Because divorce should NOT mean losing your children

Lie 1: Best Interests of the Child

no lies

Lies Divorce Courts Tell: Best Interests of the Child

What Divorce Courts say: The divorce court can deprive you of your fundamental rights as a parent in the best interests of the child.

What the United States Supreme Court says: “The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual’s family.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 US 833 – Supreme Court 1992

Analysis: The divorce court takes away your protected right to make decisions for you child and makes those decisions for you. They say they do this in the best interests of the child or in other words “for the supposed benefit” of you child “a member of [your] family.” This is exactly what the United States Supreme Court says that divorce courts may not do.

WATCH RON AND SHERRY teach you how to stand up to this abuse of power here:

They may not do it to fathers (male) and they may not do it to mothers (female). They may not do it to married people which is what you are up to the point where the court issues a divorce order. They may not do it to unmarried people which is exactly what you are the moment the judge signs the divorce order.

The reality is that divorce courts in this country operate under a lie. That lie is that they have authority to act in the best interests of your child to deprive you of your fundamental liberties based on nothing more than a change in your marital status. The reality is that they have no such authority and are in fact violating the Constitution every time they do so. Why do they get away with this? Because parents don’t know how to simply point and say “but he’s not wearing anything at all.” Just like in the story The Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson people can operate under a mass delusion that something is OKAY when in fact it is very much NOT OKAY.

Much like the tailors in the The Emperor’s New Clothes story the 50 Billion Dollar Divorce Industry lives in terror of someone pointing out that they actually have no authority. Are you, like the young boy in the story, prepared to stand up in court and declare that the divorce court judge has no authority? We teach people how to do this safely and effectively.

If you have had enough of Divorce Court Lies join our national chorus singing, “but he’s not wearing anything at all.”

First step is to get the book and learn what your rights are: “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest” (If you don’t have this book and you don’t know your rights you don’t have the most powerful and important tool that protects you and your child.)

Second step is to update your pleadings and assert your rights.

Third step is to learn how to use your rights just like the lunch counter protesters starting exercising their right to eat at the lunch counters in the restaurants. Learn how to argue protection of your rights through the classes and our practice simulator. Click here to watch a sample video and enroll:

(I know it’s difficult to think that you have to learn one more thing, but if you don’t people will take advantage of you. If you want independence and you want to be free to continue to make decisions for yourself and your child without the constant control of the courts and your ex, you’re going to have to take it back from them.)

Come meet us at the rally and reform conference in Washington D.C. in November 14-16, 2014. Click here: JOIN US

Hurry and register for the rally and reform conference if you need to get plane tickets. You’ll need time to get your tickets and to reserve hotel.

Register for the rally here:

Register for the reform conference here:

Is Excessive child support destroying families and our national economy?

Is Excessive child support destroying families and our national economy?

Nixon-3Is our country on the verge of a new epidemic left over from an old regime? Bankruptcy, joblessness, and incarceration have become synonymous with divorce and child custody proceedings. Could outrageous child support awards be one of the culprits?

Deadbeat dads are the scourge of our nation, or so the government would have you believe. Married parents determine how much above the minimum they spend on their children. Divorced or single parents get told by the government how much above the minimum they must spend on their children. When they can’t pay this “extra” above the minimum charge, they are branded deadbeats and shamed by the entire community while poor married parents receive sympathy and help from the government.

Some smart political marketers have set this phrase and the social derision associated with it to generating more cash for the government through Title IV D of the Social Security act. Cunning State politicians take more and more time away from one fit parent to justify charging more and more “elective” child support on the disadvantaged parent. State coffers are filled while children lose their emotional and financial stability and a fit parent from their lives. Fit “deadbeat” parents are taken from their children and jailed by the thousands because they can’t afford to pay this “elective” child support.

What does our country value more for children “cash” or the love and support of two equal fit parents in the child’s life?

The consequence of convincing the mainstream public that this was for the children is that no one noticed the growing poverty now striking children of middle class families. Perhaps part of the reason the number of families in poverty has climbed since these policies were passed. .[i]  And, by the way, most of the children in these impoverished family households are one-parent households Imagine that. Children who had parents that were stable, strong financially, and successful prior to divorce are being destroyed and brought down by these policies. States are scrambling to blame parents who divorce for the problem instead of blaming state policies that financially punish parents who can no longer remain married to each other but who each love and want to directly care for and support their children.

The failed state policy of punishing parents for divorcing has become too large of a failure to remain covered up. The best interests of the child AS DECIDED BY THE STATE is the lie that supports this failed state policy. The state is systematically destroying the one thing that has proven to be best for children–a strong parent-child bond–and is blaming parents for the harm the state is causing to children, and using our children as their cash cow[ii]

You can stop the corrupt State from harming your child when you divorce. Keep reading to find out what we think will solve this problem.

Can Capping Divorce Incentives Strengthen Marriages?

I believe that it can. It can also reduce the incentive for corrupt practices. Let me explain.

As with many things that have become part of our culture and tradition, we see many people try to solve the wrong problem. A few months back, Divorce Corp. ran a poll and asked “Should a parent receiving child support be required to produce receipts verifying expenditures for the child?”[i] Perhaps it was Patrick Glynn’s suggestion to them that capping child support would eliminate the need for receipts that got them to look at the problem a little differently. In fact, they went on to make the following statements:

  • Child support should be capped at the minimum amount needed to raise a child.
  • The state should not serve the best interests of the children of wealthy parents more so than the children of parents of modest means (e.g. every child merits the same amount of child support).
  • The state should get out of the business of raising Federal matching funds at the expense of the mental health of our children.
  • The courts should stop dangling children in front of desperate parents in order to incentivize them to pay legal fees.
  • The state should stop making value judgments between two competent parents in order to label one “custodial” and the other “non-custodial”. This is an outdated social model that wreaks of inequality. The state should not perpetuate this model in order to keep its flow of Federal matching funds.[ii]
  • [Go to the end of this post if you want to join Divorce Corp, Ron B Palmer, and me, Sherry Palmer at the Reform Conference in November 2014. Or just click here and I'll take you there to register now: REFORM CONFERENCE]

Not only are these very wise statements, the majority of them could be accomplished through the power of your current constitutional rights! So basically, the way that child support is being handled now could be challenged constitutionally.

Let’s break it down a little more. The first statement, bullet point one:

  • Child support should be capped at the minimum amount needed to raise a child.

You could argue against the current child support scheme as being unconstitutional as it fails the equal protection requirements. [See equal protection argument on our website][iii]

The next bullet point from Divorce Corp. poll #5 “Should Parents Who Receive Child Support Be Required to Produce Receipts” reads:

  • The state should not serve the best interests of the children of wealthy parents more so than the children of parents of modest means (e.g. every child merits the same amount of child support).

Okay if you know me, then you know I cringe when I see best interest referred to in this way, but I’ll leave it alone for now since we are talking about child support. Well just one quick comment, anytime best interest is combined with the notion that the State is serving the interest of the child at all, I have to just scream for a minute. You’ll understand if you are in our classes.[iv] Once you start to see bias you realize that you had some yourself that you were blind to as well.[v] I’m sure that I made those errors when I first started learning all of this, and I’m sure I’ll make them again. It is so deeply engrained in us to think the way we were brought up to believe. I feel like such a rebel right now, but so free at the same time.

Now that I got that out of my system. Apologies to those of you that cannot stand when people diverge from the topic. I try to keep my writing focused. Back to the statement that the State should not be ordering more support for a child from a wealthy family than one that is not so well off. And as I mentioned above this could be argued with our second-class citizen argument at this link: Rights Made Simple.

The State since around 1973 has not been allowed to make a person or a child a second-class citizen. When the State orders that one child requires more in child support than another, this is essentially what they are doing. And until the States can argue more than just “best interest of the child” authorizes them to do this, we will stand by our statement that forcing parents to support their children based on their level of income is unconstitutional. And you can stand by that too by attaching the Rights Made Simple argument to your family court arguments. (And, by the way, the Social Security Title IV-D was passed in 1975. Yes, I know that President Ford was then president at that time. The scheme had to be created and discussed and everything else that a Bill has to go through before it becomes law during Nixon’s time.)*

In addition, when a State makes an order for a parent to maintain their earning level to pay that support the State also infringes upon several other constitutional rights of that parent and child. You can read our book “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest” for more on those infringements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, and 14th amendment.

