Information to post on Unethical NH Attorneys, Guardian Ad Litems, Marital Masters, Judges or any other persons involved in "Judicial Child Abuse" or "Judicial Child Neglect." Please email details to nh.unethical.attorney@gmail.com. We will not post your identity or give out your personal information.

Message Board:

We need to keep the pressure on the NH Family Courts by educating the public about the numerous injustices occurring. Please feel free to send us your information for posting. I have not had any recent dealings with the court system so I do not have current information to post. The best way to deal with these unethical judges, guardian ad litems and lawyers is to post as much on them as you can so that people do not want to do business with them. I have personally known judges that have their own practices as most judges are attorneys first. Hit these people where it counts. Their wallets. Starve them out and cut off their funds. When people do not want to use their services, they will have to change their evil ways or be unemployed.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

The Constitutional Right To Be A Parent - More Important Case Law

1.       State v. ROBERT H. ____, 118 NH 713 - NH: Supreme Court (1978) at 716 stated: “The role of parents in the life of a family has attained the status of a fundamental human right and liberty.”  And it is now firmly established that `freedom of personal choice in the matters of . . . family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.'" Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978) citing and quoting from Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974).
2.       Robert H. ___, Supra, at 717, the Court stated: “The loss of one's children can be viewed as a sanction more severe than imprisonment.”

3.       In re Guardianship of Stein, 105 Ohio St. 3d 30 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court quotes the U.S. Supreme Court:  “[A] parent's desire for and right to `the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children' is an important interest that `undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.'" Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Serv. (1981), 452 U.S. 18, 27, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640, quoting Stanley v. Illinois (1971), 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551

4.       In Interest of SRM, 601 SW 2d 766 - Tex: Court of Civil Appeals, 7th Dist(1980) at 770, the Court summarized Federal Constitutional rights and U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the following way:  “...Furthermore, with good reason, the legislature mandatorily required that the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship must be stated in the petition. The Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Texas have recognized that involuntary termination of parental rights involves fundamental constitutional rights. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1212, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); In the Interest of G. M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980). In Stanley, the Court stated that "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... and the Ninth Amendment." Stanley v. Illinois, 770 651, 92 S.Ct. at 1213. In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2707, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), the Court said that the term "liberty", as used in the due process cause of the Constitution, "denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to ... marry, establish a home and bring up children.... Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S.Ct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923)."

5.       Wise v. Bravo, 666 F. 2d 1328 - Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit (1981), generally, concurring circuit Judge Seymour articulates the interrelationship of constitutional and state law in the area of family relations

6.       Wise, Supra, at 1338 states:  “However, when an official of the state interferes with the parent-child relationship in some egregious manner outside the state judicial system, without procedural or substantive due process, section [42 U.S.C. Section]1983 may be invoked”
7.       Wise, Supra, at 1338: “The noncustodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation.”

No comments:

Post a Comment