The child’s right to stability is an invented “right” that the child custody courts and some state legislatures apply as a tool to wield against fit parents. It is generally applied against fit parents in favor of state power. This is the exact opposite of what a right is. Rights are protections against state power.
Our constitution is a social contract where we the people agree to accept the government our constitution establishes so long, and only so long, as the government respects our natural rights and keeps itself limited. The reason we accept this contract is first and foremost to protect, preserve, and enhance our individual freedom for who in their right minds would willingly submit to unrestrained government control over their lives.
Protecting and enhancing our individual rights from limitation by the government as well as protecting individuals from concrete injury done to us by others is what makes up our concept of “justice.” Our constitution in its preamble sets forth that our constitution seeks to create a more perfect union of free peoples to one another; first and foremost by establishing “justice” and restating that the intent is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Our constitution’s preamble starts and ends with the concept of individual freedom. The concepts of “domestic tranquility,” “the common defence,” and “the general welfare” are applied completely within the bounding of individual freedoms. The “union” simply cannot be “more perfect” if it rejects Justice and Liberty. There is no element of government that more completely rejects Justice and Liberty than a family court imposing the State’s viewpoint of which parent is “best” as justification for violating fundamental rights. Any court that agrees beforehand to impose the State’s viewpoint against the fundamental rights of litigants is an unjust court.
Preamble to the United States Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If there is a right of the child to stability, that right of stability applies against the government and against state action. There is no existing legal mechanism that can apply that right against the fit parents who have a superior constitutionally recognized authority to provide whatever degree of stability they feel is appropriate. This choice is a privacy choice protected as a fundamental right which the state may not limit nor override to promote its own viewpoint of what is best.
If you live in a state where they assert a child’s right to stability, you need to better understand how rights exist to limit government and cannot be applied to limit individuals. Then you need to use this knowledge to turn the tables on your judge and show how your child’s right to stability protects your child from the actions of the child custody judge, NOT from the actions of a fit parent.
The child’s right to stability is NOT a right that exists in nature nor is it achievable in nature. One cannot be alive and also be stable. Life is movement and change without which there can be no life. Stability cannot be imposed by the State except in death.
When your child custody judge claims that you are NOT providing sufficient stability for your child, that judge is expressing a government viewpoint and is attempting to limit your rights through the use of viewpoint discrimination. Viewpoint discrimination is almost never permitted by our constitution and is particularly prohibited when your judge justifies prior restraints on your First Amendment protected rights by reference to their viewpoint of what they believe to be best for your child. Their viewpoint is the State’s viewpoint and the State’s viewpoint cannot be applied to impose prior restraints.« Back to Glossary Index