In short, these types of orders do not allow a parent to truly break away from the decisions that they made in the marriage. They prevent that parent from ever again having the right to make their own decisions. And also prevents and prohibits a parent from seeking additional education, career changes, as well as downgrading their financial status to live as a pauper if they choose. People like Warren Buffet, billionaire, and Sam Walton, also a billionaire chose to raise their children in frugality. If either of them had gone through a divorce then they would have been required to support their children at a billionaire’s expected lifestyle that may not align with their beliefs and values. I hope you are beginning to see how one court practice can infringe on many rights, giving you a substantial complaint that rises to the level of overturning these courts on appeal.

  • The state should get out of the business of raising Federal matching funds at the expense of the mental health of our children.

This one is loaded and I really like that it ties the mental health of the children to their deprivation of a parent that the State justifies when they create two unequal parents with unequal time with the child just to award child support. Additionally, you could use our arguments that this incentivizes the State to use more bias and prejudice in coming to their conclusion, drives them to choose one parent over the other, and drives their conflict between the State’s duty to protect each parent-child relationship and their duty to protect a child.

When they use best interest as their legal reasoning for choosing one parent over the other they are using this as a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they did not have the authority to do so – the Social Security Act Title IV D does not grant them authority to sweep your rights under the rug. Best Interest of the child is not a magical incantation allowing the State to take over all of yours and your child’s rights.

  • The courts should stop dangling children in front of desperate parents in order to incentivize them to pay legal fees.

We agree. Your Constitutional rights and your child’s constitutional rights takes your child out of the middle and protects you from this abuse of power. Plus that eliminates some of the incentives for attorneys to encourage parents to rip the children from the other parent.

  • The state should stop making value judgments between two competent parents in order to label one “custodial” and the other “non-custodial”. This is an outdated social model that wreaks of inequality. The state should not perpetuate this model in order to keep its flow of Federal matching funds.

We agree again. And once again this is not allowed for the State to do this unless you authorize them to do this or they prove you unfit. [Watch this video on how a father who was incarcerated beat the State and maintained the right to decide what was best for his child here: Challenging the family courts.]

The Social Security Title IV-D scheme I believe was originally sold to the American people as a way to keep children off of welfare. However, this has failed since most people who are impoverished don’t and cannot pay child support in the first place. Once a State or federal scheme has proven to fail to accomplish its stated purpose, the scheme must be abandoned. The States have failed to change this practice. (Of note,  is that when Social Security is determining who to pay benefits to for a child, they do use primary parent as a determining factor. Keep this in mind for future posts where we discuss how deeply ingrained and perpetuated the biases are surrounding custodial and noncustodial labeling.) I’m also pretty sure that those that bought into this program and scheme had no idea that they might become victim to this as well. Karma maybe, but more likely they were duped and had no idea that they would be facing something bigger. (Okay just one more comment here, you’d think they would have been more suspicious knowing that Richard Nixon was the President in office when this scheme was being created! Who would have thought this at the time though when he was such a big supporter of the equal rights amendment for women, and desegregation, etc., right? That’s the way twisted policies get through, you get focused on what you think is good.)

And further, the practice has proven to be extremely harmful to children, just look at the study that came out of Massachusetts General Hospital.[vi] Children that are suffering one parent being a part-time parent in their life are suffering the same disorders and symptoms of children that have had a parent terminated. To the young person there is no difference between deprivation and termination. But again that’s another topic for a different post.

Perhaps, the State’s have not changed their practices because they are making too much money and for the state, money is more important than the actual welfare of the children. Which is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court has said time and time again that fit parents determine the best interest of their child. They are the ones that would sacrifice their life and everything in it, as parents demonstrate every day when they give more than they have and end up homeless and some of them so devastated unable to go on another day knowing that they were unable to continue to protect their child. But instead of standing in front of bullets from a gun their child has been attacked by the family court policies and practices. The parents standing in front of these bullets are the ones standing by their constitutional fundamental parental rights and their child’s.

“”The Law of the Few”, or, as Malcolm Gladwell states, “The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts”.” You must be one or you wouldn’t have read this post. Become part of the pareto effect and join Patrick Glynn, Divorce Corp., us and many other “rare” people with “social gifts” that are part of the 80/20 making a difference. It just takes a few to make a big difference in November. [RESERVE YOUR SEAT]

November 14, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. we will be at the State Capitol steps telling the world that we are finished with this tyrannical reign destroying our children and families.

Click here today and take your family life back from the family courts at the Lost Generation Rally:

Immediately following, we will be at the Reform Conference on November 15-16, 2014.

Click here to register for the Reform Conference and to get hotel discounts. Hurry before they are gone:

When you get your flight, remember to come in the day before and join us at the rally.

In the meantime, read our book and learn your parental rights so they cannot take advantage of you and your child so easily anymore. We look forward to seeing you in November! [CLICK HERE to get the Parental Rights book "NOT in The Child's Best Interest.]


[i] Welfare. The poverty numbers have grown since the passage of the new welfare policies not declined. accessed 9 September 2014.

[ii] The Divorce Corp. movie exposes these practices. Click here if you have not seen it or you want a copy of your own to show to your lawmaker, your Mayor, Governor, D.A., neighbors, and teachers so they know what is really happening:

[iii] Divorce Corp website  Accessed on 1 September 2014.

[iv] Ibid. The excerpted bullet points are from the Divorce Corp. website:  Go there if you would like to see their poll results and read more from their post.] [v] The equal protection article can be found here:

[vi] Get more information about classes on parental rights here:

[vii] Get the book on parental rights and learn how to recognize your own biases and get rid of the things that are preventing you from getting the results you want here:

[viii] Massachusetts General Hospital statistics on children who have a custodial and noncustodial parent: Statistical info from Massachusetts General Hospital Research w amy bake…

* Schoolhouse Rock. “I’m still just a Bill.” Here is the link to a fun way to learn some of what a Bill goes through:


Will the Constitution help Kelly Rutherford bring her children back from France to the U.S.?

I think not!

Kelly Rutherford was on CBS last night because she claims she lost a custody battle in the family law trial courts to the father who now lives in France.[i] Might I remind you that she has 50/50 custody and as Robert Franklin, esq. (writer for so aptly put it, “…50% custody – would cause any father to fall on his knees and thank divine providence for his good fortune. Only in a culture that presumes sole maternal custody could 50% parenting time be called “losing” custody.”[1] Kelly and Daniel’s children were born here and the father was living here until his Visa was revoked. There is suspicion that Kelly had her hand in this revocation.

I had a friend whose Visa had been revoked because his wife who brought him here decided to divorce him. If he didn’t return to his country willingly and got caught with an expired Visa then he might never be allowed to return to this country.

If Kelly threatened to report the father, Daniel Giersch, to immigration for not agreeing to give her custody, and there was any problem with his Visa at the time, he might have been facing something similar.

Kelly says that she is going to fight this “unconstitutional” decision. Our question is was it unconstitutional to authorize the father to move the children in this case? We are not attorneys but we do have an opinion as constitutional scholars and parental rights educators in this area. In general, we say that a parent wanting to move can move but cannot take the children if it is going to interfere with the other parent’s ability to exercise their time equally.

But what if you have a parent that is bullying and trying to extort the other parent in order to gain a custody advantage over them and take their children from them? Then we say that it is the judge’s job to protect the other parent to be able to continue to exercise their time with their children too. Does that mean that people like Kelly shouldn’t have equal time, probably not. Does that mean that she shouldn’t have equal time if she cannot exercise her time, probably not. (And, in fact, the judge did not take equal time away from Kelly or the father.) This article really is not about Kelly and the father specifically thought. This is about constitutional parental rights and how protecting them also protects children from parental alienation and other emotional health issues, and it is about not being gender biased or missing when we have blinders on ourselves.

If the mother has interfered and prevented the father from being able to exercise his time with his children, then the mother can be punished by having their time reduced and even supervised and restricted in order to protect the other parent and the children from violating their constitutional rights to be together. The courts must be able to sanction parents when they interfere with other people’s rights. This is permissible under the constitution if done properly by the court.

Kelly Rutherford’s fight for custody of her children also opens eyes to the public bias and prejudice.

