HOW WE CAN INFLUENCE THE JUDGE IN YOUR CASE HOW WE CAN INFLUENCE THE JUDGE IN YOUR CASE
Many Judges are not familiar with the legal field of fathers rights. They are bombarded however, with literature from feminist groups brainwashing Judges with false and misleading information about domestic violence and about the needs for issuing protective orders ex-parte, without the male being present. Seminars are held teaching Judges about domestic violence. The are invariably led by feminist man haters. This has led to victims advocates being placed in most courtrooms whose job is to help women fill out Petitions for an Emergency ex parte order. They know the hot button words to include in the petition that get these orders rubber stamped by busy Judges. Judges routinely issue every other weekend every other holiday visitation schedules that fall far below the legal standard requiring the maximum involvement of both parents and infringe on the fathers' and the children's Constitutional rights. Many have not heard the term maximum involvement in custody cases. Many Judges are not familiar with U.S. Supreme court cases they should be following in custody/ visitations cases. And they have no book on their shelf to go to for advice and background knowledge.
Even if you hire a good attorney, his arguing time in front of the Judge will be limited because of busy court schedules caused by floods of ex parte order petitions. Even if your attorney knows all the great arguments cases, and statistics found in our Comprehensive Guide to Fathers Rights he wont be allowed time to fully educate the Judge as to the fathers' rights guaranteed by law.
You and your lawyer cannot give the Judge a copy of the Comprehensive Guide to Fathers Rights. He could not ethically accept a copy directly from you or your lawyer. We send free copies to selected Judges often so this just moves your Judge to the top of the list. We receive contributions to pay for this free service to Judges.
WE CAN SEND THE JUDGE A COPY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE THAT INCLUDES EVERYTHING HE SHOULD KNOW.
We send the copy in a plain envelope with no return address, After your order is processed we shred and delete your order so we have no record of the order. You simply put Judge etc in the ship to address separate from your billing address on our order form. That tells us to delete and shred the order. We ship copies to Judges and Courthouse law libraries often and your Guide cannot be traced. It will be one of many free books Judges receive, but you will have greatly, greatly increased your chances for success in his court by educating the Judge. Most will be thankful for the help. Often you will see the Judge bring the Guide to court hearings or have the Guide on his desk or bookshelf. After reading it they respect and use it.
When the Judge hears your attorneys arguments they will be more familiar to him and better received. However make sure you separately order a copy for your self and your attorney and if your lawyer doesnt utilize the great arguments in the Guide, find a better more aggressive lawyer.
To see a table of contents and order your Comprehensive Guides click this link
SCROLL DOWN FOR THE IMPORTANT LULAY V LULAY DECISION FEATURED IN THE GUIDE
Many useful documents and tactics not available here or elsewhere are found in the "CUSTODY/DIVORCE KIT" available by clicking the following link.To enhance the chances of winning your case, you need to see ALL the aids provided by: THE FATHERS RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Below is a sample excerpt from the Comprehensive Guide to Fathers Rights:
The following is an exact quote from the Illinois Supreme Court summarizing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that are controlling upon ALL states. Grandparents and unwed fathers rights are also discussed below.
Lulay v Lulay
193 Ill. 2d 455 739 N.E. 2d 521 250 Ill. Dec 758 (DECIDED Oct 26, 2000)
Fundamental Right
The fourteenth amendment [***23] to the United States Constitution provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The due process clause "includes a substantive component that 'provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.' " Troxel, 530 U.S. at , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 56, 120 S. Ct. at 2059-60, quoting Washington v. [**530] Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 787, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2267 (1997).
As the United States Supreme Court stated in Troxel, 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 [*471] interests recognized by this Court." Troxel, 530 U.S. at , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 56, 120 S. Ct. at 2060 (reviewing Court decisions that have recognized and explained the fundamental interest of parents in the upbringing of their children); accord People v. R.G., 131 Ill. 2d 328, 342-43, 137 Ill. Dec. 588, 546 N.E.2d 533 (1989) (upholding the constitutionality of the "Minors Requiring Authoritative Intervention" [***24] statutes (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 803-1 et seq.) and recognizing that, under United States Supreme Court precedent, "parents have a liberty interest in bearing and raising their children").
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923), the Court held unconstitutional a statute that prohibited the teaching of certain foreign languages at an elementary school. The Court reasoned that
the due process clause protects the rights of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399, 401, 67 L. Ed. at 1045, 1046, 43 S. Ct. at 626, 627. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 69 L. Ed. 1070, 45 S. Ct. 571 (1925), the Court held unconstitutional a statute that required parents to send their children to public schools, reasoning that the statute interfered with the liberty right of parents "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." The Pierce Court explained that the "child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture [***25] him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Pierce, 268 U.S. at 535, 69 L. Ed. at 1078, 45 S. Ct. at 573.
