The Myth of "In The Best Interest of the Child". Florida Department of Revenue and National Title IV-D legitimized and Reap the $50B a Year Reward.

PUBLIC ENEMIES! The Myth of "In The Best Interest of the Child" and Child Support scam cases increasing by the thousands - How to Expose the Fraud in Court. Facts you can trust. Insights you can use.

Tampa, FL Oath Breakers:

Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of?Health and Human Services.

Ashley Moody, Florida Attorney General.

Malinda Ottinger, Florida Ass. Attorney General.

Megan Hussey, Florida Ass. Attorney General.

Jim Zingale, Florida Executive Director – FDR?

Ann Coffin, Florida Child Supp.Enfor. Prg. Director.

Cindy Stuart, Tampa, Clerk of the Circuit Court.

Judge Wendy DePaul, 13th Judicial Circuit Family Court.

Jeania Rollins, Tampa, FL Child Support Manager.

Special Mention, David "Caveza" attorney oath breaker.

Acknowledgement 1: I want to make noticeably clear that I do not advocate that I do not support my children. I simply advocate that I make it in private and exercise my right to privacy and raised the children in private.

Acknowledgement 2: I can be @theNEXTJohnMast, former GA Senator Nancy Schaeffer or former AK St. Senator Linda Collins Smith. At risk of being "accidentally" hurt for exposing governmental corruption.

Summary of Facts:

FL Chapter 61, Section 14 says: “Enforcement and modification of support, maintenance, or alimony agreements or orders ....”

The Glossary of Common Child Support Terms is to provide a listing of acronyms and definitions of terms used by child support workers: definition of Consent Agreement: Voluntary written … responsibility for child support.

On August 15, 2022 I, Mr. Edgardo Bianchi, have respectfully demanded FL Department of Revenue, by certified mail to the individuals above, a NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITTY CONTRACT to see a copy of such “AGREEMENT (agreetment means contract)” supposedly signed by me, as stated by 61.14 (1)(a), where I agree to pay child support.

For the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, this is also the STANDARD CONTRACT template they have in their website: https://floridarevenue.com/Solicitationlibrary/Exhibit%20(10)%20-%20Standard%20Contract.pdf

It starts:

“THIS CONTRACT is entered into between the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, hereinafter referred to as the "Department," and hereinafter referred to as the "contractor." As further agreed to and described in Section III of this contract, this contract shall begin on, or on the date on which the….”

I have demanded the Officer and the Title IV-D Crime Family "private" corporation to show me the contract I signed up for the services (which are none) they provide.

No Constitutionally Valid Court Order Requires To Pay IV-D

? The Separation of Powers prevents the judicial branch from performing executive branch functions;

? Under the current 45 C.F.R. 302.34 contract, a Judicial order cannot legally exist;

? 45 C.F.R. 75.2 IV-D contractors are administrative officers of the executive branch of government generally one of inferior rank, legally a ministerial or executive official as distinguished from a judicial officer;

? Executive Agency means: collector; therefor there is no judicial order and never was.

? Income Withholding Orders are not issued by the judicial branch.

That Blessed Misterious Contract

By the Glossary of Common Child Support Terms the definition of Child Support Order is:?“The document that sets: (1) an amount of money that is to be provided by a parent for the support of the parent’s child(ren) …This amount or responsibility must be established by court order or administrative process and voluntary agreement (contract) (in states or tribes where such agreements…

I have demanded a copy of this "voluntary contract" with my signature in it, agreeing in the amount of money to be taken from me.

Definition of "Order": A legally binding (of an agreement or promise)?decision that sets forth the responsibilities of the parties to an action. It can include a determination of parentage and a support obligation, and set forth other rights of the parties. It can be issued by a judge, master or other administrative entity authorized to enter orders. It can also be a consent agreement between the parties that has been ratified by an appropriate official.

