Case Law And Conclusions For Fathers RightsThis file contains nearly 300 case laws relevant to Fathers Rights, divorce, custody, child support anddivision of assets divide into several categories.State laws vary under the “Domestic Relations Exception” giving states the jurisdiction over divorce law.However, certain constitutional rights will override these as no state can make any law that takes awayConstitutional Rights of its citizens. This work is the compilation of many people’s work over manyyears. Some is state specific and some is federal and Supreme Court law.Many people believe that family courts act unconstitutionally and ignore the law in favor of variousbiases. Many people believe lawyers will not challenge judges for the benefit of their clients because theymust appear regularly in front of these judges. Many people believe that the legal costs created by divorceattorneys are mostly unnecessary in the divorce industry and that it is this profit driven motive thatencourages great conflict which harms children for life. You can find a list of the top 85 things lawyersand judges do not want you to know at:1.The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that itcannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie atthe base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protectedby this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985).2.The several states has no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the FirstAmendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472US 38, (1985). The First Amendment has been found to include the right to religion and to raiseone’s children as one sees fit.3.Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionablyconstitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may becurtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on theirgovernment. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).4.Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or aheavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the FourteenthAmendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886). Therefore any denial of parental rightsbased only on sex is discriminatory.5.Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievabledestruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parentalrights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state interventioninto ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982). .Parental rights may not be terminated without "clear and convincing evidence."SANTOSKY V.KRAMER, 102 S.Ct. 1388 [1982]

6.The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's childrenand, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections.Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).7.Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendmentwhich may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative actionwhich is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state toeffect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598,435 US 963, IL, (1977).8.Parent's interest in custody of their children is a liberty interest which has received considerableconstitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even thoughtemporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due processprotection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).9.The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-childrelationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual libertyinterests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).Hence any ex-parte hearing or lack of due process would not warrant termination of parentalrights.10.Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment(First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as thatword is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause ofthe 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).11.If custodial Mother has boyfriend living with her, state can change custody to Father. JARRETTV. JARRETT, 101 S.Ct. 329 Visitation [parenting time] is a constitutionally protected rightwhich can be protected in federal court, even if Father is in prison. MABRA V. SCHMIDT, 356F. Supp. 6204.Custody can be awarded to Father of girls of "tender years" if Mothercommits perjury, and is otherwise immoral. BEABER V. BEABER, 322 NE 2d 91012.Mother cannot take child out of state if that prevents "meaningful" relationship between Fatherand child. WEISS V. WEISS, 436 NYS 2d 862, 52 NY 2d 170 [1981] See also: DAGHIR V.DAGHIR, 82 AD 2d 191 [NY 1981]; MUNFORD V. SHAW, 84 A.D. 2d 810, 444 NYS 2d 137[1981]; SIPOS V. SIPOS, 73 AD 2d 1055, 425 NYS 2d 414 [1980]; PRIEBE V. PRIEBE, 81AD2d 746, 438, NYS 2d 413 [1981]; STRAHL V. STRAHL, 66 AD 2d 571, 414 NYS 2d 184[1979]; O'SHEA V. BRENNAN, 88 Misc.2d 233, 387 NYS 2d 212 [1976]; WARD V. WARD,150 CA 2d 438, 309 P.2d 965 [Calif. 1957]; MARRIAGE OF SMITH, 290 Or.567, 624 P.2d 114[Oregon 1981]; MEIER AND MEIER, 286 Or. 437, 595 P.2d 474 [1979], 47 Or. App. 110, 613P.2d 763 [Oregon 1980]; All of these cases deal with preventing the custodial Mother from takingthe child out of the jurisdiction.13.The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custodyand management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right.May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840,843, (1952).

14.A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to beguaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United StatesConstitution. In re: J.S. and C.,324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.15.The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniablyWarrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interestin the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to aconstitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaningand responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208,(1972).16.Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by freeman." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).17.The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a(once) married father who is separated or divorced from amother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differentlyfrom a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US246, 255-56, (1978).18.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationshipis a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty andthe pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No statecan deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any personthe equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir,(1985).19.The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14thAmendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).20.No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bondbetween parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).21.A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that theparent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability toparticipate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection frominterference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by aloving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983).22.A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry,369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).23.Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerationsunder the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466US 429.24.Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry theinherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for

special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate theeffects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot bepermitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 4340 US 268 (1979).25.The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primaryresponsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute thatdiscriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and therearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v.Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).26.Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis uponconducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord,456 F 2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).27.State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons fromviolations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).28.The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters."Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuitof happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutualcare, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from himwithout due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or itbecomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).29.The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness,abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rightscontained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d1364;Utah, (1982).30.The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony,122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982).31.Children must be returned to home state before child support payments are continued. FEUER V.FEUER, 376 NYS 2d 546 [1975]32.Custody can be changed if wife is "disrespectful" of "visitation" order. MURASKIN V.MURASKIN 283 NW 2d 140 [N. Dakota 1979]33.Wife held in contempt for denial of visitation; new judge should not suspend contempt order.PETERSON V. PETERSON, 530 P.2d 821 [Utah 1974]34.Wife can be held in contempt if visitation is denied ENTWISTLE V. ENTWISTLE, 402 NYS 2d213 [1978]35.State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, includingdeterminations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary withinreach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment. In U.S. Supreme Courtcase Marshall v. Marshall US (No. 04-1544) 392 F. 3d 1118, the court affirmed that the U.S.

