fbpx
Loading…

Prevent Childhood Trauma

Prevent Childhood Trauma

LIMIT FOSTER CARE

Medical Experts Oppose Family Separation!

____________

Youth Civil Liberties

Youth Civil Liberties

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

To Remain Safely with Biological Parents!

____________

Parental Rights

Parental Rights

FAMILIES TOGETHER

14th Amendment Fundamental Right!

____________

Keeping Families Intact

Keeping Families Intact

PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS

Defending Our Children!!

____________

Protected Liberty Interest

Protected Liberty Interest

FAMILIES ARE SACRED

Jury Trial Required For All Family Separations!

____________

American Heritage Act

American Heritage Act

EXTENDED FAMILY FIRST

Relative Placement Before Foster Care!

____________
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS & CHILDREN.... The 11th amendment says, "Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a public trial". Currently this is not happening in CPS cases. Parents must have all the guarantees necessary for their defense and jury trials relating to severing parental-child relationships.
OUR IMPACT
_________________________

Children's Rights, Parental Rights, Family Preservation, and Family First Issues. The ones dealing with constitutionality, civil liberties, racial disparity in child welfare / foster care system and government overreach. The ones nobody talks about at cocktail parties. The ones that people turn a blind eye to. We go looking for them in order to save the children of America, who are being unwarrantedly traumatized by unnecessary family separation. There is ample evidence, from leading doctors and professionals in their fields, that children are traumatized when they are forcibly separated from their parents. This forced separation will have long-lasting negative consequences for the safety, health, development, and well-being of children. Forced separation disrupts the parent-child relationship and puts children at increased risk for both physical and mental illness. There is overwhelming evidence that children need to be cared for by their parents to be safe and healthy, to grow and develop. Our goal is to insure children are with their biological parents or extended family whenever possible and safe to do so.

475+ 11,500+  100,000+ 
children rescued from child protection services, kept out of the failing foster care system and/or reunited with their families because of our efforts.  video education and guideline packets were given to parents to help them know their rights when dealing with child protection services people were educated on TV and social media concerning government overreach, the family court system and family preservation.

14. Isn't "Fundamental Rights" a New and Limiting Term? Doesn't It Imply Rights That Are Granted by the Government?

14. Isn't "Fundamental Rights" a New and Limiting Term? Doesn't It Imply Rights That Are Granted by the Government?

Answer from Michael Farris, J.D., LL.M:

Some say that to use the term ‘fundamental’ introduces new language that is already understood as a civil or government-granted right.

The historical record is to the contrary.  The anti-federalists, who essentially campaigned against the Constitution because of the lack of a bill of rights, employed the term “fundamental rights” to describe what was missing from our Constitution.

For example, in Letters from a Federal Farmer (No. 16), dated January 20, 1788, and generally thought to have been written by Richard Henry Lee, there is a recurring use of the term “fundamental rights” in an argument for the necessity of a bill of rights.

The trial by jury in criminal as well as in civil causes, has long been considered as one of our fundamental rights, and has been repeatedly recognized and confirmed by most of the state conventions. But the constitution expressly establishes this trial in criminal, and wholly omits it in civil causes.

The “Farmer” belittles the position that all rights are protected under the assumption of their inalienability with no need to enumerate them in a bill of rights.  He points out that the Constitution protects the right of habeas corpus, which he describes as a “fundamental right.”  When one “fundamental right” is listed, how then can we claim that all other such rights will be protected by constitutional silence?

The “Farmer” describes the general collection of the rights of the people as “fundamental rights.”  He goes on to say:

All parties apparently agree, that the freedom of the press is a fundamental right, and ought not to be restrained by any taxes, duties, or in any manner whatever. Why should not the people, in adopting a federal constitution, declare this, even if there are only doubts about it.

The plain historical facts are that the parties who won the political argument over the necessity of the bill of rights were the anti-federalists.  These parties argued that it was error to include some “fundamental rights” like “habeas corpus,” while leaving out other “fundamental rights” like freedom of the press.  It was because of these very arguments that we have the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of the press.

In 1786, James Madison wrote a petition to the General Assembly of Virginia protesting a bill that gave special authority to the clergy of the Anglican Church.  One of his points of opposition to the legislation was:

Because the law constitutes the Clergy members of a convention who are to legislate for their laity contrary to their fundamental right of chusing their own legislators.1

It is absolutely clear that the Founders used the term “fundamental right” concerning the freedom of the press, the right to trial by jury, and the right to self-government.  Any claim that they believed that fundamental rights were merely “civil or government-granted rights” is not historically correct.

The historical pedigree of the term “fundamental right” is unassailable.2

Even in Supreme Court decisions, which repeatedly employ the term “fundamental rights” to describe all of our First Amendment liberties, there is not so much as a whisper regarding the idea that fundamental rights are of the variety that the government may give or take away at its legislative or executive whim.  The overwhelming view is that fundamental rights may not be taken away by government.  Yes, it is true that fundamental rights are not absolute.  To state an example, one may not exercise their freedom of the press to defame another person.  But the right itself is beyond the power of government to eradicate entirely.

I am not saying that Supreme Court doctrine is perfect—far from it.  But even in this imperfect arena, it is simply false to say that the term “fundamental right” is of recent origin, or that the term describes a species of right that may be eliminated by government whim.

NOTES:

Church and State in American History, John Frederick Wilson, et al, Westview Press (2003), 70.

2 For example, see also, Algernon Sydney, in his Discourses on Government  (1698) describing the right of self-government as a “fundamental right” (No. 36); the ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the State of South Carolina employs the term “fundamental right (May 23, 1789); the dissenters from the ratification of the Constitution in Pennsylvania also use the term “fundamental right” with respect to the right to elect our representatives, “The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania To Their Constituents,” Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser (18 December 1787)

Mission Statement

"Saving American children! The Family Preservation Foundation (FPF) is a nonprofit 501 (c)(3) organization whose mission is to save our children from unwarranted trauma, while defending and preserving the individual rights and civil liberties guaranteed to children, parents, and families in this country by the Constitution, and laws of the United States. Specifically, as it relates to Children's Rights, Parental Rights, Family Separation, Child Protection Services, and Foster Care. Nonpartisan, the FPF works through family education, litigation, public policy, publicity and media educational efforts on government overreach. FPF has over 12,000 members in its parent association. The FPF provides assistance and legal aid in Child Protective Services and Foster Care cases when it considers civil liberties to be at risk. Furthermore, FPF desires to ensure that no person is denied their right to equal justice because of their socioeconomic status or income. Families with children are the elemental unit of a society, the reproductive cell; without healthy families, the entire U.S. enterprise unravels." 

OUR NUMBER ONE GOAL IS KEEPING CHILDREN OUT OF THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM WHENEVER POSSIBLE AND SAFE TO DO SO!


Dwight D. Mitchell - Founder and Executive Director

FAMILY PRESERVATION FOUNDATION HAS BEEN FEATURED ON:

             

Family Preservation Foundation believes every child deserves a happy, healthy and safe future with their family and loved ones. We are working to save the children of America. Since our founding, we’ve changed the lives of many children in in the United States. We give children a healthy start in life, the opportunity to learn and protection from harm. We do whatever it takes to save our children – every day and in times of family crisis – transforming their lives and the future we share. We are a top-rated charity.

PRIMARY CONTACT:

To send feedback, suggestions or to request information on Family Preservation Foundation, Inc. 
contact: info@familypreservationfoundation.org| Tel: +1 (866) 469-5777 or +1 (732) 377-2038