Declaration of Parents to the State of Utah on the Best Interests of the Children
Sept 15, 2013 1:57:32 GMT -7
Post by matthewjfalkner on Sept 15, 2013 1:57:32 GMT -7
Declaration of Parents to the State of Utah on the Best Interests of Children Declaration of Parents to the State of Utah on the Best Interests of Children and Families
September 15, 2013 at 1:36am
Please like (from the internal link) if you agree, and comment if you have suggestions or concerns. This is being refined, and should be scrutinized as much as possible to ensure it is the clear voice of parents in Utah. It needs to be legally sound. We need joint refinement efforts between the public, community leaders, attorneys and legislators. Your comments will not be ignored, but this is a process, so please bear with us. Working on slimming down the whereas clauses.
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has stated: "There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602, " there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304, "The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and
Whereas, without compelling State interest, parents have sovereign authority to determine the best interests of children, and
Whereas, termination of parental rights is federally and judicially recognized as similar to the death penalty, and
Whereas, "strict scrutiny" is federally and judicially recognized as the standard of due process required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair family rights, and
Whereas, without compelling State interest, the State has the duty to give priority to the interests of children and families above the interests of the State, and
Whereas, the Oath of Office is a pre-requisite to act with authority appointive of constitutional rights, and in consideration of said Oath, the People of Utah grant authority, faith and confidence, and
Whereas, said Oath is a contractual guarantee that the Constitution will be defended, and
Whereas, the Utah Office of the Attorney General refuses citizen-based requests to defend family rights, claiming conflict of interest in that they defend the State from such action, and
Whereas, such policy or reasonning is in direct conflict with the oath of office, the interests of children and families, and all fundamental principles of justice, and
Whereas, no constitutional right or administrative rule has meaning without guaranteed avenues of redress, and realistic accountability, and
Whereas, consistent patterns of abused discretion mandate reform, either by correcting the motivation or limiting the scope of discretion and immunity, and
Whereas, convoluted policy and logistical barriers are placing an impenetrable stranglehold on individual's available avenues of redress for civil rights violations in Utah, and
Whereas, such stranglehold exists when discretion, immunity, and conflicts of interests are allowed to overcome the interests of children and families, and
Whereas, such stranglehold exists when opportunities for abuse and waste of federal and State funds in child and family programs are left unchecked, and
Whereas, such stranglehold constitutes the necessity to defend the Constitution
Whereas, the 2011 Performance Audit of The Division of Child and Family Services stated, "One theme that reoccurs throughout this report is the need for stronger state oversight to reduce regional inconsistency", and
Whereas, the 2013 Performance Audit of The Division of Child and Family Services identifies nine points of inconsistency issues, and no real points of stronger state oversight, and
Whereas, everything the government does wrong is our fault if we let them get away with it, and everything we let them get away with is re-lived by others until we do something about it,
We, the Parents of the State of Utah, declare that it is in the best interests of our children and families that,
All Utah government leaders begin decisive, structural, and meaningful family law reform now. Uproot all state interests disguised as family interests, and begin recognizing the interests of children and families as they are, as we, the parents of the State of Utah declare them to be.
There must be a comprehensive remedy that digs out the core, leaving behind no commonly abused discretion, lack of accountability, unfair immunity, perverse incentive, compromised oversight, convoluted law, cloudy transparency, conflict of interest, ineffective process, unequal treatment, legal back door, avenue of abuse, excuses, or policy designed to cripple families logistically or financially to protect the interests of the state.
The state should recognize that no appointive officer of this state may enter upon duties pursuant to family rights without first swearing to uphold the constitution by taking and subscribing to the Oath of Office.
The state should recognize that government immunity and discretion have no superseding authority over family rights.
Before any officer of this state is appointed to authority related to family rights, they should successfully complete substantive family rights training that ensures that they have the knowledge and capacity to avoid violations.
It should be considered beyond the scope of official capacity, and a violation of the Oath of office for any State official to unduly favor to the state's interests above the interests of children or families.
No conflict of interest between the state and families should ever be remedied by lending favor to the State without a compelling state interest.
In the interests of public safety, the State should mandate termination, and require prosecution for any misconduct or dishonesty that compromises the interests of children or families.
Any government employee with any authority to intervene or take part in determining the best interests of the children should be held to a minimum standard of knowledge and practice in a court of law. Providing conspicuously consistent or damaging objectionable statements or evidence should be considered misconduct. No recommendations or descriptions of evidence should be provided in lieu of best evidence. Vagueness, speculation, etc. should reflect not more than reasonable but informed human error.
