The Basic Law of Child Custody and Child Support

Basic law to know if you want to win your child custody and Child Support case.

This post is an intro to the key elements of law that you must know to defeat the corrupt family law system where the judges are in control of the corruption and where you can NOT possibly get a fair hearing.

There are 6 items you need to be familiar with 1) the Supremacy Clause, 2) jurisdiction, 3) due process, 4) equal protection, 5) separation of powers, and 6) access to the courts.

Supremacy Clause

First you need to know that Article VI of the United State’s Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause. This clause establishes our federal constitution to be the supreme law of our country with absolute reach into every conceivable area of law in our country, including family law.

This clause requires your judge to swear an oath different from all other government officials to be bound to the Supremacy Clause and its mandate to all judges that they must declare to be a nullity any law of any kind that conflicts with the federal constitution.

This clause conveys federal jurisdiction to state court judges who have an unflinching duty to exercise that federal jurisdiction over and against any state statute that violates federal law.

While neither your state legislature nor your state executive holds any federal jurisdiction of any kind, your state judges do. Your state legislature can NOT in any way establish, alter, or obviate federal minimum standards but your state court judge can interpret those standards and determine whether or not state statutes or state actions comply with those standards. However, when doing so, your state court judge can apply only federal law to support that interpretation because the state has zero jurisdiction to establish those standards.

The Supremacy Clause doesn’t convey any specific rights. Rather, the Supremacy Clause establishes an inviolate rule of decision that your judge absolutely must follow. Where your judge deviates from this rule, your judge leaves behind the very jurisdiction that protects them from suit.

The legal rule is simple. The federal constitution and federal law that complies with the federal constitution is the supreme law of the land and any state law that conflicts is a nullity that doesn’t and can never exist as law. Your state court judge swore an oath to apply this rule first among all others and swore to declare any contrary state law to be a nullity. No exceptions.

There exists NO family law exemption to the Supremacy Clause’s rule of decision.

Ron B Palmer


There are many different kinds of jurisdiction that may become relevant in your case. The most important for defeating the corruption are 1) jurisdiction to litigate and 2) jurisdiction to dispose of complaints or to issue judicial relief.

The right of parties to access the courts to have their rights litigated is the essential issue in jurisdiction to litigate. Litigants must establish that they are entitled to litigate each and every conflict raised with the court. Only legal conflicts can be litigated and then only where the relief requested is relief that courts may legitimately provide.

Whether or not an individual has standing to have their interests litigated is the key issue. To be eligible a person must demonstrate a concrete injury that is directly traceable to an unlawful act by another litigant. That injury must be real, not imagined. It must produce an actual injury and a legal injury. Lastly, the injury must be redressable by the courts. In other words, if the courts cannot cure or compensate for the injury then there is no jurisdiction to litigate.

Standing has to be established by individuals for that individual. Generally, you cannot assert someone else’s standing or sue for someone else’s injury. This is critical in child custody because the child is NOT injured by the parents’ marital status or by their seeking legal resolution of their parental rights conflicts.

Parents have federal constitutional authority to make choices for their minor children that shield them from any claims of legal injury to the child short of violating a clearly established injury to the child statute. The child has NO legal interest in depriving themselves of access to a fit parent or in having their best interests provided for. While having their best interests provided for may be nice, the child has zero entitlement to their best interest being served and thus zero legal injury when it isn’t.

On the other hand, the child does have a legal interest in being free from unwarranted state interference in its private life and has a legal interest in maintaining full and equal access to both fit parents free from state interference. The state’s claim to want what’s best for the child cannot overcome the child’s fundamental rights.

In fact, when the state deprives the child of a fit parent without adequate constitutional safeguards being provided, the state causes concrete injury to the child that qualifies as both actual and legal injury to the child and the child is entitled to sue the state for violating its rights. Where a minor child can demonstrate standing to sue the state, both fit parents have legal authority to pursue that suit on the minor child’s behalf. This is one of the very few exceptions to the rule that only individuals must sue on their own behalf and others may not do it for them.