Have you ever asked yourself or heard someone ask, “Why are we still having to fight the abuses in the family courts?” Have you ever wondered why you are still having to fight bigotry and abuse of power in family law?

It struck me as I was reading the comments on the CBS post that the public is empowering the courts to continue their abuse of power over parents and children. And I wondered if the persons making the comments like, Kelly “must be unfit” or must have “done something wrong”, and, that it was “wrong” for a judge “to take the children from a mother”, had any idea of the role that they play in encouraging abuse of power in the courts. Do these people realize how biased and prejudiced their statements really are? Keeping equal custody but the court approving a move of the children is not necessarily unconstitutional as long as they can show that they had the authority to make that decision. And from what we can tell from what is buzzing throughout the media, Kelly had her hand in getting the father’s Visa removed and was refusing to include the father in the children’s lives. So the judge was forced to make a decision that would be more likely to protect all of the individual rights, parents and children.

Individuals accusing Kelly of being unfit or doing something wrong because she lost in the decision of whether her children would live here demonstrates a huge need to educate the public not only in constitutional parental rights but also in parental alienation. Remember when we set out to educate third-world countries about AIDS so that we could reduce the spread of AIDS overall? Education works and ignorance perpetuates harm to everyone in society. It is clear that there are many people still who could use a good education in parental rights and children’s rights.

The problem in family courts is that they have benefited from so many people acting on their own natural bias and prejudices and acting on what they have been taught through the court examples over the generations of custody battles. And even when it happens to them they don’t realize that maybe their own bias prevented them from making the choices that could have protected them, their friend, their child, or someone else’s child.

Do you suffer from this bias or prejudice? Is your thinking about divorce biased from false outdated beliefs? Ask yourself these questions to see if you are prejudiced in your thinking:

  1. In divorce, does the better parent get the children?
  2. Should only one parent get the children?
  3. Do parental rights depend on marriage such that a divorce is grounds to take parental rights away from an otherwise good parent?
  4. Do parents who divorce have to live forever under the decisions they made when married?
  5. Do parents who get divorced deserve to have the government take over their children simply because the divorced?

What if one parent didn’t want to get divorced but was forced into it.

I am writing this post because the comments on the post demonstrate why the parents fighting for equal shared parenting and protection of their constitutional fundamental parental rights are having trouble. Public opinion is still driven by prejudice and bias!

Fit and loving parents have their children taken from them every day by judges who abuse their power in family courts through the continued bias and prejudice and lies that get perpetuated by the family courts. Some of these lies such as the idea that the court should pick one parent over the other, or presuming that one parent is bad or has done something wrong because the court has picked one parent over the other parent, presuming that you have to be a deadbeat or a drug addict to lose your children in family courts, or making gender-based assumptions like assuming that the mother is a superior parent to the father because she carried the child in her womb and nursed the baby or stayed at home caring for the child. Picking on one of the parents or judging one over the other is not the way to solve this problem. If either parent is interfering with the other’s ability to be with the children then that is grounds for the courts taking action to protect the rights of both parents and the children.

Remember, when state law says that the court must pick one and only one parent, it doesn’t matter how good the losing parent is. Two wonderful parents can enter into a divorce and one of them will lose custody according to many sates’ laws. This is how family court operates and it is completely unconstitutional. Don’t believe me, check out the movie, Divorce Corp.

It’s not just a parent who loses a child but also a child who loses a parent. And when a child loses a parent they are at high risk of suffering from a multitude of emotional health issues. This includes children who have one parent as a visitor according to a former judge in Connecticut and a study done by Massachusetts General Hospital. Regardless of whether you have cut a mother or a father out of a child’s life, this can be devastating to that child’s development and permanent.

The following are the statistical results from Massachusett’s General Hospital.

“MGH’s project on the Impact of High Conflict Divorce on Children:[ii]

  • 65% had anxiety severe enough to require therapy
  • 56% Developed Attachment disorder;
  • 48% had abnormal fears and phobias;
  • 44% of both boys and girls became physically aggressive;
  • 31% had sleep disorders
  • 29% withdrew from activities including ones that they loved to do
  • 24% developed opposition defiant behavior, including temper tantrums and uncontrolled outbursts
  • 21% prematurely became involved in sexual activity
  • 13% began bed wetting
  • 10% developed dissociative personality disorders (once known as multiple personality disorders)

Violence is also increased when a child loses a parent.

The statistics are over whelming:[iii]

1)      85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

2)      70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)

3)      80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)

4)      63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census

5)      71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)

6)      90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes

*We are not gender biased here at Fix Family Courts. This list is from other sources providing more reasons why the courts and the public should not lean towards one parent or the other.

Can we really afford as a society to create so many single parent households based on nothing more than historical bigotry continued through ignorance?

In a nutshell, regardless of how we individually feel about any individual parent, each of them has the right to be who they choose to be, the right to not lose their children because we do not agree with their choices, and the right to continue to parent without interference from a judge (or the public or third parties) until one of those parents violates the law or is doing something that prevents the other parent from exercising their individual and equal rights and time with their child.

If you are being victimized by the family courts or know someone that is and you want to help you can read more about what we write here, in our book, and on Facebook, and watch our videos on our YouTube page. (See the links below.)

You can become the solution and help fit parents and children not lose each other in family court battles. Feel free to contact us at Fix Family Courts if you are dealing with the bias and prejudice practices of the family courts and aren’t getting anywhere. We have powerful arguments waiting for you to use to empower yourself and help you help that friend that you didn’t know how to help before.





[1] “Attorney on Rutherford’s Case: Judges Don’t Like Parental Alienation of Kids”

[i] “Actress Kelly Rutherford In Custody Fight As Kids Live In France” accessed 2014 September 2

[ii] Massachusetts General Hospital study on the effect of children in high conflict divorce. March 2009

[iii] Defend the Natural Family Blog Accessed 2014 September 4

Mapping Your Way out of the Family Court Tyranny…

Mapping Your Way out of the Family Court Tyranny…

THUMB iron jawed fire escapeSherry and Ron B Palmer map the way for parents to find their way out of the tyranny, bigotry, and lies of the family courts. “We are helping parents all over the United States stop the abuse of power. Let’s not lose another parent-child relationship to these family courts.”1 That means that this battle must be fought on several fronts and the most important one is on the front line in the courtroom every day by every parent. Next is making sure that you are demonstrating publicly that you are unhappy with the current state of the way the courts have taken the liberty to sweep your rights under the rug and run your life and your child’s life in divorce. If you continue to allow them to put you on the hamster wheel, you’ll never get out. So parents are having to find tremendous strength and make decisions that put them at risk of losing their time with their child as well as their financial means in order to fight this war. And third is presenting a solution to the court that is in compliance with the constitution.

For some demonstrating publicly comes in the form of writing letters and columns and blogs. For others it is in signing petitions. All of these are important, but what remains to be the most visually stimulating and powerful demonstration, second only to the individual front line courtroom objections and standing up to abuse of power, are the rallies where everyone convenes in one place at the same time. This, the government knows, takes a commitment that surpasses most. To boycott, picket, strike, and rally are the last resort methods that generations tend to use as peaceful means to persuade the government to behave or lose their power.

Alice Paul’s best friend and assistant put it best when she told the women factory workers why she thought it was important to march in the parade for women’s right to vote:

“I think a thousand women marching means more than 10,000 signatures on a piece of paper. Suffrage is not a dead issue. It’s us, it’s YOU, it’s living breathing women. We’re not just a petition that can be crumbled up and tossed away. And this is what marching does” she said. 2

If you and your child have been separated or you know someone who has been separated from a loved one by the very courts that are supposed to protect those bonds…

Join us on November 14, 2014 at 1 p.m. est at the Washington D.C. State Capitol (see map to grassy area 1), (CLICK HERE TO GO TO EVENT PAGE AND JOIN), the day before the Divorce Corp Reform Conference, to show the world how many people have been hurt by the improper use of the “best interest of the child” doctrine and the improper use of State power to issue alimony and child support. Show those that have been using their power to keep you down that you won’t be fearful anymore, that you won’t be intimidated, or hide, or keep silent any longer. Show that you are important, that your voice matters, that you are here, that being with your children matter.

