5

Julia Gillard PM C/o R.McClelland.MP@aph.gov.au Cc: Tony Abbott MP Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

.

9-9-2011

10

15

20

25

Julia, As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am deeply concerned how there is a gross abuse and misuse of power by the Family Court of Australia and others and a gross denial of constitutional rights. You will notice that in the document published at http://www.scribd.com/doc/64240803/110908-Premier-Ted-Baillieu-re-State-Land-TaxFreedom-of-Speech-Infringement I have extensively canvassed FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF THE PRESS and other issues as to CIVIL RIGHTS and POLITICAL LIBERTY as well as in various other documents published at the blog dealt extensively with Family law matters versus the constitution and as such no need to refer to it all once again but safe to say that contrary to current purported legal provisions and proceedings the Commonwealth only can exercise legislative powers and so the Family Law Act 1975 can only deal with and so the courts operating within the Family Law Act 1975 can only hear and determine matters of guardianship and custody within the framework of there being a divorce. As such the issue of serialisation of a child where the parents are not involved in divorce proceedings cannot be heard and determined by the Family Court of Australia as it is not an issue that is in relation thereto of a divorce. Likewise contact and other issues are not sanctioned by the constitution as the terminology is guardianship and custody and the courts cannot sidestep from constitutional meanings.
.

30

Likewise the issue of Child Support to be a Debt to the Commonwealth is not can cannot be constitutionally justified, as it is contrary to the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution who made it in fact very clear that the constitutional powers to deal with custody and guardianship was not as to reduce children as to being slaves. Clearly, to hold that the commonwealth can somehow exercise a right over children and being paid a child support as a Debt to the Commonwealth: would effectively mean that the commonwealth operates upon a basis that children are owned by the Commonwealth and treated as slaves.
.

35

40

45

Lets make it very clear that from personal experiences I am too aware how totally incompetent the Family Court of Australia operates as when some of my children were still little the Family Court of Australia for some period of more than 10 years refused to act against the violence of their mother and it was finally that the children court stepped in and wouldnt tolerate the near murder of one of the children and the ongoing bashing of one of them (including breaking a cricket bat upon the back of one of the children as to the force she was using) that the children were removed from her custody. I didnt have to apply to the children court for custody as I was rather asked to take them! What I therefore experienced with the Family Court of Australia was that in its judgments it was always referring to the interest and wellbeing of the child where in fact doing precisely the opposite and rather ensured to leave children in a violence situation and again it lasted for more than 10 years and then it was the Children Court that on request of welfare authorities stepped in. Even then the Family court of Australia refused to grand me custody but this had no effect because the children were already living with me by Children
9-9-2011 Page 1 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Court order! This is how the Family Court of Australia operates as it is their way to so to say pay-back and retaliate against a person who exposes their abuse and misuse of power. For the record the mother (then my former wife) pleaded guilty to assault upon the child, (having been charged by the police) she bashed with a cricket bat (she broke in the process) and using other implements and even in the police station attacked the sleeping child that finally the police warned her they would place her in a cell if she did it again. If a man did likewise he would have been in a cell beforehand!
.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