You have standing to sue your ex to protect your parental rights against their infringement to declare your parental rights in a manner that can be protected through legal action. You do NOT have standing to sue demanding your child’s best interests be served and neither do they. Where the child cannot establish standing to sue, a parent cannot establish standing to sue on their behalf. This is equally true for the state’s assertion of an interest in protecting the child from its fit parents or their lawful choices.

If your child doesn’t have standing to sue for its best interests then the state doesn’t have standing to sue for your child’s best interests and providing relief in your child’s best interests simply cannot be lawful judicial relief because without standing to sue, there can be no judicial relief.

Further, by violating the rules of standing to act in the child’s best interests in a manner that violates the child’s rights, the court and the judge are actively injuring the child. Courts cannot cure injury by causing the very injury they claim to be curing.

Judicial relief is dispositional relief. It is lawful only after all applicable burdens of proof have been met. In criminal law this is famously understood as innocent until proven guilty. If the prosecutor fails to meet this burden, the defendant is immediately released and is free to go. Civil law is different only in that the burdens are not as difficult to meet but they must still be met.

Federal law imposed by the Supremacy Clause’s rule of decision mandates that any state regulation of fundamental rights must be presumed to be unconstitutional until the state appears and meets its burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise. If the state fails to appear, the state fails to meet its burden and the court fails to acquire jurisdiction to provide judicial relief.

The court is required to be a neutral, impartial, and independent judicial decision-maker. If your judge argues in any way in support of the state’s civil law, your judge deprives you of fundamentally fair process which is a violation of due process.

Only the state can testify to meet its burden. If your ex testifies to meet the state’s burden, your ex may become classified as a state actor and you may be able to sue them in federal court for violation of your civil rights and receive damages from them, money.

If the burden of proof has not been met, then your court has not gained jurisdiction over the causes pleaded and holds zero jurisdiction to issue dispositional judicial relief. Any orders your court issues are merely advisory orders that have zero legitimate authority to limit your rights in any way.

The only lawful way your court can legitimately limit your rights is by first litigating, NOT the child’s interests, but your legal interests in being constitutionally protected from the state’s civil law and from the court’s equitable actions that violate equitable rules. This litigation is NOT against the child’s best interests but against the state’s power to regulate your parental rights and your ex’s power to employ the state’s civil law against your interests.

Look into your state’s laws concerning the court’s power to issue advisory orders. I have yet to see any state that permits this.

Due Process

Due process comes in two distinct flavors 1) procedural due process and 2) substantive due process.

Procedural Due Process Fundamental Fairness

Your court is required to provide procedural due process protections in the form of ensuring fundamental fairness in the judicial process it provides. Essential to this is judicial neutrality, impartiality, and independence.

When your judge enters the proceedings predetermined to apply the state’s civil law against your interests by claiming to be litigating the interests of a nonparty nonlitigant who cannot establish standing and to guarantee to provide judicial relief in that nonlitigant’s interests, your court is not neutral, not impartial, and not independent from the state’s political interests in vindicating its civil law.

Your state’s best interests of the child policy stands in direct conflict with the procedural due process mandate that you be afforded, following constitutionally adequate notice, an opportunity to confront the state’s agent and cross-examine the state agent’s testimony before the state may legitimately regulate your fundamental rights.

Your court is subject to a federal constitutional mandate to ensure that you are provided an appropriate hearing in which you have this opportunity to challenge the state’s assertion of authority to regulate your fundamental rights and where the issue is fundamental rights, the state, NOT you, is required to ensure that the hearing happens. It is NOT your burden to demand a hearing to challenge the state’s regulation of fundamental rights but the state’s burden to hold the hearing to prove the state’s asserted authority is legitimate.

Your judge as the neutral, impartial, and independent judicial decision-maker is NOT permitted to argue the state’s case or to be favorable to the state’s case. Their mandated role is to remain neutral until the evidence is properly presented. This is NOT evidence regarding what may or may not be in your child’s best interest but rather evidence proving or disproving that the state has any legitimate authority to regulate at all or whether the state has authority to regulate through the means it is attempting to apply.