How much more will you need to be hurt before this becomes a priority for you? Thousands of people lose their lives every day because of abuse of power in the family courts. Don’t let another person burn on the steps of a courthouse, another parent and child die in a supervised visit, another child take their own life, another parent be cut off from their child because they didn’t take them to McDonald’s, another parent go so broke that they can no longer afford to fight to see their child. Don’t let another court spend a child’s future on family studies, counseling, psych evals, etc. Don’t waste another dime on attorneys that refuse to protect your rights and your child’s rights.

How many more children need to be hurt through court-induced parental alienation™? How many more parents will go broke trying to prove parental alienation and trying to save their relationship with their children? How many people need to go bankrupt? How many more people will be forced to fight like this?

Will you commit to doing some simple things before you or your child become another statistic?

You can make a difference right now and you can start contributing to making this issue one where there is nothing for the court’s to force the parents to fight over. Women don’t have to fight to vote anymore. Blacks don’t have to fight to eat at the lunch counters anymore. Parents are still fighting because each and every one of you are not standing up to the abuse of power every day.

Here is how you fight this:

1. Learn your rights. (Your rights organized in one place here:

2. Make a commitment to fight back.

A. Use your rights in court.

B. Rally to show those in power that you are committed to protecting those rights.

C. Go to conferences to learn more, make connections, and strengthen your efforts individually and together. State Capitol demonstration map


1. Do not agree to go with the status quo any longer. Object to everything the court tries to impose on you and your child regardless of whether they still order it. – Follow through with appeal regardless of whether you win. [Learn how to argue on appeal with Sherry and Ron B Palmer and get explanations on understanding caselaw and other parts of the process in videos like this one:]

2. Do not agree to hire an attorney if they cannot demonstrate that they know what your constitutional parental rights and your child’s rights are and know and agree to challenge any statutes that impose on these rights. Get a free Attorney-Parent agreement with your rights and your child’s rights here:

3. Do not let the courts intimidate you into giving in. That’s your fear taking over and when you let that take over, you are no longer fighting. Learn to fight this fear with Sherry and Ron B Palmer free videos here:

4. Use what you know is proven to empower and give leverage to you and your child – your constitutional rights taught by Sherry and Ron B Palmer here in their parental rights book here IMPORTANT NOTE: If you veer off into tangent battles, like battles over sovereignty and grand jury, you are losing focus. Your battle should be to restore your ability to decide for yourself and your child. Adding additional battles onto this to try and prove something else will only prolong your battle as well as increase your expenses.

We will be welcoming Patrick Glynn who is walking from Boston to the Capitol for the millions of lives that are affected every day and the thousands of lives and relationships that are lost. You can follow his walk and participate with him here:

liberty tyranny government fear the people

When State power in any form goes above and beyond and exceeds their authority, and continues to get away with it, we begin to lose the very essence of what it means to be an American. The family courts and the judiciary are exceeding their authority when they award child support, alimony, and a child to one parent over the other without proving their authority under the supreme law of the land.

There are many people who say they cannot come to this rally and cannot make it to the Reform Conference…they say that it is too far and too expensive. Ask yourself how far is too far and how expensive is too expensive? This won’t change until it becomes important to each and every one of you.

It was far and expensive for blacks to boycott the buses and have no way to get to work. It was expensive for women that worked in factories to miss work to participate in the parade for women’s rights. “If we take Sunday off to la ti da for you, we get fired on Monday. You have children misses? They don’t eat ballots.”[i]

If you cannot make this a priority then Washington, your local politicians, and the courts will not make it one either. “Go ahead shut your head off, the ruling class are those who have a voice and that voice is a vote. No one hears you”

Some people face higher prices than others. Some have to travel farther. Some have less money than others. Some will have to walk, take a bus, ask someone to help them get there.

Some will be threatened with imprisonment because they are under such a burden to work to meet a duty of alimony and child support that they are not allowed to take time off work. They will be ridiculed and told that they aren’t putting their child first if they take that time off to protest the treatment they’ve received as a fit parent.

Some people face the price of losing a job because work will not give them the time off.

So did the people that boycotted the buses, so did the women that marched in the parade, so did the men and women that sat at the lunch counters, so did those that followed Cesar Chavez. Are you like this woman in the video below that says “ballots don’t feed children.”

As soon as that woman realized that it wasn’t going to matter if she isn’t alive to work to feed her children if she burns to death in a factory fire because there was no fire escape, she made the commitment. The price of losing her job was less than the price of continuing the status quo.

How long can you keep going on like you are right now? Don’t become the next statistic. Don’t let this hurt your family and friends anymore. How long before they cannot continue to pick up that extra bill you couldn’t cover because you were ordered to pay too much child support, too much alimony, and you are having to fight to see your children? None of your efforts at supporting your child is going to matter if you can no longer afford to keep that job.

“It can happen to ANYONE so it should matter to EVERYONE!” ~Wendy Archer with Parental Alienation Awareness Group USA North Texas Chapter

Gather your family and friends, tell your church to come too. Make this a family trip…a mission.

“It is my mission to change the family courts and bring the power back to the fit parents to protect their children in divorce. I know this now. I woke up one morning knowing this and I’ve never looked back. There’s nothing more important in my life than my children. But here I was being attacked and separated from them by people that were supposed to guard and protect us. My children were under attack and I was being told that I had to step aside. I knew that meant that I had to help others protect themselves and their children from this tyranny that I didn’t know existed until the day, a police officer, an attorney, a bailiff, a judge, and the laws stepped over the line and stepped between me and my children.” ~Sherry Palmer with Fix Family Courts

Join Sherry and Ron B Palmer in a discussion about parent’s rights and children’s rights by registering for the Divorce Corp. Reform Conference here:

“Amber’s piece of advice for the person standing on the edge: ‘Follow your instincts and do not give up on your dreams. Do not allow any­one to rob you of your destiny.’  You also need to be passionate about what you’re doing.”[ii] ~Amber Rodgers with D.I.V.A.S. at

Does that mean that you won’t suffer in the short-term, no. Does that mean that everything will be fixed immediately as soon as you file, no. This means that you are going to have to fight like you’ve never fought before. This means that you are going to have to train for this and be prepared for people to do things to you that you never thought was allowed under the laws of the United States of America. This means that parents fight their own Ferguson every day inside the courtrooms and out.” And those that use excuses just further empower them. Those that complain that the courts are too insulated or that others are not succeeding using their constitutional rights or those using them are being punished, sound way too familiar to constitutional scholars and researchers like Sherry and Ron B Palmer. These are the same excuses that people gave before Cesar Chavez proved that they could prevail that they just had to find the right tools to do so. They told Cesar, the growers are too powerful, they have the police on their side. Well family courts are powerful and they have many experts and attorneys, and lawmakers on their side. Does that mean that you shouldn’t stand up to them if they are violating your constitutional rights?

*Sherry Palmer and Ron B Palmer advocate for peaceful protest. They do not tell you what to do. You make your own decisions. If you choose to attend any event that they post and it puts your job at risk or puts you at risk of being jailed, you fully take this risk of your own free will. They provide information and education that is of great public importance and has tremendous public value.


Strategic Parental Rights Coach, Instructor, Constitutional Scholar, and Author

Divorce Solutions and Child Custody Solutions

Co-author “Not in the Child’s Best Interest” (Book on parental rights and children’s rights)

Co-author “Protecting Parent-Child Bonds: 28th Amendment” (Book includes guide for legislators)


Twitter: (@fixfamilycourts)



Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney or a lawyer. I do NOT practice law in any federal or State court system. Any information provided by me to you, regardless of how specific, is NOT intended to be legal advice under any state or federal law. I provide research, written strategies, and non-professional personal opinions on the Constitution and State laws as free exchange of politically important information that also serves an important public need and interest allowed under the First Amendment. You are highly encouraged to engage an attorney in your State to help you with the specifics of your legal issues and the law in your State. If you are a pro se litigant then you bear all and full responsibility for understanding the law in your state and acting under the law in your state. Nothing you receive from me is intended to be a “legal” document for purposes of any type of filing in any court. You are free to use my words for your personal non-commercial benefit, or as an aide in petitioning your government for redress of perceived wrongs, if properly cited where appropriate. YOU TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ACTIONS YOU PURSUE AND THE RESULTS THAT YOU GET. I BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR RESULTS. MY OPINIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN MY PERSONAL NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OR BELIEFS. I MAKE NO CLAIMS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IN THE LAW UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF COMPETENCY IN THE LAW.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the specific individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, copyrighted, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure.  You are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify the sender, by reply electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message and any attachments without making any copies if you are not the intended recipient.  Thank you.

