By Connie Reguli

In January 2020, I discovered S. 3236, the “Unborn Child Support Act.” This bill was sponsored by a bevy of Republicans, Cramer (ND), Daines (MT), Hyde-Smith (MS), Cotton (AR), Inhofe (OK), and Blackburn (TN). In reading the language of the bill, I can’t help but think that this is auxiliary legislation for pro-life conservatives to codify the definition of life.

This legislation amends 42 U.S.C. 654 requiring the states to amend Section 454 of their state plan requirements. In laymen’s language, the State must have a plan to collect Federal tax payer funds under Title IV D of the Social Security Act for the purposes of child support enforcement. The current plan has certain requirements like seeking child support against a parent within ten days of a child being placed in state’s custody; and requirement of a state collection system in which wage garnishments and tax refund captures are collected and distributed. The States also received incentive payments to dollars collected, dollars ordered (the child support obligation), and collections on arrearages.

Does this plan work? Well as a practicing attorney I say ‘no’. I have seen too many due process violations, falsely imputed income, miscalculations, and failures to respond to modification requests. Just like any government run bureaucracy, no, it does not work well at all.

But back to S. 3236. It says the term “unborn child” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” This bill is intended to establish and enforce child support obligations of the biological father of an unborn child which will start with the first month in which the child was conceived, as determined by a physician. Payments may be retroactively collected and awarded, including the case where paternity is established subsequent to the birth of the child. Any measure to establish the paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother, and no procedure for determining paternity shall occur if it should pose a risk of harm to the child. The effective date is two years after enactment.

So this bill brings a few new questions to my mind: (1) does this mean that the father (who has traditionally had some parental rights from the date of birth of the child) now have legal standing regarding decisions related to the welfare of the unborn child. For instance, if the Father disagrees with a decision for an abortion, can he object and force the Mother to carry to full term and give birth. Now, the Father has no rights in the child’s or mother’s health decision prior to the birth of the child. (2) child support includes a consideration for the costs of food, clothing, and housing for the child. Is this unborn child support obligation something less that the full amount required by an obligor supporting a born child. (3) under current law, a mother who receives federal funds such a ADC payments must report the identity of the father so that the state can go after them to collect support/reimbursement. This law says that paternity testing cannot be done before or after birth without the consent of the Mother. What is a Father WANTS a paternity test? Now the Mother can refuse…..?

Congress.gov shows that this bill is still in Senate Finance Committee and was last read January 28, 2020. This site is not the most accurate up to date information (as I have been informed by Senators and Congressmen) but it’s the best public source we have.

We will sit on a wait and see with this one………..

By Connie Reguli June 25 2020

On Wednesday June 24 2020 President Trump signed an executive order on child welfare. Again the emphasis is on families.

With all of the major national issues swarming and demanding his attention, ie, pandemic, riots, etc., I am wondering g how this important, but under the radar issue finally made it to his desk. I want to believe that the 1,000 postcards and 300 letters we sent from Family Forward Project may have helped. I want to believe that our multiple trips to DC as grassroots lobbyists and citizens helped. I want to believe that Senator Grassley who has been a warrior for child welfare carried this to his desk. Something or someone helped moved this to his attention. Don’t ever believe that your voice does not matter.

This order puts a demand on the states to produce the stats to show that they are complying with the changes made in 2018 under the Family First Preservatives and Services Act. The states were supposed to implement it by October 2018 then it was pushed back a year then another year. This order is a kick in the pants to those who won’t comply.

Next step is to ban the adoption bonus money under Adoption and Safe Families Act and then to tie federal funding under Title IVE to results that restore family integrity in this country.

In February 2018, the same day FFPSA (Family First Preservation and Services Act) passed, the National Counsel of State Courts hosted a forum for a new vision in child welfare including the reduction in the need to foster care.

In December 2018 Children’s Bureau Jerry Milner issued a permissive guideline for states to use Title IVE funds to improve the quality of parent representation.

In April 2019 the National Family Drug Court published guidelines for helping maintain families with substance abuse issues.

In July 2019 Children’s Bureau Jerry Milner issued a statement for a new vision for child welfare which was published by the ABA journal.

In December 2019 President Trump signed the Family First Support Act to provide additional funds for family preservation programs.

Tennessee held a forum on child welfare and yet parents are not included in the discussion. This is a reflection of the problem. No one wants to hear from the grassroots participants who suffer from the incompetence of child welfare agencies.

And yet the states continue to drag their feet in initiating effective legislation, hearings, and oversight to implement this dramatic paradigm shift in child welfare.

