An attorney in Illinois asked “Can you produce a single appellate or state supreme court decision, in any state court, dealing with family law, filed within the last 30 years, that has ever agreed with the positions taken…” His comment was in response to the pro se child custody motions* regarding child custody, child support, legal decision-making, joint custody, shared parenting time, and to prevent limits and prior restraints (gag orders). These motions for declaratory judgment relief Ron and Sherry Palmer with Fix Family Courts produced for parents who could not find an attorney who knew how to win child custody using legal rights arguments that prevent violations of constitutional rights. These motions are being used by parents who want their legal rights in separation, paternity, and divorce protected, and are intended to assist attorneys.

Yes, we can and do cite appellate, state supreme court decisions, and SCOTUS decisions that support our parental rights arguments that are recent.

This child custody attorney also claimed that our methods were “bizarre” and that parents should “trust” that an attorney knows what he is doing!

Ron B Palmer says that this attorney, shows the classic ignorance of his kind and shows us a massive deficit in law school education.

Not only do constitutional rights arguments win, Roe v. Wade started out as a declaratory judgement. The right of same sex couples to marry started out as numerous declaratory judgment suits. If they had not challenged the state statutes and court rulings denying rights, they would not have them today.

The Fifth Federal Circuit has heard a direct appeal on a divorce case and has ruled that parents in divorce have fundamental rights that must be protected, “a valid reason (the preservation of the children’s right to maintain relationships with their father and his right to maintain parental relationships with them) existed for this change.”

Further, the Supreme Court of Texas in a divorce custody case has ruled that even broad powers of trial courts must be exercised within constitutional bounds, and that not even a statute “authorize them to invade constitutional guarantees.”

The only reason that there are not more cases affirming fundamental rights of parents in divorce is that attorneys are poorly trained, know next to nothing about the constitution, and make far too much money manipulating the emotions of judges.

It is not in this attorney’s financial best interest to protect his client’s fundamental rights and he likely has no clue how to do it. This is why so many parents are having to go pro se.

Whether you are pro se or have an attorney, these child custody motions are a very powerful tool. Multiple attorneys have filed these motions as written without modification and those cases are working their way through the system. These legal rights for separated parents motions were created by us less than a year ago but have already altered the trajectory of multiple cases.

We have all been screwed by family law attorneys and judges who bleed us dry and take children anyway. Ron fought for and won 50/50 equal custody and parental rights with joint legal decision-making with his child for 9 years. She just aged out. He didn’t have the benefit of these constitutional details at that time or the benefit of a child custody lawyer who knew how to get joint custody without invasive discovery, and expensive mental health evaluations and child custody evaluations. Ron succeeded with no child support and no non-custodial parent designations. Both parents retained their parental equality with true equal shared parenting.

You can win also and we provide you the tools and information you need to completely destroy the outdated idea that the courts get to choose a better parent and that the parental rights depend on marriage or that your legal rights and equal parenting time can be denied simply because you divorce are separated or because you are a noncustodial parent. These attorneys have been fleecing parents with unequal joint custody and visitation for a very long time and they know it.

We show you how to put a stop to it once and for all, if you are willing to fight. If you still have significant time and legal rights to your child you may not want to rock the boat too much. If they have stolen your child already and only have the legal rights of a noncustodial parent, qualify for a modification, and want to know what parental rights does a noncustodial parent have and want to fight to have your full custody rights after separation restored, then what more do you have to lose by fighting?

When they take your child from you they create the seeds of their own destruction by giving you the will to fight them, we provide the tools.

Whatever your feelings about same sex marriage, you cannot deny that LGBT people fought for and won their constitutional rights against all odds and against thousands of years of bias and bigotry against them using the federal constitution. When they fought they did not have any cases saying that they agreed with their position. If they had bought into that way of thinking, they would not have rights today.

Single and Divorced parents can do the same thing in the same way using the same tools. No parent should ever need fear the loss of a child or a child fear the loss of a parent simply because the parents divorce and the attorneys are fearful impotent leeches on society who wouldn’t know a constitutional parental right if it slapped them in the face.