1 Sherry Palmer with

2 “Iron Jawed Angels”

[i] “Iron Jawed Angels”

[ii] See more at:

You Are Not Ready to Win if You are Not Ready to Lose…

You Are Not Ready to Win if You are Not Ready to Lose…

thumb Ready to Win SherryIf you cannot walk into that court room and say you will not give in then you are not ready and you will be subject to the worst kind of bullying, abuse, bigotry, and intimidation. How did Alice Paul, the Freedom Riders, Martin Luther King, Jr.,, Cesar Chavez his wife, and others prepare for a battle that they knew they weren’t going to win at the local level easily? They knew they would be arrested, they knew they would be threatened, and they knew that they might even be killed. This is what parents face today. So if you are faint at heart or cannot seem to quite get past that “what if…” stage then this is not the fight for you.

If you are saying “but, what if…I just do that psych eval. What if I just go through the counseling and then…. What if my attorney is right and I should just take what they are offering. What if I just go ahead and agree now, can’t I change it later?” If any of these are you, then you will get what they give you. If you are not okay with being told you don’t have rights and have to do what the judge decides, and you want to learn how to get past that “what if I just tried it their way first” or “what if I just give in now and then I can try to change it at the final stage” then keep reading.

I know you didn’t choose this fight and some of you that thought you couldn’t do this are doing it, and those are the ones that I’m addressing here. If you just feel not equipped with the right tools and information, then you are in the right place. None of us woke up and said I want to fight the government and neither did Alice Paul, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, Jr. But once they started they decided they weren’t going to stop until they won. So they started helping others learn how to fight so that they could put enough pressure on those abusing their power so that they could force them to change.

And since you are here now that means that you are not willing to put up with the lies, threats, and injustice anymore. You are flat out tired of being bullied and facing tyranny and bigotry every time you try to see your children. You are tired of being broke because the government decided to dip their hand in your pocketbook. And you just want to be able to see your children and raise them in peace. So let’s continue…

Change happens in steps. Losing at the trial court level is not a loss if you preserved your ability to continue fighting, and if you take your fight to the next levels. But if you don’t like that idea, like so many family court attorneys don’t, then you will have to continue to put up with this tyranny and bigotry until someone else changes it for you…and if you’ve been in this long enough then you know that’s not likely to happen any time soon. So if you want to start changing things for yourself right now and you no longer think you can win by playing the game the way they want you to, and you are no longer willing to settle with what they give you after you beg, then this is the right place for you.

I’m not much for begging either and I’m certainly not one much for having others tell me what to do with my life, how to do it, and that I cannot have equal rights and time with my children on my terms and under my rules and conditions. I have always been proud to be an American and have freedom of choice and liberty. And I thought I had this until I went through divorce. If you feel the same way and you are willing to learn how to stand up to abuse of power and not put up with it then…

Click the video and continuing reading below so that you can learn how to change things in the family courts today, tomorrow, and forever.

Reform Conference, Rally, and Walk for Lost Kids

I’m excited to be joining all of you that have already registered in Washington D.C. in November. I’m Sherry Palmer with Fix Family Courts. I train parents how to fight abuse of power. I teach them what gives them leverage and empowers them.

I invite you to join Ron B Palmer and me at the Divorce Corp Reform Conference November 15-16, 2014 and change the way you think about family laws and become part of the change in the world that makes it a better place for you and your child! You will see the world through a different lens after this weekend. You will meet and be a part of the discussion with Ron B Palmer and me.

We will be discussing parental rights and children’s rights, is one superior to the other, what are they constitutionally, and how do family courts, attorneys, and other professionals view these rights? We will be discussing and debating this with Professor Dwyer and some of the other top experts in the field.

Isn’t it time you took control of your life back?

Your ticket to opening the gates to freedom and liberty is waiting right here for you. Register here now and reserve your seat before the conference is full! We look forward to meeting you and seeing you there!!! CLICK HERE TO REGISTER HERE WHILE TICKETS ARE STILL AVAILABLE

Oh and arrive a day early and come out to the Lost Generation rally at the State Capitol grassy area 1 (click here for the map – we will be on grassy area 1) where we will be welcoming Patrick Glynn as he arrives from his 400+ mile Walk from Boston to D.C. for the Lost Kids who have been stolen from fit parents by family court judges, attorneys, and other professionals who advise these courts. Patrick believes in 5050 custody, he has a suggested custody agreement on his website and he believes in the power within every individual too just like us. He, like myself, believes that you don’t have to wait for legislative reform to start taking control of this problem. He provides his solution in a suggested custody agreement. (click here for more about Patrick, his walk, and the ae 50/50 custody agreement ). Click here for the map where he will be walking ) And if you will be attending please subscribe for updates here so we will be expecting you and can greet you too. Thank you and see you at the rally and the conference!

And if you want to start taking your life back right now before you see us at the conference and the rally, to help you in your current fight, you can watch some of our free webinars that give you information and tools for how to fight back and stand up to abuse of power right now. Click here if you need these before the conference and the rally: CLICK HERE IF YOU NEED TO FIGHT BACK TODAY for free webinars and go to for other information about your rights. We have a book here that puts them all in one place and makes it easy for you to start learning what your family rights are. CLICK HERE FOR THE BOOKS on family rights and on a legislative reform amendment book.

You trusted your attorney and you lost!

You trusted your attorney and you lost!

confused bizmanAre family law attorneys violating their ethical requirements when they refuse to protect your constitutional rights? Can they be punished or sued for this? The American Bar Association provides a set of rules for attorney professional conduct. In its preamble it lists a lawyer’s responsibilities that says. “[2]… As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications.”

Are judges violating their oaths to the Constitution when they deprive you of your rights as a fit parent? All judges are required to take an oath of office and swear to place the Constitution above everything else [i]. This oath makes it a legal obligation of every judge to place the U.S. Constitution over any and every state statute.

The Supreme Court said over 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that violates the constitution is void, “Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” The Supreme Court in this same opinion said that the judge’s oath of office gives them, all judges, authority and a legal duty to declare any state statute void where it violates the Constitution. In fact, the court in Marbury says that it would be a crime for a judge to be barred from acting on this oath [ii].

Many judges and attorneys will tell you that only Appellate Courts can declare a statute void as being unconstitutional but they are either ignorant of this case—one of the most important cases in our country’s history—or they are intentionally misleading you to protect their own interests. Where they place their interests over your constitutional rights they are violating their ethics as an attorney and their oath as a judge.

When your rights are violated by a judge, the appellate courts will first look to see if you raised an objection to the violation in the hearing. In some cases, they may refuse to hear your appeal if you did not object properly in the hearing. Where your attorney tells you that you should not raise constitutional rights at the trial court, they are placing you at some extra risk of not being able to appeal your constitutional rights.

Why do the appellate courts do this? They do it because they say the trial court must be given the opportunity to rule on the violations before they are appealed. If the trial court did not have authority to declare a statute void as unconstitutional then why would the appellate court have these rules?

If your attorney refuses to make your constitutional objections at the trial court, not only are they violating their ethical duty to inform you of your rights but they are also potentially providing ineffective assistance of counsel. This gives you a difficult but possible avenue for appeal. It also gives you a potential avenue to sue your attorney for malpractice. However, it is incredibly difficult to find an attorney who will sue another attorney.

If your attorney tells you that you do not have parental rights, respond with this. “The United States Supreme Court said in Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57 – Supreme Court 2000, “In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” What exactly is it that takes this right away from me in divorce? What exactly is the due process that allows the court to violate my rights? Why will you not protect my right to due process? These rights have been well established at least since 2000. Why are you allowing the other side and the court to violate my well established rights?

Look to further posts to provide additional arguments of this type.




[i] Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.





[ii] Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or, to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

What do you do when there is no attorney that knows how to protect you?    

What do you do when there is no attorney that knows how to protect you?    

libert-tyranny1 statute of libertyHave you ever been told, “Well you had an attorney didn’t you? So what are you complaining about?” You are treated like that was enough, like that was sufficient. And then they look at you funny and act like they don’t understand why you are complaining. They act confused about why you didn’t like the outcome of mediation, why you didn’t like the outcome of your trial. They treat you like you actually got the representation that was necessary to get you the results that were equivalent to justice.