As I did set out in the document published at my blog at http://www.scribd.com/doc/64240803/110908-Premier-Ted-Baillieu-re-State-Land-TaxFreedom-of-Speech-Infringement we do have ample of embedded legal principles in the constitution as the Framers of the Constitution, referring to the U.S.A. constitution (including its Amendments) made clear that this constitution they were created exceeded all constitutional rights provided for in the U.S.A. constitution (and its Amendments) and in fact also relied upon numerous judicial authorities of the U.S.A. therefore I provide you with a copy of the email I received below which relates to various judgments regarding the rights of parents. It must be understood that no one is seeking to argue that parental rights somehow overrides criminal law and this is neither proposed, what however is pursued is that parents have a certain constitutional protection to deal with their child(children) in the manner they deem fit and proper without acting in breach of criminal laws. Therefore, the right of the parent to decide when a child, day, shall come home and not venture during the evening or night onto the streets is an essential parental right that should never be undermined. We have advertisements about foster parents needed because some 35,000 children are needing alternative care. For sure many of these may relate to genuine care needed such as respite where it relates to disabled persons but also plenty relates where a child simply doesnt like to comply with ordinary parental instructions. The result we have seen is where during the London riots children went to the extreme because parents are by the state in general prevented to discipline children. Our constitution protects parents but we have that our parliamentarians and our courts and so the government and its departments are seeking to breakdown the family unit and then when faced with unruly children who spread graffiti and show an utter disregard for law and order we somehow expect the parents to be responsible when we in the first place denied them to instil a healthy respect for law and order. No one is promoting a child to be bashed, and yet the Family Court of Australia claiming to act in the best interest of the child allowed this to eventuate for more than 10 years! As such it is the so called law enforcement that is culpable of the disregard of law and order because the very children denied their human rights because judges have their ulterior intentions that they then will grow up with a disregard for law and order. The fact that those children who with the implied consent by the Family Court of Australia were terrorised and bashed by their mother for a period of ten years now as adults have the view that violence is acceptable may underline that it is the way the system operates that causes much of the problems. As judges of the Family Court of Australia at the time made clear to me the issue of alleged violence of the mother was not their issue but had to be proven in the appropriate court (They obviously do not use the same reasoning when allegations are made against a father!). After the mother was charged, had legal representation in court, and pleaded guilty of assault and thereafter I presented this to the Family Court of Australia the judges then made clear it no longer was an issue because the Magistrates Court had dealt with it. As such, they showed not the least concern about the violence that went on and on and used any excuse because I was known for exposing the power abuse of the judges and so their interest was pretended to be that of the children but was actually to retaliate back upon me. However, it then were the welfare authorities who no longer would stand by and they then took the matter to the Children Court and that was finally the end of the children torture, which included the mother putting hot chilly on the childrens tong and they were not allowed to remove it but had to sit there no matter what!
9-9-2011 Page 2 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

Her violence was well known, including that she pleaded guilty of assault upon me after she held a large butcher knife to my throat not wanting me to leave, etc. Yet, despite all this the Family court of Australia pretended as if she never was at fault and let this kind of violence go on and on for some 10 years! This is the stark reality how I experienced the Family Court of Australia to operate with a scant regard to the rights of children and yet in the reason of judgment fabricating all kinds of excuses as if they did. My children are all adults now and so my writings is not seeking any kind of involvement into Family Court matters but simple to state that I know too well that our children of today are often caused to act as they do because of the way the systems are operating and the family unit is being destroyed as result of this.
.

15

If parental rights were respected, as should be because of the legal principles embedded in the constitution, then we will find a lot less children needing the alleged alternative care because children will learn that they must respect parental supervision and that they may not agree with having to be home at a certain time, etc, this is part of life as when they go lout for employment then they may neither like certain time schedules but still have to accept that in the course of employment or forever end up being unemployed, etc.
.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

We argue about children gone off the rails that the parents need education how to be a parent, but reality is we robbed parents of the ability to be a parent because the governments are too busy interfering with their rights and seek to nullify them altogether so an army of so to say social workers then can have employment doing what they themselves wouldnt do to their own children and that is to further undermine parental care. I recall where a social worker was handing out cigarettes to 14 year olds, denied by their mother to smoke cigarettes, and making clear that if the children were to be placed in care, if they were to agree with this, they could have the right to smoke cigarettes. As such the social worker was undermining parental rights so as to get the children willing to accept to be placed in alternative care. Likewise the social worker was taking the children out on spending spree binges and ongoing making known that the children would be better of not being with their mother who was financial struggling because they could get everything they wanted if they no longer resided by their mother. As such, children are removed upon the allegations that the children want to be removed and live somewhere else and the court isnt informed of the manipulation by social workers to achieve this with bribes and deceptive promises. When then one of the 14 year old having been placed in alternative care than discovered there were no further outings, presents, or even money for smoking then she was servicing clients in a hotel as a prostitute, still being 14 years old! This is the kind of results that we achieve as a society when we allow governments to interfere with our constitutional rights as parents. As for the then 14 year old girl that went in prostitution (so the police records documented this also) while in care of the State, well now 25 years later and so also 7 children (with various men) later she has no care of any of her children, because she simply was robbed as a child to learn what it was to grow up in a family and so neither could herself provide a family environment for the children she gave birth to. She grew up with the kind of institutional care that was in fact non-existent then and was left to fend for herself while the social workers were being handsomely being paid to care for her but didnt. This was the 14 year old girl I remembered sitting on my lap and like any child cuddled up against me not long before she was placed under the care of the State and then transformed to prostitution, etc. such serene child innocent of any wrongdoing had her life being torn apart and destroyed because of the way social workers are undermining family values and all to secure their own deployment opportunities. She was not my child and so I had no say in what the State did to her but as she was related to me through one of my children I always remained acute aware of her plight and how her life was so destroyed by those pretending to care for her but really only had their self-interest as to secure their own employment without any real care to any child in their care/authority.
9-9-2011 Page 3 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

