Citizens for Family Preservation
INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY RIGHTS
by Jan Smith
This first article is not written to the highly educated for the benefit of a Utopian Society, but to the poor who are targeted, the welfare recipient, those who are eligible for benefits, the high school dropout, the criminal, the addict/alcoholic, the fathers who abandon the child, the mother who likes the wrong kind of men, the men who are on a “save a ho’ program, relatives of all, and older children who are in foster care. Excerpts important to more advanced study of the issues are contained here with permission that includes links farther below. All links should get explored thoroughly as each article contains a viewpoint important to understanding how our government is now working.
The intro contains the “real deal” about government operations. In it you will see that there is no longer freedom as we understand it. The government, both state and federal, has taken over the family. Not all families per se, just those in poverty. Starting with pregnancy, the state has invoked Parens Patriae power. So what is that? Parens Patriae is a Latin term that basically says that the government is in complete control of children and vulnerable adults. Originally, it meant only abused or abandoned children, however it now means all children born in poverty.
During British Kingships, the term, Parens Patriae was created. It described the power of the King in ruling over children and adults who could not take care of themselves. The King was pretty free to do whatever he wanted with families although due to religious beliefs, the church felt that the children belonged to the parents. Both the church and the king competed for power and both were prone to being tyrannical.
After people escaped, fought for our freedom then started
the
The People started this country as sovereigns and American Nationals. This means that the people had the power. Slowly, the government took that power away from the people and gave it to the state then the state became the sovereign and was expected to protect the people from the Federal Government. Neither protects us but now exploits the people and does the bare minimum to maintain the poor while blaming the poor for their predicament as evidenced in attitude and laws regarding those who ask for help and assistance.
Now, because of all the problems that exist with the poor and their seeming inability to thrive without state assistance, Parens Patriae has long reaching tentacles into all agencies that deal with the poor. Schools now invoke (act like) Parens Patriae along with hospitals. Hospitals often have poor documentation practices and write things that aren’t true then these false writings get used in courts and in Child Protective Services. That is just the beginning. They will send people out to the home to see if “you are ok” along with the child and then demand early childhood education. They will check to see if you make all your appointments with WIC, the doctor and dentist. If you don’t that is medical neglect, in their opinion, and they will take your child. If a parent disagrees with a doctor, they no longer have a right to do that. The doctor invokes Parens Patriae power and can hold your child. The doctor is also a mandatory reporter and can have your child picked up. So can the teachers and for reasons you would never even dream of.
Right from birth, social workers, doctors and nurses are evaluating the parents and deciding whether a person is fit to parent. All behavior is observed and documented. They will also try and get new moms to take a small test to decide if they are depressed or not then this may get used against them. This is the beginning invoking of Parens Patriae, and make no mistake about it, every little thing that gets documented can and will be used against you in a court someday.
But we think we have freedom. Can’t we have sex whenever we want and with whomever we choose with multiple partners in an atmosphere of substance abuse? What do they care if a fight or two happens and the police get called? And if we do spank, what business is it of theirs? If our reckless behavior results in a pregnancy and we file for benefits that is our right and part of our freedom, correct? WRONG. Having a child in less than ideal circumstances now means that they will look at the waiting list of people wanting to adopt and start making plans for your children by writing down everything you do and don’t do while making it clear that challenging their demands means most certainly the death of your family’s preservation.
Parents, especially young ones, often think that if they miss an appointment here and there it is no big deal. Understand that to Parens Patriae, it is a big deal, and enough missed appointments will make them take action. Because they are in self proclaimed charge of poor children from day one, the government monitors all activity through agencies.
Young men and women also think that having a crazy boyfriend or girlfriend is just fun and shouldn’t be a government issue. It becomes a government issue when the boyfriend won’t work, drinks/drugs, knocks females up, doesn’t do his share financially, and causes domestic violence issues. If you have a boyfriend like this, or have had several, kiss your children goodbye because they are going to get removed and adopted out. The government has convinced the entire planet that any little problem should be called in to the hotline. Somebody will call. Count on it.
Freedom to do what we want is pretty much there until a child comes into the picture so long as we pay all the taxes, licenses and fees imposed on all of us and obey their numerous laws. And the issues follow us for a lifetime. If you have a child and have problems raising this child according to government expectations, this will affect your ability to have custody of grandchildren. All this documentation that could be from years and years ago now is the deciding factor for relatives wanting blood related children.
