CORRECTION Texas Federal Court Set To Hear Constitutional Parental Rights Violations
Submitted by: FixFamilyCourts.com
2016-03-08 00:01:21
Pro Se parents sue Texas over unconstitutional family law practices.
(OPENPRESS) Parents are about to find out if they have protected constitutional rights in divorce and whether the Texas family code violates those rights.
Ron and Sherry Palmer accomplished what attorneys told them would be impossible, the Eastern District Federal Court accepted their brief on Thursday, February 25, 2016, that cites their family court judges ignore parental rights and children's rights and that the Texas family code violates the constitutional rights of parents and children, in Palmer et al v. Paxton Jr., et al,. Parents and attorneys had not been able to be heard by the federal courts on these constitutional violations before this, told instead they were barred by numerous abstention doctrines like Rooker-Feldman, Pullman, and Younger.
The Palmers' brief, written by the two parents, argues that parental rights protect children from the stress and damage inflicted by family courts and that when judges ignore this they are abusing their power, causing parents to fight over children more, causing children unnecessary harm. The federal court is set to rule on this sometime after April 2016.
According to the Palmers, fit parents should not be required to fight over the custody of their children. They argue that most parents fight in court because if they don't they lose rights and time with their child, and child support comes along with those extra rights, violating the 1st amendment. This also often leads to people making false allegations and escalating into abusive behaviors increasing the number of violent crimes in society like domestic violence and murder. Divorce makes up about 40% of civil cases, and almost 70% of re-openings, according to the Family Law Supreme Court steering committee. They also make formidable arguments that child support violates the 1st amendment.
A constitutional divorce means both parents start out as equals with equal rights, they do not have to beg a judge for rights they already have, and the parents decide best interest and not the judge. Both parents support the child equally and equal time with both parents would be protected without the need for litigation. Less fighting in court would protect children from the proven negative effects caused by high conflict litigation of 65% more children with increased anxiety and stress, 44% increased aggression, and 21% higher risk of becoming sexual active earlier according to research from Massachusetts General Hospital's study and personal experience of former judges like Superior Judge Elaine Gordon. Children are proven to do better when they can be with both parents equally according to The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health published last year.
States throughout the U.S. are using the Palmers' arguments to propose bills like Colorado's Parent's Bill of Rights, HB16-1110, to protect fundamental parental rights to the care, custody, and control of their child equally. The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 20 states have proposed shared parenting bills.
The problem is growing with millions of parents desperately searching for ways to stop the abuses in the family courts. The Father's Rights Movement of Texas reached over 6 million people on their Facebook page looking for justice. Shows like Speak Up, The Parenting Revolution, Leaving Footprints, and The Fourth Branch, are just a few shows that have been exposing these unconstitutional practices for years. National Parents Organization, FCLU, Catherine MacWillie of Custody Calculations, and many others have been seeing an alarming increase in the growing number of people with family court and juvenile court grievances unable to get justice.
The 50 billion dollar a year divorce industry, as cited by the Huffington Post, continues to rob children and their families under the guise of protecting a child's best interest with no end in sight. This practice is about to come to an abrupt halt with the Palmers' brief. A practice that the Palmers' call unconstitutional in their brief to the federal court and in their book, "NOT in The Child's Best Interest," published in 2013 which uses U.S. Supreme Court rulings to support their arguments that parents and children have protected fundamental rights.
