Contents     home     Our Mission     ResourcesPage1     ResourcesPage2     prosebar     It'sthelaw     Judicial Oath of Office     Rampant Judicial Fraud     absolutejudicialimmunity     Judge Complaints     judicial complaint1     CharacterCounts     JudicialAccountability     Delaware     Red Alert     HomeContinued     HallofShame     judicial Immunity     ProSe/law     Contact Us     Access to Justice     accesstojustice2     ProSeResources     effectivelegalwriting     CourtRoomConduct     Pleadings101     Interim     ParentalRights      
 
             FUNDAMENTAL 
          PARENTAL RIGHTS
 
                                                                                    
 

    Indeed, the “interest of  parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is

                            perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests."

 
                                                                                                        

                                                   Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)

 
              And it is well-established by long-standing
                             Supreme Court Precedent
                                      

                                               Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923)

 

                    (recognizing that the Constitution protects the right of parents to “bring    

                             up children”  and “to control the education of their own”)

 

 

" The problem for our determination is whether the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

    'No state ... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much

consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely

freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common

occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God

according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common

law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers'

Union Co. v. Crescent City Co ., 111 U.S. 746 , 4 Sup. Ct. 652; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064;

Minnesota v. Bar er, 136 U.S. 313 , 10 Sup. Ct. 862; Allegeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 427; Lochner

v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 , 25 Sup. Ct. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey 211 U.S. 78 , 29 Sup. Ct. 14;

Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 Sup. Ct. 259; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 , 36 Sup. Ct. 7, L. R

A. 1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Adams v. Tanner, 224 U.S. 590 , 37 Sup. Ct. 662, L. R. A. 1917F, 1163, Ann.

Cas. 1917D, 973; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357 , 38 Sup. Ct. 337, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v.

Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 , 42 Sup. Ct. 124; Adkins v. Children's Hospital (April 9, 1923), 261 U.S. 525 , 43 Sup. Ct.

394, 67 L. Ed. --; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N. E. 925, 128 Am. St. Rep. 439, 23 L. R.

A. (N. S.) 147. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered [262 U.S. 390, 400]   with, under the

guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some

purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the Legislature of what constitutes proper

exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152

U.S. 133, 137 , 14 S. Sup. Ct. 499. "