In 1923 Parents had RIGHTS. What Happened?

In 1923, the Supreme Court pronounced parental rights worthy of protection under the 14th Amendment in Meyer v. Nebraska. The Court has recognized that parents have a “fundamental and protected liberty interest” in the government not intruding into their families and that fit parents are deemed to make decisions in the best interest of their child. BUT

In 2000,

Troxel v. Granville changed the court's position. No majority of Supreme Court justices agreed that parental rights deserved “strict scrutiny” protection. The plurality decision in Troxel held that the court must merely grant “some special weight to” a fit parent’s decisions for their child. “Special weight?” That is a far cry from “strict scrutiny.” http://ow.ly/i/2Q4OL

ParentalRights.Org >>originally shared:

Let's Start a REVIVAL ~~~~~~ Constitutional Literacy
Learn More

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shame on US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rethinking Foster Care:
Molly McGrath Tierney at TEDxBaltimore 2014 

  Let's Make This Go Viral ~ Please Share

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Like GPC Publication onFB

• National Coordinator of the Family Survey Program
  When One Deals with the Child Protective AGENCY>>;LearnMore

5 Supreme Court Cases You should be Watching in 2014 -- According to JD Supra

Many don't, but should realize that there have been Supreme Court Decisions that have effected our lives and Actually, how the government does business. So, FYI, below are some one may want to watch in 2014.

Also, here are some Landmark Cases from the past>>  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/landmarkvotes.html  

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
GranPa Chuck

Researcher, Editor, Publisher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5 Cases to be Watching in 2014--Suggested by JD Supra

There’s no denying that 2014 is shaping up to be another exciting year at the United State Supreme Court. To wit:
1. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
What’s at stake? For starters, the authority of the President of the United States to make recess appointments. And then there’s the legality of every decision made by the NLRB during 2012… Read:

• Former NLRB Board Member Offers Opinion On Noel Canning - Luis Avila and Dennis Devaney of Varnum 
• Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in the Noel Canning “Recess Appointments” Case - Harold Coxson of Ogletree Deakins 
• Supreme Court Will Resolve Questions About Obama Recess Appointments and CFPB Authority - Michael Mallow and Michael Thurman of Loeb & Loeb 

2. Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius
What’s at stake? Whether for-profit corporations have a constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Read:

• Religious Challenges By For-Profit, Secular Employers And The Affordable Care Act - Nefertari Rigsby of Akerman 
• The Supreme Court to Hear Hobby Lobby Case: What does it mean for Title VII? - Meghann Kantke of Gray Plant Mooty 
• U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Two Cases On the Affordable Care Act’s Contraceptive Mandate - King & Spalding 

3. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
What’s at stake? Whether computer-implemented inventions – in this case software code – can be patented. Read: 

• Fate of Software Patents in Hands of the Supreme Court – Chambliss 
• Abstract Idea or Real World Software Solution? - Robert Sachs of Fenwick & West 
• Fractured Federal Circuit Invites the Supreme Court To Once Again Weigh In On Patentable Subject Matter – What Computer Software Patent Applicants Should Do In The Interim - Downs Rachlin Martin 

4. Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.
What’s at stake? The ability of shareholders to join forces in class action lawsuits when suing companies for securities fraud. Read:

• Can Absence of Price Impact Defeat Class Certification? Supreme Court to Decide - Benesch Law 
• Class Certification Denied? Courts Denied Class Certification in Fewer Than 24 Securities Actions since 2002; Halliburton Petitioners Seek to Change that Trend - Michelle Reed of Akin Gump 
• U.S. Supreme Court to Reconsider “Fraud-on-the-Market” Presumption in Securities Fraud Class Actions - Stephen Warren of Holland & Knight 

5. Pom Wonderful v. Coca Cola
What’s at stake? The authority of the Food and Drug Administration: can POM sues business rival Coca-Cola for false advertising if marketing claims in dispute were approved by the FDA? Read:

• High Court Decision In Pom V. Coke Could End Food Wars - Natalie Naugle of Morrison & Foerster 
• Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in POM’s Attack on FDCA/Lanham Act Preemption - Camille Calman, Nancy Felsten, and Joanna Summerscales of Davis Wright Tremaine 
• FTC Ruling Not So Wonderful For POM or The First Amendment - Kristopher Anderson of Baker Donelson 

—-
Also read:

• US Supreme Court Cases to Watch in 2014 - Boris Bershteyn and Allon Kedem of Skadden Arps 

—-
There’s more on the US Supreme Court at JD Supra»