District Court “have been abusing the domestic relations exception” and must take jurisdictionwhen civil36.The United States Supreme Court has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation,and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental interests protected by theConstitution. The decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973),was described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of . arecognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment Thenon-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right tomaintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge theprotected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42USC § 1983, to visitation is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328,(1981).37.Although court may acquire subject matter jurisdiction over children to modify custody throughUCCJA, it must show independent personal jurisdiction [significant contacts] over out of stateFather before it can order him to pay child support. KULKO V. SUPERIOR COURT, 436 US 84,98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 [1978]; noted in 1979 Detroit Coll. L.Rev. 159, 65 Va. L.Rev. 175[1979] ; 1978 Wash. U.L.Q. 797. Kulko is based upon INTERNATIONAL SHOE V.WASHINGTON, 326 US 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed 95 [1945] and HANSON V. DENCKLA,357 US 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 [1958]38.Custody can be changed if visitation denied. ENTWISTLE V. ENTWISTLE, 402 NYS 2d 21339.Process service in family matters must provide due process protection. GRASZ V. GRASZ, 608SW 2d 356 [TX 1980]40.Judge's dismissal for no cause is reversible. FOMAN V. DAVIS, 371 US 178 [1962]41.Non lawyers can assist or represent litigants in court. JOHNSON V. AVERY, 89 S.Ct. 74742.Members of group who are competent non lawyers can assist other members of group achieve thegoals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law"BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY TRAINMEN V. VIRGINIA , 377 US 1; NAACP V.BUTTON, 371 US 415 [1962]; SIERRA CLUB V. NORTON, 92 S.Ct. 1561; UNITED MINEWORKERS V. GIBBS, 383 US 715; FARETTA V. CALIFORNIA, 422 US 80643.Pro Se [Without a Lawyer, representing self] pleadings are to be conside red without technicality;pro se litigants pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.HAINES V. KERNER, 92 S.Ct. 594; JENKINS V. MCKEITHEN, 395 US 411, 421 [1969];PICKING V. PENNA. RWY. CO. 151 F.2d 240; PUCKETT V. COX, 456 F.2d 23344.Federal judges can set aside or overturn state courts to preserve constitutional rights. MITCHUMV. FOSTER, 407 US 225 [1972] Title 28 US Code sec. 228445.Each state maintains the right to regulate it's citizens, including the regulation of family matters.However, an important caveat exists where all United States citizens rights are protected under

the United States Constitution. And pursuant to Article VI, also known as the supremacy clause,state judges must uphold federal law, which "shall be the supreme law of the land".46.Under state & federal law parents are presumed to be suitable and fit parents. Parents, implicitlypresumed to be suitable and fit, protect their child(ren)'s welfare. Conclusion: Suitable and fitparents act in their child(ren)'s best interests.47.The State of Massachusetts assumes an obligation, its "parens patriae" interest, where theparent(s) are unsuitable (unfit, unwilling, or unable to protect their minor child(ren)'s welfare) andwhere no other suitable individual is available.48.The State of Massachusetts must have a compelling legal reason to protect the welfare of childrenwhere a parent is available for the care, custody, and control of their minor child(ren). The claimof one parent against another can not be taken as sufficient reason to deny one parent legalcustody, physical custody and visitation, especially where there is a major financial incentive toget child support.49.The State of Massachusetts does not have a right to improperly intrude on a parent-childrelationship without a compelling reason.50.However, where parent(s) are legally presumed to act in their child(ren)'s best interests/welfare,the State of Massachusetts has no compelling reason to intrude into the private realm of thefamily or into the associational relationship between each parent and child. (implicating thefourteenth, ninth, and first amendments.)51.Conclusion: Without a compelling reason for state intervention, each autonomous parent-childrelationship remains intact. At this point, the State of Massachusetts has no legal basis tointervene; that is, the State of Massachusetts has no compelling reason to inject itself into eitherparent-child relationship. The welfare/best interests of the child(ren) are protected. Reno v.Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). And it is also at this juncture that the State of Massachusettsmaintains no legal basis to interfere with pre-existing parental rights.52.The State of Massachusetts has no legal basis to implicate any parental right where thechild(ren)'s welfare is implicitly protected. Therefore the welfare of the child(ren) has not beenproven to be in jeopardy. Conclusion: Both parents must retain their respective right to legal andphysical custody of their child(ren) barring proven unfitness, or danger to the children.53.However, let's go back to the current reality that exists in every divorce with children. Stateauthority asserting that the best interests of the child(ren) is paramount to parental rights.54.The State of Massachusetts opines that it maintains an obligation to protect the welfare of itsminor citizens and therefore state intervention is rationally related to the best interests of thechild(ren).55.State judicial decisions/court orders evidence the truth about what actually occurs as a pattern andpractice in family courts throughout the nation. Citation here for requirement that even whenparent is shown to be unfit in some way the state may only interfere in the least possible way.