This is catching many by surprise because the government is sneaky and quiet about it, only showing force when they have enough to prosecute you as a parent. They react but don’t educate the public about their power and control issues. Once the more brash, insane behaviors of the government comes into force, we discover that all the rights we thought were available in a court of law now is gone.
So why won’t they just come out and say what it is that they want? Why aren’t they telling people what it is that they expect? Because they don’t want to step on our freedoms by telling us what to do, they just collect evidence then pounce. The government is afraid that people will fight them regarding our loss of freedoms so they wait until they can do an appropriate character assassination in a dependency court.
What happens that is so bad after they pounce? They have a hearing against the parent without them called an ex parte hearing. There is not a lawyer there to defend the parents. The information that is presented doesn’t have to be truthful, just sound bad enough. It always results in child removal. At this hearing hearsay of all types is allowed. Then there is a 72 hour shelter care hearing. The court is required to have this hearing once children are removed. This is more of the same. They bring you in, don’t let you speak most of the time, might casually mention your rights but emphasize court interests, put a bunch of papers in front of you, try and scare you into signing them, if you don’t they won’t let you see your children. If you do sign them, you sign most of your rights away to the state. Then the games begin, and trust me, water boarding (torture) is probably more fun. I am telling you, these folks are crazy.
If you are working, count on losing your job. Chances are you will lose your housing also. You will be required to attend numerous meetings, court hearings, parenting classes, drug/alcohol classes (if appropriate but not necessarily does it have to be) , random UAs, domestic violence (if appropriate), psychological evaluations, and any recommendations for counseling. They will have you in a room with a two way mirror and watch your every move. Everything you say and do can be used against you. You will be required to pay child support to the foster parents. If you don’t your parental rights may be terminated. You may end up with a parenting therapist who will come into your visits and tell you what to do with your children. If you don’t follow the recommendations, and even if you do, they may still speak against you in court. They may force you to take medication for mental health and if you refuse deny you your children. You will get about two hours a week with your children to begin with. It may take months to up the visitation time.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (
So, what does one have to do that is so bad to deserve all of that? Some parents shouldn’t have their children, plain and simple. They are bad, dangerous people who are out of control. But then, there is this category of “other” called neglect. Neglect can harm a child, but sometimes “other” is just general case of laziness and/or focus such as housework or missing appointments and no actual harm has been done. Risk is now treated the same as actual harmful actions.
Let’s look at WIC for example. (women’s, infants and children’s, food supplement) Honestly, it is just a waste of tax payer dollars. The amount of food stamps covers the cost of food, so what is the point? If a parent doesn’t really need WIC and misses an appointment, has the child been harmed? Where WIC comes in handy, quite honestly, is when “mom” has one of those dysfunctional boyfriends who doesn’t work and eats everything, sometimes WIC is critical but under other circumstances it usually isn’t needed. It is based on blood tests low in iron, but food stamps usually cover that base with milk and cereal. They also issue WIC even when it doesn’t show medical need. The other time WIC is needed is if the baby is on formula, then the supplement assists the family with that because it is so expensive. Even though WIC is “supplemental”, they now have categorized themselves as essential to the well being of children and they can get your children removed.
Poor people are resourceful. They are the ultimate consumers of used product, the proprietors of unique artifacts, and professionals in adaptation. Poor people often laugh louder and longer than the genteel would prefer while cooking up a good crisp on chicken. They know where to get what they need and rarely go without the essentials. When an essential is gone, they adapt quickly and usually safely to bring equilibrium, such as electricity turned off. While the powers that be sit around discussing their demise, they are not spending one minute thinking about the powers.
Middle class and wealthy do not understand the poor and they judge them harshly. They also don’t ask the right questions. Consider a family who has lost a job, becomes homeless and ends up in a tent by the river. Let’s suppose they have figured out how to get things done in this arena. The parents go to “Auntie Martha” to wash clothes, have a cook stove, and boil water to drink. They may also get water from Aunt Martha’s house. Food stamps supply their food and all the kids have clothes. The clothes might come from a clothing bank, but children are dressed nevertheless. Dad might hustle some under-the-table jobs here and there to supply transportation costs and things like propane. Maybe they go out into the forest and pick berries and other edible plants. The only other problem is shower and bathroom. The shower is not too difficult because water can be heated and used for that purpose. Holes dug deep enough and a distance from the camp can suffice for a toilet if rigged properly. One can also use a bucket with sawdust and a seat. So, what is their quality of life? Depends on who you ask.