Alexander v. Bothsworth, 1915, “Party cannot be bound by contract that he has not made or authorize. Free consent is an indispensable element in making valid contracts”

There has been an unconstitutional, due-process lacking child support order in this case since December 2009. Such child support order was ordered and maintained by the three judges (Catlin, Gaylord Moe and DePaul) that have been involved in this case for the last 13 years.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57, 66 (Supreme Court 2000), “In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (Supreme Court 2015), has made it absolutely certain that the state may not violate the federal constitution even in family law.

Violation of Due Process and Strict Scrutiny

Never ever Mr. Bianchi has been proved to be an unfit Parent nor that he hasn’t support his children, in any adjudicative hearing. Without that, the court and the Title IV-D Office for 13 years have infringed Mr. Bianchi’s privacy right to make private decisions and it has imposed child support obligations that violated and violates his liberty right to directly care for his children.

Parents have a right to care for their children directly and to be free from being required to pay a third party for that care. Due process demands that before a parent be forced to pay a third party to care for their child that the state prove that the parent has failed to care for their child’s reasonable minimum needs directly. The Supreme Court has declared that the state may not make such limitations without passing the exacting scrutiny of showing a necessary-compelling interest and least restrictive means.

The state has failed to prove in a pre-deprivation hearing that the Father has failed to care for his children directly to the minimum reasonable standard applied to all parents.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57, 72, 73 (Supreme Court 2000), “As we have explained, the Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a "better" decision could be made.

The Fraudulent Welfare Collection Agency

The IV-D agency is not a Florida state agency; it is a federal agency operating in the state of Florida. The child Support Enforcement agency in Florida is not a government agency; it is a private corporation that simply operates in Florida under a contractual obligation. They are performing contractual obligations which are 100% voluntary, and we'll get to that in a minute.

There is No Law That Requires a State To Participate In The IV-D Program So There Is No Law That Requires You to Support The Public Treasury.

Wehunt v. Ledbetter 875 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir. 1989), “Although state participation in the Social Security Act itself is mandatory, participation by a state (unless I work for the state or the federal government, my job is not a state agency. They are private employees) in the IV-D program is voluntary.”

No employer is legally required to participate in the Title IV-D program and it is not legally obligated to income withholding directory. And an Income Withholding Order is mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory "provision" that must be followed.

Wehunt v Ledbetter, 875 F. 2d 1558, 1565 (11th Cir. 1989).

?“Title IV-D does not create enforceable rights on behalf of needy families with children because they are not the intended beneficiaries of the statute.” Title IV-D was intended to benefit the public treasury. Children were never the intended beneficiaries of the statute, Title IV-D; it was only intended to benefit the public treasury.

There is no law that requires Mr. Bianchi to support the public treasury. There's none. The fact that there may be an unconstitutional and due-process lacking order mandating Mr. Bianchi to pay child support, Title IV-D is for the public treasury. The USA Constitution is mandatory, it's not voluntary. By the State not being obligated to go into the IV-D program, the State cannot obligate Mr. Bianchi to pay.

On August 15, 2022, I have respectufully required the FL Department of Revenue, Title IV-D office, Jim Zingale, Florida Revenue Department Executive Director and Ann Coffin, Florida Revenue Department Child Support Enforcement Program Director, what law requires Mr. Bianchi to pay public treasury support??Did I apply for these services? Did I ask for FL Title IV-D Revenue Services to help me pay this so-called non-existent child support? No, I did not.?This is criminal and I am being robbed.

Deceive, Divide, Destroy for Profit

Now, I'm going to show you where the benefit comes from for the Title IV-D crime family. Again, this is just a business.

Section 8 CSEP p.65. AUDITS AND FINALCIAL PENALTIES: The CSEP program is a “partnership” between the Federal Government and the States.

Partnership: an association between two or more “persons” to carry on as co-owners of a “business for profit””, BLD p.1277

Business: activity or enterprise for gain, advantage which benefits corporations, organizers or its members. BLD p.249

Section 8 CSEP p.65. States still make a “profit” from the IV-D program, and States are free to spend the State share of collections in any manner the State sees fit.

Profit: gain realized from business or investment. BLD p.1367

Title IV-D was never put in place for women or children; it was put in place for business; it was put in place for profit, that's all it is. This is legalized racketeering. I’m ordered to pay child support by whom?

McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U. S. 184, 196. Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U. S. 147, 161. “The law must be shown “necessary, and not merely rationally related, to the accomplishment of a permissible state policy.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 497 (Supreme Court 1965), “Where there is a significant encroachment upon personal liberty, the State may prevail only upon showing a subordinating interest which is compelling,”

What the Florida State DOR – Title iV-D office do is they created the belief that this is for the best interests of the children. That way, they will get the public sympathy on their side and everybody will agree, and they can get away with bloody murder and nobody will ever know they're doing it. Plus, what they will do is to make it look like they are a government agency.

JUDGE’S AFFIRMATIVE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY:

Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 260 -261 (1971), "Public officials sworn to uphold the Constitution may not avoid a constitutional duty …"

Do Judges and Hearing Officers have an oath to the Constitution? Yes, they do.

The Constitution says all men are by nature people free and independent. I am free not subject to the little constraint of another having the power to follow the dictates of my own free will.

It is a moral outrage for any government official, who has sworn an Article VI oath, to assert false outrage over the best interests of any child where that government official has denied that child required constitutional guarantees for the children’s fundamental constitutional rights in direct violation of that child’s best interest. Where a court deprives a child of the First Amendment protected right of intimate and expressive close family association with Respondent who entered this case as, and is, a fit parent, absent all applicable First Amendment substantive guarantees, that court has waived all moral authority to express outrage towards Respondent.

State laws that authorize judicial officers to ignore federal constitutional restraints are VOID and family law is NOT exempt from constitutional scrutiny by state or federal courts. Any violation of civil rights under color of law is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. Qualified immunity does NOT apply where the rights are well-established under federal standards as they are here.

Violation of an Oath is a Federal Crime under 5 U.S. 7311 & Exc. Order 10450, punishable by removal from office, prison, and fines.

The current child support order fails to demonstrate that the compelled speech has been justified to any degree of constitutional scrutiny and therefore cannot support current enforcement actions.

I have violated no oath, broken no law, nor waived any right or duty to care for my children directly. The only appropriate moral outrage in this case is outrage for state actors who violate rights protected through the Fourteenth Amendment.?

The most threatening abuse may be the one you don't see. The Fugitive Criminals Above Denied Me The Right To Be a Father And The Right Of The Children To Have Their Father In Their Lives.

NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITTY CONTRACT.

On August 15, 2022 I served by certified mail to the individuals above a Notice of demand for personal responsibility contract.

On pages 1 and 2 of 19 shows:

"Pursuant Sec.?403.?[42 U.S.C. 603] -?Grants to States, Title 42, the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, was enacted on January 4, 1975 (P.L. 93-647). However, Title 42 was never enacted in the positive law, so anything that is done under this title is done under color of law. That is why it has provisions. There must be a contract.

?Mr. Edgardo Bianchi makes noticeably clear that he does not advocate that he does not support his children. Father simply advocate that he makes it in private and exercise his right to privacy and raised the children in private.

?The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Declaration of Rights; Section 9 of the Constitution of the STATE OF FLORIDA - SECTION 9, Due Process, requires that Edgardo Bianchi shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

The requirement of the Fifth Amendment as well as Section 9 is also present under 45 C.F.R. § 303.101 (c)(2), which clearly requires that “the due process rights of the parties involved must be protected.” And 42 U.S.C. §666 (a)(5)(C)(i), which also requires that the State “must” afford Due Process Safeguards.

?Pursuant to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement Glossary of Common Child Support Terms, page 11, Due Process is “The principle of fairness in legal proceedings so that a “person” (see Preamble to Constitution) has a right to know what action is being taken and has an opportunity to be heard.” Therefore, Pursuant to the Supreme Law of the Land it is hereby ordered that you WILL provide the following:

?In accordance with Title 42 U.S.C. § 603 – Grants to States (a)(5)(C)(iii)(III) – "In the case of a noncustodial parent who becomes enrolled in the project on or after the date of the enactment of this clause, the noncustodial parent is in compliance with the terms of an oral or written personal responsibility contract entered into among the noncustodial parent, the entity (the head of an?executive, judicial, or legislative agency), [Mr. Bianchi is not an entity];…”

Furthermore, Sec. 466 (a) 42 U.S.C. § 666 (a)(15)(A)(I) describes procedures to ensure that if the “non-custodial parent” owed past-due support he/she will work or have a plan for payment.