56.The recurring pattern of acting in the child(ren)'s best interests occurs by intentionally ignoringparental rights. In fact today Massachusetts parents lose custody of their children simply by oneperson saying the word “fear” to a judge to take advantage of domestic violence laws andrestraining orders. This is clearly unconstitutional and has created a situation where there arehuge financial incentives for both the parent and the state to force one parent out of the lives ofthe children. Statistics show that about 40% of mothers do not value the contribution of fathers inthe upbringing of the children.57.This pattern and practice inverts the supremacy clause (Art. VI of the U.S. Constitution) byupholding state law (allegedly protecting children's interests) over federal law, i.e., compliancewith U.S. Constitution, where a federal right (the fundamental liberty right to custody) isimplicated.58.The State of Massachusetts believes that the least intrusive means, founded in the child(ren)'s bestinterests, is to physically remove one legally-suitable, but arbitrarily-denied parent fromsubstantive contact with his or her child(ren).59.The State of Massachusetts expressly condones that what is "best" for child(ren) is to minimizetheir relationship with the "non-custodial" parent. However, it has been shown by many scientificstudies over the life of children of divorce that stability of a single home is far less important thanhaving exposure to both parents. Dr. Warren Farrell has concluded that in almost all cases thatequal time with both parents is far superior for children. It seems clear that Massachusetts isactually doing what is in the worst interests of children in most cases.60.The current system has become driven by money of one parent for child support, which greatlyexceeds the actual cost of raising a child. It is also clear that many parents wish to inflict pain ontheir ex-spouse by denying the child(ren) access to the other parent. Given the 140 million infederal annual child support enforcement monies the state also now has a conflict of interest.61.Upon designation, custodial and non-custodial parents are no longer similarly situated. Noncustodial is an assignment that carried with it a seemingly automatic loss of fundamentalconstitutional right to parent your children in favor of the custodial parent. It carries with itfinancial penalties which have been almost arbitrarily created and not shown to be valid andwhere the other parent is not required to contribute an equal amount, or for that matter anyamount. Non-custodial also carries with it the stigma that this person is somehow a lesser parentand to make it impossible to have consistency or even a rational basis in most cases where bothparents are fit.62.The State of Massachusetts legislature provides a statutory entitlement for non-custodial parentsto "visit" with their child and this token stipend is the State of Massachusetts's least intrusivemethod of encouraging a healthy parent-child relationship and maximizing quality familialinvolvement!

63.When a state court implicates (infringes, denies, deprives) a parental right (temporarily orpermanently), the State of Massachusetts absolutely intrudes upon the parent-child relationship byimplicating each parent's fundamental liberty right to custody of their minor child(ren).64.The very idea that the state could even make this evaluation and decision is in fact absurd, asparenting is a complex and subjective process which is completely dependent on the child anddecisions that the parents make about lifestyle, religion, morals and many other factors. Thesedecisions are personal, subjective and only within the rights of the parent(s). It has also beenshown that the child(ren) are easily alienated from one parent by spending so much more timewith the other parent. This is clearly irreparably damaging to both the children and the alienatedparent. Conclusion: State law impermissibly intrudes upon and implicates fundamental parentalrights.65.The only way the State of Massachusetts can rebut the presumption that fit parents are legallypresumed to protect their child(ren)'s best interests is with a "compelling" reason.66.A compelling reason requires the State of Massachusetts to step in (intervene) where the welfareof its minor citizens is in jeopardy. If the State of Massachusetts does step in, then it is at thispoint that state rights intersect with federal rights [and federal rights require mandatoryfederal/constitutional protections]. And pursuant to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, thesupremacy clause requires that "the judges in every state shall be bound (by the Constitution andthe laws of the United States)."67.Either parent can sue for interference with parental rights. STRODE V. GLEASON, 510 P.2d 250[1973]; Prosser: HANDMANUAL OF THE LAW OF TORTS [West Publ. 1955] page 682;CARRIERI V. BUSH, 419 P.2d 132 [1966] SWEARINGEN V. VIK, 322 P.2d 876 [1958]LANKFORD V. TOMBARI, 213 P.2d 627, 19 ARL 2d 462 [1950]; 7 F.L.R. 2071RESTATEMENT OF TORTS section 700A MARSHALL V. WILSON, 616 SW 2d 934Federal Rights68.Parental rights are fundamental rights protected under federal/constitutional law. The USSCplurality decision in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) evinces that all nine justices agreethat parental rights are fundamental rights.69.Fundamental rights are possessed by the individual, not the married couple. Fundamental rightsare also called substantive rights or natural rights.70.Any contract, including marriage must have “consideration” to be enforceable. In divorce thecontract between wife and husband is being broken and the courts may need to mediate thedivision of assets, but children are not assets and the state can not interfere by allocating thechildren without a high standard of proof that one parent is unfit. Therefore the only trulyconstitutional solution for the parents, and in fact now also proven best for children scientifically,is an equal amount of time spent with both parents.71.The creation of artificial (lawyer or government created) financial incentives for parents to fightfor custody is deeply damaging to children and family bonds and to society in general. Not only