The TEETH in this change will be in funding. If we can cut funding to the W.H.O. for withholding information and working against our interest we can do the same here. The battle cry must be END the FUNDING.

HERE is the full executive order. 👇

Executive Order on Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children

June 24, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Every child deserves a family.  Our States and communities have both a legal obligation, and the privilege, to care for our Nation’s most vulnerable children.

The best foster care system is one that is not needed in the first place.  My Administration has been focused on prevention strategies that keep children safe while strengthening families so that children do not enter foster care unnecessarily.  Last year, and for only the second time since 2011, the number of children in the foster care system declined, and for the third year in a row, the number of children entering foster care has declined.

But challenges remain.  Too many young people who are in our foster care system wait years before finding the permanency of family.  More than 400,000 children are currently in foster care.  Of those, more than 124,000 children are waiting for adoption, with nearly 6 out of 10 (58.4 percent) having already become legally eligible for adoption.

More than 50 percent of the children waiting for adoption have been in foster care — without the security and constancy of a permanent family — for 2 years or more.  The need for stability and timely permanency is particularly acute for children 9 years and older, children in sibling groups, and those with intellectual or physical disabilities.

Even worse, too many young men and women age out of foster care having never found a permanent, stable family.  In recent years, approximately 20,000 young people have aged out of foster care each year in the United States.  Research has shown that young people who age out of the foster care system are likely to experience significant, and significantly increased, life challenges — 40 percent of such young people studied experienced homelessness; 50 percent were unemployed at age 24; 25 percent experienced post-traumatic stress disorder; and 71 percent became pregnant by age 21.  These are unacceptable outcomes.

Several factors have contributed to the number of children who wait in foster care for extended periods.  First, State and local child welfare agencies often do not have robust partnerships with private community organizations, including faith-based organizations.  Second, those who step up to be resource families for children in foster care — including kin, guardians, foster parents, and adoptive parents — may lack adequate support.  Third, too often the processes and systems meant to help children and families in crisis have instead created bureaucratic barriers that make it more difficult for these children and families to get the help they need.

It is the goal of the United States to promote a child welfare system that reduces the need to place children into foster care; achieves safe permanency for those children who must come into foster care, and does so more quickly and more effectively; places appropriate focus on children who are waiting for adoption, especially those who are 9 years and older, are in sibling groups, or have disabilities; and decreases the proportion of young adults who age out of the foster care system.

Children from all backgrounds have the potential to become successful and thriving adults.  Yet without a committed, loving family that can provide encouragement, stability, and a lifelong connection, some children may never receive the support needed to realize that potential.

This order will help to empower families who answer the call to open their hearts and homes to children who need them.  My Administration is committed to helping give as many children as possible the stability and support that family provides by dramatically improving our child welfare system.

Sec. 2.  Encouraging Robust Partnerships Between State Agencies and Public, Private, Faith-based, and Community Organizations.  (a)  In order to facilitate close partnerships between State agencies and nongovernmental organizations, including public, private, faith-based, and community groups, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) shall provide increased public access to accurate, up-to-date information relevant to strengthening the child welfare system, including by:

(i)    Publishing data to aid in the recruitment of community support.  Within 1 year of the date of this order and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, a report that provides information about typical patterns of entry, recent available counts of children in foster care, and counts of children waiting for adoption.  To the extent appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including all privacy laws, this data will be disaggregated by county or other sub-State level, child age, placement type, and prior time in care.

(ii)   Collecting needed data to preserve sibling connections.

(A)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall collect information from appropriate State and local agencies on the number of children in foster care who have siblings in foster care and who are not currently placed with their siblings.

(B)  Within 3 years of the date of this order, to support the goal of keeping siblings together (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(31)(A)), the Secretary shall develop data analysis methods to report on the experience of children entering care in sibling groups, and the extent to which they are placed together.  The Secretary’s analysis shall also assess the extent to which siblings who are legally eligible for adoption achieve permanency together.

(iii)  Expanding the number of homes for children and youth.

(A)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall develop a more rigorous and systematic approach to collecting State administrative data as part of the Child and Family Services Review required by section 1123A of the Social Security Act (the “Act”) (42 U.S.C. 1320a–2a).  Data collected shall include:

(1)  demographic information for children in foster care and waiting for adoption;

(2)  the number of currently available foster families and their demographic information;

(3)  the average foster parent retention rate and average length of time foster parents remain certified;

(4)  a target number of foster homes needed to meet the needs of children in foster care; and

(5)  the average length of time it takes to complete foster and adoptive home certification.

(B)  The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent consistent with applicable law, that States report to the Secretary regarding strategies for coordinating with nongovernmental organizations, including faith-based and community organizations, to recruit and support foster and adoptive families.

