Is there a constitutional right to be a parent? Join my live discussion with Tennessee Divorce Attorney Andy Fox about some of the child custody shenanigans that go on, as well as the constitutional rights to be a parent, and other things. #ChildCustody #FamilyCourt #DivorceAttorney
Join us live at 6:30 pm ET on Freedom is Scary – Episode No. 60.
source
Family courts are funded and the states funded through the title 4D program it requires one parent to be removed 76% of the time in order for the states to collect maximum reimbursement benefits from the program. This is where the problem I’ll start then in most states judicial retirements are funded through these monies.
Dude, you spoke about MMA fighters for the first 15 minutes.
I would love you to take my civil court hearing gone final judgement to cover up my busting all of them in straight forward lies. The Paulding County Sheriff's department Criminal Youth investigators were going to testify and call all of them out for the abuses my kids and I went through and still are because of failed attempts to get me in one of the bias judges failing accountability courts.
Lawyers and Judges know nothing about your Constitutional rights. They don't understand the court system or the rule of law. Let me explain. The Declaration of Independance is a unilateral, social contract. It has contractual value. It is like the mission statement in a company. It made explicit and implied promises. The signatures at the bottom made it official. It had two purposes, which most courts and lawyers don't understand. First, yes, it was a statement to the King of England declaring our independence from them with a list of gradiences. But it was also a statement setting up the foundation to our independent Courtry and its newly found citizens. These promises are protected in the Constitution under the Contract Clause (Article 1, Section 10). Saying, the government has to honor this promise and cannot change them. There are two different agreements. Contracts and Covenants (or treaties). It is all in the enforceability clause of the promise. The enforceability clause of the Declaration is an act of war (rebellion). It says, it is the right of the people to throw off (capitol riots) the government and its leaders when they become tyrants and do not protect your unalienable rights anymore (a trail of abuses). You are a right to use your second amendment right to throw them off. You not only have a right, but it is your duty under God (Natures God). This is the meaning of unalienable. An old real-estate word meaning non-transferable (God-given). If God gave it, the State can't take it. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution with the Anti-federalists said they wanted the promised alienable rights of the Declaration spelled out. So, the first 10 Amendments were a list of some of those rights. You were allowed to have them enforced by the court now (as the Constitution is the law of the land). The Constitution is like the by-laws of a company. They are enforced by a court of law, police, judge, etc… The 10 Amendments are those "unalienable" rights promised in the preamble. The life-liberty-property (your ability to pursue happiness-job, housing, land for you and your family outside of the government's interference etc…). They do not have conditions on them. The due process clause is an example of a condition. Therefore, the 14th Amendment attempted to change your unalienable rights to transferable by adding the due process clause. They say the State can take those promises of the Declaration (life, liberty, property) as long as they give you a court case like everyone else. Therefore, the 14th Amendment is a violation of the Constitution. The States cannot take away your Bill of Rights. That is what the 14th Amendment attempted to do. It gave conditions to your rights (incorporation doctrine). This is dubious according to law. They can't ratify limiting your unalienable rights given to you by God (Nature's God). Since the Bill of Rights was those promised rights to all people in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights always applied to the Federal Government, as well as the State Government. Therefore, the ruling by the Supreme Court saying the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government was bad law and is null and void (The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and voids out any ruling or law by a government actor). Your children are protected by a lot of Constitutional rights. Like the 1st. Amendment (freedom of speech, and freedom of religion), as well as the 14th Amendment (liberty and substantive, due process rights). Troxel v Granville, 2000 says parental rights are "fundamental." Meaning, your rights as a parent are protected under the highest strictly possible as a constitutional right (Strict Scrutiny). There has to be limited Government interference and they can't take away your children without you being found guilty of a crime and put into jail for that crime that would endanger your children. They don't tell you this. You can't be found unfit to raise your children, but fit to work, pay taxes, drive a car and every other right that would benefit them and society. This is all dubious. They base this on a dubious precedence called Parens Patriae Doctrine created first in England (1608) saying the supreme powers (King or Government) is father of the Nation. They are saying this to try and supersede your rights to your child. They are protected under property laws in the United States by common law. This has never been reversed. Your children are yours and you have a right to have them at least 50% of the time if you were a divorced parent under the no-fault, divorce statues. If you have not been found at fault, you can't have your kids taken away from you or any limitation to your parental rights (time and authority). Anything less than 50% is a violation of your parental rights. Children born out of wedlock do fall under the custody of the mother (as the father never having authority over the mother or legally changing her status -coverture law principle). The father has visiting rights as the child shares the father's DNA (part of the unalienable rights), but authority was never established over that child. Since children are the property of the parents, the parents will be responsible if their child commits a crime. And the parent should go to jail for the crimes of their children (under 18 years old), but the child cannot take away from them. This is a violation of the Declaration of Independence expressed and implied promise. This is good law. I hope this helps.