You are entitled to much more than mere notice and a hearing. That minimum standard applies to social security benefits entitlement NOT to deprivation of fundamental rights. There are specific standards applicable to notice and your state’s lax child custody pleading requirements are inadequate to the task. The hearing is a full confrontational hearing where you are permitted to directly challenge the state’s civil law or the court’s equitable authority to act against you.

If your judge presumes that the hearing will be to determine your child’s best interests, your judge has violated the procedural due process mandate.

There is much more to fundamental fairness and child custody courts violate this mandate in many blatant ways. Just know that fundamental fairness is the judge’s duty to provide no matter who the litigants are.

When your judge tries to argue that due process is different when the state sues you rather than when your ex sues you, that only applies to substantive due process. Your judge is subject to constitutional mandate to provide fundamental fairness either way.

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process deals with what your rights are and what specific protections must be provided to protect your rights before they may be infringed. Substantive guarantees apply against traditional state actors such as cops and prosecutors who have substantive due process burdens, they must comply with.

Substantive due process provides an additional layer of due process protections that means certain rights cannot be violated at all no matter how fair the process is. For instance, your court is forbidden by the First Amendment from imposing limits on your right to speak to your child regarding the child custody litigation that are entitled to the strictest protections of any of our rights. Not even claims of national security are sufficient to justify these prior restraints on your speech.

If any of your orders contain such a prior restraint on your speech, you know with absolute certainty that your court is corrupt and is violating its sworn duty to protect your rights against state authority, even the court’s own authority.

Of vital importance in child custody and child support suits are First, Fourth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment substantive guarantees. The First and Fourth Amendments’ guarantees are applied against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment which provides additional guarantees of its own. The Thirteenth Amendment by its wording applies directly to all individuals and all forms of government anywhere in the United States without exception.

In some ways, the Thirteenth Amendment is much more than just substantive guarantees, but it is sufficient to introduce it as such here.

One of the applicable rules of decision that child custody courts routinely violate is the rule that the more specific must apply before the general. What this means in constitutional interpretation is that the specific body of law arising under First, Fourth, and Thirteenth amendment precedent must be applied and tested first before the court entertains arguments regarding whether the Fourteenth Amendment provides additional protections beyond simply applying these amendments against the states.

The reason the courts do this is that it is easier to hide their corruption in the broader wording of the Fourteenth Amendment than it is under the more specific wording and against the much more substantial body of precedent deriving directly from those amendments. They do this intentionally to confuse you and to abuse their power against you.

Your attorney is supposed to know this but is either inadequately educated to protect you or is getting rich off of the corruption and has no interest in rocking the boat and perhaps stopping the gravy train. The corruption is rampant at all levels and with all players in the scheme that steals money from children for profit.

Equal Protection

The most basic of our constitutional guarantees is the idea that the laws must be applied equally against everyone so that when the more powerful protect themselves, it serves to also protect the less powerful.

Equal protection deals with equal application of the laws by closely examining the classifications made by government to see whether or not these classifications are being improperly established to injure disadvantaged classes of individuals. It is important to note that equal protection, just like due process, provides individual guarantees for each and every person as against government action. Groups do NOT have equal protection rights, rather each individual has an individual equal protection right as against the state’s classification that defines the group.

The Equal Protection Clause protects against arbitrary discrimination and makes all such arbitrary discrimination unlawful. When your judge says he or she doesn’t discriminate between you or your ex, your judge is deceiving or misdirecting either through intentional action or through ignorance of the law.

When your judge enters the proceedings predetermined to litigate the best interests of your child and to use that determination to limit your rights, your judge is already arbitrarily discriminating against you. Your judge is saying that your rights against his or her actions provide no protection from his or her state action and that he or she can discriminate against you for any manner of reasons.

