Texas Federal Court Set to Hear Constitutional Parental Rights Violations


Eastern District Federal Courthouse

Texas (OPENPRESS) March 2, 2016 — Parents are about to find out if they have protected constitutional rights in divorce and whether the Texas family code violates those rights.

Ron and Sherry Palmer
sherry web photo - marketing photo
accomplished whRon-B-Palmerat attorneys told them would be impossible, the Eastern District Federal Court accepted their brief on Thursday, February 25, 2016, that cites their family court judges ignore parental rights and children’s rights and that the Texas family code violates the constitutional rights of parents and children, in Palmer et al v. Paxton Jr., et al,. Parents and attorneys have not been able to be heard by the federal courts on these constitutional violations before this, told instead they were barred by numerous abstention doctrines like Rooker-Feldman, Pullman, and Younger.

The Palmers’ brief, written by the two parents, argues that parental rights protect children from the stress and damage inflicted by family courts and that when judges ignore this they are abusing their power, causing parents to fight over children more, and are causing children unnecessary harm.  The federal court is set to rule on this sometime after April 2016.

According to the Palmers, fit parents should not be required to fight over the custody of their children. They argue that most parents fight in court because if they don’t they lose rights and time with their child. They also argue that child support unconstitutionally violates the 1st amendment, and leads to more fighting in divorce. This also often leads to false allegations and abusive behaviors increasing the number of violent crimes in society like domestic violence and murder. Divorce makes up about 40% of civil cases, and almost 70% of re-openings, according to the Family Law Supreme Court steering committee.

A constitutional divorce means both parents start out as equals with equal rights, they do not have to beg a judge for rights they already have, and the parents decide best interest and not the judge. Both parents support the child equally and equal time with both parents would be protected without the need for litigation. Less fighting in court would protect children from the proven negative effects caused by high conflict litigation of 65% more children with increased anxiety and stress, 44% increased aggression, and 21% higher risk of becoming sexual active earlier according to research from Massachusetts General Hospital’s study and personal experience of former judges like Superior Judge Elaine Gordon in Connecticut. Children are proven to do better when they can be with both parents equally according to the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health published last year.

States throughout the U.S. are using the Palmers’ arguments to propose bills like Colorado’s Parent’s Bill of Rights, HB16-1110, to protect fundamental parental rights to the care, custody, and control of their child equally. The Wall Street Journal reports that at least 20 states have proposed shared parenting bills.

The problem is growing with millions of parents desperately searching for ways to stop the abuses in the family courts. The Father’s Rights Movement of Texas reached over 6 million people on their Facebook page in just a few weeks looking for justice. Shows like Speak Up, The Parenting Revolution, Leaving Footprints, and The Fourth Branch, are just a few shows that have been exposing these unconstitutional practices for years. National Parents Organization, FCLU, Catherine MacWillie of Custody Calculations, and many others, have been seeing an alarming increase in the growing number of people with family court and juvenile court grievances unable to get justice.

The 50 billion dollar a year divorce industry, as cited by the Huffington Post, continues to rob children and their families under the guise of protecting a child’s best interest with no end in sight. This practice is about to come to an abrupt halt with the Palmers’ brief. A practice that the Palmers call unconstitutional in their brief to the federal court and in their book, “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest,” published in 2013 which uses U.S. Supreme Court rulings to support their arguments that parents and children have protected fundamental rights.

About the Palmers and Fix Family Courts:

Ron and Sherry Palmer are strategic leaders in re-focusing attorneys and judges in the divorce industry involving child custody. The Palmer’s create tools and strategy for parents, attorneys, judges, and legislators that improve the family court process in divorce with child custody and custody modifications. These tools include: precisely worded arguments supported by Supreme Court and federal appellate court annotated cases, informational videos, training videos, sample letters to legislators, sample pleadings and other tools to be announced at http://fixfamilycourts.com/ for parents, attorneys, judges, and legislators.

The Palmers have remained politically active in overturning state statutes and opinions that support these unconstitutional state actions. Ron and Sherry Palmer have authored several books that evaluate custody decisions and focus on avoiding long term negative effects on all parties through the protection of constitutional rights. This brief is their next step in revolutionizing how courts protect the fundamental, long standing, rights of modern day families.

Case number 4:15-cv-00657 Palmer et al v. Paxton Jr. et al
Fix Family Courts Book 3D Standing Open - White Background
Email: publisher@fixfamilycourts.com
Website: http://www.fixfamilycourts.com/
Books: NOT in The Child’s Best Interest, 28th Amendment: Protecting Parent-Child Bonds
Address: 2803 Cochise Court, Corinth, Texas 76210