are both parental relationships hurt but the children are also clearly hurt by the lack ofrelationship and model of behavior for the children. In fact it is clear that this will create arepeating cycle, as children raised in sole-custody homes are 93% more likely to divorce later inlife.Jurisdiction72.The Declaration of Independence clearly declared that the Founding Fathers rejected any notionof a humanistic government. A “meta-government” was created under the Constitution that wasbased on the immutable laws of God, not mutable whims of man. The state is charged withdefending the laws of Nature’s God (see the Preamble), not instituting what government officialsconsider fairer.73.America was settled by men who came to this new land to escape the arbitrary bonds of civil andequitable systems that were often no more than the will of despotic tyrants. The Federalist Papersattempted to reassure the reader that rights were paramount in a Constitutional Republic. Equitywas seen as a dangerous tool of government based on experiences under English law. In fact theDeclaration of Independence states that a major reason for the creation of the United States wasthe arbitrary and bias decisions of kings and lack of a jury trial.74.The Common Law is the actualization of the Natural Law: the laws of God, which areenumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the Federal Constitution, and the stateConstitution.75.It is a violation of law to replace at law decisions (e.g., Natural and Common Law) with equity; todo so violates concise rules of law and the basic principles of our state Constitution and those ofour Republican form of government.76.Kent’s Commentaries on American Law, Vol. II, Twelfth Edition, Pages 113 - 116, clearly showthat divorce was not an equity decision. It is a fact that most colonies did not provide for judicialaction to terminate a marriage contract or decide custody because of the simple and absoluteNatural Law rules.77.The legislature in Massachusetts and the executive branch had to be petitioned for a divorce. Itwas not until 1785 (Statutes 1785, Chapter 69) in Massachusetts that the State Supreme Courtwas given EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over divorce and custody cases. In 1855 (Statutes 1855,Chapter 56) the state provided for a trial by a jury in divorce cases. It is important to note that itwas not until 1877 that the SJC was given equity jurisdiction and the right to a trial by jury wasrepealed. In 1889, Superior Court was given jurisdiction (Statutes 1889, Chapter 332). And in1922, Probate Court was given jurisdiction (Acts 1922, Chapter 542).78.THERFORE, CUSTODY AND DIVORCE IN MASSACHUSETTS HAD FULL ANDCOMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW AT AND AROUND THE SIGNING OF BOTH THE STATEAND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS AND FOR MANY YEARS THEREAFTER. Equitycannot act when there is full and complete remedy at law and the government cannot convertthose things that had been done AT LAW at the signing of the Constitution into equity.

79.Commonwealth v. Briggs, 33 Mass. 203 (1834), clearly shows that child custody was not anaction in equity. Briggs clearly shows that the action was Natural/Common Law, not equity.80.Various American judges, when implementing the “Tender Years” doctrine, committed fraudsupon the court in failing to distinguish the English equity jurisdiction of Chancery courts and theuse of Common and Natural Law in custody determinations.81.Since the SJC clearly decided custody cases at law, then custody cases must be decided at lawtoday. Trials by jury are required over rights of property.82.The United States government in establishing its own legal system adopted "that suits in equityshall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States, in any case where plain,adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law.", Judiciary Act of 1789 "an architectonic actstill in force."83.The Constitution and Common/Natural Law never ever gave permission to any of ourgovernments to take jurisdiction over marriage, our families, or our children. A marriage licenseis not government permission to marry; the marriage contract existed long before ourgovernment.84.Justice Scalia noted in Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57, “ that the State has no power tointerfere with parents' authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the powerwhich the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (inmy view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.”85.Blackstone described the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God in a chapter in his Commentariesentitled, Section The Second, "Of the Nature of Laws in General." (Available online at Interestingly:a.“Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, forhe is entirely a dependent being. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon hisMaker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker'swill. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature, being coevalwith mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course su

interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983). 22. A parent's right to the custody of his or