When your judge arbitrarily picks a best parent and a less-than-best parent and discriminates in favor of the best parent against the less-than-best parent your judge violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition against arbitrary discrimination.

However, even before that point, simply by entering the proceedings already predetermined to pursue the state’s civil law policy interests against your rights without bothering to provide the basics of fundamental fairness, your judge has arbitrarily classified you and your child as being undeserving of fundamental fairness. There exists NOT possibility that best interest litigation can survive equal protection challenge.

The Tender Years Doctrine was invalidated first by the Alaska Supreme Court under equal protection because it discriminated against fathers in favor of mothers and all other states quickly followed suit.

It is important to note that under constitutional analysis, the Tender Years Doctrine was NOT overturned because the constitution protects against sex discrimination. It was overturned because the constitution protects against arbitrary discrimination of which unjustified sex discrimination is but one flavor.

Another closely related flavor of arbitrary discrimination is depriving a child of a fit parent because when faces with fitness as a parent under the constitutional presumption that all parents are fit until the government proves otherwise, depriving the child of one or of both fit parents arbitrarily discriminates against the child. Where other children, such as those whose parents are marred to each other, are entitled to two fit parents, there is NO rational basis for depriving children whose parents are not married to each other of the same right to two full and equal fit parents.

Classification of parents and minor children based upon the marital status of the child’s parents whether those parents be married to each other, unmarried to each other, or divorced from each other is marital discrimination that has long been held to be arbitrary discrimination.

Even more significantly, these classifications are simply NOT available to the state to use because the classifications are based on the otherwise lawful exercise of the fundamental right to make choices regarding marriage as an intimate and expressive speech and associational choice regarding close family associations. The right to marry is constitutionally protected equally with the right NOT to marry and equally with the right to divorce.

No government in America can force anyone to marry or to remain married against their will because the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing so. It is NO excuse that the government has long done so because a long history of constitutional violation cannot undo the violation. Neither two wrongs nor two hundred million wrongs committed over 250 years can make a right.

The United States Supreme Court has clearly held on multiple occasions that children my NOT be disadvantaged or punished for the otherwise lawful marital choices of their parents. When state’s do so, states impose Bastardy Codes. Your state’s family code is clearly and unmistakably a Bastardy Code because it punishes innocent children for the marital choices of their parents.

Likewise, child support, as practiced today, establishes impermissible classifications of the children and of the parents. When the court picks a paying parent and a payee parent, the court arbitrarily classifies the parents in a manner that subjects one to criminal punishments to which the other is not subjected. This is impermissible discrimination.

Likewise, when the state claims that the child is entitled to support under its civil law guidelines, the state is claiming that the child is entitled to a percentage of one parent’s income but only minimum reasonable care from the other parent and is claiming that children of divorced and unmarried parents are entitled to a percentage of parental income where all other children are not.

Equal Protection Tactic

An important tactic you will learn from us is first asserting the due process and jurisdictional rights and then wrapping the violation of those rights in the equal protection wrapper. This way, even when the state claims that you aren’t entitled to the same rights because; you can then challenge the “because” claim under equal protection.

This is but one of the many powerful tactics we teach.

Separation of Powers

One of the most important checks and balances of our legal and governmental system is that we have three co-equal branches of government that must each stay in its own lane exercising those powers that are rightfully its domain and no others. When each branch stays in its lane, no one branch can easily exceed its constitutional authority.

When these boundaries are violated, rights are violated.

The most important distinction for our purposes is the line between the two political branches of government and the judicial branch of government.

The two political branches are supposed to be biased in favor of the government’s interests either in claiming those interests or imposing those interests. The courts are supposed to remain independent from the state’s political biases so that judges can properly adjudicate conflicts between the state’s policy interests and the rights of individuals.

When judge get into the business of pursuing the state’s political interests against litigants, as they do in child custody cases, the judges are taking political rather than judicial action.

Standing or the absence thereof is an important indicator of whether an action is political or judicial. Predetermined outcomes such as best interests of the child are another.

