Unfortunately, this mother, Katina, didn’t know her rights or how to assert them. That hasn’t stopped her from exercising her right to protect her child to determine what’s best for her child. Now is your chance to show your support for a parent that is sitting in jail refusing to bow to a judge’s abuse of power by contacting the reporter and asking him to do a follow-up story on this mother.

Unfortunately because parents don’t know their rights they are taken advantage of in the court system every day and suffer abuses of power like this mother. The United States Supreme Court ruled on exactly this issue in Troxel v. Granville in 2000. That judge cannot substitute his opinion of the child’s best interest for that of the fit parent. The only way a judge gets away with this is when a person does not stand up for their rights. But how can you stand up for your rights when you don’t know what they are? Well, you can go to jail like this mother to exercise your right to decide over a judge. You can also avoid jail in many instances by filing the proper challenge to the judge. And if that judge still throws you in jail you will know what to file to get released from jail fairly quickly and have that judge overturned and mar that judge’s record. When someone is faced with this type of abuse of power, doesn’t know what their rights are, and their freedom is taken, they need everyone’s help. Those that have learned their rights need to speak up. This mother has been asking for an attorney and is being denied.

This attorney in the article “Fargo Attorney Julie Oster specializes in family law.

She says state law calls for reasonable visitation rights, if it’s in the best interest of a child.” Just because a state passes a law doesn’t mean that it is constitutional.

This mother could be out of jail with a simple proper filing with the Appellate Court. We have contacted the reporter in this case and have asked him to do a follow-up story on the constitutionality of this absolute violation of this woman’s constitutional rights.

We recommend that anyone else that knows they have rights, cares about keeping these rights, and would want others to step up and help them contact this reporter and tell him that this judge is violating her civil rights according to Troxel v. Granville US Supreme Court 2000. Perhaps if you flood this reporter with concern and ask this reporter to help her get the media attention she needs to get an attorney to step up and help her, you can help get this poor mother out of jail. We are sure her child is also suffering from these unconstitutional acts of this judge. And if you want to help further, write a letter to the court, the Attorney General, the legislators in that state, the President of the United States, and anyone else that would have influence over the judge in that state and let them know what this judge did and that parents are fed up with these violations of their civil rights and ask them to help in stopping these judges from harming our children and families.

You can contact the reporter here:

Posting this for Ron B. Palmer


RESOURCE: Article Written by Kevin Wallevand with WDAY at Accessed on October 17, 2013.


    • This case made me search for a case I read some time ago where the Supreme Court held that before a court can put an indigent person in jail for contempt they must have either established a process for fundamental fairness or have provided that person access to counsel. I am willing to bet that there was no fundamental fairness in this case and the article says that she was not provided with counsel. This is another likely constitutional violation by this court. The Supreme Court said this in Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 – Supreme Court 2011:

      The record indicates that Turner received neither counsel nor the benefit of alternative procedures like those we have described. He did not receive clear notice that his ability to pay would constitute the critical question in his civil contempt proceeding. No one provided him with a form (or the equivalent) designed to elicit information about his financial circumstances. The court did not find that Turner was able to pay his arrearage, but instead left the relevant “finding” section of the contempt order blank. The court nonetheless found Turner in contempt and ordered him incarcerated. Under these circumstances Turner’s incarceration violated the Due Process Clause.

Leave a Reply