10

15

20

25

30

That is why so many children are being neglected when in State care because the workers employed to care for them simply cannot provide the kind of parental care that a parent generally does. The worker merely is there for working hours as an employment and generally not worried what the child may end up with 10 or 20 years later. A parent has the focus of the long-term wellbeing of the child. For sure there are parents who lack to provide proper parental care but we never should then use that as to excuse social workers to do likewise and abuse and misuse their positions to destroy a family environment. Courts should be the last resort where only when there is a real family breakdown by divorce then the courts should step in but only to what is constitutionally permissible. We had this absurd case of B v B where a mother wanted to get remarried and then the Father, despite the court acknowledged he was not doing anything wrong, then was denied further access to his children upon the basis that the mother to remarry had to move interstate and so the fathers contact with the children was undesirable because the mother would be unhappy if she couldnt remarry and the mothers happiness was critical to the childrens happiness and wellbeing.. In my view this was outside the powers of the Family Court of Australia as it was not an issue derived from a divorce but rather about the mothers intention to remarry and then move elsewhere to live that to her it became inconvenient for the former husband to maintain his access with his children. It is this kind of utter and sheer legal nonsense that underlines how constitutional embedded legal rights are totally ignored. Where a father committing no wrong and was known to provide for his children nevertheless was robbed of his rights and so the children of their rights to be with their father all because the mother alleged unhappiness if she could not move away to remarry. It is a dangerous precedent indeed to hold that the alleged unhappiness of a mother is to dictate the right of the father to see his children and the children likewise to see their father. What we therefore have is that the parents can resolve any disputes as to the children amicable and the father pays whatever towards the childrens bring up and all the mother needs to do later is to claim she wants to get remarried and move elsewhere and then the father no matter of being totally innocent of any wrongdoing then is robbed of his constitutional rights and so the children. This is anti-social and undermining the constitutional rights of the father and the children and merely so the courts can continue their destruction of what constitutes family rights.
.

35

I will now quote some of the parts of the judgment referred to above as to indicate I do not just fabricate this B an B issue but also must point out that when a child is an adult but nevertheless unable to care for itself being it by disability or otherwise, including a perfectly healthy child that simply doesnt want to go to work and lazy about then parents nevertheless are often held responsible for them and as such children may reach adulthood but still can be and remain the responsibility of the care of the parent(s).
QUOTE Ingram v Crouch (1979) 5 FLR 326 at 330 (Supreme court of NSW) Unfortunately the plaintiff and the defendant apparently live some 300 miles apart. I can appreciate the difficulties in the plaintiff having access periods of less than say a week or more, but I think that I should make an order which would grant access to the plaintiff on any weekend that he wishes to have access to the child, provided that he picks up the child at Yamba and returns him to Yamba on the Sunday evening. No doubt arrangements can be made between the parties for the precise time of picking up the child and returning him, but I would anticipate that a reasonable basis for weekend access would be that the child be picked up early Saturday morning and returned not to late on Sunday evening END QUOTE
.

40

45

50

Actually, before the mother moved from the State of Victoria to Queensland, as the custodian parent I was to deliver the child for access to her residence meaning then an about 1,000 kilometres round trip! Seems when it comes to a custodian father the rules are different then when it comes to a custodian mother!
.

9-9-2011 Page 4 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

In my view the issue of the mother wanting to move for marriage purposes to another area should have had nothing to do with it. Indeed, when the mother of one of my daughters moved Interstate from Victoria to Queensland the B and B principle was never applied to somehow deny her access to the child. Why should it have been where the mother actually herself from then on abandoned any further access to the child? As such, in the B and B case the issue shouldnt have been the mother wanting to remarry and moving to the State of Victoria for this but that she could ensure the rights of the father and the children would remain undisturbed. As such, she could have placed them on a plane to travel to and from Queensland.
.