Except when temporary and based on threat of immediate harm, it should be recognized as a conflict of interest for the State to compel itself on its own interests against the interests of children or families. No termination of parental rights should take place without a jury trial, and no temporary intervention should take place without citizen-based oversight review.
No person should be required to pay attorneys to achieve redress for family rights violations.
The State should mandate due effort investigation into all citizen-based misconduct complaints related to family law whenever compelling cause has not been established deny such request.
All State and local oversight committees should remain free of government employees and private stakeholders. No member should ever have any other direct or indirect affiliation with the agency being overseen.
The State should have no presumed compelling interests regarding the privacy of children, or any other matter of family law without due process demonstration of compelling interest in a court of law.
State interests should never be considered compelling against the interests of public safety.
The State should recognize that there is no standard other than the criminal standard for any and all definitions of abuse.
No determination of abuse or termination of any parental right should ever be achievable without due process: The right to an attorney, the right to face accusers in a court of law, the right to be heard by a jury of your peers, etc.
A clear and effective method to identify governmental patterns of abuse of discretion should be put in place, and should rely on citizen input that is uncompromised by government stakeholders.
Federal funding for family agencies and programs should not be prejudicial to State interests above the interests of the family.
Federal and state funding for family agencies and programs should be conditional on performance, and audited with scrutiny by citizen-based forms of oversight.
All government funding and spending related to family law should be transparent enough for any Utah citizen to perform a comprehensive audit, and account for all money received or spent without submitting a records request.
Prosecution of perjury in family courts should be mandatorily enforced.
Parental alienation should be enforced without bias.
No form of oversight should be restricted as to the form or type of recommendation it may provide, or the scope of misconduct that it may investigate.
All forms of oversight should have the duty to report violations of law.
All documents written by government workers that may be seen in court for any family related case should be self-authenticating.
All Utah government leaders must immediately agree to decisive, structural, and meaningful family law reform to uproot all state interests disguised as family interests, and to hereby and henceforth recognize the interests of children and families as we, the parents of the State of Utah declare them to be.
There must be a full and complete remedy that comprehensively eliminates the problem at its core, leaving behind no commonly abused discretion, lack of accountability, unfair immunity, perverse incentive, compromised oversight, convoluted law, cloudy transparency, conflict of interest, ineffective process, opportunity for unequal treatment, legal back door, avenue of abuse or excuse, or policy designed to cripple families logistically or financially to protect the interests of the state.
September 15, 2013 at 1:36am
Please like (from the internal link) if you agree, and comment if you have suggestions or concerns. This is being refined, and should be scrutinized as much as possible to ensure it is the clear voice of parents in Utah. It needs to be legally sound. We need joint refinement efforts between the public, community leaders, attorneys and legislators. Your comments will not be ignored, but this is a process, so please bear with us. Working on slimming down the whereas clauses.
Whereas, the United States Supreme Court has stated: "There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602, " there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304, "The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a fit parent is available. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and
Whereas, without compelling State interest, parents have sovereign authority to determine the best interests of children, and
Whereas, termination of parental rights is federally and judicially recognized as similar to the death penalty, and
Whereas, "strict scrutiny" is federally and judicially recognized as the standard of due process required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair family rights, and
Whereas, without compelling State interest, the State has the duty to give priority to the interests of children and families above the interests of the State, and
Whereas, the Oath of Office is a pre-requisite to act with authority appointive of constitutional rights, and in consideration of said Oath, the People of Utah grant authority, faith and confidence, and
Whereas, said Oath is a contractual guarantee that the Constitution will be defended, and
Whereas, the Utah Office of the Attorney General refuses citizen-based requests to defend family rights, claiming conflict of interest in that they defend the State from such action, and
Whereas, such policy or reasonning is in direct conflict with the oath of office, the interests of children and families, and all fundamental principles of justice, and
Whereas, no constitutional right or administrative rule has meaning without guaranteed avenues of redress, and realistic accountability, and
Whereas, consistent patterns of abused discretion mandate reform, either by correcting the motivation or limiting the scope of discretion and immunity, and
Whereas, convoluted policy and logistical barriers are placing an impenetrable stranglehold on individual's available avenues of redress for civil rights violations in Utah, and
Whereas, such stranglehold exists when discretion, immunity, and conflicts of interests are allowed to overcome the interests of children and families, and
Whereas, such stranglehold exists when opportunities for abuse and waste of federal and State funds in child and family programs are left unchecked, and
Whereas, such stranglehold constitutes the necessity to defend the Constitution
Whereas, the 2011 Performance Audit of The Division of Child and Family Services stated, "One theme that reoccurs throughout this report is the need for stronger state oversight to reduce regional inconsistency", and
Whereas, the 2013 Performance Audit of The Division of Child and Family Services identifies nine points of inconsistency issues, and no real points of stronger state oversight, and
Whereas, everything the government does wrong is our fault if we let them get away with it, and everything we let them get away with is re-lived by others until we do something about it,
We, the Parents of the State of Utah, declare that it is in the best interests of our children and families that,
All Utah government leaders begin decisive, structural, and meaningful family law reform now. Uproot all state interests disguised as family interests, and begin recognizing the interests of children and families as they are, as we, the parents of the State of Utah declare them to be.
