Thu. Apr 18th, 2024

The Proposed Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment 2022

Fix Family Courts has crafted and is proposing the adoption of  a constitutional amendment that would protect children by protecting parent-child bonds better than they have ever been protected before. Join with us in clearly stating that children are best protected by having two equal fit parents whose rights as parents are strongly protected. Tell your elected representitives that this is the level of protection you demand.

Protecting Parent-Child Bonds

  1.  The most basic form of a protected private family unit is an individual parent and their minor child. The state may neither sever nor cross the boundaries of this family unit, except upon unfitness of the parent. Parent and child share a right to free and equal association with each other.
  2. A parent is assumed to be fit until the state proves that either (a) the parent has exposed the minor child to clear and present danger as a result of the parent’s decisions (b) the parent is incapable of meeting the minimum basic needs of the child for a significantly prolonged period (c) the parent is unwilling to meet the minimum basic needs of the minor child (d) a parent knowingly and intelligently waives their parental rights.
    1. Fit parents are entrusted by nature or the State with determining the best interests of their minor child and must be assumed to be acting in their child’s best interests unless proven unfit.
    2. Each fit parent has the equal right and duty to direct and control their minor child’s education, to include educating the minor child through personal example, which arises through routine parenting of the child. The child has a right to receive education from each parent equally. These rights are among the penumbra of individual First Amendment rights.
    3. Fit parents hold equal rights and duties in the care, custody, control, and physical possession of the minor child. Any conflict between these rights must be resolved in as equal a manner as possible.
    4. Fit parents may entrust certain of these rights to others as they see fit without forfeiting their rights.
  3. The rights of natural (biological) parents are neither established nor granted by the State but are self-evident rights that shall be protected by the State and by this Amendment. The State may create legal parents where that creation does not unduly burden the rights of natural parents without their consent to the burden. Once established, except where specifically limited, legal parents are granted protection under this Amendment.
  4. Minor children have the right to be in the care, custody, control, and possession of their fit parents equally, and where no fit parents exist, to be in the care, custody, control, and possession of the State. All other rights with which the minor child is endowed but is incapable of exercising are to be held in trust by fit parents in the first instance and by the State only where no fit parent exists.
  5. Nothing in this Amendment shall be construed as limiting the State from setting minimum, equally applicable, standards or regulation concerning the general health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. When rights between parents are in conflict and the State is asked to intervene, that intervention shall be the least detrimental to these rights. Where a valid question of harm to the child exists, the State may act to protect the child for the briefest time necessary to protect the child from that immediate harm.

This parental rights amendment was published by Fix Family Courts in 2017 and continues to be highly relevant today. Tell your senators and Representatives that we need to vote on a parental rights amendment in 2022 and give them a copy of this book to help them understand why.

  • Parental Rights Amendment 2021 was relevant in 2021 and continues to be relevant in 2022.
  • Parental Rights Amendment 2020 was relevant in 2020 and continues to be relevant in 2022.
  • Parental Rights Amendment 2019 was relevant in 2019 and continues to be relevant in 2022.
  • Parental Rights Amendment 2018 was relevant in 2018 and continues to be relevant in 2022.
  • Parental Rights Amendment 2017 was relevant in 2017 when this parental rights amendment was first proposed and it continues to be relevant in 2022.

cited Protecting Parent-Child Bonds

The 28th Amendment

Parental Rights Amendment 2022

A proposed 28th amendment to the United States Constitution that can also be incorporated into state constitutions.

 


Congresswoman proposes…..
constitutional amendment to protect parental rights

Republican U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Lesko has proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the fundamental right of parents to make the best educational decisions for their children.

In a press release, Lesko states that the amendment is necessary to protect parents from those seeking to “eliminate educational choices for their families.”

Parents have a fundamental right to be involved in their children’s education and to be able to choose the best educational options for their families. I am pleased to introduce this Constitutional Amendment to protect parents from far-left school board officials and government bureaucrats in the Biden Administration who have actively worked to undermine parental rights and eliminate educational choices for their families.