(b)  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance to Federal, State, and local agencies on partnering with nongovernmental organizations.  This guidance shall include best practices for information sharing, providing needed services to families to support prevention of children entering foster care, family preservation, foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention, respite care, post-placement family support, and support for older youth.  This guidance shall also make clear that faith-based organizations are eligible for partnerships under title IV-E of the Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.), on an equal basis, consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Sec. 3.  Improving Access to Adequate Resources for Caregivers and Youth.  While many public, private, faith based, and community resources and other sources of support exist, many American caregivers still lack connection with and access to adequate resources.  Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall equip caregivers and those in care to meet their unique challenges, by:

(a)  Expanding educational options.  To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall use all existing technical assistance resources to promote dissemination and State implementation of the National Training and Development Curriculum, including, when appropriate, in non-classroom environments.

(b)  Increasing the availability of trauma-informed training.  The Secretary shall provide an enhanced, web-based, learning-management platform to house the information generated by the National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training Initiative.  Access to this web-based training material will be provided free of charge for all child welfare and mental health practitioners.

(c)  Supporting guardianship.  The Secretary shall provide information to States regarding the importance and availability of funds to increase guardianship through the title IV-E Guardianship Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. 673), which provides Federal reimbursement for payments to guardians and for associated administrative costs.  This information shall include which States have already opted into the program.

(d)  Enhancing support for kinship care and youth exiting foster care.  The Secretary shall establish a plan to address barriers to accessing existing Federal assistance and benefits for eligible individuals.

Sec. 4.  Ensuring Equality of Treatment and Access for all Families.  The Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (the “Multiethnic Placement Act”) (Public Law 103-382), as amended, prohibits agencies from denying to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent on the basis of race, color, or national origin (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(18)(A)); prohibits agencies from delaying or denying the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care on the basis of race, color, or national origin (id. 671(a)(18)(B)); and requires agencies to diligently recruit a diverse base of foster and adoptive parents to better reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of children in out-of-home care (id. 662(b)(7)).  To further the goals of the Multiethnic Placement Act, the Secretary shall:

(a)  within 6 months of the date of this order, initiate a study regarding the implementation of these requirements nationwide;

(b)  within 1 year of the date of this order, update guidance, as necessary, regarding implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act; and

(c)  within 1 year of the date of this order, publish guidance regarding the rights of parents, prospective parents, and children with disabilities (including intellectual, developmental, or physical disabilities).

Sec. 5.  Improving Processes to Prevent Unnecessary Removal and Secure Permanency for Children.  (a)  Federal Review of Reasonable Effort Determinations and Timeliness Requirements.

(i)    Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall require that both the title IV-E reviews conducted pursuant to 45 CFR 1356.71 and the Child and Family Services Reviews conducted pursuant to 45 CFR 1355.31–1355.36 specifically and adequately assess the following requirements:

(A)  reasonable efforts to prevent removal;

(B)  filing a petition for Termination of Parental Rights within established statutory timelines and court processing of such petition, unless statutory exemptions apply;

(C)  reasonable efforts to finalize permanency plans; and

(D)  completion of relevant required family search and notifications and how such efforts are reviewed by courts.

(ii)   In cases in which it is determined that statutorily required timelines and efforts have not been satisfied, the Secretary shall make use of existing authority in making eligibility determinations and disallowances consistent with section 1123A(b)(3)(4) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-2a(b)(3)(4)).

(iii)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall develop metrics to track permanency outcomes in each State and measure State performance over time.

(iv)   Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Secretary shall provide guidance to States regarding flexibility in the use of Federal funds to support and encourage high-quality legal representation for parents and children, including pre-petition representation, in their efforts to prevent the removal of children from their families, safely reunify children and parents, finalize permanency, and ensure that their voices are heard and their rights are protected.  The Secretary shall also ensure collection of data regarding State use of Federal funds for this purpose.

(b)  Risk and Safety Assessments.

(i)   Within 18 months of the date of this order, the Secretary shall collect States’ individual standards for conducting risk and safety assessments required under section 106(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(2)(B)(iv)).

(ii)  Within 2 years of the date of this order, the Secretary shall outline reasonable best practice standards for risk and safety assessments, including how to address domestic violence and substance abuse.

Sec. 6.  Indian Child Welfare Act.  Nothing in this order shall alter the implementation of the Indian Child Welfare Act or replace the tribal consultation process.

Sec. 7.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 24, 2020.

By Connie Reguli – June 9, 2020

Please share this horrid story out of East Tennessee.