Let’s ask the kids. So, here they are outdoors, playing
their hearts out, perhaps swimming and hanging out around the fire with their
family talking about stuff. (Oh my GOD! Can abuse get
any worse than that)
What about the parents. The worst two issues they have at this point is swatting mosquitoes and figuring out how to sneak a screw in once the kids are asleep. While they have reduced themselves down to hunters and gatherers, in general they are pretty happy and stress free.
Not at all like the child savers who are looking to descend upon them like vultures. While the parents are fishing, Parens Patriae is frantically aligning the militia, getting orders signed, setting up temporary emergency housing for the children, and putting on a show of force that puts Rambo to shame.
These children who were not traumatized, see armed militia coming at a solid clip, hands on their guns and yelling at the top of their lungs about these abused children they are going to take. Dad objects so they flip him down and handcuff him, maybe even get him in the eyes with pepper spray. Mom is traumatized and hysterical. The children are screaming begging for their parents to help them as they are dragged away into a patrol car.
The kids end up with a bed, but a scene will play in their mind till they die - a scene where the response went way beyond the issue at hand. An example of a horrible, pathetic display of Parens Patriae power that unnecessarily tore apart a family and left them all with PTSD.
So, what is their quality of life now? Depends
on who you ask. They won’t ask the kids though. Nope, they won’t ask the
kids.
The article below and continuation thereof here: http://www.barefootsworld.net/parensp.html
PARENS PATRIAE....
GOVERNMENT AS PARENT
These are the words that started a Revolution propelling several English colonies into the nation known as "The United States of America."
This new nation was designed to function under the laws of Nature and Nature's God. The people believed they would never again hear the words of enslavement, i.e.; "under the sovereignty of the King." Living under the sovereignty of the King made you the King's chattel. He owned you. You were his property. You could own nothing, not even your children. The King ruled by divine right.
The framers of this new nation designed the Constitution to be a government "Of The People, By The
People, For The People." Representatives of this government
were to be elected by the people, not born to power. And so, in 1776 the great
experiment in freedom, known as "The
People from each colony fought in the Great War to enable the colony to
become a Sovereign Nation State. These States then created a new state,
designed to exclusively serve the several Sovereign Nation States. Under this
concept the nation of States united was born. Every Sovereign Nation
State joining the
The government of the United States was "delegated" only 20
grants of power [See Constitution
Art 1, Sec 8] and ten things were carefully enumerated which the government
may not do, [See Constitution
Art 1, Sec 9], and 10 further restrictions were added in the first 10
amendments [See "Bill
of Rights"] to the Constitution by the several states. The people
never intended that government of the
Some scholars believe the freedom ended before the ink was dry on the
contract written between the people and their new government, "The
Constitution." There is some question as to exactly where and when the
new nation faltered. Some say it was in 1789, with the Judiciary Act. Others
say it was after the Civil War. Still others claim it was in 1913 or 1921 or
perhaps in 1933 ....... History tells us the Supreme
Court of the
In the case
In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided, to wit:
"It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different states, and in practically all the federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of Parens Patriae, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution."
Under most religious law, the children belong to the parents. It is a moral obligation on the part of the parents to care for and educate their children in their existing social values and morals.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act (3) was passed creating birth "registration" or what we now know as the "birth certificate." It was known as the "Maternity Act" and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for other purposes. One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. This can now be seen as the first attempt of "government by appointment," or cooperation of state governments to aid the federal government in usurping the legislative process of the several states as exists today through the federal grant in aid to the states programs.
Prior to 1921 the records of births and names of children were entered into
family bibles, as were the records of marriages and deaths. These records were
readily accepted by both the family and the law as "official"
records. Since 1921 the American people have been registering the births and
names of their children with the government of the state in which they are
born, even though there is no federal law requiring it. The state claims an
interest in every child within it's jurisdiction,
telling the parents that registering their child's birth through the birth
certificate serves as proof that he/she was born within territories of the
In 1923, a suit was brought against federal officials charged with the
administration of the act. (
"The act is unconstitutional. It purports to vest in agencies of the Federal Government powers which are almost wholly undefined, in matters relating to maternity and infancy, and to authorize appropriations of federal funds for the purposes of the act.