Few parents really know what kind of justice they should be getting. Most are so emotional and wrapped up in their preconceived ideas or the ideas an attorney has told them about divorce process and child custody that they don’t even know what their rights and their child’s rights really are. Often parents will assert their rights for a brief moment but give in to the system until they receive an intolerable result—having lost their child and having to pay their ex for that privilege.

When you later try to assert your rights you are seen as just trying to re-litigate because you are unhappy with the results. Which might be really what we believe you are doing at that point because of the way that you (or your attorney) presented your case. You most likely went in there and used all the old patterns and wrongheaded thinking that has been used for generations. [See Chapter 2 in our book “NOT in the Child’s Best Interest” for more examples of more wrongheaded thinking.]

How much better off would you be if you had asserted your constitutional rights from the beginning?


You could even be shut out from seeking justice afterwards based on something called a “harmless error analysis.” What this means is that the court believes that even if there was error that error was harmless to you and your case, therefore, they will do little or nothing about that error. You need to know how to challenge this effectively especially when you have an attorney. If your attorney doesn’t tell you that you have constitutional rights as a parent and you lose those rights, is it error and is it harmless?


Does your attorney have a duty to inform you of and to protect your constitutional rights? The rules of attorneys do not say that they have any duty to inform you about any fundamental parental rights. In fact, Department of Human Services in Indiana just recently changed their policies because they finally came to the “belief” that parents have a right to a relationship with their child!” Has it really taken them this long to figure this out when the Supreme Court has been saying this for more than 100 years?

You would think that this would have been part of the consideration before they start ripping your child out of your home. That’s the problem though, it has not been part of the process and still isn’t in most States. States have never integrated the 14th amendment into the family court process and procedures. The legislatures have never integrated this into the family code statutes either.

So when you are obtaining legal counsel, you are basically hiring someone to create a problem that gives the court a reason to invade your private family life and take over your child and take over your authority to make decisions regarding your child. They want you to believe that getting divorced or no longer being with the other parent warrants this. They also want you to believe that you created the problem and that they are just cleaning up your mess. So what happens when you find out that you have rights and that there is a way to prevent most of this battling and expensive litigation and lengthy delays? Perhaps could it be time to STOP WASTING MONEY ON ATTORNEYS THAT REFUSE TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS!


If you have tried calling attorneys and asking them to fight using your parental rights, you might have discovered that there aren’t any attorneys that will agree with you. If you tell them that you are unhappy with being told that you have to beat up the other parent regardless of whether or not you like the parent, you just want to go on and raise your child peacefully and without the control and bullying from the other parent, they tell you then you better get along with the other parent then and make an agreement with them, or you’ll have to fight the traditional way.

You start hearing attorneys telling you, this isn’t the way it is done, and that family courts don’t care about this unless it is a termination hearing. And that you are better off just getting the children on your side and getting the other parent to mess up and get the judge on your side. Or you are told that you should just take what you can get or what they are giving you because you cannot afford to fight and what you are proposing just isn’t going to work at the trial court level. And then you are told you cannot afford an appeal, and that appeals take a long time. And the list of excuses goes on and on like a story that never ends… And it really doesn’t if you keep following those patterns.

How many attorneys do you have to call before the panic sets in and you realize that there just might not be any attorneys who know how to protect your family rights? Parents tell us that they have called 50 to 100 attorneys only to be told that they have never heard of fundamental parental rights being protected at the trial court level in family courts. More than 40,000 law students graduate from law school every year.[i] How many of them have we found who know how to protect family rights in divorce – zero!

So how then can they call this harmless error if you cannot even find an attorney who even knows how to do the job properly with the least amount of harm to you and your child? What is being family law board certified then anyway if they don’t even know how to present your fundamental family rights? Here is what the Indiana court said about harmless error:

“But under the circumstances of this case, we do not think that the notion of prejudice can be viewed that narrowly or parallel a harmless error analysis. The harm here was more than merely the additional weight C.C.’s personal participation might have carried at the hearing.”[ii]

The additional weight that presenting your constitutional fundamental family rights from the beginning might have carried on your case is insurmountable. We feel that it isn’t harmless error for your attorney to fail to inform you of your rights and to fail to assert your rights at trial or in your motions and pleadings either! Trying to prove that though isn’t where we are going with this post. We raise this issue because too many parents and children are falling victim and are easy prey to the family court process because they don’t know that they have rights in the first place, they aren’t being told they have rights, they are being tricked into following patterns that can be more harmful to them than the divorce itself, and they don’t know where to go when they cannot find an attorney to represent them to protect their rights!

If you cannot find an attorney to do this for you, then what are you paying that attorney to do! Sometimes there isn’t anyone to pay to do the job for you, you just might have to do it yourself. We otherwise would tell you to find an attorney or consult with an attorney, we have done that, and the attorneys are not stepping up to the job. So what do you do when that kind of problem exists, you have to solve that problem too. We have done that.

Many people in the past have been faced with denial of their rights and they too had to do it themselves. During suffrage there were many women that fought. This however meant that there were individual women standing up for their individual right to vote. Those individuals suffered tremendously. Many of them had their child taken from them and many of them were thrown in prison and psych wards. Their freedoms were taken, they were threatened, bullied, and forced into going through things they didn’t consent to. It’s those individuals however that refused to give in and refused to give up that eventually changed this for everyone.

And then the same thing happened with ERA. Even though no constitutional ERA amendment was ever passed judicial rulings were made so that women’s equal rights could no longer be denied. Does that mean that women have not had to continue to fight for some of those rights still? Some they have had to fight for periodically. The right to equal pay is just one. Women had to know and believe that they deserved to have and fight for this however. Women had to get educated and trained so that they could accomplish the right to vote and the right to equal treatment in jobs, the military, and other places.

Parental rights are no different. You have to know that you have these and that you deserve protection of these. The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that you have these. But they have refused to help you enforce them. So now just like every other person that has had to fight for their rights you will have to fight. You will be faced with fear from threats. You will be intimidated like those that were intimidated during the inquisition, and suffrage, slavery, the migrant farmworkers during Cesar Chavez, and the people in Missouri today.

If you cannot find someone else to do it for you, then that means you will have to do it yourself.

I wish that I could tell you that there is an attorney that you can count on. I wish that I could tell you that you won’t have to do anything hard or confusing or stressful. I wish that I could tell you that this isn’t going to be scary. I wish that I could tell you that you can make it all stop immediately and that you and your child won’t suffer.

I cannot tell you that, but I can tell you that we have better solutions and tools and ways for you to fight back against the tyranny. I can tell you that you will be more empowered and have more hope of overturning those that impose their abuse of power on you than anything I had when I went through it. I can tell you that without this information and these tools you will suffer more and longer.

I can tell you that you will be more able to face the fear and will be less likely to give in to that fear with these tools. All people that have fought for their rights before us in all the movements I mentioned above have faced this fear. And many have faced it in the courts. The fight for interracial marriages as in Loving was fought in the courts. The fight for desegregation of the schools was fought in the courts. The fight for justice for many lynchings were fought in the courts. The fight for gay rights is fought in the courts. Many people have had to face the fear that parents are facing today with nobody there to fight by their side, and sometimes it took time before others joined in the fight as well. They too had to face the fact that those that they thought were there to protect them are now attacking them.

If you want to maintain your rights with your child in the face of an inhuman system designed to destroy families that refuses to acknowledge, respect, and protect the rights that empower you and provide you with leverage to stand up to and against abuses of power by the State and by the other parent, then you can…

START YOUR TRAINING HERE and stop being afraid of the family court tyranny:

STEP 1: Read the book “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest” and learn your basic fundamental parental rights.

CLICK HERE to BUY THE BOOK FROM AMAZON Once you understand your rights you won’t be easy prey to wasted money and wasted time. Close the window of opportunity for controlling and narcissistic parents that want to cut you out or alienate you from your child. This is where you start. This book is used in the classes.