Two children adopted out of foster care were murdered and buried in the yard by the foster-to-adopt parents.

They continued to collect adoption assistance.  In my public presentations, I tell the public that I feared that adopted children were killed or trafficked and here ya’ go.

The statements of the Tennessee Commissioner are telling.  She says that after adoption the state has no right to “check-up” on adopted children.

This ignores the fact that the State approves this parents, does their home study, and continues to provide money to them.

This system is broken.

Oxygen story – June 9, 2020.

Posted: May 27, 2020 / 02:22 PM EDT / Updated: May 27, 2020 / 02:22 PM EDT

News Channel 11 – May 27, 2020 – KINGSTON, Tenn. (AP) — Arrest warrants in a Tennessee couple’s abuse case describe a hellish existence for four children in their legal custody, a nightmare that finally ended after a little boy was spotted walking alone along a Roane County road.

Passersby called 911, and a responding officer began asking questions. The boy’s legal guardian soon confessed, the warrants said, to burying the remains of a little girl in a barn and locking a 15-year-old boy in the basement for four years.

The two other children spent time in a wire dog cage, while all were supposedly homeschooled and appeared to be “stunted in growth,” the warrants said.

Michael Anthony Gray Sr., 63, and his wife, Shirley Ann Gray, 60, were arrested Monday on charges of aggravated child abuse, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated child neglect and abuse of a corpse, authorities said.

The surviving children, ages 11 to 15, were removed from their custody by the state Department of Children’s Services.

The oldest had been locked in the partially flooded, unfinished basement for stealing food shortly after the family moved to the home in June 2016, authorities said, “and had no contact with anyone outside the basement, only given small amounts of food, being white bread and some water,” the warrants state.

Michael Gray told authorities that the girl was about 10 when she died in 2017, a few months after she too was locked in the basement, and that he buried her inside a barn in the backyard, the warrants said. Investigators found her skeletal remains on Saturday, the day after the 911 call, according to 9th Judicial District Attorney General Russell Johnson.

The Grays also built a tiny concrete room under the stairs for punishment, the warrants said. Authorities who liberated the older boy on Friday said he was surrounded by feces, garbage and mold.

The warrants say Shirley Gray claimed all four children were keeping up with their homeschooling requirements, but two of them “appear to have no formal education,” and “were, in fact, amazed by what a refrigerator does when they observed one in their foster home.”

The Grays remained in custody on Wednesday. It wasn’t immediately clear whether they have an attorney.

cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/100897313_1177169635959152_8142646505837166592_n.pdf/URGENT-ACTION-MASS-1.pdf

By Connie Reguli

Many times, families are silenced by the Courts to prevent them from publishing their frustrations about Court proceedings. This type of restraint should not be allowed nor tolerated in our country. There are many cases prohibiting “prior restraint” when it come to our First Amendment freedoms.

In Federal Court, the implement “rules” against public dissemination of information about the case, presumably because it could affect the right of both parties to a fair and impartial jury. However, does social media really have such a broad reach to audiences that it would have a detrimental effect on a jury. And really, could this not be resolved in voir dire.

Recently, I was threatened on this very issue. I participate in social media platforms that are critical of the government and sometimes, challenge the operation of the Courts. In a pending Federal lawsuit, I made a disclosure about defendants regarding the corruption uncovered in this rural Tennessee county.

Within days, I received threatening letters claiming that Local Rule 83.04 prohibited such comments in social media.

So I found the reference below. In Ohio, the Federal Court has found this restriction to be unconstitutional………..Nice to Know.

Trial judges, the government, the lawyers and the public must tolerate robust and at times acrimonious or even silly public debate about litigation. The courts are public institutions funded with public revenues for the purpose of resolving public disputes, and the right of publicity concerning their operations goes to the heart of their function under our system of civil liberty. The courts have available other less restrictive approaches for insuring a fair trial. They may, for example, consider a change of venue or the sequestration of the jury or a searching voir dire examination of the jury.

The Court hereby finds that DR 7-107(G) is facially unconstitutional because it violates the over breadth doctrine as DR 7-107(G) is capable of being applied to punish attorneys for constitutionally protected speech or conduct and therefore, in the Court’s view, “reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Leonardson, 896 F.2d at 195. DR 7-107(G) has a chilling effect in that it prohibits attorney speech in civil litigation that is otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court finds that DR 7-107(G) is over broad because it does not aim specifically at certain evils, but it sweeps within its reach other speech that is constitutionally protected. See Thornhill, 310 U.S. at 97.

