H. J. Res 97, the Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment bill has just been introduced in the House of Representatives. Rep. Pete Hoekstra introduced this amendment, designed to “preserve and protect parental rights from future erosion.”
The introduction of this amendment, thankfully, will start a critical discussion in Congress. Family, child and parental rights are paramount to our freedoms. The time has come for something along the lines of H. J. Res 97. But unfortunately, this amendment falls short.
We have to think of parents like Karl Hindle and his daughter Emily. The U.S. State Department is involved in Emily’s illegal abduction. Even the harboring of Emily and her mother, while Emily was listed as missing and endangered. They allowed Emily to go blind in one eye. Karl has no choice but to utilize the Hague convention.
Maybe John Murtari’s idea of a Family Rights Act is a better approach. Murtari is a nonviolent peaceful protester for family rights. He’s best known for almost dying while incarcerated while refusing to cooperate in his confinement.
Family Rights is a subject few think about, until the lack of them affects their own family. Once that happens, the pain and suffering are so great, many people become activists. With the internet and social networking sites it isn’t hard to find person after person with a horror story of their own.
This August 15 and 16, people from across the nation will be uniting in Washington DC to demand their Family Rights. The DC Festival 2008 will have, among other things, speakers, live music, meet-and-greet socials, and a march on the White house. The march will include groups as diverse as Fathers4Justice, the National Association of Non Custodial Moms, the United Civil Rights Councils Of America, and Jugs for Justice.
The Family Rights movement is most likely the fastest growing movement of our time, and the most important. I know we’ll find a solution to the suffering going on in every city in every state across this country. Not doing so is inhumane.
Rate this post:
(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
JD said,
July 2, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Teri Stoddard said,
July 2, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Roger F. Gay said,
July 3, 2008 at 6:16 am
ParentalRights.org said,
http://www.parentalrights.org/learn/the-solution-a-constitutional-amendment/read-the-amendment.
Second, our amendment takes the language of well-decided Supreme Court cases pertaining to parental rights (what the Court has ruled in the past about parental rights) and inserts this into the black and white text of the Constitution. This ensures that parents, not the government, have the right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
Third, Section 2 of our proposed amendment protects children against abuse by permitting the government to take away parental rights when it has an interest of the “highest order and not otherwise served” and it must use the “least restrictive means of doing so.”
The bottom line is that the Parental Rights Amendment makes parental rights “fundamental.” A fundamental right simply means that the government (or judge) has to prove that it has an interest of the highest order” before the right is taken away. Additionally, the government must use the “least restrictive means” of doing so.
You can read more by downloading our in-depth brochure from our website.
You are concerned Section 3 of our amendment would give all rights to the mother, leaving Karl completely out of the picture. Section 3 should not be a concern. Our amendment does not give unlimited rights to parents. It appears that a compelling case can be made demonstrating that Sheila Kay Fuith was abusive.
Our amendment does not change parental rights; it merely ensures that the rights of fit parents are not violated.
July 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm
JD said,
Currently, if an American parent abducts their child (who is therefore also an American) to the USA from another signatory state, they have to answer to the Hague Convention which can, and often does, require the return of the child. It does not require that the abducting parent be proven abusive.
The convention includes a number of defenses for an abducting parent, such as the other parent being abusive (it is much more complicated than just this, but for the sake of this argument, let’s leave it at that).
However, if this constitutional amendment is adopted, then I would have thought it would provide another argument for the abducting parent to evade returning the child. What stops them from saying that they have a constitutional right to “direct the upbringing and education of their children” and they cannot do that if the child is returned to the state from which he or she was abducted? If the left behind parent is not American, then presumably they receive no similar protection under the constitutional amendment. Does the amendment, along with section 3, not trump the Hague Convention for an American parent and render a foreign parent, especially a left-behind parent, without rights?
This is regardless of Karl’s specific case, not all abducting parents are necessarily “abusive” within current definitions. Do they therefore have the right to abduct their children? I can imagine that Karl’s ex might have made the above argument and therefore his experience might have been all the more difficult.
If, on top of all the other difficulties in trying to get his or her child back, a left-behind parent must also “make a compelling case” that an abducting parent is abusive, from the reaches of another country no less, then justice is all the more difficult to obtain.
(Caveat: I am not a lawyer, but I am also not without some experience.)
July 3, 2008 at 2:44 pm
JD said,
“All four channels of international law currently pose a significant threat to parental rights.”