The legislation would ensure that parents have the right to “choose an alternative to traditional public education and make reasonable choices within public schools for their children,” stating that parents are in the best position to “direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.”

Republicans have historically been the party that has preferred to have matters such as these fleshed out at the local level, rather than relying on federal mandates to protect these rights. However conservative lawmakers, and more importantly the constituents they serve, have become increasingly frustrated with local school boards who have been indifferent, and even hostile, to parents concerned with what their kids are being taught.

While some might feel that amending the Constitution to protect these rights is a step too far, Jim Mason, chairman of the board for the Parental Rights Foundation disagrees. He states, “The Supreme Court in 1923 said ‘the child is not the mere creature of the State,’ but many of today’s bureaucrats have lost sight of that. This amendment will permanently codify that precedent and restore a proper respect for the vital parent-child bond in America.”

Lesko and other proponents of the amendment are not willing to rely on 100-year-old case law to ensure these parental rights.  A constitutional amendment is much less subject to interpretation and is harder to repeal down the road.

Josh Hawley proposed similar legislation – though not a constitutional amendment – last year that would protect parents’ abilities to have a say in their child’s education by enacting a Parent’s Bill of Rights. Hawley’s bill would “prohibit nondisclosure agreements concerning curriculum; let parents make copies of classroom material; require schools to have parents opt their children into field trips, assemblies, and other extracurricular activities; and in general require more transparency from school boards and educators concerning things like student records and safety.”

Lesko’s proposal also follows Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis passing of the Parental Rights in Education Bill in March which states that a “school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.”

At the time a poll revealed that the legislation was popular even amongst Democratic primary voters with 52% saying they were in favor of the legislation, while only 36% were opposed.

Many voters have applauded the legislative efforts of conservative politicians on the matter. A Parental Rights Foundation poll from earlier this year showed that 80% of Americans agreed with the statement, “In general, parents have the constitutional right to make decisions for their children without government interference unless there is proof of abuse or neglect.”

Despite the unpopularity of the liberal agenda, the assault on parental rights continues to increase in both frequency and reach. As FISM previously reported, one Virginia state legislator recently introduced a bill to criminalize parents who don’t affirm their child’s self-identified sexual identity. Additionally, in California, a new law creates a “sanctuary state” for child “sex changes”.

The issue of parental rights in education could have a big impact on midterm results, as parents are telling pollsters that the issue is one of their top concerns influencing how they plan to vote in November. Curt Flewelling, FISM News

 


Please take time to learn new UPCOMING 

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution,
protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.


To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links


Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the TheBrandenburg testfor incitement to violence 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test  1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United StatesTrue Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment


Learn More About What is Obscene….

We also have the Miller v. California 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment


Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee1st Amendment Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment Posting Police Address

 We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – 1st Amendment

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts  1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive 1st Amendment


ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU? CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

We also have the Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

We also have the Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

We also have the Penal Code 132 PCOffering False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 134 PCPreparing False Evidence

We also have the Penal Code 118.1 PCPolice Officers Filing False Reports

We also have the Spencer v. Peters Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

We also have the Penal Code 148.5 PC –  Making a False Police Report in California

We also have the  Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California


Know Your Rights Click Here (must read!)

 Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

$ection 1983 LawsuitHow to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

18 U.S. Code § 242Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241Conspiracy against Right$

$uing for MisconductKnow More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in CaliforniaHow to Bring a Lawsuit

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police


RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN & YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

We also have the 9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment  this CODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS

We also have the  Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights 5th Amendment  this CODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS

We also have the 9.32 Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECTS all US CITIZENS

We also have the PARENTS RIGHTS SCOTUS RULINGS & HELP HERE for 14th Amendment PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

We also have the  California Civil Code Section 52.1 Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

We also have the Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS


Contesting / Appeal an Order / Judgment / Charge

Options to Appealing – Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation 

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California –  Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence


Epic Scotus DecisionsClick HereAt issue in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972) was whether a conviction under state law prohibiting profane language in a public place violated a man's First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Supreme Court vacated the man's conviction and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of its recent rulings about fighting words. The man had used profane language at a public school board meeting. (Illustration via Pixabay, public domain)