Many examples may be given and were stated in the debates on the bill in Congress of regulations which may be imposed under the act. The forced registration of pregnancy, governmental prenatal examination of expectant mothers, restrictions on the right of a woman to secure the services of a midwife or physician of her own selection, are measures to which the people of those States which accept its provisions may be subjected. There is nothing which prohibits the payment of subsidies out of federal appropriations. Insurance of mothers may be made compulsory. The teaching of birth control and physical inspection of persons about to marry may be required.
The act gives all necessary powers to cooperate with the state agencies in the administration of the act. Hence it is given the power to assist in the enforcement of the plans submitted to it, and for that purpose by its agents to go into the several States and to do those acts for which the plans submitted may provide. As to what those plans shall provide the final arbiters are the Bureau and the Board. The fact that it was considered necessary in explicit terms to preserve from invasion by federal officials the right of the parent to the custody and care of his child and the sanctity of his home shows how far reaching are the powers which were intended to be granted by the act."
It was further stated in the complaint that "The act is invalid because it assumes powers not granted to Congress and usurps the local police power." (5)In more recent cases, however, the Court has shown that there are limits to the power of Congress to pass legislation purporting to be based on one of the powers expressly granted to Congress which in fact usurps the reserved powers of the States, and that laws showing on their face detailed regulation of a matter wholly within the police power of the States will be held to be unconstitutional although they purport to be passed in the exercise of some constitutional power. (6)
It went on to state:
"The act is not made valid by the circumstance that federal powers are to be exercised only with respect to those States which accept the act, for Congress cannot assume, and state legislatures cannot yield, the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution. (7) The act is invalid because it imposes on each State an illegal option either to yield a part of its powers reserved by the Tenth Amendment or to give up its share of appropriations under the act."
"A statute attempting, by imposing conditions upon a general privilege, to exact a waiver of a constitutional right, is null and void." (8)
"The act is invalid because it sets up a system of government by cooperation between the Federal Government and certain of the States, not provided by the Constitution."
"Congress cannot make laws for the States, and it cannot delegate to the States the power to
make laws for the
In 1933, bankruptcy was covertly declared by President Roosevelt. The governors of the then 48 States pledged the "full faith and credit" of their states, including the citizenry, as collateral for loans of credit from the Federal Reserve system. The "Full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 4. Sec. 1, requires that foreign judgment be given such faith and credit as it had by law or usage of state of it's origin. That foreign statutes are to have force and effect to which they are entitled in home state. And that a judgment or record shall have the same faith, credit, conclusive effect, and obligatory force in other states as it has by law or usage in the state from whence taken. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. cites omitted.
Today the federal government "mandates, orders and compels" the states to enforce federal jurisdiction upon it's citizens/subjects. This author believes the federal government draws it's de facto jurisdiction for these actions from the "Doctrine of Parens Patriae." Parens Patriae means literally, "parent of the country." It refers traditionally to the role of STATE as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. Parens Patriae originates from the English common law where the King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants.
With the birth registration established, the federal government, under the
doctrine of Parens Patriae, had the mechanism to take over all the assets of
the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. Under this
doctrine, if one is born with a disability, the state, (the sovereign) has the
responsibility to take care of you. This author believes that the disability
you are born with is, in fact, the birth itself. I believe that when you are
born, you are born free, a "citizen of the soil," an American
National. Parents, without full disclosure under law, make application for a "birth
certificate," thereby making the child a citizen of the corporate
government known as the
The government becomes the Trustee, while the child becomes the beneficiary of his own trust. Legal title to everything the child will ever own is now vested in the federal government. The government then places the Trust into the hands of the parents, who are made the "guardians." The child may reside in the hands of the guardians (parents) until such time as the state claims that the parents are no longer capable to serve. The state then goes into the home and removes the "trust" from the guardians. At majority, the parents lose their guardianship.
The subject of every birth certificate is a child. The child is a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can contribute valuable assets provided by its labor for many years. The child itself is the asset of the trust established by the birth certificate. "Title" to your child is now owned by the state. The state now directs the trust corpus and provides "benefits" for the beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same -- the citizen -- first as child, then as adult.