10

15

20

As I used to assist for two decades parties involved in Family Court litigations I was well aware of how some women change boyfriends as others are changing their socks. I had to get used to them changing their surnames from time to time, pending which boyfriend/de facto they had and so they would also change the surname of their children, regardless if the biological father agreed with it. The result being that they would move from place to place to move in with a new partner and childrens lives would be ongoing disrupted as it also included changing schools and losing contact with established friends, etc. So much for the right of the child where some custodian women are constantly on the move that the children lose any sense of belonging, and yet if a custodian father was to do the same then quickly this would be deemed averse to having custody. For the record, in the case of Brown v Brown (Kay J) the mother then moved to Denmark with the child but access was still provided for! As such, in that regard the moving from Queensland to Victoria was relative a small distance and never should have amounted to robbing both the father and the children of their mutual contact. Essentially what the Family Court of Australia appears to me to prove is that when it comes to women it applies a different kind of rhetoric then what it applies to men. Judges will twist and infringe any legal or constitutional provision as to make it to suit their purposes and as such a judge may use the same argument in favour of a woman as it can against a man because I experienced that at times judgments were decided before the case was completed and all the trail judge was doing was to listen to the evidence to manipulate it to suit the orders he all along intended to issue and at times already had issued before the case was heard! As a matter of fact when I presented to the High Court of Australia an incident where a trial judge had issued orders a day before the case was completed the court simply argued it must have been an error. Well error or not but legally any order issued before the completion of a hearing invalidates any orders made because clearly they are not the product of a hearing to determine the rights of the parties but are concocted in advance to suit one particular party. It was for this also the Family Court of Australia was dead set against me to the extent that the Chief Justice at one time even called in the Australian Federal Police to have me removed from the court room not wanting me to sit in the public gallery to listen to what was being stated by the judges. Well, this eventuated not during a hearing but even before a hearing had commenced. In the end I went back into the court and listened to the judges what they were saying as I explained to the Australian federal Police that judges may utterly dislike that I expose their double standards but nevertheless I was entitled to be there and my conduct was not causing any offence rather that the judges didnt like that I exposed their double standards but that couldnt infringe upon my rights whatsoever. Judges such as Kay J and Guess J also didnt like my presence but couldnt exclude me from the public gallery even so they made clear they didnt like it that I would in subsequent litigation in other cases refer back to what I had heard in previous cases to expose double standards.
.

25

30

35

40

45

50

LORD ATKIN in AMBARD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL for TRINIDAD and TABAGO (1936) A.C. 332, at 335 QUOTE But whether the authority and position or an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way, the wrong headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper 9-9-2011 Page 5 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary man END QUOTE
.

10

In my view judicial officers should be more concerned with constitutional rights and limitations and no doubt the B and B case never should have been decided as it was. Nothing can be done to stop what happened 15 years ago and those children are now adults but we can and should stop this kind of rot! The question is who has the common decency to stand up against this rot, that is the question, as many parents (mainly men) are robbed of their constitutional rights and so their children also in the process.
.

15

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. CLARK.for the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him. END QUOTE
.

20

25

HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian Convention) QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution, END QUOTE
.

30

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in prosecuting criminals are. END QUOTE
.

35

Legal Principals. B AND B Full Court of the Family Court at Brisbane Appeal NA 35 of 1996 9-7-1997 in particularly parts 9.63, 9.65, 10.46 to and inclusive 10.64 it is notable that with the Reform Act in place and
QUOTE 9.65 However, in relevant proceedings under Part VII the ultimate issue is the best interest of the children and to the extent that the freedom of a parent to move impinges upon those interests then it must give way. END QUOTE

40

And
QUOTE 10.62; -

45

We consider that there is power to make an order that may have indirect effect of restricting the movement of a contact parent. END QUOTE

And 50
QUOTE 10.45 Further, we think that the economic factors referred to by her as affecting women who are the sole caregivers of children are also relevant and should not be overlooked by a court when considering a child's best interests. END QUOTE

