Parents hear the phrase best interest of the child on a regular basis as the court is fond of throwing that phrase around in proceedings. However, the court usually fails to qualify the legal standard of that phrase with its diverse rulings, while touting to parents that it is addressing the best interest of the child in the court room. As most of us know that is very far from the truth.
In almost every instance the court fails to adhere to the requirements of the CA legislature. The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied by the court, i.e., in the `”legal principles governing the subject of [the] action ….”‘” (Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 337 [67 Cal.Rptr.3d 286], citing City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297 [255 Cal.Rptr. 704] and County of Yolo v. Garcia (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1771, 1778 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 681][“range of judicial discretion is determined by analogy to the rules contained in the general law and in the specific body or system of law in which the discretionary authority is granted”].
The CA legislature specifies that the PARENT CHILD relationship needs to be preserved. Indeed the public policy of the State of California is to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents (section 3020, subd. (b)). Appellate decisions have repeatedly emphasized the trial courts must bear in mind that “preservation [173 Cal. App. 3D 219] of parental relationships is in the best interest of the child as well as that of the parent [citations] “ In re Marriage of Ciganovich (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 289, 293; In Re Brandie W. (1984) 157 Cal. App. 3d. 110, 114 [203 Cal. Rptr. 537]. This is in keeping with the avowed intent of the Legislature to insure that minor children have frequent and continuing contact with the both parents after the parent have separated or dissolved their marriage (Civ.Code § 4600). That standard is subject to certain factors defined in CA family code § 3011 and other factors.
However, as most of us know the State court system and the Appellate court system FAIL to uphold the legislative policy as it pertains to children. Appeal cases are dragged out for over two years in a malicious deprivation of a parent child relationship, contrary to the public policy of this state. The trial court perpetuates malicious rulings to separate parents from their children citing the best interest of the child standard although the basis for their standard is not in accord with the very legislature that defines the best interest of the child.
The fact that the parent child relationship is protected by the fourteenth amendment of course has no relevance in the truly malicious deprivation of a parent child relationship where there is a concerted effort by the judiciary involved to torture children and their parents in a “game”. The fourteenth amendment substantive due process right to a protected familial parent child relationship was already recognized in IDK, Inc. v. County of Clark, 836 F.2d 1185, 1192 (9th Cir. Nev. 1988) and Carey v.Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-685 (1977), where the United States Supreme Court repeatedly teaches that there is “a right of personal privacy” which includes “family relationships,” and child rearing and education.
Now if children are placed with a sensible parent, there wouldn’t be an issue with a malicious court system. It becomes an issue when the other parent maliciously and pervasively does everything he/she can to harm and destroy an established parent child relationship using children as tools of abuse, which the trial court fails to address in almost every single instance. Again there are precedent cases that specifically address those situations.
Children in this country are merely equated as property, and treated in the same manner rather than as sentient beings with feelings and emotions and the constitutional right to a relationship with their parents. Parents are viewed as pesky flies that can be crushed by a gigantic grinding fly swatter, aka the court system, instead of addressing the legal standard of the CA legislature.