Family Law Decisions in the News from JDSupra

Is it me or is this the hot topic in the Supreme Court.. ie Same Sex Couples?
So check out this, in the News summary from Today's email:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Family Law   Legal intelligence from leading lawyers and law firms

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Windsor Decision on Estate Planning for Same-sex Couples   On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court, in its decision in United States v. Windsor, overturned Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). The Court ruled that the Federal government could not deny tax and other benefits to legally... By: Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP     Supreme Court Rulings Expand Gay Marriage Rights But Leave Ambiguities for Some   The U.S. Supreme Court’s dual decisions essentially invalidating the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 brought jubilation to supporters of LGBT rights. Finally, state-sanctioned gay marriage had the green light in... By: Sedgwick LLP     Iowa Immigration Law Blog: Citizenship and Immigration Services Clarifies Immigration Benefits for Same-Sex Couples   As almost everyone now knows, on June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). On the immigration front, this means that a U.S. Citizen same-sex spouse who is married to a non-citizen may now petition for... By: Davis Brown Law Firm     Civility in the Practice of Law: How the Legal Profession Can Do Better   Civility is defined as something said or done in a formally polite way. In court, it is a professional obligation: ABA Model Rules, Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5 states that lawyers may not "engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal," with... By: Law Offices of Marlo Van Oorschot, APLC     Children as Witnesses in a Domestic Violence Dispute   In M.J.T. v. A.V.B., the New Jersey Appellate Division overturned the trial court’s entry of a Final Restraining Order (“FRO”) against the defendant. The only witness to the alleged incident of domestic violence was the couple’s nine year old son.... By: Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.     U.S. Immigration Benefits Available to Same-Sex Spouses   USCIS issues expanded and revised FAQ in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision overturning DOMA.... By: Morgan Lewis     Nonresident Alien Spouse Not Liable for Penalties   There are an unknown number of U.S. citizens married to nonresident aliens. Many of these taxpayers have filed joint income tax returns. Most are likely to have filed joint income tax returns (Form 1040) without having properly made and filed the... By: Sanford Millar     FEC Clarifies Rules to Allow Same-Sex Married Couples the Same Rights as Heterosexual Married Couples   In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2013 striking down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has clarified that same-sex married couples are entitled to the same rights under federal... By: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP     Crowdfunding 101: What Is It? And Should I Be Excited About it? PART 1   Ever since the passage of the JOBS Act (the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act), there’s been a lot of hype about crowdfunding. A lot of startups have built their entire business model on the assumed ability to use crowdfunding methods to raise... By: Chambliss, Bahner & Stophel, P.C.     FEC Issues Two Advisory Opinions in Light of US v. Windsor   Yesterday, the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) became one of the first federal government agencies to take action in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor.... By: Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster LLC     Marriage and Capacity: The Mental Competence Needed To Tie (and Untie) the Knot   Roughly half of all marriages in the United States eventually end in divorce. The statistics are even bleaker in California, where the divorce rate hovers at around sixty percent. In light of these odds, getting married in this day and age (and in... By: Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn -     Supreme Court DOMA Decision—Part II: Wage Overstatements and Tax Refunds   In part one of this two-part series, “Supreme Court DOMA Decision — Part I: Fringe Benefits and Other Tax Implications,” I reviewed the fringe benefit and tax implications of the United States v. Windsor decision.... By: Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,     Fenwick Employment Brief - July 2013: DOMA and Prop 8 Rulings Clear the Way for Same-Sex Marriages in California and Require Changes in Employee Benefits   In U.S. v. Windsor, the court struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) as unconstitutional. DOMA, for purposes of federal tax and benefits laws, defined marriage as only between “one man and one woman.”... By: Fenwick & West LLP     Arizona Bankruptcy or Divorce – Which Comes First?   The number one stress factor cited in a majority of marriages is money. So it should come as no surprise that many divorces are either preceded by a bankruptcy or that one follows soon thereafter.... By: Rowley Chapman & Barney, Ltd.     Supreme Court DOMA Decision—Part I: Fringe Benefits and Other Tax Implications   On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Windsor, ruling that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional.... By: Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,     Same-Sex Marriage Cases—Planning Opportunities and Pitfalls   The Supreme Court of the United States recently held that the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages that are valid under state law, and effectively reinstated same-sex marriage in the state of California. However, many questions still... By: McDermott Will & Emery     7,000 Provisional Waiver Applications Received During the First Four Months of the Program   Since March 2013, certain immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives) have been able to apply for provisional unlawful presence waivers (I-601A form) before they leave the United States.... By: Fowler White Boggs P.A.