And 55
QUOTE 10.46 9-9-2011 Page 6 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Nevertheless the essential point is that the question must always come back to the best interests of the particular child in each case, and rights of the type discussed above must give way to those best interests. END QUOTE

And 5
QUOTE (b) Rights of Children END QUOTE

And 10
QUOTE 10.47 The Reform Act (s.60B) is expressed in terms of "rights" of children and the balance of Part VII is notable for the absence of "rights" in relation to parents, even in its definition of "parental responsibility" (s.61B) and which is in contrast to the U.K. equivalent. END QUOTE

And 15
QUOTE 10.49 Any view that until the Reform Act the law in Australia spoke in terms of the rights of parents to custody or access seriously misunderstands the development of the law long before 1995. For example, in Brown and Pedersen, supra, the Full Court said (at 79,010):"Whatever may have been the accepted principle in the past, this Court has long laid to rest any notion that a parent has a right to "access." END QUOTE

20

And 25
QUOTE 10.50 The Full Court then referred to several earlier cases in this Court where the discussion was in terms of the right of children. The Full Court had some difficulty with a full acceptance of that concept because "the difficulty with the use of the word "right" is that it detracts from the principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration as stated in sec 64(1)(a) of the Act. END QUOTE

And 30
QUOTE 10.51 By this time the movement from rights of parents to rights of children and their inter-relationship had further developed in the remarks of Lord Denning M.R. in Hewer v Bryant [1970] 1 QB 357 at 369 and the "Gillickcompetent" test enunciated by Lord Scarman in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] 1 AC 112 at 183 et seq, namely:"Parental rights clearly do exist, and they do not wholly disappear until the age of majority. Parental rights relate to both the person and the property of the child - custody, care and control of the person and guardianship of the property of the child. But the common law has never treated such rights as sovereign or beyond review and control. Nor has our law ever treated the child as other than a person with capacities and rights recognised by law. The principle of the law, as I shall endeavour to show, is that parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child." END QUOTE

35

40

And 45
QUOTE 10.52 His Lordship went on to say at 186:"The underlying principle of the law was exposed by Blackstone and can be seen to have been acknowledged in the case law. It is that parental right yields to the child's right to make his own decisions when he reaches a sufficient understanding and intelligence to be capable of making up his own mind on the matter requiring decision. END QUOTE

50

And
QUOTE 10.55 For a more detailed discussion of these issues and of the emerging emphasis on the rights of children within the concept of best interests see the judgments of the members of the Full Court in Re Z, supra, and also N and S and The Separate Representative (1996) FLC 92-655, at 82,708. END QUOTE 9-9-2011 Page 7 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

55

And
QUOTE 10.56 By the time the Reform Act came into operation any concept of rights of parents in relation to residence and contact have long been abandoned. Those issues were seen as involving the rights of children, not in an absolute sense but in the sense that the issue was to be determined from that perspective, great weight being attached to children's rights and wishes but ultimately subordinate to the criterion of their best interests. END QUOTE

And
QUOTE

10

(c) Can a contact parent be inhibited from relocating? END QUOTE

And 15
QUOTE 10.58 Mr Hamwood, for the husband, submitted that, consistently with s.60B(2)(b), the Court's power to prevent a residence parent from relocating applied equally to a contact parent. This is because the loss to the children of the right of contact with the contact parent would be diminished to precisely the same extent whether it was the children or the contact parent who moved from the previous location. Consequently, in order to protect the right of the children to contact in an appropriate case the contact parent could be inhibited from relocating. Otherwise it may appear that the law is discriminatory, preventing relocation by the residence parent, usually female, who has the greater responsibilities for the children, whilst allowing the contact parent to relocate without restriction and regardless of the impact on the rights of the children. The Attorney-General expressed no view on this issue. END QUOTE

20

And 25
QUOTE 10.59 In this context one difference between the resident parent relocating with the children and the contact parent relocating needs to be recognised. In the former situation the children would also move from their previously known environment whereas that would not be the case in the latter situation. But it is the right of contact with parents to which s.60B(2)(b) is directed. END QUOTE