There are a few good family law attorneys out there who recognize that the constitution is being violated in the family courts all throughout the United States, and who are open to learning the arguments to challenge these violations for you. Mothers have legal rights after separation and fathers have legal rights after separation that include the right to more than child visitation.

If your attorney is like the one we describe at the beginning of this post, run as fast as you can, and seek out an attorney who will actually fight for your legal rights after separation as attorneys are supposed to do. If they need help crafting the arguments, come to us, we have developed these arguments extensively and many parents and their attorneys are using them now in multiple jurisdictions.*

USING THE RIGHTS MOTIONS to protect your rights and end unnecessary litigation:

There is a recent case in Arizona that support several of the key points we make in our motions and our books, that you have legal child custody rights that are protected by the First and Fourteenth amendment in family court in divorce, paternity, and legal separation even when the parents are in disagreement, and that best interest of the child is not sufficient to interfere with these rights. This case is between two fit parents who share an equal parenting plan. There are no grandparents or third parties involved in the suit and the appellate court states that constitutional rights apply in the familiy court! Imagine that. How many of you have been told that the constitution does not apply in family court? And how many attorneys have told you that Troxel doesn’t apply in parent versus parent because there are no grandparents involved in your case. They were wrong and we win again! This court states:

The reservation of decision-making to fit parents, rather than the judiciary, accommodates “the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66 (2000) (plurality opinion) [Paul E v Courtney F, Arizona Court of Appeals, 2018]

The Arizona appellate court also finds that best interest is not sufficient to interfere with constitutional rights.

But the statute requires more than merely a best-interests analysis: it authorizes judicial limitation of a sole decision-maker’s authority only when “the child’s physical health would be endangered or the child’s emotional development would be significantly impaired.” [Paul E v Courtney F, Arizona Court of Appeals, 2018]

You might notice that the appellate court speaks in terms of “a sole decision-maker’s authority” and not in terms of joint legal rights. So even though the parents have equal parenting time, the trial court chose which parent is the better parent for making certain decisions. The parents did not appeal the sole decision-making so the appellate court did not review that issue. If you would like to read more about how we address this issue, we write more about it in our member site.  (We are posting case law in the member site with our training and discussion on these cases to help you understand them so that you can use them more effectively.)

And there are two cases in PA that are excellent and support several of the key points we make in our motions and our books, “Curtis v. Kline, 666 A. 2d 265 – Pa: Supreme Court 1995 (14th amendment challenge to college tuition obligations, US Constitution was upheld and the obligation of the Obligor to pay for College was removed.) of note prior to the constitutional challenge, obligors challenged, lost and paid (their family lawyers and court imposed obligation) DP v. GJP, Pa: Supreme Court, Western Dist. 2016 (reaffirms fundamental parental rights, 1st, 14th US Amendments).”**

WARNING: This case, DP v. GJP, involves two parents who agree on their child’s best interest. If you and the child’s other parent do not agree on your child’s best interest you can only use this case with specific arguments that demonstrate why it should apply when parents disagree. These difficult arguments are what Fix Family Courts specializes in and what your attorney likely has little or no experience arguing. For help contact us here.

Of particular interest are the two dissents in DP. The first dissent says the court didn’t go far enough because it lacks any legitimate interest in treating fit divorced parents differently from fit married parents. This is one of our key arguments. Parental rights are individual rights that cannot be dependent upon the marital relationship. This key concept articulated by the Supreme Court since the early 1970’s will ultimately destroy custody battles in divorce forever. The second dissent brings up another key issue. The state’s compelling state interest must be narrowly stated or precisely stated. They cannot simply say they are protecting children from harm or even harm from a divorce. They must be very specific in justifying the harm they are protecting from. This is crucial for states such as California where strict scrutiny is applied but applied so corruptly as to have no meaning at all. Dissents can be very powerful. The concept of strict scrutiny itself came from the dissent in Korematsu. In Curtis, the court goes a long way down the equal protection argument that children can’t be treated differently because of their parent’s marital status. They found this using only the rational basis test. We propose addressing child support issues under the 1st Amendment as directly affecting the quantity and quality of communication between parent and child requiring at least the compelling state interest test and potentially least restrictive means as well. What is clear by these two cases is that our motions are even stronger in PA if your attorney is willing to add some argument specifically citing these cases. What is clear from the research we have done on specific state court cases is that Illinois, where this attorney seems to be from, is particularly dreadful in its application of federal constitutional principles. Their legal system is a mess.

