In our family law legal system there is a glaring omission in every single heinous ruling that is rendered out of sheer spite, ignorance or malice. TIME is a commodity that can never be restored or gained back. It is an impossibility to jump back in time and regain every previous memory, celebration, or important moment in the lives of our children that we as parents and children have lost due to the heinous atrocity that call itself family law.
The American public has been brainwashed to believe that THIS is the way the justice works. The judiciary, especially our appellate court justices, believe that a family law case is frozen in time once a notice of appeal is filed and we as parents are supposed to accept that we as a member of a protected class do NOT count when it comes to applying the constitutionally guaranteed right to a parent child relationship.
The legal system in this country is an abysmal failure in recognizing that the parent-child relationship needs to be preserved although our legislature and the constitution guarantees and protects that right.
One case Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), cited the manner in which the fourteenth amendment protects our right to our children and that a clear and convincing evidence standard is required to remove children from their parents.
“The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Pp. 455 U. S. 752-754.
The nature of the process due in parental rights termination proceedings turns on a balancing of three factors: the private interests affected by the proceedings; the risk of error created by the State’s chosen procedure; and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 424 U. S. 335. In any given proceeding, the minimum standard of proof tolerated by the due process requirement reflects not only the weight of the public and private interests affected, but also a societal judgment about how the risk of error should be distributed between the litigants. ”
Not only are there precedent rulings citing the minimum standard of evidence required to remove children from their parents, there are precedent cases citing the fourteenth amendment right to a protected parent child relationship. 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.
Our CA legislature speaks of PRESERVING the parent child bond unless there are certain factors that warrant removal of the child which need to abide by the minimum equal protection due process accorded by the fourteenth amendment. 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.
Drawing out cases for 3, 9 or 12 years until the children finally age out of system certainly does not abide by the intent and spirit of the legislature. TIME can never be restored.