Championing for child victims and their protective parents | a 501(c)3 nonprofit

When Bad Lawyers Seek To Threaten Protective Parents, They Need To Learn The Law!!!! Children Must Be Seen, Heard, And Believed! Bad Lawyers Must Be Sued And Removed From Legal Practice!

A GAL who sought to encourage the attorney for the abuser parent to block independent forensic psychiatric evaluation and reporting by forbidding a protective parent from seeking expert forensic psychiatrist. The forensic testimony was based on the meeting with and evaluation of three sisters, triplets who vociferously and explicitly documented and reported years of brutal physical, sexual and emotional abuse by their father. In addition the girls were witnesses to the brutal, violent abuse of their mother to which they testified and documented in multiple forms.

Judge Caffrey of PA Family court met with the children and attempted to as they reported “gaslight and lie to them.” they would have no part of his tactics which they recognized as attempts to trick them, intimidate and coerce them.

The FCVFC as advocates for the children and their protective parent has taken numerous steps to procure legal equity and protection for all parties and to condemn the tactics of a bully judge who thinks his ignorant, autocratic dictates are going to compel actions which would be highly destructive to the children and their mother.

The GAL who has been the subject of considerable criticism for her bad behavior which has been filed with the PA. Bar association and is in line as a litigant in multiple forms of legal prosecution wrote to the lawyer for the abuser instigating means of forcing the mother to comply with unconscionable court orders and stating that the mother is the source of harm to the children and in her care they are potentially in danger of physical and psychological harm…..not in their best interests.

The double talk, tyrannical pandering to a judge who seems ignorant of the law, much less due process,  limits of immunity and expertise must be countered with a wakeup call as follows…….

A version of the note sent to all parties in the case by the FCVFC despite the anticipation of the sparks of fireworks that will light the fuse of litigation to confront and defend protective parents and warrior children……


To an attorney:

Please allow me to remind you of a few things regarding parental constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of family autonomy and raising children. The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. The Court has also held that any regulation that affects the ability to form, maintain, dissolve, or resolve conflicts within a family is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny.

Regarding medical decisions for minors, states have traditionally recognized the right of parents to make health care decisions on their children’s behalf, on the presumption that before reaching the age of majority (18 in all but four states), young people lack the experience and judgment to make fully informed decisions. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, minors may be deemed legally competent to make their own health care decisions if they are considered mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of their decisions. The [children in question] are extremely mature and should be evaluated and presumed to make legal decisions based on that superior maturity.

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 v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). This parental liberty interest “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” the United States Supreme Court has recognized. Id. at 65. This interest includes the right of parents to establish a home and to direct the upbringing and education of their children. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Indeed, the protection of the family unit is guaranteed not only by the Due Process Clause, but also by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and possibly by the Ninth Amendment. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 661 (1972).

The rights of parents to raise their children does not fade into the background because someone else, even government, thinks he can do a better job raising the child. Reiterating a point of law it says it “stressed,” the North Carolina Supreme Court explained that parents’ rights prevail: “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that the government does not impermissibly infringe upon a natural parent’s paramount right to custody solely to obtain a better result for the child. Owenby v. Young, 357 N.C. 142, 148, (2003). The United States Supreme Court had previously expressed such a view, writing, “{t}he Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision could be made.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 72-73 (2000).

As the North Carolina Supreme Court explained, “absent a finding that parents (i) are unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail.” Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 403-04 (1994).

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.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (The Court declared unconstitutional a Washington statute that authorized judges to order parents to permit more visitation between children and their grandparents than the parents desired.)

The United States Supreme Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed “essential,” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), “basic civil rights of man,” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), and “rights far more precious . . . than property rights,” May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953).

“[T]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, and from the role it plays in ‘promot[ing] a way of life’ through the instruction of children, as well as from the fact of blood relationship. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 843 (1977) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231-33 (1972)).

“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This includes medical decisions by the biological mother. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972)).

The Constitution of the United States does not create rights. Rather, the U.S. Constitution recognizes that human beings have certain inalienable rights to which they are entitled, which rights arise as a matter of natural right. The most important of these rights are called “Fundamental Rights.”

Fundamental Rights are rights that are so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 326, 58 S. Ct. 149, 152, 82 L. Ed. 288 (1937); McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1556 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

The Supreme Court has recognized that fundamental rights include those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as well as certain liberty, associational and privacy interests implicit in the due process clause and the penumbra of constitutional rights. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. at 2267; Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712-13, 96 S. Ct. 1155, 1166, 47 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1976).

These special “liberty” interests include “the rights to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, to marital privacy, and to bodily integrity.” Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720, 117 S. Ct. at 2267.

I strongly suggest that you back off this concept that you, the GAL or even the Judge can dictate who the mother allows to medically or psychological treat her minor children.  If not, a federal lawsuit may indeed remedy this conundrum.  Keep pushing this illegal and unconstitutional agenda and that’s the direction we are heading in the near future with severe consequences to your ability to practice law.

Get Help Today

Contact Form Demo

Related Posts

Skip to content