STOP Judicial Child Abuse: NH Courts Unlawfully Remove Children from Parents

STOP Judicial Child Abuse: NH Courts Unlawfully Remove Children from Parents:

by judicialchildabuse@gmail.com

It has become common practice in the New Hampshire Family Division to suspend a parent's visitation with their child based solely on unsubstantiated reports of child discomfort, false allegations that have been returned unsubstantiated, or simply on biased predispositions against a particular parent.

An example of parental authority

Before getting into the particulars of the discussion, lets just assume for the sake of example, that a child is uncomfortable reading a school book assignment for whatever reason; perhaps the child doesn't like to read; perhaps the child is not a skilled reader.

It is well within the parents rights to compel the child to perform the task assigned. This is a very cut and dry example, but I use it for demonstration - that a parent has the right to exercise the enforcement of rules in the context of his family and household, provided that the enforcement of those rules does not violate any applicable law.

The U.S. Supreme Court agrees. In fact, there is a very clear and simple logic chain that can be assembled from just a few U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

It is all a matter of status

What is your status? Do you know? I don't mean socioeconomic status, or status in the community. What I mean is "what is your parental fitness status?" I would be willing to bet that if you don't know what your parental fitness status is, that you are in pretty great shape - you are probably a fit parent! The reason is simple:

"A fit parent is one who has NOT been determined to be unfit." I am going to show you why this is true in the next section.

But, I can tell you with confidence, if you have ever been determined to be "unfit" as a parent, then you have been through a whole process that you are too daunted to even share!

Proof of concept: In America, all parents are "fit" by default

You learned in "civics" class(if you were in school as recently as the 1980's) or in "social studies"(if you are any younger), that in America, you are "innocent until proven guilty." This applies to parental fitness. Picture beer and wine aisle of Wal-Mart; you see a young, twenty-something aged single mom - piercings galore, pack of cigarettes hanging out of her purse, carton of cigarettes in her carriage, tattoos all up and down her arms, disheveled-looking, screaming at her innocent little boy for touching this toy or that in the store. You know, that "really tough life" look that we all pass judgment on. Lets be honest with ourselves - we all have judged that girl and questioned "how the state lets someone like that raise a child!!!"

Guess what folks - lets rewind back to "civics" or "social studies" and recall "innocent until proven guilty." That is "Wal-Mart mom," and that should be you too.

Due process and all of that outdated legal stuff

Due process is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, (Garner, 2009) as "The conduct of legal proceedings according to established rules and principles for the protection and enforcement of private rights, including notice and the right to a fair hearing before a tribunal with the power to decide the case."

In America, the Constitution is the supreme authority governing all enactments of statutory, administrative, and precedential law. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) holds that "a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." The U.S. Supreme Court makes it very clear that anything that is not "constitutional" is void! As further support for this principle, this author points the reader to Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) which holds "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." [F1]

You are presumed to be a fit parent until the following happens:

1) You are accused by "someone" of "something" that would question your fitness
Stay tuned to the blog for our upcoming analysis of the "false allegation" silver bullet prescription for stripping custody from a fit parent within 24 hours in the corrupt N.H. Family Court system)

2) You are given a full evidentiary hearing to determine your fitness.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) "We conclude that, as a matter of due process of law, Stanley was entitled to a hearing on his fitness as a parent before his children were taken from him and that, by denying him a hearing and extending it to all other parents whose custody of their children is challenged, the State denied Stanley the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment"
3) You are found by due process of law to be an "unfit parent" by the "clear and convincing proof" evidentiary standard.

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) that "there is a presumption that fit parents will act in the best interests of their children." And, the N.H. Supreme Court said in In re Guardianship of Nicholas P., 162 N.H. 199 (2011) that the presumption that fit parents will act in the best interests of their children is subsumed in the "clear and convincing evidence standard."

Just for your information, the "clear and convincing evidence" standard is the highest evidentiary standard in civil and equity law. The N.H. high court continued in the Nicholas P. case, supra, by saying "Our statute, however, safeguards a parent's fundamental rights by imposing a high evidentiary standard."

