¿Por qué necesitamos la Enmienda de Derechos Parentales?

Noventa años atrás el Tribunal Supremo declaró que…

“el niño no es la mera criatura del Estado; los que le crian y dirigen su destino tienen derecho, asociado con el alto deber, de reconocerlo y preparar [al niño] para obligaciones adicionales.” ~ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Hace cuarenta años la Corte siguió esta línea de razonamiento al pronunciar que el…

“rol primario de los padres en la educación de sus hijos está ahora establecido más allá de toda disputa como una perdurable tradición americana.”  ~ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Sin embargo, en el año 2000 la Corte abrió esta disputo de nuevo. Una ley en el estado de Washington le dió a cualquier persona la capacidad de anular la decisión de padres buenos en el asunto de visitación.

La persona solo tenía que clamar que sería “mejor” para el niño permitir que la persona tenga derechos de visitación.

Cuando la Corte Suprema revisó la ley en el caso Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):World is round - 2016

  • Hubieron seis opiniones diferentes y ninguna alcanzó cinco votos (una mayoría);
  • El juez Scalia sostuvo que los padres no tienen derechos de cualquier índole que estén protegidos por la Constitución;
  • El juez Th omas fue el único de la Corte que indicó claramente que los derechos parentales reciben la misma alta norma jurídica de protección dado a otros derechos fundamentales.

El apoyo por un alto concepto de derechos parentales fue socavado por esta decisión de la Corte.

Hoy numerosas cortes federales rechazan tratar estos derechos como merecedores de protección al nivel de otros derechos fundamentales.

Es el deber del Congreso aclarar la confusión causada por esta decisión astillada.

Continue reading ¿Por qué necesitamos la Enmienda de Derechos Parentales?

Parents and Children in America are negatively affected by “Family” Courts

Every year, millions of parents and children in America are negatively affected by “family” courts and the Departments of Children and Families (DCF) all across this nation, government institutions that actively participate in custody interference for profit at a massive scale.

As a family physician who deals with children, and adults on a daily basis, I am very concerned because I believe that these federal incentives are being misused to cause great harm to the American family, actually leading to a mental health crisis of pandemic proportions.

dysfunctional-family-courts-2015

Every 3 minute that passes a youth in America is attempting suicide, and 1 of them actually dies in the attempt every 2 hours. Nearly 2 out of 3 of these suicides are associated with these federal incentives, misused to intentionally interfere with the custody of children for profit. Custodial interference in the past year is associated with an increased risk for suicidal ideation of up to 4.5 times the norm, a 350% increase vs children without this history.

Making custodial interference, a.k.a. Parental Alienation, one of the most important preventable factors to decrease suicides in our youths. “Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for ages 10-24. (2013 CDC WISQARS). More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease, COMBINED.”

A similar picture presents with our veterans, who are committing suicide at an incredibly alarming rate of almost 1 suicide every hour. Some studies estimate that anywhere between 1 to 2 of every 3 of these suicides are associated with custodial interference which are motivated by these financial Federal incentives. Many of these victims have not even seen active combat, so they can not be attributed to war.

Color of Law Violation Form

According to the USA Today, “suicide surpassed war as the military’s leading cause of death…suicide outranked war, cancer, heart disease, homicide, transportation accidents and other causes as the leading killer, accounting for about three in 10 military deaths” in 2013 and 2014.df84d-broken2bfathers2b-2b2015Suicide Research

This is a totally preventable mental health crisis, which is costing Americans at least $444 billion a year, and which is the 4th leading cause of death among 10 to 54 years old in America as of 2016.

Please, join us in rallies all over this nation on July 22, 2016, Parents’ Day Weekend. We need your help putting a stop to state-sponsored custodial interference incentives known as Title IV-D and Title IV-E of the social security, which are behind the destruction of our families today:

Thanks for your time and attention!

Regards,
Mario Jimenez, M.D., B.S.E.E.
The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

Florida Senate Candidate for District 40
www.VoteMario.Us, www.VoteFamily.Us, www.VoteFamilia.Usvotefamily-us-20151

e00e8-newjudge2bcom2b-2b2015Miami Rally for CAPRA (Constitutional Association of Parental Rights Advocates) Class Action Lawsuit on July 22, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Click here for directions to event location in front of US District Court Clerk Building at 400 N Miami Ave, Miami, FL 33128 

Continue reading Parents and Children in America are negatively affected by “Family” Courts

The Florida Family Law Reform Advocacy Group

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Justice Denied - No Jury in Family Courts - 2016

Source: New bill could mean big changes for alimony in Florida

Continue reading The Florida Family Law Reform Advocacy Group

The injustice that gave rise to the movement for presumptive joint custody

The Future of Custody Law Reform|Law Blogs|

At the current time there is a professed aversion to custody “labels” in legal circles, coupled with a shift of emphasis from deciding who gets custody, to deciding how parental decision-making and time with children will actually be structured between two parties. The latter is sometimes described as a “shared parenting” paradigm.

Insofar as it forces courts to make particularized determinations in preference to declaring all-or-nothing outcomes, shared parenting legislation can be viewed as a positive development. As I have demonstrated in a previous blog post, though, the custody “label” really does continue to matter even after shared parenting legislation is enacted.

This is why shared parenting legislation typically requires shared parenting orders to make a custody designation, even if it is “solely for the purposes of enforcement.” Short of a nationwide (and worldwide) agreement to abolish custody designations, it will continue to be necessary for courts to address who gets custody, no matter how hard judges and legislators try to deflect attention away from that problem.

The injustice that gave rise to the movement for presumptive joint custody cannot simply be wished away.

It may bblog2b-2bscale2bof2bjusticee possible to subdue the problem by ignoring it for a while, but at some point it will become necessary to address it head-on. When that time comes, it will be useful to have an understanding of the key issues that need to be addressed when considering presumptive joint custody reforms.

Legal vs. physical custody

Legislation establishing a presumptive right to joint custody should clearly state whether it applies to legal custody, physical custody, or both.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading The injustice that gave rise to the movement for presumptive joint custody