This is a claim I, for one, have not heard before. I’d appreciate an explanation. (Especially given that the Hague Convention is an international law which is intended to protect parental rights.)
July 3, 2008 at 7:14 pm
RandallScotti said,
While I am in complete support of “Family Friendly Legislation” at the national level and of your efforts towards chiseling out “Good Legislation”, I’m opposed to the direction this blog has curried regarding Foreign Treaties.
The US has practiced in, and continues to contract in, various Foreign Treaties. Without digressing into said Treaties’ substance, the foundational aspect of the contract assigns the Treaties ultimate authority in said matters. The plain inference is that a governmental body, for example the Hague, would have Authority to define, amend and enforce said Treaty! Do you want the Hague deciding a legal conflict between our US Constitution and said Treaty? These alignments are a slippery slope towards usurping our national sovereignty and the US Constitution!
In the alternative, our government is quite capable of producing national legislation substantially similar to your Proposed Act, inclusive of language for limiting jurisdictional questions of foreign children/ matters and/or children abducted to foreign states, while maintaining: Our national sovereignty; The non-usurptation of our US Constitution and Laws; And, Affirming the US Constitution’s and our Laws’ ultimate authority in any/ all matters concerning their citizens, non-citizen residents, legal aliens and illegal aliens!
July 4, 2008 at 5:39 am
Robert Stevens said,
We simply have to go back to the constitution in this country and make the family law/courts abide by it. If it is a criminal act for citizen to do something, then it should also be unlawful for the government to do it too! That has always been the problem, the governments) try and exempt themselves from having to obey the same law as everyone else. Hold them to the same standard, remove the immunities they have given themselves. If enough out of control “government thugs” end up going to jail, then we won’t have the God Awful injustice we have with the GiSKERS ie the government sponsored kidnapping and extortion racket, what I call the family law system
Once it is established as the law of the land that children belong to the parents and not to the state. That the state is the servant and its job is to protect parental rights not atempt to destroy them. Once that is established and is sternly enforced, and yes whole lot of women and “goverment thugs” will likely have to go to jail to impress upon them that it is the law and they will obey it! Once that starts to happen the nightmare like Mr. Hindle has suffered from will stop!
Atempt to “judicially kidnap” you child*, you and the government co-conspirators will be arrested and you will go to jail. If you flee to a foreign country, our government, read that OUR GOVERNMENT, instructs the foreign country to treat that parent as a kidnapper and presure that country to arrest that person and return both the kidnapper and child back to the U S. The kidnapper will be prosecuted and the child will be given, no questions asked to the parent who did not wreck the marriage.
* By real law, ie the common law which is superior the equity statue we call law , the state does not own your children and lacking a clear and convincing evidence you are harming your child, can not lawfully take them away.
July 4, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Denis said,
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_07-06-2008/Intelligence_Report
And vote!
Shared Parenting rights for men is the topic.
Men were behind and then pulled ahead 60% v. 40%
Now men are losing ground again with a smaller lead:
56% v. 44%
The other side is voting.
Make your voice heard.
July 6, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Teri Stoddard said,
our opposition is on that poll like crazy. one blogger called all of the men who left comments “abusers.” they just don’t stop, do they? and she was promoting the old fake stats, as usual.
I’m happy that we even have a parental rights amendment to discuss. And excited that we might be able to protect foreign parents’ rights too.
teri
July 8, 2008 at 4:48 am
Roger F. Gay said,
I read the UN convention notes and transcripts back about the time the US was first putting their version of it in force. It was not parent friendly. The meeting was filled with the anti-father rhetoric that was popular at the time.
I would have absolutely no fear that a constitutional amendment aimed directly at reinstating parental rights would somehow backfire. First off, if the US signs a treaty, the constitution no longer matters. The superiority of treaties was first established when we signed a treaty protecting migrating birds that was apparently in conflict with a land-owner’s right to hunt on his own land.
Secondly, parental rights are more limited following divorce. Fundamental rights must be protected. Since there are two parents, both parent’s rights must be respected.
July 8, 2008 at 8:19 am
Roger F. Gay said,
An Alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay122903.htm
Why I Oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/03/gay121103.htm
July 8, 2008 at 8:24 am
LittleT38 said,
This is the first I have heard of anybody within the family rights movement being against this Amendment. I believe this needs to be put to debate and addressed within our Leadership for the simple fact that MI Rep. Pete Hoekstra is in full support of our movement and the DC Festival.
Maybe our movement can help with the wording?
July 10, 2008 at 12:40 am