The Court also finds that DR 7-107(G) is facially unconstitutional pursuant to the vagueness doctrine. DR 7-107(G) is void for vagueness since its provisions do not provide adequate warnings to all regarding what is permitted and what is proscribed by law. See Richardson v. City of South Euclid, 904 F.2d 1050, 1056 (6th Cir. 1990) (Merritt, C.J., dissenting); Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108. Thus, like Rule 177 as construed in Gentile, DR 7-107(G) with its somewhat ambiguous categories “creates a trap for the wary as well as the unwary.” Gentile, 111 S. Ct. at 1132. Moreover, DR 7-107(G) gives the disciplinary board considerable discretion in determining who will be disciplined and who will not be disciplined. Accordingly, DR 7-107(G) is void pursuant to the vagueness doctrine.

Wachsman v. Disciplinary Counsel Supreme Court

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division

September 30, 1991, Filed Case C-2-90-335

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that a civil litigant’s First Amendment rights were violated when a U.S. district court judge ordered him to stop writing letters to shareholders of a bank that had sued him. Sept 2019. Bank of Hope v. Chon.

By Connie Reguli

March 22, 2020, Arizona Supreme Court decided that where TPR is sought for nonabused children as well as an abused child, the court must find risk of harm to the nonabused children by clear and convincing evidence in the substantive grounds phase, not merely in the best interests phase.

“Thus, a juvenile court may terminate a parent’s rights to non-abused children under § 8-533(B)(2) only if the extrapolation of unfitness—the risk of harm to such children—is proven by clear and convincing evidence. No application of the statute may circumvent this fundamental constitutional requirement.”

“ In sum, a juvenile court’s extrapolation of parental unfitness will not pass constitutional muster under Santosky unless the risk of harm to non-abused children is proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

SANDRA R., SERGIO C., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, M.R., F.M., J.M., Appellees., No. CV-19-0057-PR, 2020 WL 1161588, at *6 (Ariz. Mar. 11, 2020).

Contributors from Family Forward Project Ginnie Todd and Patty Hansen

Follow us on Family Forward Project on Facebook

Karabeika dismissed a juvenile case that had placed DHS as Kylee Dixon’s legal guardian. She will now be permitted to return to her mother’s care.

Kylee Dixon had surgery on Jan. 14 to remove a cancerous tumor from her liver. DHS said she is now cancer-free. The surgery, and the dismissal of the case, capped a months-long dispute between DHS and Christina Dixon over how to treat Kylee Dixon’s cancer diagnosis.

This is an important case for every American parent. You may be one hospital visit and one differing opinion away from the state intruding in what parental rights you think you have. Harming a child is NEVER okay but being forced into treatment is not the job of any government. What is the point of requiring patients to consent to treatment and acknowledge the risks and benefits, IF hospitals can force you into treatment under threat of removing your child and forcing you through a legal process that is not only secretive (confidential) but lacks due process and accountability. That battle will cost you upwards of $50,000 – 100,000 to defend your decision to get another opinion, or take a different treatment path, or simply honor your child’s wishes to not subject themselves to chemo or some other care. The system seems to have forgotten the practice of medicine makes no guarantees.

Feb 3 2020 Kylee Dixon returned to mother’s custody, judge dismisses DHS case. https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2020/02/kylee-dixon-returned-to-mothers-custody-judge-dismisses-dhs-case.html

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_essence_of_evil_sex_with_children_has_become_big_business_in_america

familyjusticeinitiative.org/iv-e-funding/

2020 June update – see Trump executive order

By Connie Reguli

“This bill simply closes the loophole in prohibiting foster parents from having inappropriate sexual contact with their foster kids.” GA state rep Ed Setzler.

On multiple occasions I have seen cases where kids in foster care are either victims of sexual assault or allowed to have sex with other kids in foster care. These kids are traumatized by abrupt removals from their homes.

2020 GA house bill 911.

HB 911 

Crimes and offenses; offenses of improper sexual conduct by a foster parent in the first and second degrees; provide

Current Status: House Passed/Adopted By Substitute

Official Summary: A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 6 of Title 16, Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 35, Article 3 of Chapter 5 of Title 42, and Article 1 of Chapter 2 of Title 49 of the O.C.G.A., relating to sexual offenses, the Georgia Crime Information Center, conditions of detention generally, and general provisions regarding the Department of Human Services, respectively, so as to provide for the offenses of improper sexual conduct by a foster parent in the first and second degrees; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

Continue reading →

By Connie Reguli

Here’s some caselaw should you want to add it to your list:

Below are excerpts of case law from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are “fair on their faces” but administered “with an evil eye or a heavy hand” was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).

Parent’s interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).

“Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody.” May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).

A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.

The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S