STEP 2: Get into the classes and learn your rights, how your rights protect you and your child, and how your rights work in the face of family court abuse of power:

CLICK HERE to ENROLL in the classes. The classes are all on video on the internet. You can do them on your own time. You can do them at your own pace. The time that it takes to take these classes is shorter than most people spend in battle in the family courts. Once you understand your rights you could save hundreds of thousands of dollars and delays and more loss of time with your children and loss of everything that you have earned and worked for.*

*STEP 3: Practice with us in a simulator so you know how to live your rights and know how to respond when faced with attack on your rights whether it be in a courtroom or outside a courtroom. [Only students are allowed to use the simulator at this time, so STEP 2 is required in order to practice in the simulator. It does you no good to practice and not know what your fundamental parental rights are.]

CLICK HERE to ENROLL in the classes

Anyone that tells you that appeals is a longer process than fighting the family courts the old way, check with others that have been through the family court battles the traditional way. Mine was 7 years, a parent in the movie Divorce Corp was 10 years. And those that I’ve read about or spoken to where it was initially shorter have ended up back in court over and over again and in a continuous battle where the parent they gave in to or the court forced them to be subject to chip away more and more at the little rights they were left with. In our experience, those that have allowed others to chip away at them and gave in to the bullying or gave in to their excuses why they needed to agree to give up some of their rights (some saying that it was putting the child first by giving the other parent your time with the child so the child could stay in the same routines and not have to make any changes) have found themselves back in battles over and over again, and many have found themselves alienated and in a situation where now they are dealing with parental alienation syndrome, depression, and PTSD from being made totally powerless and hopeless. They have no leverage and are just milked for everything they own and make. They have no way to live any longer and no hope to ever change it. We provide these courses and webinars and tools because it has become of such public importance and a public need, and with the hopes that these help you get free of the family courts so you can thrive again and have the freedom to make your own decisions on how you want to live again and be able to do this with your child.

Sherry Palmer and Ron B Palmer

Strategic Parental Rights Coach, Instructor, Constitutional Scholar, and Author

Divorce Solutions and Child Custody Solutions

Co-author “Not in the Child’s Best Interest” (Book on parental rights and children’s rights)

Co-author “Protecting Parent-Child Bonds: 28th Amendment” (Book includes guide for legislators) CLICK HERE TO BUY THE BOOK


Twitter: (@fixfamilycourts)


Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney or a lawyer. I do NOT practice law in any federal or State court system. Any information provided by me to you, regardless of how specific, is NOT intended to be legal advice under any state or federal law. I provide research, written strategies, and non-professional personal opinions on the Constitution and State laws as free exchange of politically important information that also serves an important public need and interest allowed under the First Amendment. You are highly encouraged to engage an attorney in your State to help you with the specifics of your legal issues and the law in your State. If you are a pro se litigant then you bear all and full responsibility for understanding the law in your state and acting under the law in your state. Nothing you receive from me is intended to be a “legal” document for purposes of any type of filing in any court. You are free to use my words for your personal non-commercial benefit, or as an aide in petitioning your government for redress of perceived wrongs, if properly cited where appropriate. YOU TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ACTIONS YOU PURSUE AND THE RESULTS THAT YOU GET. I BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR RESULTS. MY OPINIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN MY PERSONAL NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OR BELIEFS. I MAKE NO CLAIMS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IN THE LAW UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF COMPETENCY IN THE LAW.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  This message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the specific individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, copyrighted, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure.  You are hereby notified that any copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction.  Please notify the sender, by reply electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message and any attachments without making any copies if you are not the intended recipient.  Thank you.

[i] The Real Problem with Law Schools: They Train Too Many Lawyers.” Posner, Eric. April 2, 2013. accessed August 24, 2014.

[ii] []



Over the last few days since Robin Williams’ death I have watched a barrage of blogs, social media outlets, and videos expound and share their theories on Robin William’s reasons for suicide. They review his life, evaluate the possible causative factors, and then seem to sum it up in a way that is most comfortable or familiar for them or for the general public or perhaps in a way that doesn’t require a deeper review of difficult topics that challenge long held biases about the duties of husbands. It’s funny how life works that way. Once we see something as a duty, if we question it, we become the bad guy? We could be seen as questioning the very fabric of the American way of life. How very appropriate that the one comedian that brought us comedy about so many issues that were difficult to discuss would be the reason today that we are discussing the damaging beliefs we have developed about alimony. Where might these beliefs that it is the duty of one of the spouses to forever support the other after the marriage ends have come from? Perhaps the beginnings of this are rooted in the protestant belief of work ethic: “The term was first coined by Max Weber in his The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, written in 1904–05. The Protestant work ethic is often credited with helping to define the societies of Northern Europe and other countries where Protestantism was common (for example, the Scandinavian countries, the NetherlandsGermanySwitzerland, the United KingdomCanada, and the United States of America).”[i] This value held that man works to support his family. This has had a heavy and longlasting impact on society. Both in good and bad ways. These beliefs created more responsible citizens and a less dependent society on welfare and other means of support and led to the respect for the “self-made man”. These can be taken too far though and alimony is an example.

There comes a time when the basis for certain beliefs and values that society adopted need to be reviewed. And there comes a time when we need to run them through the balancing test that our Constitution demands. We have a system now where both men and women are responsible for themselves and their children equally. Yet the family courts continue to perpetuate the belief in many instances one person remains responsible to endow the other with support forever.

Many times it is the woman that is awarded alimony. The disadvantages that women had have become fewer and fewer over the generations. I won’t go into much depth on that here since I wish to keep this post short. You can read more on the history of Women’s rights and suffrage and the ERA if you wish to learn more about those issues. However, men are now being awarded alimony as well now, just not nearly as often. This is most likely due to the fact that we have moved to a much less gender biased society.

It bothers me every time I hear someone spout off and discount the effect that alimony had on Robin’s death because of other issues that he had. It is nauseating to read the unfounded biases that continue in our society and cause people to blame someone who the State turned into an involuntary servant for exercising a right to divorce.

It is shameful how people support the outdated notion of alimony being necessary to support someone who is able to support themselves and maintain the lifestyle of the marriage. There is so much injustice, suffering, and even death caused by this legal notion created solely to keep someone legally unequal.

A Voice For Men brought up alimony in a recent article called “Did the Family Courts Kill Robin Williams or was it just us?”[ii] and most of the responses seemed to be riled mostly with comments about the morality of suicide and drug and alcohol use. The comments seemed to have lost sight of the alimony issue. Where is the moral outcry against making someone a slave to another person based on nothing more than divorce? Oh but if we view alimony this way, we are called heartless and inconsiderate and receive a litany of reasons why the other person deserved to be punished for some outlandish behavior they had or indiscretion they committed.

It is almost sinful it seems to some to consider or even hint that perhaps the alimony awards could have played a major role in killing one of the most unique and talented comics of our time.

Over and over again, I read and hear people dance around the alimony idea having played a part. And witness repeated denials that alimony could have possibly played a role in taking down someone with so much money. YES, even someone who earned so much could have been burdened. And regardless of his earnings or ability to earn he deserved to be free from these imposed duties and obligations that forced him to earn based on archaic standards and without regard to constitutional balancing tests. Perhaps he was overburdened. But those that raise these possibilities can expect to get attacked by others who continue to be deeply embroiled in the continued bias and prejudice that a former marital partner is entitled to the future earnings of the other. They discount the application of Constitutional rights, or the fact that this might include the freedom and liberty to make new decisions after marriage or a relationship ceases to exist.

One of the reasons for this bias in Robin’s case could also be that Robin had more money than most of us could imagine and we cannot imagine financial issues ever being a burden on him. An example of those that completely refuse to admit that alimony had anything to do with his demise and ultimate death or that this could have imposed a great burden, are demonstrated in posts like the following one. (and no disrespect intended for the writer of this post as he genuinely was being very civil and expressing his thoughts – this is merely used as an example of how easily the impact of alimony can be missed or swept under the rug). The post read as follows:


My response to this post was: buddhafyre And don’t you think that another thing like Parkinson’s that would affect his ability to work might have pushed him over the edge, if you are required to stay on the hamster wheel and work to continue to support others in the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to with no regard to your own lifestyle? And being worth something doesn’t mean that is what is liquid and pays the daily bills and obligations. It seems like there is a major bias, not picking on you with it, but I mean overall, where the general populous refuses to consider that awarding alimony at these types of levels could lead to resulting in suicide.”[iv]

Keep in mind that failure to pay alimony gets you thrown in jail. Another misconception that seems to be rampant in the community lately is that Robin was totally free as a bird to make choices and live the kind of life that he wanted to live.

