fbpx
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.
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
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.

16. Why Do We Need Section Three If Parental Rights Are Already Considered Inalienable?

16. Why Do We Need Section Three If Parental Rights Are Already Considered Inalienable?

Why have Section Three at all? Historically, aren’t parental rights inalienable, absolute rights with which the government should never interfere?

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

The Founding Fathers never argued that inalienable rights were absolute.  Freedom of the press was clearly viewed as both inalienable and fundamental by the Founders.  Yet, there were laws that were on the books punishing those who used the press to defame other people.  Defamation was (and is) punished despite the fact that the freedom of the press was viewed as a God-given liberty described repeatedly as both inalienable and fundamental.

Likewise, parental rights are not absolute.

If we strip away the terminology debates and just think about theories of legally protectable rights, we will eventually conclude that there are essentially three potential levels of rights:

  • Absolute rights that may never be invaded by government for any reason whatsoever.
  • Very important rights that should not be limited except when someone abuses their rights by extreme use of their liberty.
  • Ordinary rights that the government could overcome whenever there was a good reason to do so.

The Founders clearly believed that inalienable rights were not absolute.  Consider this section from the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780:

     And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.

First, it is obvious that equal protection of the laws was denied to Jews and Muslims.  Religious freedom did not extend that far.  Second, there was the limitation of “demeaning themselves peacefully.”  Baptist pastors in Virginia were routinely arrested in the 1770s for disturbing the peace when they preached without obtaining a license from the government.  (My book, From Tyndale to Madison, gives an exhaustive history of the development of religious liberty in England and America).  This “demeaning themselves peacefully” standard gave the prevailing denomination incredible power to limit the religious practices of dissenters.  Moreover, there was the limitation that the other denominations had to be “good subjects of the commonwealth.”  That, too, was an open-ended, vague provision that could be used to limit religious liberty.

Fortunately, the Massachusetts position was eventually replaced by a view of true religious liberty for all.  But my point is this:  Even inalienable rights were, in fact, limited by the Founding Fathers.

I think it is now evident that:

  • The Founders did not believe that inalienable rights are absolute.
  • Parental rights should not be absolute.

In light of the fact that parental rights cannot and should not be considered an absolute right, the question remains:  Have we chosen the correct method of limitation on this right?

We certainly do not want to return to the language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780: “Parents should have the right to make all decisions for their children provided that they are ‘demeaning themselves peaceably and [are] good subjects of the commonwealth’.”  I guarantee you that such a rule would let the government run roughshod over every parent that had the courage to defy an improper government edict.

Accordingly, we chose the language from Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 US 205 (1972), to describe the difficult burden the government must meet in order to demonstrate that a parental choice can be limited by the government.  There must be evidence—not a mere assertion—that in this particular case the government’s interest is “of the highest order and not otherwise served.”  This language was used to hold that the compulsory education law was not important enough to meet this standard in the context of that case.  Compulsory education law cannot be described as anything less than an incredibly high priority to the government.  Yet, parental rights prevailed over this interest in Yoder.

Some standard has to be articulated because the courts will never find that parental rights are absolute. Realism dictates this path, as does good philosophy.  Parents should not have the right to abuse their children. So we either leave it to the courts to invent the exceptions to the rule, or we give them the standard from the very best example we have in Supreme Court history. We have chosen the latter path.

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