Unwed biological fathers are often told they have no rights when it comes to their infant children when placed for adoption. The fact they fathered their child is not considered important when the mother decides, on her own, to give the infant child up for adoption in certain circumstances.
But, this gender disparity in equal protection and due process in parental rights is changing.
Recently, the State of Utah adopted House Bill 308 that is designed to safeguard unwed paternal rights in regards to children six months or younger from being adopted. This law would require unwed fathers to be issued official notification of the mother’s intention to give their infant child up for adoption in certain circumstances. Once received, the father would then have 30 days to assert his rights as a parent and petition the court for custody. This closes a loophole which had allowed mothers to circumvent notifying the biological father and thus committing the ultimate act of parental alienation – terminating the father-child relationship forever.
Common sense and fair play would argue that if an unwed mother decides to give up her rights to a child, then the biological father would automatically be given the opportunity to take custody of his child. Instead, a stranger can be given the right to adopt the child, often without the father even knowing he will never see his child again.
Guaranteed Confidentiality For Court System Whistle Blowers & Informants – JIP™↓
Register Your Specific Family Court System Injustices For Action – VRP™↓
“Family court is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American Public.”
Family Court / Family Law is a made-up business of consumer fraud, racketeering and collusion invented, marketed and protected by the monopolistic American Bar Association, ABA-member, predatory lawyers, supportive and collusive ABA-members, Judges and their friends, and the “Experts.”
Family law is a Brilliant Racket created to extort your family’s life savings through un-ending litigation prolonged deliberately by lawyer-instigated conflict, ambiguous laws and absurdly inefficient procedures at a time when you are most vulnerable and in need of help. The system has no interest in actually divorcing you until you are picked clean of your life savings. Once picked clean, the system drops you for the next victim.
There is no gender bias in family court. Those who suggest this are perpetuating the fraud. Since Family Court has been transformed into one massive, fraudulent scheme, Judges punish both sides equally – Mother, Father, Man or Woman, it makes no difference. These people will collectively take every last dime you have, or ever will have.
For years, “Custody Evaluator/Therapist” Marsha Kleinman committed the most atrocious professional violations imaginable in family court by routinely coaching innocent children to say they had been sexually abused by their parents in order to gain a leg up in custody battles for her clients and revenue for her professional practice. And, for years, New Jersey denied such criminal action could possibly occur. By state law, children are subjected to vaginal rape exams for each and every false accusation perpetrated by unethical and fraudulent lawyers, judges and “experts” in their games for revenue. Marsha Kleinman has put innocent men behind bars and destroyed the lives of countless children. Professional behavior such as Ms. Kleinman’s is repeated daily in courthouses across America by similar “experts” and is fueled by family law attorneys and condoned by the family court system for revenue. The false sexual abuse accusation is #4 in their sick Family Law Playbook.
As many of you know, we just had a magnificent conference on men’s issues in London, England. It was a brilliant event that went off without a hitch. Thanks to the work of Mike Buchanan it was a full house, wall to wall with amazing people.
The only downer of the entire event was that I had to make the announcement during my speech that the A Voice for Men Facebook page was deleted by the management there. Also, at this point I can say that my appeal to have the page reinstated has gone ignored. 35,000 followers dismissed by Facebook for not towing the feminist, politically correct line.
This is part of a now quite familiar trend of social media platforms, which are essentially the modern equivalent of what we used to call telecommunications companies, controlling the expression and even the ideas of their customers.
Every time one of these events happens on Twitter, (and again) Facebook or other popular outlet, we see people in the comments lamenting the dogmatic discrimination and suggesting that “someone” needs to create an alternative platform.
Using Redditopen source software, we have created a platform where current events and self-published ideas can be discussed without the interference of political correctness.
As you will see in the terms of service, there is a very narrow range of postings not permitted. They are as follows:
This means, if the state-as in a judge- wants to infringe or terminate this fundamental liberty interest, he or she had better apply the process due to a parent first. Otherwise, its action is explicitly forbidden. Id. at 721. If the state cannot show that it has a narrowly tailored compelling interest, then the state cannot touch the fit parent’s right at all. Ibid. No other avenue is constitutionally available to accomplish state action, which will adversely affect a parent’s fundamental liberty interest.