The debt transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process known as "Novation." Novation is defined as "the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. This author believes the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transferred to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.
Each one of us, including our children, are considered assets of the
bankrupt
The federal government, under Title 15, U.S.C., re-delegates federal Parens Patriae authority to the state attorney generals. The attorney generals' can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life, the lives of your children, and your material assets.
In today's society the government, through the doctrine of Parens Patriae, has already instituted its control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court with threats of loss of your child if the treatment is challenged. Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of "child neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her any embarrassment or indignities, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus).
Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority. School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child.
The Sun Sentinel, a Florida news paper, reported on March 15, 1996 that limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved were clarified by the Florida Supreme Court. The high court three years ago approved a policy favoring relocation requests of custodial parents as long as such moves are made in good faith for the well being of parents and children. Also, the justices ruled at that time, moves cannot be made "from a vindictive desire to interfere with the visitation rights of the other parent." The right of locomotion is held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon the right of locomotion was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals' freedom of locomotion could be construed as a sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery.
It has been reported that in
Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. Federal Parens Patriae legislation can be found in Title 15 of the United States Code:
TITLE 15, Sec. 15h. Applicability of Parens Patriae
actions:
STATUTE- Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in
any State, unless such State provides by law for its non-applicability in such
State.
The primary responsibility of a State is to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution for any state legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for its citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to its citizens. The 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges. The amendment was intended to provide against state laws, or state action of some kind, adverse to the rights of the citizen secured by the amendment. Such legislation cannot properly cover the whole domain of rights appertaining to life, liberty and property, defining them and providing for their vindication. That would be to establish a code of municipal law regulative of all private rights between man and man in society. It would be to make congress take the place of the state legislatures and to supersede them.
However, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that: A State may not,
as Parens Patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who
are no less citizens of the
The Parens Patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.
Note: The Maternity Act was eventually repealed, but parts of it have been found in other legislative acts. What this act attempted to do was set up government by appointment, run by bureaucrats with re-delegated authority outside of Constitutional authority, with the ability to tax, which is in itself unconstitutional and represents taxation without representation. This type of government is in place today and is known as "Regionalism." The federal government couldn't fool the people in 1921 into surrendering their sovereignty, ..........
.................... but in 1933 ....................
Footnotes:
1.
2.
3. Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135.
4.
5. McCulloch v.
6. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247
7. Message of President Monroe, May 4, 1822; 4 Elliot's Debates,
p. 525; Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212; Escanaba Co. v.
8. Harrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco R.R. Co., 232 U.S. 318; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529.
9. In re Rahrer, 140
See Also "The Unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment"
FOR
The doctrine of parens patriae “is a concept of standing utilized to protect . . . quasi-sovereign interests, such as ‘health, comfort, and welfare’ of the people,” when such interests are threatened and state government intervention may be needed. Gibbs v. Titelman, 369 F. Supp. 38, 54 (E.D. Pa. 1973), rev’d on other grounds, 502 F.2d 1107 (3d Cir. 1974).
The parens patriae doctrine differs from the in loco parentis doctrine, the later involving care that is
“temporary in character and not to be likened to [the permanent situation of]
adoption.” Griego v. Hogan, 377 P.2d 953, 955-56 (N.M. 1963). The in loco parentis doctrine can be applied to both governmental and
non-governmental entities, and is implicated “when a person [or legal entity]
undertakes the care and control of another [person of legal incapacity] in the
absence of such supervision by the latter’s natural parents and in the absence
of formal legal approval.”
One of the more common situations where there may be threatened interests
requiring state intervention involves the interests of minors and others of
legal incapacity. Blackstone noted that under early English common law, the
English sovereign was “'general guardian of all infants, lunatics, idiots.’” Fontain v. Ravenel, 58
The United States Constitutional system of Ordered Liberty included
additional safeguards. Article I, Section 9, guaranteed access to the Writ of
Habeas Corpus. The Tenth Amendment created a vertical system of checks and
balances, thereby distributing some powers to federal government, some to state
government, and the remainder to the People. Parens patriae
power of standing was reserved to the state governments, and could not properly
be exercised by the federal government. See Fontain,
58