Copy of letter sent to government. It explains what happened.
COVER LETTER
To: Rutherford County NC CPS
Burke County NC CPS
NC Office of Victims and Citizens Services
NORTH CAROLINAMIDDLE DISTRICT
On September 1st, my child, Amelia P* T*, left our home with the help of her uncle and against our wishes. Amelia was then, and is now, 17.
I am asking that my child, if the law looks at her as such, be returned to me, or sent to Job Corps in Asheville NC, until her 18th birthday. If, as CPS told me, she is old enough to decide where she wants to go, then we ask she be considered Emancipated. Even though my sister, Claudie H*, and my brother, Del H*, or my sister in law Donna H*, or my cousin Teresa P*,
Are not the natural parents, or parent in anyway to my child, Amelia P* T*, this law should apply.
By Rutherford County NC CPS going against my wishes and allowing other family members of mine to decide where my
Child was to be sent, and Rutherford County CPS along with Burke County CPS continuing to allow her to be there, Away from me, Ira H* T*, her mother, it should be considered unlawful.
Signed: Ira H* T*
Date: 02-11
Faxed on: 02-11
Kidnapping or child concealment
When a parent without physical custody (who may or may not have Visitation rights) removes a child from, or refuses to return a child To, the parent with physical custody, in addition to being custodial Interference, it is considered kidnapping or child concealment. Federal
And state laws have been passed to prosecute and punish parents guilty Of kidnapping, which is a felony in over 40 states.
=
Side bar—parental kidnapping prevention act (pkpa)
The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738A and 42 U.S.C. SectionSection 654,663) is a federal statute enacted in 1980 to Address kidnapping by noncustodial parents and inconsistent child Custody decisions made by state courts. The law provides for penalties For kidnapping and requires states to recognize and enforce the custody Decisions of courts in other states, rather than make a second, and Possibly inconsistent, decision.
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 U.S. 479, (1965)
The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the Companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" Is an interest "far more precious" than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528,533; 73 s. Ct. 840,843, (1952). The Court (U.S. Supreme 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 U.S. 645,651; 92 s. Ct. 1208, (1972) 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 protection public interest by legislative action which is Arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within Competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S. Ct. 1598,435 U.S. 963, Il, (1977) Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the Orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 92
S. Ct. 1208, (1972)
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. The Supreme Court noted its "historical recognition that Freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a Fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S. Ct. 1388; 455 U.S. 745, (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 clause 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 pre-existing 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, as 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 Supreme Court has clearly established that to constitute a Compelling interest, state interference with a parent's right to Raise his or her child must be for the purpose of protecting the Child's' health or welfare. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205,230 (1972) The rights of parents to 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, 440 F Supp 1247; U.S.D.C. Of Michigan, (1985) 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) 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 582,58-95-599; U.S. Ct. App. (1983)
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)
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)
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 1205,1242-45; U.S. Ct. App 7th Cir. WI.
No bond is more precious and non 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) 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) U.S. Supreme Court t would seem that the Constitution is violated more than it is honored in matters involving domestic relations. -afc roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 410 U.S. 113 roe et al. V. Wade, district attorney of dallas county, appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of texas no. 70-18.
Argued December 13,1971 Reargued October 11,1972, Decided January 22,1973 Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest, " Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621,627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618,634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398,406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500,508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296,307-308 (1940); see [410 U.S. 113,156] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460,463-464
(WHITE, J., concurring in result)...
MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring... Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,166; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535,541.
As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438,453, e recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113,170]...
U.S. Supreme Court
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) 455 U.S. 745
santosky et al. V. Kramer, commissioner, ulster county department of social services, et al. Certiorari to the appellate division, supreme court of new york, third judicial department. No. 80-5889. Argued November 10,1981. Decided March 24,1982 In Lassiter... The absence of dispute reflected this Court's historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246,255 (1978); Smith v.organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816,845 (1977); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494,499 (1977) (plurality opinion); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632,639-640 (1974); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645,651-652 (1972); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158,166 (1944); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510,534-535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390,399 (1923)...
U.S. Supreme Court
Harris v. Mcrae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)
448 U.S. 297
harris, secretary of health and human services v. Mcrae et al. Appeal from the united states district court for the easterndistrict of new york. No 79-1268. Argued April 21,1980. Decided June 30,1980... It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55,76 (plurality opinion). Accordingly, before turning to the equal protection issue in this case, we examine whether the Hyde Amendment violates any substantive rights secured by the Constitution...
U.S. Supreme Court
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
358 U.S. 1
Cooper et al., members of the board of directors of the little rock, arkansas, independent school district, et al. V. Aaron et al. Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit.
Fn No. 1. Argued September 11,1958. Decided September 12,1958. Opinion announced September 29,1958.
... Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution
The "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, " declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137,177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every statelegislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State..."
Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506,524.
No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself
Becomes a solemn mockery..." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115,136. A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1,19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases..." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378,397-398... We have forwarded these excerpts from Sup. Ct. Decisions to our big list for your information. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children
For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS, or see ACFC's homepage at: http://www.acfc.org American Fathers Coalition - 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 148 Washington, D.C. 20006 1-800-978-DADS (3237)
In condensing the collection of decisions, it came to me that we are obsessed with the rights of the individual, while at the same time forgetting that one person's rights become another person's burden. Yet, all of the intelligent and clever legal and constitutional arguments that are being made have one underlying concern. They are made to demonstrate the presence or absence of the validity that one's right's can be made to be inferior to another one's. At the base of all of this is that no-one exists in isolation. We all are parts (or at least should be) of systems that themselves are parts of levels in a hierarchy of systems comprising civilization. The very foundation of the whole hierarchy of civilization is the group of social systems made up by these systems: husband-wife; parent-child; sibling-sibling; the family comprised of all of them; and, last but not least, the system of the extended family.
