or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution - Page 7

post #121 of 130
Thread Starter 
I am getting very fusterated at the lack of knowledge on this thread about TPV, with people who think they know allll about it.
I am tired of argueing against people who, however nice, are completely ignorant on how TPV works in the U.S. in the different states.

I have personally BTDT.

Please, before you starting typing about it like you know all about it, go look into it. Read the actual statutes for some states. Read when the law alows a lawsuit and when it does NOT. Read the statutes that have been overturned. Read some case law. Read some more. Talk to a lawyer who has actual real experience with TPV cases. Go to www.parentsrights.org and ask the experts on their message board. Do not just assume you know what you are talking about or what you heard is right.

The fact is plain and simple, all TPV cases are bound by the state statute that the children have resided in for the past six months. If you don't believe me, go try and sue someone for TPV in a state that doesn't have any TPV statute to sue under.

It is absurd that people here are arguing this basic fact.
post #122 of 130
I just wanted to say, to all of the parents who are experiencing the trials of having their parental rights stomped on. I have not said much about the whole GP rights topic because it is not one that I know much about, but you are all in my thoughts and prayers and hopefully this ammendment will be added and you will finally get more protection.
Tina
post #123 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
I am getting very fusterated at the lack of knowledge on this thread about TPV, with people who think they know allll about it.
I am tired of argueing against people who, however nice, are completely ignorant on how TPV works in the U.S. in the different states.

I have personally BTDT.

Please, before you starting typing about it like you know all about it, go look into it. Read the actual statutes for some states. Read when the law alows a lawsuit and when it does NOT. Read the statutes that have been overturned. Read some case law. Read some more. Talk to a lawyer who has actual real experience with TPV cases. Go to www.parentsrights.org and ask the experts on their message board. Do not just assume you know what you are talking about or what you heard is right.

The fact is plain and simple, all TPV cases are bound by the state statute that the children have resided in for the past six months. If you don't believe me, go try and sue someone for TPV in a state that doesn't have any TPV statute to sue under.

It is absurd that people here are arguing this basic fact.
I know it seems crazy, but really people sue ALL THE TIME when they have NO right to do so. I know. I have clerked for judges who had these suits before them. Nope, no statute.... no nothing. But the suit is filed anyway. It's called a frivolous lawsuit and it happens all the time. And yes in Illinois. A suit is filed. The other side has to file something to say "No you can't do this here." The parties must appear in court. They have to write briefs. AFTER all of that a judge WILL say "hey this suit is no good" but you CAN still file it! The clerks don't check on this kind of thing. Ask any lawyer you know. I am sure they will tell you this is so. There is NO GATEKEEPER function is state courts. You can file the suit, even if it will not last long. I promise you that!

The Amendment at issue would not prevent them and would not even prevent the TPV laws on the books now. Would some be considered unconstitutional? Maybe, maybe not! New York's law for example has yet to be tested to see if it meets the Troxel standard in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may very well hold it invalid, or it might not. The exact same would be true even if the Amendment is passed. The laws don't disapear from the books!
post #124 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
The right to privacy is already constitutionally protected, although the likes of the rightwingers pushing these "parents rights" bills do all they can to break that protection down, what with sodomy laws, assaults on Roe, etc. My guess is they'd like to see their specific rights to beat their kids with belts protected, then they can rip up other people's families with impunity on the grounds that you have the right to "parents rights" but not to do as you please in your bedroom.
ding ding ding! we have a winner, folks.

thank you, BSD for the most concise summation of my suspicions about HSLDA.

THe right to privacy is generally construed as the right to be left alone, without government intrusion, into what is considered the PRIVATE sphere of life, including decisions about procreation and child-rearing.
post #125 of 130
Thread Starter 
maya44,
Okay, I give up.:
Maybe we are saying the same things in different ways.
I get what you are saying about the gatekeeper. So you are just saying they can try to sue, but it would immediately get tossed out as not having standing. I understand that.
I am saying there are different statues in each state that says who has standing and when (if anyone).
FWIW, laws do basicly disapear when they are declared unconstitutionial, which is what I am going for here.
Thank you for not taking it personally if I got a bit fusterated.



---------------------------

WNB,
The right to privacy is obviously not enough, because FIT PARENTS ARE BEING SUED.



----------------------------

Okay, everybody, this is an issue obviously really near and dear to my heart.

But I have reached that point of getting burned out on this thread.

I never thought the thread would go like this, I honestly just wanted to let people know for their own information because I thought it was interesting and would help parents defend their right to raise thier own children.

Then maybe I would not have to do what I have been doing, taking time out of my life to call and email the lawmakers to protect my children from my parents, when I am a fit married bio parent- and my parents are abusive scary people.