What this means for parents

I am going to attempt to simplify this by using a single U.S. Supreme Court citation:

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), supra, holds that "so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i. e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children."

This means that the state (court, etc.) has no business "injecting itself" into your family if you are a fit parent - peering into the windows of your home, to determine if what you are doing with your family is in line with the political and social policy of the Court or agency.

I was in the Hooksett Family Court yesterday morning before Marital Master Nancy J. Geiger, a seemingly nice woman - but wholly unfamiliar with the law - arguing this very point, as an issue of subject matter jurisdiction and opposing counsel - a sleazy pettifogger attorney by the name of Edward C. Mosca blurted out the statement:


"it is this court's duty to care for the children!"

I immediately objected and stated in my objection "no, your honor, it is the duty of fit parents to care for their children!"

The difference is that I was armed with about 12 supreme court cases from the state and federal courts - he came in with nothing but his double-breasted polyester suit and hiking boots.

The state cannot even govern the parents' exercise of custody!


Lets look at another case - a really good case in fact. Its citation is Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). In this case, the Court holds "'the best interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves."

The Court does not even have the jurisdiction to examine a fit parent and say "gee whiz, he or she is not doing what is in the best interests of little johnny, we need to take that child away!" The Court has no such authority!

The heritage in American jurisprudence is undeniable

This is what America is all about: Liberty; strange concept, I know. Lets take a look at this simple logic system:

The U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. The court has long recognized that the amendment's Due Process Clause, like its U.S. Constitution Amendment V counterpart, guarantees more than fair process. The Clause also includes a substantive component that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.

But this is where the linkage occurs - right here in Troxel:

"we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children." See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, (1972)

"It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'comes to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972)

"The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"; Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978)

"We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"; Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979)

"Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"; Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (discussing "the fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child");

"In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)).

"In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."

But not in New Hampshire

But, New Hampshire Courts are removing children from fit parents every single day! This is being done at the direction of Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly. He is the big boss man of the N.H. Circuit Court. It is no coincidence that this phenomenon has pervaded the entire state - every nook and cranny - and is evidently provable in every family court in New Hampshire!

With 52% of Americans divorcing, the Family Court is like a slaughter house. Americans are sheep, the Judges and Marital Masters are the executioners. Their job is to get as many sheep to the slaughter as possible in as short a period of time as possible. Because most Americans are too afraid to speak up and demand their rights as "belligerent claimants in person," the Courts are administering a pervasive and widespread denial of due process in removing children from parents in a fashion that is most profitable to the state and to the micro-economy that is administered by the Bar Association. All judges are members of the Bar and all lawyers are members of the Bar - so their system of Justice is the system of justice that gets administered.

YOU NEED TO DEMAND ALL OF YOUR RIGHTS AT ALL TIMES, WAIVE NONE OF YOUR RIGHTS AT ANY TIME, AND DEMAND THAT EVERY ENACTMENT OF THE FAMILY COURT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORY OF WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE DECLARED BY THE HERITAGE OF STATE AND FEDERAL SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

I am not a lawyer, but I have concluded that former chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, was totally correct when he said that "75 to 90 percent of American Trial Lawyers are incompetent, dishonest, or both."

Question authority - I can assure you that in most instances they are wrong.

For more information, please email judicialchildabuse@gmail.com. Our initiative will provide you with a list of current New Hampshire cases to follow which will evidence ongoing abuse of parents, grandparents, and guardians. Your involvement will be pivotal to reforming this overtly corrupt system that is destroying the lives of thousands of families each year!


STOP JUDICIAL CHILD ABUSE

___________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES


[F1]. Overruled in part by Beatty v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 1996 Mo. LEXIS 19 (Mo. Feb. 20, 1996) only to the extent that "The modern view, however, rejects this rule to the extent that it causes injustice to persons who have acted in good faith and reasonable reliance upon a statute later held unconstitutional"