In The Best Interest Of Children
 (Produced June/2017)
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”   –Nelson Mandela

As we approach Father’s Day, some realities must be taken into account…not every Father and child get to spend time together on what is supposed to be a day in which fathers are supposed to be revered for being…fathers to their children. There are mother’s too who are put in a similar position as fathers, however, the intrusive acts of the courts and the alienation of fathers runs far higher for them than it does for mothers. A father, if he is lucky, gets the standard every other weekend for a total of four days per month. Some fathers, luckier still, may get an extra day or two per month thrown in one day every two weeks, for a total of six days per month. And then, we come to the fathers who either get only a phone call for about one hour one time per week with no personal visits, or they get absolutely nothing, no time at all with their child who they had previously cared for, provided for and bonded with. How can such a thing exist in the so-called democracy of the United States of America, a country gifted with a Bill of Rights, rights that were deemed inalienable, along with parental rights that also were god given and upheld by the United States Supreme Court, and has laws encouraging the relationship between parent and child?  Well, read on and you will see the travesty and the judicial crisis that exists in our country in the court system known as the family law court (family court system).

America’s great shame lies in the fact that more than 25 million of its children are being raised without a father.  That’s one of every three children.  ( the African-American communities, the figure is even higher —more than half of all Black children. This great shame takes a toll on our children, families and society as a whole. 

The Problem

This minimizing of father’s role in the raising of their child is one of the most neglected issues in our country and throughout the world, virtually completely ignored by the government, politicians,     agencies, the media and society. Much of this minimization and/or eliminations of fathers occur via parental alienation by a parent towards the opposite parent, and this behavior goes unpunished and sanctioned by the court, in fact, it is incentivized by the U.S. government via Social Security Title IV-D.

Although either a father or mother can alienate the opposite parent from the child/children, it is usually a mother that does so given the fact that mothers get 84.4% of physical custody of children [U.S. Dept. Of The Census]

• 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the father’s visitation to punish their ex-spouse. ["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry].

50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children. ["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]. 

Move-aways, unjust and unnecessary supervised visitation, disruptive and/or shortened visitation, less than 50% visitation, every other weekend visitation, etc., are all forms of negating or limiting one parents’ (most often fathers) contact with their children.  And the impact that this has on a family as a whole (brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, aunts) is devastating to the affected individuals, and society as a whole.

Additionally, and one of the main egregious issues in the matter, is that states are getting paid by the Federal Government for using the Family Court to force divorced parents out of the lives of their children.  Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, Section 458 “Incentive Payments to States.”  States are making money by creating absent parents.

What About The Children/Effects On Children?

Parental Alienation behaviors, whether they are verbal or non-verbal, cause a child to be mentally manipulated or bullied into believing that a loving parent is the cause of all of their problems, and/or are the enemy; someone to be feared, hated, disrespected and/or avoided. It clearly is a form of child abuse.

Illegal and unfair rulings in America’s family courts are causing millions of our children undue suffering as a result of one parent (usually the father), being cut out of their children’s lives without lawful reason. Allegations of family violence are the weapon-of-choice in divorce strategies. Lawyers, and paralegals in women's shelters, call them "The Silver Bullet." False abuse allegations work effectively in removing men from their families. Children shouldn’t be penalized because of a parental conflict. More than one million of the three million restraining orders fled every year are fraudulent, with most of those filed in child custody cases. Lawyers and judges are trained in how to obtain and authorize a restraining order based solely on its request (without any facts or evidence necessary). 

Despite the best of intentions, our nation's effort to curb domestic violence is not working. Current solutions not only fail to reduce domestic violence, but also create other severe problems. Families are being undermined and children harmed. Innocent Americans are penalized based on false accusations. And victims of violence are re-victimized by a rigid system that ignores their wishes, or excludes them altogether. (