Our motions are designed to present federal constitutional principles based on federal court precedent so that they apply in all 50 states. If you or your attorney do the research in your state, you may be able to make them far stronger, because state courts prefer to use their own precedent before addressing federal precedent.

These motions provide parents with the opportunity to try and prevent additional costly and lengthy litigation on issues that they never should have to litigate. “…a majority of Justices in Troxel recognized that such litigation can itself impinge upon parental rights, especially if it becomes protracted through the appellate process. (See Troxel)

Parents have choices that they are not being given by attorneys and instead being dragged into protracted, expensive, high-conflict litigation. Now parents can exercise a different choice, the choice to protect their rights, limit the issues that need to be litigated, save money, and save their children from government interference and save themselves from bankruptcy, PTSD, and massive micro management and loss of control over their lives. Parents can now exercise these choices regardless of whether or not attorneys like it. Parents are learning that they do not have to go along with the continued extortion and false beliefs that the judges own their rights just because they are no longer in agreement with the other parent. Parents no longer have to give in to false allegations.

If this means that parents have to go through a prolonged appellate fight to get these rights respected in their local courts, there are many who would rather do that than to be extorted for the rest of their child’s life and sometimes even beyond. Their choices are forever be under the control of a judge and their ex who takes advantage of their love for their child and their desire to continue to be with their child or fight like hell with everything their rights give them the power to fight for!

Ron and Sherry Palmer expose these practices and provide parents with effective ways to fight back and protect your legal rights in divorce and your legal rights after separation. These motions can help you change the fight from who gets child custody after separation to protection of the child to their right to protection of their parent-child bond after two parents are in disagreement and choose to form two family units.

Contact us for further training on understanding the cases in the context of fundamental rights and for understanding the motions. and how to protect from court-induced parental alienation,™ save thousands of dollars, prevent the process driving you into bankruptcy, avoid delays created by unnecessary discovery, and fight appointments of best interest attorneys, GALs, and guardian ad litems.

You can contact Ron or Sherry Palmer at

If you are a father and do not believe that your rights will be violated, just take a look at Terry Brennan with Leading Women for Shared Parenting (LW4SP) latest article with the Daily Caller on how the outdated court system “Rather than work to maintain parent and child relationships, courts take families at their most vulnerable, and pit parents against each other in a contest for their children.”

And if you are a mother and you think that the American Bar Association is not a special interest group that will harm your child to protect their interests, take a look at Stephen Krasner’s new book on the corrupt family court, A Broken System, where he explains that “[b]y the time a parent looks around and identifies the non-adhered-to court procedures, administrative rule non-compliance, and abundant violations to the many rules of professional conduct–and understands the true nature of the apparatus at play–it is often too late.”

If you have an attorney afraid to make these arguments because they are afraid of upsetting the judge, you and your child are being sacrificed for the interests of the family court scheme.

It’s not about how much money you have, it’s about whether or not you know you have rights. You can see proof in the tabloids that even the wealthiest have their rights stripped, and some pay millions to fight the family court from taking these rights or to get them to choose them as the better parent. The best interest of the child is for your parent-child bond to be respected and protected.

TMZ reports that Dennnis and Kimberly Quaid spent years in court which ended in a Massive Spousal Support Settlement. And this was supposedly an amicable divorce. How much did they spend? Dennis Quaid was formerly married to Meg Ryan who he has one child with. Dennis recently played a role as an abusive dad in a movie called, “I Can Only Imagine” based on the song, Mercy Me and Bart Millard’s true story, about a child left with his abusive father and abandoned by his mother. The father finds redemption when he finds faith and makes amends with his son. You can watch Kathie Lee and Hoda with Today interview Dennis below.

*We do provide pro se help through education, but all of our materials are samples and not intended to be a legal ready form. We are not attorneys. We do not practice law. You are responsible for what you use and how you use it. We are not responsible for your results. This is not legal advice. You are advised to seek the advice of an attorney for legal questions. We are not a substitute for an attorney.

** Quote from Christian S.