Quit talking about sports!
" We reject any interpretation of statutes that fails to recognize the unique constitutional protections afforded to unadjudicated parents" In Re Sanders. Michigan supreme court
" Constitution does not permit the State to PRESUME rather than PROVE a parents unfitness" STANLEY 405 et 658. Family courts (the state) have the burden of proof on a high standard (Clear and convincing standard of proof) that a parent is unfit BEFORE they inject themselves into people's lives. The constitution is the supreme law of the land whether it is equity court or not. Any state that disregards the constitution is at a state of war with the UNITED STATES. They must follow what the constitution says in protecting parents rights EQUALLY- against state intrusions unless there is a clear and present danger to the child. This danger has to be proven with a clear and convincing standard of proof before they can do anything that infringes or limits parental rights.
So does anyone know if the constitution is void in circuit Court? By that I mean I was told by my attorney that the right to not testify doesn't apply in circuit Court. Seems odd and I'm definitely no lawyer but I remembered the wording on deprivation of rights under color of law and it seems like that's exactly what they do with the threat of keeping your children.
If you are in a 2 party consent state, legally notify your X or X to B that you will be recording, taping on every call and visit with them. That will cover you legally.
Never ever be alone with your ex wife! I had witnesses or multiple recording devices any time I had to be near her.
What does UFC have to do with custoday?
Many people do not know that the County that processes Child Support payments receive matching Title IV funds for every open CS case.
The courts have a financial incentive to limit custody to increase a CS obligation to increase income for their county.
I've never heard anyone address this conflict of interest.
Go Gators. I’m a Gator Engineer, thinking about UF law since it has always fascinated me. Just a hard sell to take 3 years away from career advancement in my own field…. that being said, depending on the practice, the law can be very lucrative.
There are just so many lawyers right now.
Family Court is corrupt and Child Support is Big Business for the States because of Federal funds available. Marriage is a trap especially for fathers and these divorce attorneys are getting rich on broken families, stirring the pot and claiming the best interest of the child. Watch the Divorce Corp Documentary.
❤🇱🇷❤
The simplest solutions work the best, boys. If the game is rigged, the only way you win is not to play.
very informative as always
VERY STRANGE LISTENING TO YOU TWO….
"The land of the free and the home of the brave"
comes to my mind, sadly just a joke now,
people laugh when they hear this expression.
But I´ll say it again "Americans are armed to their
teeth but they think guns are for bragging about,
trading and admiring…."
And the POLLYANNA GAME about the 1st & the 2nd
amendments: "Well we still got a little bit of freedom
of speech left, it´s not much but we still got it, let´s at
least be GLAD about that !"
"We still got our guns, we´re not allowed to use them
anymore because there are so many anti-gun laws
but at least we got them so let´s be GLAD about that !"
"And sure we live in a police state and we have to get
used to tyranny but let´s just accept it and let´s be wise
and be GLAD about it !"
THIS IS THE DETERIORATION WHICH LIBERALISM
BRINGS TO THE MIND OF MAN !
Your appreciated!
Our son and his girl just got their son back from the state of Illinois kidnappers. My grandson was abused and neglected by the state because we offered to provide care for our grandson. State refused. The sad thing is that our grandson could have been so much further along in development than he is. Gonna raise some hell for the state and the paid caretaker
Not in the First Circuit Court.
I'm in Ohio. My ex is a half black/white woman. I beat her in court and got custody of my 2 kid's. Things are starting to change here. When we went to court the judge was a black woman. I thought I was done. But she came back and said that I was the better parent.
Thanks John. A subject i'm not real familiar with.
To: 'Time4aNew System' << sorry i was late – kept looking checking – notice not open yet. got busy reading – in at 2130 hrs.
There NOW. if reading this tonight. (26ap'21) please forgive me. – hope you stayed and listened. =)
Anyone know any attorneys for this is in Montana?
If you didn't come for a UFC breakdown… 14:00
To be clear very much appreciate the legal perspectives on law and related subjects.
I live in Tennessee… Bottom line, a woman would have to be grossly unfit before the state will remove custody, but as a man even a minor excuse will see your rights stripped. Officially they're trying to be more modern in their thinking, but in practical terms the mother first mentality still heavily exists all the way from the courts to law enforcement. CPS is entirely another thing as they are monetarily incentivized to back the mothers (again unless grossly unfit) and pursue the fathers for support. The faster they can get a mother and child into the system the faster they can get another revenue stream started for CPS. It's disgusting.
No man should be a "non custodial parent" "obligor" or "legal guardian". as long as you one of these titles.. an attorney cannot help.. they can help reduce the size of the dck bit they still gonna shove it in.. I challenge you to tell me I'm lying