cheapbag214s
Joined: 27 Jun 2013
Posts: 18472
Read: 0 topics
Warns: 0/5
Location: England
|
 Posted: Thu 11:50, 25 Jul 2013 Post subject: Fathers Rights Means Demanding Constitutional Righ |
|
|
you must present a serious danger - i.e. life threatening - to your child. The 'best interest of the child' is not an adequate reason for denying a fit parent his parental rights. In fact In Parham v. J.R. et al 442 U.S. 584 (1979), the Supreme Court declared the 'best interest of the child' resides in the fit parent - not in the state. The 'best interest of the child' excuse can only be used when there's no fit parent. Recognizing equal rights between fathers and mothers should mean that both parents would share both custodies or alternate between them at 50% time. Of course,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], parents can agree on any other arrangement if they - and only they - agree. Fathers Rights Denied So today,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], fit fathers - never having done anything wrong - are routinely denied their constitutional rights in family court - their right to directly care for their children and are subjected to extort by the courts to pay the mother money for whatever purpose she wants to use it for. And beyond the scenario of 2 day visit per two week period
The post has been approved 0 times
|
|