See more Family Law advisories ›

Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Abuses by Social Workers, Police

Although this article is from 2011, we all know that the wheels of justice turn very slow. Also, I need to add the Supreme Court documents to this.

Yet again the lower courts and the related agencies have not followed the very statutes, policies, procedures, etc, that they are bound to.
I urge all parents and/or those directly caring for the children, to Know:
    >>the State Statutes, particular to your concerns     >>And Document all Proof that you were doing the right thing for the child.      (Excerpts Reason for Law Book  ~Using Your Law Book)

 In this article here are the major decisions and/or cases.
 

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the social worker and police officer were shielded from liability for the interrogation at school, but that the social worker violated the Constitution by preventing the mother from being near her daughter during the physical examination, and that a jury should decide whether the social worker lied in order to get a court order removing the children from their home. (Need Case)

• The Supreme Court is also considering another case this year that seeks to apportion liability between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles for trampling the rights of parents who were initially accused of child abuse by a rebellious teenager but later found to be completely innocent. In that case, the Ninth Circuit harshly criticized California's Child Abuse Central Index. The CACI lists hundreds of thousands of Californians, preventing them from getting jobs, when many of them have never been charged-much less convicted-of child abuse or any other crime.

• (Related Reading: State Courts finding Registries Unconstitutional )
  The Related reading if from our NFPCAR eBook pages on:

  Getting Off the Registry
  Central Registry Expunction of Records by State
  Registry Contacts and Comments on Getting Off the Registry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Court Weighs Parental Rights Abuses
by Social Workers, Police

Original Link: http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/46812
Sun, 2011-02-27 08:36 - Aegion

See also

• Child abuse: On the front line
• Child protection facing criticism
• How much proof does one need?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2011 /Standard Newswire/ -- The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases that could restrict the authority of social workers to interview and examine children without their parents' knowledge and consent. Pacific Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the cases in support of parental rights.
Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, "For years, we have heard from outraged parents whose children have been subjected to invasive questioning and embarrassing physical examinations at school and elsewhere, without the parents' knowledge or consent. These cases are a critical opportunity to restrict unchecked governmental power and reassert parental authority."
The cases arose in Oregon, where a social worker and police officer went to a child's elementary school, pulled her out of class, and interrogated her for more than an hour about alleged abuse by her father. The child later said she only agreed that her father had abused her because the social worker would not accept any other response. The child was later removed from the home by the social worker and subjected to being undressed and invasively examined, and her mother was refused permission to be anywhere near her during the exam.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the social worker and police officer were shielded from liability for the interrogation at school, but that the social worker violated the Constitution by preventing the mother from being near her daughter during the physical examination, and that a jury should decide whether the social worker lied in order to get a court order removing the children from their home.
The Supreme Court is also considering another case this year that seeks to apportion liability between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles for trampling the rights of parents who were initially accused of child abuse by a rebellious teenager but later found to be completely innocent. In that case, the Ninth Circuit harshly criticized California's Child Abuse Central Index. The CACI lists hundreds of thousands of Californians, preventing them from getting jobs, when many of them have never been charged-much less convicted-of child abuse or any other crime.
Dacus noted, "There is no question our society has a problem with child abuse that should be aggressively prosecuted and punished. The problem is that, unlike every other type of crime, parents are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and the government often destroys good families based on unfounded allegations that are never proved. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will restore the balance that is currently missing in this important area of the law."
The amicus brief filed on behalf of Pacific Justice Institute was authored by prominent California parental rights attorneys Dennis Atchley, Donnie Cox, Shawn McMillan, David Beauvais and Paul Leehey.
About The Pacific Justice Institute:  Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.  Pacific Justice Institute's strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, "The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened." "Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless individuals, families and churches... without charge.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Advice from one, who read this post:

My advice to you who have kids in our area.
a. HOME SCHOOL!
b. Careful of disgruntled family members..keep kids away!
c. DON'T TRUST ANYONE WITH YOUR KID!!!
d. Always, always know who and what your kid is doing and with who.
e. MEET ALL PARENTS of your kids friends BEFORE they go to the home and know them FIRST!!! refer to

 Click HERE to learn "How To Win In Court" ... without a lawyer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Also, a Great Document for Your Library--Now Available
"Standing in the Shadow of the Law", Special Edition.

(Best Reference in Plain English to set up your Law Book)

 Learn More>> Click Here
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,

 GranPa Chuck

  "We the "Little" People"

    Defend Yourself http://nfpcar.org/Jurisdictionary/

  My Family Reform Blog
  My Family Rights Affiliation