If a parent appeals an adverse action by a state which has affected his or her fundamental liberty interest, the reviewing Court must apply the Strict Scrutiny standard of review, to determine whether the state action was indeed achieved without the state showing that it had a narrowly tailored compelling interest to take the action it did. Id. This is a compulsory standard. It’s not an option. Nowhere does it say that if the reviewing Court has sat down and collectively decided, for whatever arbitrary reasoning, that it should apply a lesser standard, that it can do so.
That being said, tell me. Where exactly do Grandparents’ “Rights”, come from? When a parent is brought before a Court and his or her fundamental liberty interest is at stake, there are only TWO competing interests here- the parent’s and the state’s. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759-60 (U.S.N.Y., 1982). If the parent is fit, then the child’s interest, coincides with his or her fit parent’s. Id. at 745, 748, 760-761 (1982). The child’s interest does not stand alone. As such is the case, where exactly-constitutionally- does the Grandparent’s so called “interest” fit into the equation? I can tell you where-nowhere- because they don’t have any “rights”- not under these United States’ Constitution..
The Justices who decided Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), deliberately failed to apply the Strict Scrutiny standard of review, to the threatened fundamental liberty interest of the mother in that case for this precise reason.
Instead, it applied a less stringent standard, having nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, so that it could leave room for the individual states, to concoct their own particular processes by which each could infringe or even, as in my case, terminate the liberty interests of fit parents, by averting the Due Process Clause. In other words, applying the wrong standard gave state legislatures the power to enact laws granting such “rights” to grandparents to intervene into divorce and custody disputes. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, this “standing” does not exist.
Because of the Troxel Court’s “instructions” as the state of Georgia refers to the case, Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587, 603-604 (2001), this state claimed that it had the power to sever my custodial relationship with my child, remove her from my home, terminate my legal rights to her and “award” “custody”, to her paternal grandparents- all without finding me unfit. Isn’t that something? After serving my country and vowing to die if need be, to defend the United States Constitution, my own rights were snatched right from under me. It said that it had the parens patriae power to do what it thought was “best” for my child. It had and has, no such power. Neither does any other state.
Here’s why.
Number 1., Washington, 521 U.S. at 721 says the state can’t do anything with a child without first proving that it has a narrowly tailored compelling interest.
2. The state can’t achieve such interest without following the bifurcated steps established in Santosky, 455 U.S. at 745, 748, 760-761 .
3. Before we even get to any of all this, the state is explicitly prohibited from applying the best interest standard between a parent and a third party to begin with. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303-304 (1993).
Nevertheless, there are parents across America whose constitutional rights to their children have been deprived by state action, under color of law. This has been a collective, nationwide violation, extending from the top of our judicial system, to the bottom. This is the state of America today.
But for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2000, I would not have been robbed of my right to continue to have the home that I had established for my child, or my right to continue to raise her, so long as I was fit.
I know that such willful deprivation is actionable under federal civil and criminal law against state officials. I also know that one must request relief from the very defendants and perpetrators who have violated him or her- a futile effort that I learned the hard way. My question is, what happens when the willful deprivation comes from the top?
***I am a paralegal. I am not a licensed attorney. Anything I’ve posted here or on this site, may not and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney. If you are in Cobb County, Georgia, good luck.
See also this post about the death of Christopher Mackney, which contains links to his suicide note
First Amendment Rights from Beyond the Grave: Defense of a Suicide’s Publication of His Final Words by the Randazza Legal Group.” The circumstances that conduced to Mr. Mackney’s taking his life are chronicled in a forthcoming book by investigative journalist Michael Volpe, which is titled, Bullied to Death: The Chris Mackney Story.
Once you enter that court you feel nothing but attacked. Your life and decisions are no longer your own. Your children are stripped from the life you thought you were protected to live. People in the family court process step in between you and your child regardless of whether you are for or not.
Some like Chris are left with no hope of ever recovering. What do you do when the court you thought would protect you and your child from vicious attacks on your fundamental rights fails you? Where do you turn when you cannot afford justice and when there is no hope for it?