When a court takes a political action and issues orders, those orders are classified as advisory in nature because without following the separation of powers rules, the courts never gain adequate judicial jurisdiction to issue judicial orders.

When you look into how the practice of law is regulated you see that courts determine who the unauthorized practice of law statutes apply to and who they don’t which is a legislative function. They control the enforcement of the practice of law which is an executive function. Then they sit in judgement of violators which would be a judicial function, if the courts were properly neutral, impartial, and independent of the political interests involved.

It is for this exact reason that your attorney runs scared of your judge and dares NOT challenge your judge’s illegal best interests of the child authority because the judges control every aspect of your attorney’s ability to earn a living as an attorney.

Your judges not only punish your attorney if they get out of line, both formally and informally, but they also control what your attorney learned in school and how they learned it. Judges control the state bar, the state bar controls the bar exams, and the law schools either teach to the bar exams or they fail to succeed.

Year after year, the judges have dumbed down the bar exam and removed emphasis on the core understanding of our law and how it is supposed to operate in favor of teaching what those judges have claimed is the law. It is monopoly execution at its finest and like all monopolies excels at producing mediocrity at great scale.

If you want to know why your attorney appears to be so profoundly ignorant of the basic law in this country, this is your answer. The judges have monopolized all control over the practice of and teaching of law and have abused their authority to threaten anyone who dares to challenge that monopolized control through charges of unauthorized practice of law.

Texas tried to punish us with this garbage. We went immediately to federal court and challenge the unauthorized practice of law statute and the entire scheme as being unconstitutional. The federal judge said we sued too early and needed to wait until the UPL Committee did more to attack us. However, before dismissing the case she informed the UPL Committee that if they pursued action against us and we came back to her court, we would likely win. This means that she would be inclined to issue a preliminary injunction protecting us against the state.

That was years ago and the UPL Committee doesn’t bother us because we understand deeply the basic law of this country and how that basic law is supposed to operate, and we see clearly how it is being criminally and wrongfully applied by state courts. Our goal is to help you defeat them before they take your child from you.

Access to the Courts

You have a fundamental right to access state courts to vindicate your constitutional rights. This is a fundamental right guaranteed by both the federal and your state constitutions.

So long as your state has courts where civil litigants can challenge state statutes, those courts must be open for civil litigants who want to challenge those state statutes as violating federal law. This is your right, and it is the duty of the courts to provide this access.

When your child custody judge presumes that you have no rights against their own political determination of what is in your child’s best interests, your judge is blocking you from accessing the state courts to vindicate your state and federal rights.

When your judge claims political power to make state political policy choices, such as best interest, against your rights, your judge is impermissibly biased and cannot serve as your judge. When that judge is the only judge with jurisdiction over your child custody case and there exists no alternative means to access a court where the judge is not predetermined to rule against you, the judiciary as a whole is systematically depriving you of your right to access the courts.

This makes everything they do to you blatantly illegal. NOT just unconstitutional but willfully and intentionally illegal. They are acting with clear systemic intent to broadly deprive a very large class of people of their civil rights.

Conclusion Basic Law of Child Custody

If you can understand these basics of our law and you have the will to stand up and argue them to your judge, you can help destroy this evil system that preys on our children.

This kind of corruption hides in the darkness of ignorance. When people choose to stop being ignorant of the basic law and insist on the clarity of light and understanding of the basic law, these corrupt practices will go the way of the Tender Years Doctrine.

Making these arguments in the public record sends a very clear message to these corrupt courts that they best mend their ways if they want to avoid scandal and shame.

It is vital to realize that courts have only their own credibility with which to enforce their power. When you expose that they have destroyed their own credibility for their own personal gain, you deprive them of all their power.

Courts fear your knowledge of your rights and your willingness to stand up and demand your rights more than anything else. Like all tyrants, they will put on a great show of defiance but will crumble like cowards in the end. If you can learn to articulate the basics, you will have the tools you need to protect your child from the evil of best interest imposed by judges for financial gain to themselves.