You only care about your Parental Rights

By: RonBPalmer | August 21, 2021 | Last modified August 26, 2021

Has a judge ever told you, that you only care about your rights and not what is best for your child?

Would you like to know how to respond in a manner that will shut the judge down and leave them nowhere to go?

When you see our solution to this you will wonder why you didn’t think of this before. It is so simple that it gets overlooked.

Many parents go into court and ask for their rights to be protected only to hear them say that you only care about your rights and not what is best for your child. The tone used by the judge is typically threatening and implies that you are a bad parent for caring about your rights and that the judge will punish you for asserting your rights.

Most parents are floored by this statement by the judge. It is the last thing they expect to hear from a judge sworn to uphold the constitution and they are too shocked to respond properly.

Most who experience this spend years wishing they had responded better.

We are about to show you a way to respond that puts the judge into a legal bind and that immediately makes clear to them that you are not going to be pushed around by some government minion in a robe who doesn’t have enough personal respect or honor to uphold the oath they made to get to wear that robe.

JUDGE: “It is clear sir, that you are far more concerned about your rights than you are about the best interests of your child. We are here to determine your child’s best interests. It is my job to decide what is best for your child and you are demonstrating to me that you care more about your rights than about your child.”

YOU: “Your Honor, it is objectively unreasonable for anyone, including this Court, to believe that a child’s best interests can be served by irreparably harming the child. My child has rights which mirror my own rights and that protect my child from overzealous government officials, I believe you call them concomitant rights. Where this Court deprives me of constitutional guarantees for my rights, it deprives my child of constitutional guarantees for their concomitant rights. The Supreme Court has held that depriving a child of First Amendment rights for even minor periods of time is an irreparable harm to that child. I am suggesting, Your Honor, that if this Court disrespects my rights, then this Court is disrespecting my child’s rights. When this Court disrespects my child’s rights, this Court irreparably harms my child which is in direct conflict with your own stated goal of protecting my child’s best interests. So, I’m asking you, Your Honor, which of us is truly acting in the best interests of my child?”

“The Constitutional question before this Court is NOT what is in my child’s best interest but who gets to decide what is in my child’s best interests. Will it be the fit parent who are exercising a natural and fundamental right when making best interest decisions or will it be an entirely unaccountable government official protected by absolute immunity blatantly violating the constitution who doesn’t know my child and cannot be held accountable for intentionally harming my child?”

“The essence of these entire proceedings is that this Court is going to punish my child with loss of constitutional rights for no other reason than that my child’s parents made constitutionally protected choices that both this Court and the state disfavor. Punishment of my child for things that are beyond his or her control is an unacceptable government evil that I intend to challenge all the way.”

“This is the questions I intend to present to the Supreme Court of this state and the Supreme Court of the United States should this Court violate my child’s rights in these proceedings, which are 1) who gets to decide and 2) is this Court lawfully permitted to injure my child to punish me for marital choices this Court doesn’t like?

“Doing that, Your Honor, is not only in my child’s best interests but is in the best interests of every child in this country.”

You may not know this, but the First Amendment protects your right to make marital choices that the government doesn’t like. Included in that right is the right to unmake marital choices the government doesn’t want you to unmake.

Another thing you may not realize is that in the early 1970’s the Supreme Court heard a series of cases regarding illegitimate children and the many ways in which the government punished children because the government did not like that people had sex when they weren’t married. The punishments the government imposed on children for the perceived sins of their parents were harsh, brutal, and entirely immoral. The Supreme Court stamped those evils out in every area of our law except for one, child custody law between unmarried or divorced parents.

Divorce courts are the last remaining vestige of the outlawed bastardy codes that punished children. Every single child subject to a custody dispute in this country is punished by having its rights taken away without due process and in violation of equal protection, for no other reason than, that states want to keep the illegal power to punish children for the sins of their parents, and the federal courts are so far, more than happy to let them do so.

There is one and only one way to stamp out this evil practice. That is to make very clear and very public exactly how these judges are torturing children in their exuberance to punish their parents for violating the judge’s personal moral codes.

Fighting for parental rights is great but few people are going to care. We must make the public fight about the rights of children and expose the way judges are torturing children for their own personal moral reasons.

Counter every single thing the judge or the other side throws at you with the simple fact that they are both trying to hurt you and your child by depriving your child of his or her fundamental rights and that is morally reprehensible.

Remember, the other parent is a private citizen who is not limited by the constitution. They have an inherent right, just as you do, to limit the manner in which their minor child may exercise their constitutional rights while they are minors. This right is constitutionally protected. What the constitution and specifically the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits is the other parent’s enlisting state authority to deprive you or your child of their constitutional rights. The judge of your court is bound by the constitution in family law child custody suits, because the Supreme Court has specifically held that they are so bound when the Court reviewed a best interest determination by a child custody judge and overturned that judge’s best interest determination because it violated the constitution.

Your judge’s only lawful duty is to protect your rights through a proper adjudication of rights in strict compliance with federal law. In most states, the state constitutional rules of jurisdiction specifically deprive your judge of any authority whatsoever to act in the best interest of the child.

So, as it turns out, your judge is more interested in preserving his or her unconstitutional extra-judicial power to screw with people he or she doesn’t like than he or she is in protecting the best interests of your child. Your judge is supposed to do this by protecting your child’s constitutional rights to be free from the judge’s own personally motivated government interference in your child’s private family life.

And, NO! You did not invite the judge into your private life and give the government carte blanche authority to violate your rights and your child’s rights in any way it chooses. You exercised your right to access the state court system for adjudication of your federal constitutional rights to the degree and only to the degree that those rights are in conflict with the other parent’s rights. The judge cannot force you to waive other rights to gain access to the state courts because access to the state courts for resolution of conflicts of federal right is a fundamental right in and of itself that the Court has zero authority to violate. If an attorney asked the court to invade your rights without these protections, shame on them for their violation of fiduciary duty.

I’ll wager that there is no response your judge can make to you that we haven’t heard before in some form or another. I can guarantee that we have powerful responses to any such stupid response, and we can show you how to enter that response in writing even after the hearing.*

Don’t let your child custody judge bully you into giving up on your rights or your child’s rights. These judges are in the wrong, not you. Don’t ever let them forget, that you know they are in the wrong and it is they who are acting illegally and immorally, not you.

Judges who jealously guard their independence from the legislature deserve respect. Judges who uphold their oath to the constitution deserve respect. Judges who respect the federal public policy to always protect the rights of litigants deserve respect.

Judges who exercise their constitutionally granted judicial discretion at the command of the legislature deserve no respect. Judges who condition individual fundamental rights on marital status deserve no respect. Judges who punish protected choices regarding marriage with loss of parent-child rights deserve no respect. Judges who build and preside over a gladiatorial arena and blame parents who are forced to fight in that arena for fighting deserve no respect.

Make it clear to the judges that, Respect must be earned!

 

*We do not prepare paperwork, do not practice law, do not submit forms, are not attorneys, and are not a substitute for an attorney. We provide information so that you can prepare your own response.

Motions Package One Product Image

Comprehensive Motions Package

Multiple sample motions in one package.

Book standing trans 500x630

NOT In the Child's Best Interest

Your rights in family law

Beginners Guide to Family Law 300

Beginner's Guide to Family Law

Critical information you need when you enter the system.

Become a Member button

Members Only Access

Get the proof you need here.