The plan for payment IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

The “identity” of the non-custodial parent in the project IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

Proof that this Man is the “non-custodial parent”, the “Obligor”, or the “Debtor” and produce and provide evidence I agreed to this statutory status/label IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

All information pertaining to the enrollment personal responsibility contract entered into among the non-custodial parent, and the entity IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

All information pertaining to the “terms” of personal responsibility contract entered into among the non-custodial parent and the entity IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

Title 42 U.S.C. § 603 – Grants to States (a)(5)(C)(iii)(III) (cont)“…and (unless the entity demonstrates to the Secretary that the entity is not capable of coordinating with such agency) the agency responsible for administering the State plan under part D, which was developed taking into account the employment and child support status of the noncustodial parent, which was entered into not later than 30 (or, at the option of the entity (the head of , not later than 90) days after the noncustodial parent was enrolled in the project, and which, at a minimum, includes the following:

A full description of the project IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

A full description of the program IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

Proof of Sec. (aa) A commitment [you are asking for it] by the noncustodial parent to cooperate, at the earliest opportunity, in the establishment of the paternity of the minor child, through voluntary acknowledgement or other procedures [DNA], and in the establishment of a child support order IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

Proof of “cooperation” IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

Proof of the “procedures” I signed and agreed to and/or agree to cooperate with IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

Proof of the “paternity establishment” form?AND produce and provide proof I agreed to cooperate with this establishment, and proof that paternity was established before garnishments and legal orders IS HEREBY DEMANDED!

SOVERIGN, they cannot promulgate or enforce Criminal Laws; they can only create and enforce Civil Laws, which are duty bound to comply with the Law of Contracts. The Law of Contracts requires signed written agreements and complete transparency.

?You have (10) days to reply and produce the contract for Services or you will be in default. By silence, you are agreing that everything stated in this document is True, if unrebutted you agree and admint to operating under color of law under Title 42 §1983, 1985 and Title 18 §242."

As to today, none of the above fugitive criminals have responded nor provided with absolutely any of the items demanded. In fact, some of them are even avoiding meeting in person with me.

"We have committed no crime" https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxzXcHrE5D4o4I7rslFP4o2UNJrEt2ujhs

"We the People" are ignorant of our rights, ignorant of our statutes and apathetic about them.

CFDA 93563 is a federal grant that takes money from your Social Security Trust Fund to give to the states that includes the incentive payments promised to them under 42 U.S.C. § 658a. This money “for the best interests of the child” doesn’t go to the child, nor does it even go to the custodial parent. It goes to the state.

42 U.S.C. § 658a is the federal incentive for states to war on and destroy families. It is literally entitled INCENTIVE PAYMENTS TO THE STATES.

42 U.S.C. § 473 B provides a schedule of incentive payments to the states to place children removed by the state’s Child Protective Services agency into foster care and permanent adoptions outside of their families.

45 C.F.R. § 302.34 Requires state judges to collaborate with financial child support enforcement.

The Social Security Act, Title IV uses the language of custodial and non-custodial parents throughout while the Constitution of the United States, in Amendment 14 provides for due process of law and equal protection under the law. Troxel v Granville 2000 Supreme Court decision found that a parent has the right to the care, custody and control of their children. Implied in that decision is the child’s right to have an equal relationship with both parents. Marbury v Madison 1803 Supreme Court decision opined that which comes into conflict with the Constitution is void and without effect.

Expert scam contractors and family court criminals make money in this ignorance and confusion. Until We the People shed our ignorance, follow the money, use the correct terminology in our speech and writing, and vigorously enforce our rights in masse, WE are supporting and contributing to this corruption even as We protest against it.

"For our children" https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxHF5VYQ3pwYcITQ1gtqepBqCCBUv5A92Y

HOW TO EXPOSE FRAUD IN COURT

Agencies and agents CANNOT be both public AND private, preserving the first rule of commerce! The purpose of the IRS form 4506a is to determine if the IRS recognizes the agency as government or not. If not, the agency can be dealt with as a CONTRACTOR and their acts are TAXABLE events! Likewise, the absence of an oath on record means the AGENT is a CONTRACTOR!

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.

Blessing v. Freestone 529 U.S. 329 (1997), the Supreme Court states clearly: “respondents have not identified with particularity the rights they claim, and the Ninth Circuit has not engaged in the requisite methodical inquiry. That court erred in apparently holding that individuals have an enforceable right to "substantial compliance" with Title IV-D in all respects. The statutory "substantial compliance" requirement, see,?e.?g.,?42 U. S. C. § 609(a)(8) (1994 ed., Supp. II), does not give rise to individual rights; it was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents, but is simply a yardstick for the Secretary to measure the?systemwide?performance of a State's Title IV-D program, allowing her to increase the frequency of audits and reduce the State's federal grant upon a finding of substantial noncompliance. The Court of Appeals also erred in taking a blanket approach to determining whether Title IV-D creates rights:

It is readily apparent that many of the provisions of that multifaceted statutory scheme, including its "substantial compliance" standard and data processing, staffing, and organizational requirements, do not fit any of the traditional criteria for identifying statutory rights.?

Franconia Associates v Unite States, 536 U.S. 129 (2—2), “First, the requirement that the Government unequivocally waive its sovereign immunity is satisfied here because, once the United States waives immunity and does business with its citizens, it does so much as a party never cloaked with immunity.

Child Support is set up to benefit the state treasury to receive federal Grant Money and has nothing to do with the child or parents. Child Support does not create a right. Child Support is inserted into divorce proceedings to help the State of Florida and its agencies get money from the Federal Government.

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 Ct 1208, (1972).

Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence –life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).

No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.” Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).

A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).

A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).

The United States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).

Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).

State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).

The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).

The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah’s Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State’s power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment…Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights…Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental “liberty” interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the “Constitutional underpinning of … a recognition that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life.” The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).

Ed Bianchi?is a divorce litigation strategist and support coach for individuals considering divorce or already in the middle of it. A former Leadership Coach at University of Tampa - MBA program, and an International Inspirational Speaker and?Keynoter.

Ed's coaching practice and live events continue to influence loving, divorced men and women from around the world. You will feel energized, inspired, hopeful, and actually feeling more excited about life after discovering new meanings, new ways, more purpose and direction.

Coach Ed is available for print, radio, and television interviews . To speak (English or Spanish) or perform for your organization, team, or special event,?email us at [email protected]

PS: Please let us know if you have an organization that supports charities, not for profits and social enterprises that we can support through the power of coaching.

PPS: If you found this post inspiring or know somebody that may benefit from it, please feel free to write a brief comment or forward it to your clients, colleagues and buds. Only what we share has social dimension.

? 2022 Ed Bianchi Coaching and Live Events Enterprises, All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: We are NOT an attorney or a lawyer. The author does NOT practice law in any federal or State court system. Any information provided by the author to you, regardless of how specific, is NOT intended to be legal advice under any state or federal law. It’s legal information. If you want legal advice, you are highly encouraged to seek a bar-licensed attorney in your area. This information is for educational and informational purposes only. If you are a pro-se litigant (meaning you represent yourself without an attorney) then you bear all and full responsibility for understanding the law in your state and acting under the law in your state.

YOU TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ACTIONS YOU PURSUE AND THE AUTHOR’S OPINIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE AUTHOR’S PERSONAL NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. THE AUTHOR MAKES NO CLAIMS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IN THE LAW UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF COMPETENCY IN THE LAW.

#Divorcing?#divorced?#parents #parentalalienation #childabuse #childcustody #childsupport #narcissisticparent #familycourt #equalparentalrights #shysterpettifoggersbuster

#coparenting?#childcustody?#childabuse?#parentalalienation?#familycourt?#divorce?#narcissist