The impact that the removal of fathers has on our children is horrific. More than one million children a year are affected by divorce.  At that rate, we are talking about in excess of 2,808 children per day, in excess of 117 children every hour and approximately 2 children per minute. Children from fatherless homes account for: 63% of youth suicides, 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions, 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders, 71% of pregnant teenagers, 90% of homeless and runaways, 71% of all high school dropouts, and 85% of all youths sitting in prisons.  Nearly 2 of every 5 children in America do not live with their fathers. Court reform, judicial accountability and equal shared parenting are needed immediately to create a fair and just family law system, as well as create a system that is truly in the best interests of our children. Many people and most experts agree that children need both parents— fit, willing and caring parents, in order to thrive and prosper from childhood through adulthood. [Sources: U.S. Dept. of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, Dept. of Corrections, National Principles Association]

Reckless Power
The divorce industry is a $60 billion industry that rivals Coca-Cola in revenue produced. (See the documentary film, “Divorce Corp.,” ( The resulting tearing apart of the family in re children, is a vicious and cruel industry.  The family courts make more money than all of the other courts combined!

There are far too many myths that exist in regarding “absent fathers” from children’s lives. This myth is especially true in Black families, as fathers are often diminished in their roles as parents. The main reason fathers are “absent” from their children’s lives, is the fact that the family court kidnaps and traffics in children for profit and greed, minimizes the importance and place of fathers in their children’s lives, subjects fathers to all sorts of humiliation, financial ruin and fraudulent allegations of various kinds, and treats fathers like ATM machines and sperm donors. Most of this occurs as a result of the following: The high level of gender bias in the court system, the perjury, fraud, collusion, racketeering and corruption that permeates the system, along with high-priced attorneys and other court representatives (minors counsels, psychologists, mediators, etc.), who are insiders, greasing the wheels of injustice, the judges that don’t follow the law, Supreme Court decisions re the rights of the parent, the Constitution, and more. These are but a few of the goings on in this cesspool of a court system. 

If you have ever sat in a family court room and listened carefully to what was going on, read documents pertaining to the case and read between the lines, read a judge’s court order, etc., you would start to put true facts together and realize that children are a pawn in an economic chess game, they are used as a commodity by the court system for profit and gain. You would also find it hard to understand how a kangaroo court such as the family court is allowed to exist in the USA, especially when the U.S. Supreme Court has a doctrine that speaks to the protection of parental rights.  This de facto human trafficking of children is an obscenity.

The Supreme Court's Parental Rights Doctrine

Our nation has consistently maintained that parents possess a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. This belief has been upheld by our judiciary in numerous Supreme Court cases that reflect the American people's longstanding commitment to parental rights. The excerpts below are drawn from key Supreme Court cases protecting the right of parents to raise their children. It is critical that we place the current Supreme Court doctrine on parental rights into the explicit text of the United States Constitution in order to preserve the vital child-parent relationship. The principles below are referred to as the Parental Rights Doctrine.
Case index:
· Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
· Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
· Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
· Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
· Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
· Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
· Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
· Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
· Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
· Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
· Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
· Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
· Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
· Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life.
- Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. . . . It is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
- Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
The values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society.
Even more markedly than in Prince, therefore, this case involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the State, to guide the religious future and education of their children.

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. It is through the family that we inculcate and pass down many of our most cherished values, moral and cultural.
- Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
The liberty interest in family privacy has its source, and its contours are ordinarily to be sought, not in state law, but in intrinsic human rights, as they have been understood in "this Nation's history and tradition."
- Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected.
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended "if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest."
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.
The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.

Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.
- Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.
-- Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life.
Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship.

- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)

"The best interests of the child," a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion-much less the sole constitutional criterion-for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others.
"The best interests of the child" is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves.

- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one's children.

The Fourteenth Amendment "forbids the government to infringe ... 'fundamental' liberty interests of all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest."
- Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.
In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville's determination of her daughters' best interests. More importantly, it appears that the Superior Court applied exactly the opposite presumption.
The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made.

- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Furthermore, experts in child development agree that in the absence of substantiated abuse, shared parenting is better for children:
"There is a consensus that neither the discretionary best interests of the child standard nor sole custody or primary residence orders are serving the needs of children and families of divorce. There is a consensus that shared parenting is a viable post-divorce parenting arrangement that is optimal to child development and well-being, including for children of high conflict parents."
-- Edward Kruk, Ph.D., First International Conference on Shared Parenting, May 2014

"Family law litigants should not be subjected to second-class status or deprived of access to justice...The same judicial resources and safeguards should be committed to a family law trial as are committed to other civil proceedings." Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1368.