One person responding to Molyneaux’ video eulogy to Robin stated: “faultroy…Williams got exactly what he asked for his entire life and in the end, he got something that everyone in ANY society longs for–the Right To Choose how to live his life, and how to NOT live his life.”[v]

And my response was:faultroy I believe you missed the point, Robin, in the end, no longer had the ability or the freedom or the “Right To Choose how to live his life, and how to NOT live his life.” I realize that this too may be a concept that you may choose to reject. Could he choose not to work and still live the life that he had himself earned? Was he able to choose to keep his mementos and not sell them and still meet the obligations that the family courts had placed on him? Could he choose to be home with his family and still meet the obligations without having to sacrifice somewhere else?”[vi]

Very FEW people in the world get those choices after divorce, Robin certainly was no exception to the destruction and devastation that unconstitutional practices in the family law courts have on an individual’s life and their family.

So rather than view Robin’s death as a race for which singular issue caused his death, perhaps this is an opportunity to realize that Robin’s death, impacting as many people as it has, provides an opportunity to raise awareness in many areas.

Robin suffered in many ways that others also suffer. Perhaps there is some suffering we can reduce simply by recognizing our outdated biases regarding alimony. And while we cannot bring him back and remove the barbaric burdens that our family law courts imposed on him leaving him without fundamental personal choice in how to live his life; we can certainly use this as opportunity to stop the devastation others are feeling as a result of our outdated biases.

We can certainly work toward true equality even in divorce and empower people to thrive, dream, and drive their life to greatness as Robin once did!

I encourage everyone to realize, if you are one who is in the race to push a singular issue impacting Robin’s decisions and you are someone who needs to crush others attempts to raise awareness of other issues impacting Robin’s decisions, please stop for a moment and realize that there were a multitude of issues impacting Robin’s decisions. Each needs to be addressed by our society some through better science and others through examination of societal biases.

The more we advance as a society, the more we will be faced with multiple integrated issues that come together in unique ways to cause human suffering that can be avoided.

One of those issues that can be solved simply by evaluating our outdated biases is the issue of depriving one person of the right to make decisions in their life simply so another person can be financially provided for regardless of their own ability to support themselves. Do we really consider marriage in the 21st century to be an institution that can justify such a violation of personal liberties? What compelling state interest do we serve by making one ex-spouse a slave to the other simply because they divorced?


THE ROBIN WILLIAMS – JOHNNY CARSON SHOW VIDEO CLIP: [i] Protestant Work Ethic. Wikipedia. Accessed on August 15, 2014. [ii] “Did the Family Court Kill Robin Williams, or was it just us?” A Voice For Men   [iii] “The Truth About Robin Williams” by Stefan Molyneaux. Accessed on August 15, 2014   [iv] Ibid   [v][v] Ibid   [vi] Ibid



grandparents raising grandchildren 20111027_085511_grand1c_200Grandparents do have rights. If the biological parent of their grandchild wants to designate them to care for the child as opposed to the State or CPS or DHS adopting them out or placing them into foster care, it is certain that they have the right to have the child as designated by the fit parent.

Does the grandparent have to prove their fitness?


Does the biological parent have to prove that their choice is better than CPS or DHS or a judge’s choice?


Does the biological parent have to prove that they can take possession of their child in order to designate the grandparent the caretaker of the child?


What then is the rule and the standard? Sherry and Ron B Palmer explain these arguments and here is a summary and a step-by-step list of what you should be looking for.

Many times a grandparent sits on the sidelines completely helpless. Their child wants them to raise their grandchild but the State steps in and decides that the grandparents will have to qualify like everyone else. And then the State sends the child to foster care or even gets the court to allow them to adopt them out!

This does not necessarily have to be the case. While grandparents may not have constitutional rights directly, there are other ways you can get your grandchild into your life when a biological parent is unable to care for the child and you would like to take the child into your care.

START HERE: First find out the following:

1.             Did the State have an adjudicative hearing with each of the biological parents?

2.             Did the State properly find the parent unfit?

a)            If the State is presuming the parent to be unfit, this is not the same thing as finding them unfit. Just because the State finds one parent unfit does not mean that both parents are unfit.

b)            If the State has a statute that allows them to presume a parent unfit because the other parent is found to be unfit, the Statute may be unconstitutional.

1. Presuming unfitness or not making a determination at all and then using State authority to take possession and control over a child against the unadjudicated parent’s wishes, does not make the statute constitutional.

3.             Is the parent unable to take direct possession of the child themselves due to being incarcerated, being in the military, or even being too far away to exercise their rights grounds for the State to skip an adjudicative hearing?

a) Being unable to take physical possession of the child by the biological parent does not sweep the parent’s rights away to decide who they wish to designate to care for their child. It is presumed that fit parents and unadjudicated parents make the best interest decisions for their child. So even when a State or CPS or DHS tries to get the parent to prove their fitness, if they have not adjudicated that parent properly, the parent does not have to prove anything to them. It is the burden of the State to prove authority over the parent.

4.              The state says that they determine best interest of the child.

a) If the State has not invoked their authority properly they cannot sweep the rights of the parent under the rug and do as they please with any child. Their parens patriae authority must be properly triggered. A finding of unfitness or clear and present danger would trigger this.

b) It is the State’s duty to prove that their authority is properly triggered.

c) The trial court and CPS or DHS will often try to intimidate you to follow what they or even make you think that whatever they say trumps anything you claim to be your rights. If you don’t make them prove it, then they can get away with this. It can be difficult to find someone to help you challenge CPS or DHS, so if you end up doing this on your own, there is new caselaw out there that you can use called “In RE Sanders” as well as our book, “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest.” We also have equal protection arguments on our page here:

So from now on, if the State did not find the biological parent unfit and that parent is trying to give you care, custody, or control of your grandchild, and you want to help that parent get out from under service plans and other excuses and delays that the State is creating to disadvantage you and that parent, then you will need the due process violation and equal protection arguments.

So if you are going to spend money helping the parent find legal representation then find one that understands these arguments. If they cannot understand them on their own, we can help them learn the argument so that they can use it.

Basically, the argument is that if the State did not find the parent unfit properly then they have violated due process and a fit parent has protected fundamental rights to the care, custody, and control of their child. That means even if the parent cannot take possession of the child, the parent can designate another adult to take possession of the child during their time, and they do not have to prove their choice of caretaker’s fitness. This is essentially no different than a married couple hiring a babysitter or sending their child to military school.

Additionally, the State does not get to invade your privacy and make you prove your fitness as a grandparent or a caretaker of the child. Child Protective Services don’t get to do this either.

This is a very basic summary of how your rights should work in the face of fit parents who want the grandparents to care for and raise their child.

If you would like more information or need one-on-one help, we can be contacted at

You can also find more information about these arguments with case citations in our book as well “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest” at

And you can watch a video where we talk about the biological parent’s rights here: CHALLENGING SERVICE ORDERS

Want the most powerful parental rights book, get it here:



Twitter: (@fixfamilycourts)


YouTube: Sherry Palmer with Fix Family Courts

Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney or a lawyer. I do NOT practice law in any federal or State court system. Any information provided by me to you, regardless of how specific, is NOT intended to be legal advice under any state or federal law. I provide research, written strategies, and non-professional personal opinions on the Constitution and State laws as free exchange of politically important information that also serves an important public need and interest allowed under the First Amendment. You are highly encouraged to engage an attorney in your State to help you with the specifics of your legal issues and the law in your State. If you are a pro se litigant then you bear all and full responsibility for understanding the law in your state and acting under the law in your state. Nothing you receive from me is intended to be a “legal” document for purposes of any type of filing in any court. You are free to use my words for your personal non-commercial benefit, or as an aide in petitioning your government for redress of perceived wrongs, if properly cited where appropriate. YOU TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ACTIONS YOU PURSUE AND THE RESULTS THAT YOU GET. I BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR RESULTS. MY OPINIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN MY PERSONAL NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OR BELIEFS. I MAKE NO CLAIMS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IN THE LAW UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF COMPETENCY IN THE LAW.


Like on this page and receive updates and notices regarding new developments, articles, and interactions with others: CLICK HERE FOR FIX FAMILY COURTS FACEBOOK PAGE