Some have recognized that and the one very profound truth arising out that fact: any system is greater than the sum of its parts, but only then if all of the parts interleave, communicate, mesh and function well with one another. All of these clever arguments ignore one important aspect. That is the obligations of an individual to the social systems of which he is a member. Thereby we ignore the needs and rights of all systems within society, because to demand one's rights requires that someone else is obliged to grant them.
By ignoring obligations, each entity will feel entitled to enforce its rights, if necessary, to the extent that it will rob others of theirs. What we have then is not a well-functioning society anymore that is better than the sum of its parts, but rather a conglomerate of entities, or better yet, a mob - at worst, the end of civilization as we know it. It appears that the best legal minds have not come to terms with that truth, or else they would not be so terribly confused as appears to be the case in the bewildering array of judgments relating to the basic social system of society: the family.
Would it be totally unrealistic to ask our legal minds to consider not only whether the state might have rights that are superior to those of the individual, but to think of the family unit in terms of a legal entity that has rights as well - with obligations and rights in relation to both, all of its members and the state? Would it be totally strange to ask our legislators to consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family and, in connection with that, the obligations that an individual has toward the family and the state?
Consider what would happen if we were to build the only one of the Ten Commandments that contains a promise as a constraint into constitutional rights: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
Why are we surprised and dismayed that we can't do well without it? Are we truly that smart that we can afford to ignore the wisdom that civilization lived by for thousands of years? -WHS
Significant connection jurisdiction of court under sec. 3 (a) (2) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS sec. 1738A (c) (2) (B). 5 ALR5th 550.
Home state jurisdiction of court under sec. 3 (a) (1) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS sec. 1738A (c) (2) (A). 6 ALR5th 1.
Am Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation 963,964, 1004,1143-1147.
Child custody: when does state that issued previous custody determination have continuing jurisdiction under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS sec. 1738a. 83 ALR4th 742.
Significant connection jurisdiction of court under sec. 3 (a) (2) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS sec. 1738A (c) (2) (B). 5 ALR5th 550.
Pending proceeding in another state as ground for declining jurisdiction under sec. 6 (a) of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USCS sec. 1738A (g). 20 ALR5th 700.
Additional reading:
The Charter Revolution & The Court Party
Seizing children a tactic for the destruction of the family and to attain state-control of the population
Throughout history, rampant child apprehensions and state-ownership of children went hand-in-hand with totalitarian regimes and tyrannies.
Antiquity The apprehension of children boys in antiquity
20th Century Evolution of the Hitler Youth
...in a series of coldly and shrewdly calculated moves, radical extremists usurped the youth movement that was very much splintered along political and religious ideological lines and consolidated it into a unified and rigorously controlled sector of the German population. The slogan that motivated the Nazi leaders was an
adaptation of a slogan attributed to Napoleon "Who controls the youths controls the future!" (Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft), although its origins go back to Socrates (whom Plato, in Republic, has offer this advice to philosopher kings: "Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults."), and, as the history of Ancient Greece shows with respect to Sparta, even farther back in antiquity.
Modern Times Big Sister Is Watching
First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families.in the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State.
An epidemic of state-sponsored kidnapping feeds a tyrannical system hungry for revenues. Child Protective Services and Children's Aid Societies systematically and increasingly often rob children from their parents. Kafkaesque chicaneries that the targeted families find impossible to comply with are the tools used to keep the revenues rolling in. Many families don't survive the ordeals that they are being subjected to by any given CPS or CAS.
What is emancipation?
In North Carolina, emancipation is a legal proceeding whereby minorsaged 16 or 17 are authorized to act and be treated as adults.
(Emancipation occurs when the child abandons the parents' home and goes out to fight life's battles on his own. E.G., Bradford v. Wallace, 25 Fam. L. Rep.) (The court has held that emancipation was affected by the child's complete abandonment of the parent-child relationship.in Hambrick v. Prestwood, 382 So. 2d 474 (Miss. 1980), the court held that the father need not support his daughter where she flatly refused to have anything to do with him. Similarly, in Cohen v. Schnepf, 94 a.D. 2d 783,463 N.Y.S. 2d 29 (2d Dep't 1983), the court held that the son's actions of refusing to visit his father and using his stepfather's surname on his college applications affected an emancipation. Accord Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 658 N.Y.S. 2d 751 (3d Dep't 1997); Joseph M.M. Jr. V. Mary Ellen C.M., 227 a.D. 2d 561,642 N.Y.S. 2d 713 (2d Dep't 1996); Rubino v. Morgan, 224 A.D. 2d 903,638 N.Y.S. 2d 524 (3d Dep't 1996) (father released from duty of support of daughter who refused to speak with him for six years); McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D. 2d 572,510 N.Y.S. 2d 3 (2d Dep't 1986); Barbara M.V. Harry M., 117 Misc. 2d 142,458 N.Y.S. 2d 136 (Fam. Ct. 1982); Gross ex rel. Oeler v. Oeler, 527 Pa. 532,594 a. 2d 649 (1991) (father's obligation to support seventeen-year-old daughter terminated when she refused to live with him after mother moved out of state and instead lived with an unrelated family)
0 comments