There must be a comprehensive remedy that digs out the core, leaving behind no commonly abused discretion, lack of accountability, unfair immunity, perverse incentive, compromised oversight, convoluted law, cloudy transparency, conflict of interest, ineffective process, unequal treatment, legal back door, avenue of abuse, excuses, or policy designed to cripple families logistically or financially to protect the interests of the state.
The state should recognize that no appointive officer of this state may enter upon duties pursuant to family rights without first swearing to uphold the constitution by taking and subscribing to the Oath of Office.
The state should recognize that government immunity and discretion have no superseding authority over family rights.
Before any officer of this state is appointed to authority related to family rights, they should successfully complete substantive family rights training that ensures that they have the knowledge and capacity to avoid violations.
It should be considered beyond the scope of official capacity, and a violation of the Oath of office for any State official to unduly favor to the state's interests above the interests of children or families.
No conflict of interest between the state and families should ever be remedied by lending favor to the State without a compelling state interest.
In the interests of public safety, the State should mandate termination, and require prosecution for any misconduct or dishonesty that compromises the interests of children or families.
Any government employee with any authority to intervene or take part in determining the best interests of the children should be held to a minimum standard of knowledge and practice in a court of law. Providing conspicuously consistent or damaging objectionable statements or evidence should be considered misconduct. No recommendations or descriptions of evidence should be provided in lieu of best evidence. Vagueness, speculation, etc. should reflect not more than reasonable but informed human error.
Except when temporary and based on threat of immediate harm, it should be recognized as a conflict of interest for the State to compel itself on its own interests against the interests of children or families. No termination of parental rights should take place without a jury trial, and no temporary intervention should take place without citizen-based oversight review.
No person should be required to pay attorneys to achieve redress for family rights violations.
The State should mandate due effort investigation into all citizen-based misconduct complaints related to family law whenever compelling cause has not been established deny such request.
All State and local oversight committees should remain free of government employees and private stakeholders. No member should ever have any other direct or indirect affiliation with the agency being overseen.
The State should have no presumed compelling interests regarding the privacy of children, or any other matter of family law without due process demonstration of compelling interest in a court of law.
State interests should never be considered compelling against the interests of public safety.
The State should recognize that there is no standard other than the criminal standard for any and all definitions of abuse.
No determination of abuse or termination of any parental right should ever be achievable without due process: The right to an attorney, the right to face accusers in a court of law, the right to be heard by a jury of your peers, etc.
A clear and effective method to identify governmental patterns of abuse of discretion should be put in place, and should rely on citizen input that is uncompromised by government stakeholders.
Federal funding for family agencies and programs should not be prejudicial to State interests above the interests of the family.
Federal and state funding for family agencies and programs should be conditional on performance, and audited with scrutiny by citizen-based forms of oversight.
All government funding and spending related to family law should be transparent enough for any Utah citizen to perform a comprehensive audit, and account for all money received or spent without submitting a records request.
Prosecution of perjury in family courts should be mandatorily enforced.
Parental alienation should be enforced without bias.
No form of oversight should be restricted as to the form or type of recommendation it may provide, or the scope of misconduct that it may investigate.
All forms of oversight should have the duty to report violations of law.
All documents written by government workers that may be seen in court for any family related case should be self-authenticating.
All Utah government leaders must immediately agree to decisive, structural, and meaningful family law reform to uproot all state interests disguised as family interests, and to hereby and henceforth recognize the interests of children and families as we, the parents of the State of Utah declare them to be.
There must be a full and complete remedy that comprehensively eliminates the problem at its core, leaving behind no commonly abused discretion, lack of accountability, unfair immunity, perverse incentive, compromised oversight, convoluted law, cloudy transparency, conflict of interest, ineffective process, opportunity for unequal treatment, legal back door, avenue of abuse or excuse, or policy designed to cripple families logistically or financially to protect the interests of the state.