Title IV-D of the U.S. Social Security Act
Title IV-D refers to state-run child support enforcement programs which are funded through grants provided for by the Social Security Act of 1975. Title IV of the Social Security Act covers grants to states for the purpose of providing aid and services to needy families with children and for child-welfare services. Part "D" of that law covers child support and the establishment of paternity.
Family Court Corruption, and Title IV-D Funding From States: To Have Incentives To Illegally “Courtnap” Children, needs to be abolished, along with CPS Corruption, and overall Judicial Corruption. This is an outrage, as nobody has to account for these Title IV-D funds and how they are spent. Secondly, there are numerous accounts from all over the United States about CPS taking children into custody and adopting them out for the incentive funds which range from $4,000 to $8,000 a child.  This is a “Kids for Cash” scam!
Title IV-D funding has caused great grief to those families trying to get a "fair hearing" in family court. The Family Court Judges, attorney ad litems, and psychologists, all benefit from Title IV-D funding. The funds are given to the states on collection of child support. There is no incentive to grant the "best parent" custody - but to examine which parent can pay child support. This is important as every dollar of child support collected is matched by Title IV-D funding. The funding going to the States are not used to enforce visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, but going into areas of the State that are not accounted for.

This is important to you as it will not matter how much you spend on legal fees or the quality of your attorney. This is about federal funding going to each State – not to benefit our children, but for increase revenue.

The civil rights of families and children have been denied due process. Unless we have accountability for the Family Court actions and where the money is being spent, this will get worse.  
Chapter 6. Support
A. Child Support

f. [6:101] County child support agency “representation” (Title IV–D enforcement services):
In return for receiving federal funding for public assistance, Title IV–D of the Social Security Act requires states to provide services related to the establishment, modification and enforcement of child support (42 USC § 654(4)(A)).
A comprehensive statutory scheme in California is designed to ensure that this state complies with its Title IV–D obligations (Fam.C. § 17000 et seq.). [See generally, County of Lake v. Palla (2001) 94 CA4th 418, 421–422, 114 CR2d 277, 279–280]

Broadly, the State Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) and each county’s department of child support services (the “local child support agency,” see Fam.C. § 17000 (h)) are charged with “promptly and effectively collecting and enforcing” child support obligations—including “medical support” (¶ 6:104)—when the child is receiving public assistance; and, upon request, must take the same action on behalf of a child not receiving public assistance. [Fam.C. §§17304, 17400(a), 17500(a); Plumas County Child Support Services v. Rodriquez (2008) 161 CA4th 1021, 1027, 76 CR3d 1, 5] (See 6:832 re local child support agency role in spousal support Parental matters.)

Parental Activism

People from all walks of life are responding to the vast level of corruption and abuse in America’s family court system. Fathers, mothers, grandparents, uncles, aunts and children, along with many supporting groups and individuals continue to unite throughout the country (and overseas) demanding family law court reform. Many shared experiences and encounters with the family court system have proven the pattern and practice of usual and customary behavior by the court insiders proving the mass level of fraud and corruption, collusion, obstruction of justice, Constitutional violations and case law violations that take place on a daily and hourly basis. These are accomplished via dictatorial judges ignoring the law and writing the unfair and illegal rulings that ravage many a father, parent, child and family.
50/50 Equal Shared Parenting would level the playing field and give children access to both parents, and act in accordance with what the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the parents have a right to be…Parents who want to be with their children.  Children Need Both Parents!
Court reform and judicial accountability would create a system of fairness and gender equality, as well as hold judges responsible for the decisions they made as to whether or not they are based on law (settled case law, Supreme Court law, etc.), upholding Constitutional Rights of the individual, do not obstruct justice, et. al., rather than decisions made and motivated by self-aggrandizement, financial incentives, emoluments, and more. It is time to reform the courts and end this form of kidnapping and trafficking of children for money.

Factually and statistically speaking, there is much support for the statement 'two parents are better than one,' a cry of support for equal shared parenting for fit, loving and caring parents.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bob Saunders 916/370-8251
Justice Reform Coalition

The California Fathers Rights Movement