Exactly two years ago today Chris Mackney took his own life after enduring the horrors of family court as long as he was able. The ex-wife (Dina Mackney) of Ch… See More
Bullied to Death:
Chris Mackney’s Kafkaesque Divorce – There is no one way or no best way to tell the story of a man driven by others to…Read More
There is no one way or no best way to tell the story of a man driven by others to take his life. I know, because I have been trying to explain to state leaders, media, and professionals how this is happening to good people who trust our legal system to work to protect them and their children. Challenging doesn’t even touch it. Author Mike Volpe…Read More
The Second Dream
I have a dream
that one day on the hills of any state
the sons and daughters of present fathers
And the sons and daughters of absent fathers
will be able to sit down together at the table with the whole family
I have a dream that all black children
will one day livein a nation
where they will not be fatherless
by a man who did not give a damn
but fathered by a man who loves them
with the strength and depth of God’s love.
Fathers who sacrifice for their children understand the value of their presence in their child’s life. They understand that whether present or absent good or bad they will make a permanent impact on the children. And they choose to be a permanent positive impact.
The father must understand that he is more than a financial provider. The father helps to form his child’s identity. He helps the child in discovering his or her purpose in life. And has a starring role in supporting his children, mentally, emotionally, physically, psychologically and spiritually. He teaches; morally and spiritually guides, encourages, gives praise, hugs and kisses and says, “I love you just because you’re mine.”
Let’s sacrifice for the dream that benefits our children. Let that dream be that each child in our communities has a father or father-figure who lovingly and actively engages in that child’s life. Let’s call on everyone from every sector of our community to make this dream a reality. It begins in our own homes with our own children. It ends in the homes of the children of the fatherless. It ends in the homes of the children who are fatherless. This is sacrificing for the Dream!
1. Shared parenting preserves children’s relationships with both parents 2. Shared parenting preserves parents’ relationships with their children 3. Shared parenting decreases parental conflict and prevents family violence 4. Shared parenting reflects children’s preferences and views about their needs and best interests 5. Shared parenting reflects parents’ preferences and views about their children’s needs and best interests
6. Shared parenting reflects child caregiving arrangements before divorce
7. Shared parenting enhances the quality of parent-child relationships
8. Shared parenting decreases parental focus on “mathematizing time” and reduces litigation
9. Shared parenting provides an incentive for inter-parental negotiation, mediation and the development of parenting plans
10. Shared parenting provides a clear and consistent guideline for judicial decision-making
11. Shared parenting reduces the risk and incidence of parental alienation
12. Shared parenting enables enforcement of parenting orders, as parents are more likely to abide by an equal parental responsibility order
13. Shared parenting addresses social justice imperatives regarding protection of children’s rights
14. Shared parenting addresses social justice imperatives regarding parental authority, autonomy, equality, rights and responsibilities
15. The discretionary best interests of the child / sole custody model is not empirically supported
16. A rebuttable legal presumption of shared parenting responsibility is empirically supported
Activists For Change: With a mission of helping to bring awareness that by increasing the proportion of children growing up with involved, responsible, and committed fathers it will improve the well being of children.
This is the third sequential post on this blog about Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), a condition proposed by marriage and family therapist Karin P. Huffer “that develops in individuals assaulted by ethical violations, legal abuses, betrayals, and fraud” and that’s exacerbated by “abuse of power and authority and a profound lack of accountability in our courts.” This post surveys accounts of affliction (and its sources) drawn from various websites.
Editorial intrusions and commentary in this post have been kept to a minimum, but some grammatical polishing is acknowledged.
I have been doing some reading on LAS (Legal Abuse Syndrome) and PTSD since I have begun to fear my own shadow. I hate the doorbell to ring. I run to the window to try to see who it might be, and rarely…
Award-Winning and Prize-Winning Author of Access Denied, The Wretched, The Roots of Evil, The Ghost of Clothes, Omonolidee, First Words and Unzipped: The Mind of a Madman, The Deeper Roots of Evil, UFO, Cinema, Realm of Rhyme along with numerous short stories, poems and articles.
The fact they fathered their child is not considered important when the mother decides, on her own, to give the infant child up for adoption in certain circumstances.
Thanks to the work of Mike Buchanan it was a full house, wall to wall with amazing people.
Civil Rights in Family Law Florida 