30

And
QUOTE 10.62 We consider that there is power to make an order that may have the indirect effect of restricting the movement of a contact parent. That issue would ordinarily arise when a contact parent seeks to relocate and applied to the Court to vary the existing contact order. If the Court refused to do so because it considered that it would be contrary to the children's best interests to have contact reduced, it may do so by refusing that application, and this may place the contact parent under an obligation to adhere to the existing order. It may also arise in other ways - for example, an application by the residence parent for contact orders to be made in particular terms which may be inconsistent with relocation by the contact parent. The use of injunctions is much less clear because it would raise the issue whether the best interests of the children is the paramount consideration in such applications: see s.68B. END QUOTE

35

40

And 45
QUOTE 10.63 In any of those eventualities it is possible that the failure of the contact parent to comply with those orders may amount to a breach of the orders in respect of which proceedings by way of enforcement could be brought. END QUOTE

And 50
QUOTE 10.64 However, we are not aware of any such order ever having been made in Australia and we think it unlikely that in the exercise of its discretion a court would do so. Essentially the reason is that it would be most unlikely that the children's best interests would be served by requiring the contact parent to have contact which he or she did not wish to have, although it is possible to envisage circumstances where the continuance of contact is so overwhelmingly in the best interests of the children as to nullify that circumstance. END QUOTE 9-9-2011 Page 8 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

55

QUOTE email
From: Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> To: LPTexas <LPTexas-L@LPTexas.org> Cc: liberty-list@yahoogroups.com, AMOJ_main@yahoogroups.com Date: Thursday, September 08, 2011 11:33 pm Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Should the Constitution Be Read as Protecting Parental Rights? Attachments:

(2KB)

The question is examined in these excerpts from Troxel v. Granville (2000) on the issue. First, heres an excerpt from Justice OConnors plurality opinion: The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. We have long recognized that the Amendments Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment 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. The liberty interest at issue in this case the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534535 (1925), we again held that the liberty of parents and guardians includes the right to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. We explained in Pierce that [t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. Id., at 535. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Id., at 166. In subsequent cases also, 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 come[s] 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 [t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 (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 righ[t] ... to direct the education and upbringing of ones 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. Second, heres most of Justice Scalias dissent: In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the unalienable Rights with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims all men ... are endowed by their 9-9-2011 Page 9 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

Creator. And in my view that right is also among the othe[r] [rights] retained by the people which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitutions enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage. The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitutions refusal to deny or disparage other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the State has no power to interfere with parents authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right. Only three holdings of this Court rest in whole or in part upon a substantive constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children two of them from an era rich in substantive due process holdings that have since been repudiated. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534535 (1925); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232233 (1972). The sheer diversity of todays opinions persuades me that the theory of unenumerated parental rights underlying these three cases has small claim to stare decisis protection. A legal principle that can be thought to produce such diverse outcomes in the relatively simple case before us here is not a legal principle that has induced substantial reliance. While I would not now overrule those earlier cases (that has not been urged), neither would I extend the theory upon which they rested to this new context. Judicial vindication of parental rights under a Constitution that does not even mention them requires ... not only a judicially crafted definition of parents, but also unless, as no one believes, the parental rights are to be absolute judicially approved assessments of harm to the child and judicially defined gradations of other persons (grandparents, extended family, adoptive family in an adoption later found to be invalid, long-term guardians, etc.) who may have some claim against the wishes of the parents. If we embrace this unenumerated right, I think it obvious whether we affirm or reverse the judgment here, or remand as Justice Stevens or Justice Kennedy would do that we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people. It is interesting that Justice Scalia cites the Ninth Amendment here, which he has seemed reluctant to do in other cases, and it provides one of the few instances where the Ninth is cited either by a majority or in dissent. -- Jon

END QUOTE email

.

Ok, I did my bit to try to educate you about what is constitutionally and otherwise applicable but the question is if you really get the drift about it at all and if you did then what are you propose to do about it to rectify matters so that no longer these kinds of disasters are perpetrated upon people?
.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL

. 10 . (

Our name is our nmotto!)

G. H. Schorel-Hlavka (Gerrit)

Awaiting your response,

9-9-2011 Page 10 PLEASE NOTE: Until our website Http://www.office-of-the-guardian.com has been set up to operate the website Http://www.schorel-hlavka.com will be the alternative website for contact details. help@office-of-the-guardian.com Free downloading of documents from blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati