MESSAGE TO SENATOR RICHARD BURR…

Senator Burr:

I am writing to request your support in the fight to preserve our rights to parent our own children, free of government interference.  Currently the following members of the U.S. Senate sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment in the 111th Congress:

Lead Sponsor Senator Jim DeMint (SC), Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), Senator Tom Coburn (OK), Senator James Inhofe (OK), Senator Charles Grassley (IA), Senator James Risch (ID), Senator David Vitter (LA)

Since you are already a co-sponsor of S.R.-99 (The U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of a Child), it is my hope that you will consider joining your colleagues and become a co-sponsor of the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution (see below).

I sincerely hope that you will continue to observe and to monitor my case and other similar cases locally and nationally.  I am quite sure that the manner in which the courts proceed in my case and others will greatly affect increased support from others like yourself who have a passion for protecting the rights of parents; subsequently protecting the rights of our children, our children’s children, and so on.  I further pray that you will enlist others in The United States Senate, The United States Congress, and The North Carolina State Legislature toward the same.

Although my case began with false allegations from my wife, it quickly escalated to Judicial Abuse of Power and even Judicial Misconduct, Unwarranted Child Protective Services (CPS) Interference, and currently resides in our Corrupt Family Court System in Wake County, North Carolina.  I have presented clear and convincing evidence of specific abuse related to Title IV-D and other government incentives.  Unfortunately once you get tangled up in this vicious web of Power and Corruption it seems nearly impossible to escape.  However, this time they are up against a United States Marine.  Not only do we not tire easily and never give up, we also never leave any man behind.  Therefore I have accepted the called from my Lord and Savior to mount this fight on behalf of my Wife, my 8 children, and ALL others who are experiencing similar injustices; beginning with my own family crisis here in Raleigh, North Carolina.

My children were never abused and there has never even been any substantiated claims of abuse.  In fact, they were adjudicated “neglected” for whatever that’s worth and whatever that really means.  We are far from perfect people but, neither my wife or I use drugs or alcohol and neither of us has a criminal record.  We are a Christian Family and both hardworking Parents of Eight Children.  The so-called “neglect” was substantiated by the existence of a Domestic Violence Protective Order that was unlawfully entered by Judge Lori Christian in May 2010 (on her own motion, violating due process and lacking subject matter and personal jurisdiction) and has since been “vacated” as VOID, from the beginning (as if it never existed) as of March 2011.  However, the court refuses to return our children!  Still!  At first, I was separated from my six minor children Stephen (11), Matthew (9), Hannah (7), Sarah (6), Joseph (4), and Benjamin (3) for 234 days without even a visit – no contact whatsoever; and later (currently) required to pay $142.50 (ransom) for each visit (every other week).  To this day the Judge Monica Bousman will not allow visits with my son Stephen who has expressed that he does not want to visit (but no one can tell me why).  I have not had any contact with Stephen in 375 days as of today July 3, 2011.  I’m told my four oldest children are diagnosed with “adjustment disorder” since they have been separated from both parents, are living in a new home, and attending a new school.  They have only visited with their mother one day in almost a year.  I honestly can not speak to that since we are not allowed to speak with each other (contrary to our desires); directed by CPS, the Guardian ad Litem, and by order of the court, even her own attorney.  What kind of system is this?  Where on earth do they get this POWER?

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

                                                            Ron Reale, Father/ Husband

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

                                                            Julie Riggins, CPS

                                                            Monica Bousman, District Court Judge

This process of corruption can only be stopped by the Legislature.  We need reform and we need it very soon.  I believe very strongly that the Backbone of our Nation is THE FAMILY!  NOT the Courts and certainly NOT CPS.  We must reign in this terror and take back our freedom, as we are FREE MEN and WOMEN governed by the precepts of the United States Constitution and it’s 27 Amendments (by the people and for the people).  Thomas Jefferson said; “WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT, THERE IS TYRANNY; WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE, THERE IS LIBERTY!”

Today parental rights are coming under assault from federal judges who deny or refuse to recognize these rights. Adding further danger to the child-parent relationship, international law seeking to undermine the parental role is advancing on the horizon. Together, these threats are converging to create a “perfect storm” that looms over the child-parent relationship.

In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was “conflict between parent and child.” Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

Parental rights are under attack in our nation, with the first threat originating from within the federal court system. As this story illustrates, a growing disregard for parental rights has been spreading within the courts of our nation.

Across the country, many judges are beginning to deny the vital role of parents in the lives of their children, instead inserting the government into a “parental” role in a child’s life. This dangerous assertion is leading to the severance of the child-parent relationship in numerous instances across the nation—removals that cause unnecessary pain to both children and their parents.

A thirteen-year-old boy in Washington State was removed from his parents after he complained to school counselors that his parents took him to church too often. His school counselors had encouraged him to call Child Protective Services with his complaint, which led to his subsequent removal and placement in foster care. It was only after the parents agreed to a judge’s requirement of less-frequent church attendance that they were able to recover their son.

Not all judges hold a low view of parental rights. Some, like Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, believe that parental rights are among the “inalienable rights” of Americans enumerated in the Declaration of Independence but they are finding it increasingly difficult to rule in favor of parental rights when it is not explicitly included in the language of the Constitution.

In Troxel v. Granville, the last major parental rights case heard by the Supreme Court, Scalia himself voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right. And other federal court judges are following in his footsteps, citing a mounting belief that no right can be protected by the federal courts unless explicitly stated in the Constitution.

The dwindling support for parental rights found on the federal level has opened the door to a growing, blatant disregard of parental rights within the lower courts of our nation. Parental rights violations are on the increase across the country, as courts exchange parental involvement for government control in the lives of America’s children.

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is hanging by a thread.

A West Virginia mother was shocked when a local circuit judge and a family court judge ordered her to share custody of her four-year-old daughter with two of the girl’s babysitters. Referring to the sitters as “psychological co-parents,” the justices first awarded full custody to them, only permitting the mother to visit her daughter four times a week at McDonald’s. Eventually she was granted primary custody, but forced to continue to share her daughter with the sitters.

When her case finally reached the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in October 2007, the beleaguered mother was relieved to finally be granted full custody of her daughter.

In their October 25 opinion Supreme Court justices wrote that they were “deeply troubled by the utter disregard” for the mother’s rights. One justice referred to the mother’s right as the “paramount right in the world.”

Chief Justice Robin Davis summed up the case in one simple question. “Why does a natural parent have to prove fitness when she has never been found unfit?” he asked.

---

Annotated Version of the Amendment

Section One Summary: Makes the current implied Constitutional right an explicit part of the Constitution.

“The liberty of parents to direct the education and upbringing
of their children…”

In the 1925 decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a compulsory attendance act that required all parents to send their students to public schools, instead of private or religious schools. The court concluded that the act was unconstitutional because it “unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”

“…is a fundamental right”

In 2000, the Supreme Court cited a long train of previous cases which showed that the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. The following passage, taken from Troxel v. Granville, highlights the rich history of this fundamental right:

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (“It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children ‘come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements’” (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition”); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) (“We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected”); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) ( “Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course”); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (discussing “[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child”); Glucksberg, supra, at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (“In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ … to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children” (citing Meyer and Pierce)). 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. (emphasis added)

Section Two Summary: Makes it clear that child abuse cannot be called a parental right.

“…demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person…”

Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged.

In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

“…of the highest order and not otherwise served.”

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that “the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): “All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests”), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government “must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end”), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): “To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance ‘interests of the highest order’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.

Section Three Summary: Protects parental rights from international law.

“No treaty nor any source of international law…”

According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law is composed of international treaties, international customs which have been accepted as law by general practice, the general principles of law recognized in civilized nations, and the judicial decisions and teachings of legal authors and scholars. All four channels of international law currently pose a significant threat to parental rights.

“…supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

The Parental Rights Amendment would prohibit the use of all four sources of international law in determining what rights of parents should be protected. Treaties that were ratified by the United States would need to be interpreted in light of what the Amendment guarantees to citizens, instead of using the treaty to interpret the meaning and extent of constitutional liberties. Furthermore, federal courts would not be able to impose harmful principles of customary law on parents, because the rights granted in the Constitution override and overwhelm conflicting principles of customary law.