the parents can't even contestability part of the bill in fact they knew clearly you think the other attorneys are doing any more and then they charge you an unlimited amount they just go and go like oh we're working with a client right now that's been a hundred thousand dollars last year for six months of an amicus I Percy
not in the same guarantee you didn't change the theme the parents going through that have children that make minimum wage aren't forced to have an amicus they get the same outcomes yeah so these are parents that are wealthier that the courts know can't afford to do it but they shouldn't have to afford it and they are gonna be it's extortion for daring to get divorced how dare you get divorced when you have children we're gonna make you pay they are driving even wealthy parents into bankruptcy so that's all the time we have to go through some of these well I will mention one more why do the courts appoint these other than just the money
they believe extra some professionals can make better decisions then for the child than the parents going through divorce because that goes back to parents and divorce aren't putting the best interest of child first and it also works to protect the judges the judges don't want to be seen as the bad guy they want the app to the power don't get me wrong they're not about to give that up without a fight but they don't want the accountability they don't like accountability at all right so if they have to make the decision they're accountable for that decision as much as their hell accountable they have absolute immunity from anything they do so you can't really punch them in anyway
but they kind of if they can point in amicus if they can appoint psychologists to look into things and those things then they can pass off the guilt of what they're doing onto those third parties who are more than happy to do it for a city right and so it's really all about the judge and protecting the judge and making the judge feel better thank you for watching and if you found this video valuable please subscribe to the YouTube channel and then go on to the next video about family court myths but thank you for watching and if you found this video valuable please subscribe to the YouTube channel and then go on to the next video about
family court myths thank you for watching and if you found this video valuable please subscribe to the YouTube channel and then go on to the next video about family court myths