Years later, the fundamental right of parents to raise their children remained an important focus in the jurisprudence of the United State Supreme Court. In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 92 S. Ct. 1208 [*472] (1972), the Court held unconstitutional a statute that declared that, upon the death of the mother, children of unwed fathers became wards of the state. The Court reasoned: "The private interest here, that of a man in the children he has sired and raised, undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. 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.]" Stanley, 405 U.S. at 651, 31 L. Ed. 2d at 558, 92 S. Ct. at 1212.
Soon after, in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972), [***26] the Court held, albeit primarily on the basis of the first amendment right to free exercise of religion, that a state's compulsory education law did not apply to a group of Amish children. The Court emphasized: "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." Yoder, 406 U.S. at 232, 32 L. Ed. 2d at 35, 92 S. Ct. at 1541-42; see also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 606, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1394 (1982) (determining the standard of proof necessary in termination of parental rights case and noting the Court's "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment"); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101, 118, 99 S. Ct. 2493, 2504 (1979) (stating that "our jurisprudence historically has reflected [**531] Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority [***27] over minor children"). In light of this extensive [*473] precedent, the Court in Troxel concluded that "
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." Troxel, 530 U.S. at , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 57, 120 S. Ct. at 2060.
Section 607(b)(1) allows grandparents to petition for court-ordered visitation with the grandchildren when both parents have decided not to allow such visitation. By allowing the State to interfere with the parents' decision in this regard, section 607(b)(1) impinges upon the fundamental constitutional right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children.
The State and the grandmother, Gail Lulay, argue that, even if section 607(b)(1) impinges upon a fundamental right, the statute does not significantly interfere with the fundamental right, and therefore, we should apply the rational basis test in reviewing the constitutionality of section 607(b)(1). See R.G., 131 Ill. 2d at 343 (stating that only statutes that "significantly interfere" with a fundamental right [***28] are subject to strict scrutiny), citing Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386-88, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618, 630-31, 98 S. Ct. 673, 681-82 (1978). The State contends that section 607(b)(1) does not give grandparents the absolute right to visitation. Rather, the statute merely creates a procedure by which grandparents may petition for visitation under certain circumstances. The State points out that section 607(b)(1) states only that a court "may grant reasonable visitation privileges" (emphasis added) ( 750 ILCS 5/607(b)(1) (West 1998)) and that the grandparents have the burden of proving that visitation is in the child's best interests and welfare.
In light of the nature of the fundamental right at stake, the State's and the grandmother's argument is not persuasive.
Encompassed within the well-established fundamental right of parents to raise their children is [*474] the right to determine with whom their children should associate. See Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, 595 N.W.2d 285, 291 (N.D. 1999) (stating that "deciding when, under what conditions, and with whom their children may associate is among the most important rights and [***29] responsibilities of parents," in holding that its most recent grandparent visitation statute was unconstitutional). It is the role of parents to nurture their children and to influence and shape their children's character. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, "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." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 652, 64 S. Ct. 438, 442 (1944). This "preparation for obligation" includes the parents' determination of who will be instrumental in the development of their child's personality and character. Section 607(b)(1) allows the State to usurp the decisionmaking function of parents with respect to the relationships that their children will have. This decisionmaking function lies at the core of parents' liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children. To hold that section 607(b)(1) is not a significant interference with the fundamental right of parents to raise their children would be to effectively obliterate that [***30] fundamental right.
The significant interference that section 607(b)(1) has on parents' fundamental right is further evidenced by the procedure contemplated by the statute. The grandparents may file a petition for visitation under certain circumstances; in this case, where the parents are divorced. The parent or parents are then haled into court. The parents must presumably hire attorneys, and then present evidence and [**532] defend their decision regarding the visitation before a trial court. The parents' authority over their children is necessarily diminished by [*475] this procedure. This can only be characterized as a significant interference with parents' fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children. Indeed,
the "burden of litigating a domestic relations proceeding can itself be 'so disruptive of the parent-child relationship that the constitutional right of a custodial parent to make certain basic determinations for the child's welfare becomes implicated.' " Troxel, 530 U.S. at , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 62, 120 S. Ct. at 2065, quoting 530 U.S. at , 147 L. Ed. 2d at 78, 120 S. Ct. at 2079 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
NO ATTORNEY - CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS CREATED THROUGH USE OF THIS WEB SITE. YOU MUST CONSULT LOCAL COUNSEL TO ADAPT THIS INFORMATION TO YOUR LOCAL LAWS.
Many useful documents and tactics not available here or elsewhere are found in the
RETURN TO:
FATHERS RIGHTS FOUNDATION PAGE OR