I am going to let this thread go now, just because I think I have said all I can and it is taking too much of my time right now.
post #126 of 130
Being sued does not mean the state is trampling one's rights. To the contrary, it means one's rights (to due process in a court of law) are being upheld.

eta: I do agree with you that it is a shortcoming of our legal system and culture that we have not got a truly reliable means of filtering out "frivolous" lawsuits against "fit" parents, or of compensating them for the hassles and expense of fighting such lawsuits. However, I do not believe that the constitutional amendment HSLDA is proposing would prevent such lawsuits. I think the amendment is a "solution" to a problem that does not exist (inadequate legal basis for parental rights), and one that would NOT address the problems that do exist (ie, frivolous lawsuits).
post #127 of 130
I guess I am a biased person, but just wanted to say, Love, I agree with everything you have said, and I think this amendment would be very good for our family and our country. But then again, I am a member of the HSLDA and stand by them and most of their actions.

I just see it coming, my rights to home school (and unschool) my children, homebirth my children, UC my children, non-vax my children, refuse unnecessary medial intervention (and "preventative" medicine, including but not limited to check-ups), and basically teach my children that my spiritual beliefs are true are slowing being eroded and narrowed based on legislation in favor of "child rights" as well as "states rights" (and "states responsibilities"). I can see a time in the nearing future where I would no longer be "allowed" to teach my children my spiritual belief if they are not PC. Or not "allowed" to homebirth or non-vax my children if a social worker believed it was in the best interest of my children, or force my children to receive "necessary" medical intervention, even when I did not believe it to be necessary.

And quite frankly, I have already been in a battle where state social workers tried to override MY parental rights in these areas and without HSLDA the outcome may have been quite different.

But that is just my personal opinion.
post #128 of 130
[QUOTE=WNB;7251452]Being sued does not mean the state is trampling one's rights. To the contrary, it means one's rights (to due process in a court of law) are being upheld.QUOTE]


Okay so my rights as a parent are being upheld???? I am fighting for my right to protect my child from verbal and emotional abuse from GPs who have sued me time and time again for visits with my child. And I certainly do not feel my rights as a fit mother are being upheld! I am being trampled on time and time again. I should not have to have proof that these people are unfit I am his mother and I should have the final say in this situation and the worst part is I never told them they couldn't see MY son I only said I want to get to know them and all they had to do was call and they could come and see him and I have been fighting them for my sons whole life I do not feel my rights are being upheld.

Like Love said it seems most can not see the real picture here there are many people even here on MDC that are going through this or have gone through this there are many states that parents have no rights in who their children interact with or for how long they interact with them or where they interact with them so in turn we have had our rights trampled and stomped on and shoved in a court room to have to prove to a stranger that these are not good people and they can still rule in the GP or TP favor. Also like Love said this topic is very real and dear to my heart also and I once thought that the state would protect me also and it hasn't.

I hope thing work out with the HSLDA and we as fit and loving parents are onday more peotected to raise our children as we see fit.

Love I am happy to know that you won your case with the GPs it gives me hope and in some ways more peace. when ever I hear of a won case I feel more and more positive even though I feel my "attorney" is well umm a waist of time but I have no money so I need to take what I can get with leagel aide you know this whole thing makes me want to go back to school to be a lawyer just to defend mothers and fathers who are going through what I am going through.

JA'sMama
post #129 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
maya44,
FWIW, laws do basicly disapear when they are declared unconstitutionial, which is what I am going for here.
I understand that Love is leaving this thread. But FWIW, laws do not just disapear when a new constitutional amendment is added. With the amendment at issue it would take years and years and years for the a case to get to the United States Supreme Court to decide if the TPV statutes were unconstituional or not. Only then, and only if declared unconstitutional would ANYTHING disapear. In any event, the Amendment at issue has almost no chance of ever being added. The "God" part alone would make it pretty much impossible. We simply don't have anything like that in the U.S. Constitution.
post #130 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
Yes it could mean that!
If Parental Rights were in the Const, third-party visitation statues in the individual states could easily be seen as unconstitutionial and declared so. Therefore, parents could NOT be sued under them, since you cannot be sued under a statute that no longer exists. So parents would be free from this! (When you sue for TPV, you must do so under your specific state statute.)
The reason that I do not support this ammendment is because you can substitute "child abuse statutes" for "third-party visitation statutes." The fact that child abuse is illegal now is no guarantee that it will be illegal after such an ammendment. There were hundreds of laws on the books protecting the production, consumption, and sale of alcohol before the 18th Ammendment. I have no doubt that if this ammendment were to pass, we would see various groups using it to establish their "parental right" to hit their children with objects, provide their children's "sexual initiation," marry off their 13 year old daughters against their will, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution