ifeminists.com: A central gathering place and information center for individualist feminists.   -- explore the new feminism --
introduction | interaction | information

ifeminists.com > introduction > editorials

Letter: Civil Disobedience & fundamental liberty rights of parents
June 30, 2004
by Jon W.

Mr. Newdow, a man who had shared legal custody, but did not obtain shared physical custody was denied "next friend" legal standing to represent his daughter involving a controversial case. His case claiming "under God" is a violation of the establishment clause was moronic, but the courts claim that a natural fit parent who does not have standing is more telling. Of course, the court did not address how a natural fit parent lost standing to represent his daughter. There is no sign that the Federal Courts are going to recognize the serious legal mess of the family court system.

Since no-fault divorce, and the two decades preceding the uniform divorce laws, fathers and some mothers have been denied their fundamental liberty rights to the care and support of their children without due process and equal protection of the laws. The legislature has given power to state district courts they cannot wield: No court or judge has the authority to award that which they never possessed, our children. Absent finding of fact and conclusion of law, no court has jurisdiction to award sole or shared custody. Not that judges didn't exercise the power to seperate children from their fathers before no-fault divorce law by ignoring the requisite findings required, but there was a recognition before no-fault divorce law that the courts established their jurisdiction legally. Today, there are no legal protections from the over-reach of the public authority in family law. The courts obtained this authority by statute. The legislature never possessed the authority to give away the fundamental liberty rights of natural fit parents to any court, tribunal or administrative agency.

The Courts rely on two flawed arguments to "award" custody in dissolutions. Typically, the Appellate courts cite case law prior to no-fault divorce. It was true that a court that awarded a divorce after making finding of fact that a parent breached the contract, the court did possess the authority to strip a parent of their right to parent. In fault divorce, the "actions" or grounds for divorce were the claims by a petitioner to a court that required a finding of fact. Absent a finding of fact that marital conduct rose to the level of "cruel and inhuman" treatment, the divorce was not granted and thus the residency of the children was not required. The Appellate courts are essentially lying to the public when they cite old case law. After no-fault divorce law, the court lost it's legal authority to award custody or determine child residency. During the divorce debates held by the National Commissioners Conference on Uniform State Law, the critics of no-fault law claimed that the maxim, "no person may profit by their own wrong" would be destroyed by the proposed legislation. It is impossible to concieve any law that rewards bad conduct, but family law is such a forum for bad law. If the excuse for family law and civil contracts were applied to business law and contracts, we would have chaos, anarchy and tyranny.

Marriages are merely "civil contracts", and absent a finding of fact that a party breached the contract, the court no longer has a constitutional authority to permanantly sever a child from their parent. When an Appellate court can't bring themselves to this truth, they cite their authority originates from the government's public policy to protect and secure the welfare of children. This is the same legal argument used by German Judges at Nuremburg, wherein the authority German Courts relied upon to destroy jews in their nation rested on a public policy. Like their Nazi Court brethren, the public policy of the government trumps the fundamental liberty rights of parents. In juvenile court, the doctrine of parens patria (the state is the parent) has extended to family court. However, family courts are of strict limited jurisdiction. Obviously, dissolutions i.e. the severing of a contract was expanded to include custody preceedings, for which the courts have no authority.

A single parent may lose custodial rights only by a judicial finding that their child is in imminent danger do to neglect, abuse, abandonment or is found incapable. The imminent harm standard protects citizen-parents from the power of the state. Children in divorce however are permanantly seperated from their fathers by a judge without any finding of fact or conclusion of law that they are unfit. No-fault dissolution law hinges on a finding by a judge that a marriage is irreconcilable and irretrievably broken. Interesting, but only God and family court judges can see the future to determine what is irreconilable and irretrievably broken. The two illdefined terms are the foundation the courts establish their authority, but they do not retain jurisdiction. It is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment and due process. The courts cite pre-no-fault divorce case law to retain jurisdiction, and then they use post no-fault divorce to show that their decisions, absent findings of fact are constitutional. This is the same legal standard and logic used by Nazi Germany to "legally" strip jews of their property, right to contract and liberty to exist. What differentiates the Nationalist German policy of the 30s from the American family law policy of post WWII is that fathers in America are not sent to death camps. We are stripped of virtually everything else. For 17 years, I was denied the right to not work or choose a different career or face excessive fines, penalties and incarceration. Jews in Germany and fathers in the western world lost all their rights by courts through a legal process.

The legal community and the media will claim that few parents (fathers) lose custody, because few divorces involve a contested "custody" preceeding. Though this statement is true, it does not explain why nearly 100% of all divorces include custody determinations that leave fathers without "equal" or shared custody, both legal and physical custody. The bar association and government agencies profit by destroying the child parent relationship. It's a legal, outcome based system to plunder fathers.

God help us.

ifeminists.com > home | introduction | interaction | information | about

ifeminists.com is edited by Wendy McElroy; it is made possible by support from The Independent Institute and members like you.