FACFCPA Blog Talk - A Must Hear

FAC FIGHTING CPS
ON BLOG TALK RADIO
FRIDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2011

FACFCPS BLOGTALK # 51: 8th PART OF A SERIES:

TONIGHT'S SHOW FOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2011,
DEDICATED TO THE 8th COURT CIRCUIT, WHICH
INCLUDES THE STATES OF: 
AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, & WA.

ALSO: DUE TO THE UPCOMING PLANS OF A RALLY,
TO BE HELD ON AUG 12, 2011,
AND
TO THE CONFERENCE CALL OF NEW YORK ATTORNEY,
 LEON KOZIOL
(which notices have been sent out to all, regarding that telephone
conference, by me, on Sunday, Feb 13, 2011),
WE WILL ALSO BE DISCUSSING OUR OPINIONS OF THAT
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL, AS WELL AS WHAT WE
ARE PLANNING FOR AUGUST 12, 2011.

ATTORNEY LEON KOZIOL IS A FORMER CONGRESSMAN
AND A SCHOOL BOARD ATTORNEY, WHO HAS BEEN
PRACTICING LAW FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS AS A CIVIL
RIGHTS ATTORNEY, & FOUNDED THE GROUP,
"PARENTS RIGHTS INSTITUTE,"
WHICH IS A GROUP OF PARENTS FIGHTING TO REFORM
CUSTODY AND CHILD SUPPORT LAWS IN THE STATE OF
NEW YORK (AND BEYOND?).

Listen to Leon Kozial on blog talk radio, with Syndicated News:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/syndicatednews/2010/10/21/leon-koziol-is-an-alienated-parent-that-also-fight

Read Leon Kozial's announcement "Parent's Alert!"
http://leonkoziol.com/

NOW: INFO REGARDING THE BLOG TALK:
{I am including links to my google site, which I've dumped thousands of files,
pertaining to laws, court forms, etc, including info for various states}

ARKANSAS:

ARIZONA:

CALIFORNIA:

AND THE INFAMOUS STORY OF DEANNA FOGARTY-
HARDWICK:
Published: May 21, 2007 3:00 a.m.
Mom sees social services win as help for others:VICTORIOUS MOM: Deanna Fogarty recently won a $4.9
 million judgement against the County of Orange after social
 workers wrongfully took her children away from her.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogarty-Hardwick/social_services/prweb4157254.htm

HAWAII:

IDAHO:

MONTANA:

NEVADA:

WASHINGTON:
ah, Washington; the home of the infamous
Troxel Case
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TROXEL et vir. v. GRANVILLEhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html

PLEASE NOTE:
Have more info on the sites located on the
webs social network, which links I've also
included, and within the google site I've
created:
https://sites.google.com/site/facfcpsinfo/home

FIRST: PLEASE TAKE NOTE:
You can either log into the blog talk page and listen to the show on
your computer, and/or use the call in number, especially if you'd like
to participate.

IF YOU CALL INTO THE PROGRAM:
Please push or dial number 1 on your phone pad, and I will know that
you would like to speak on the program.

HOWEVER:
I am not able to view people's names, only phone numbers; so please
be advised that I will only call out your area code and say,
"You're on the air!"

Lisa NJGrandma4justice
4 FAMILIES AGAINST CORRUPTION FIGHTING CPS
(FACFCPS)

HERE IS THE INFORMATION FOR THIS SATURDAY NIGHT'S AIRING:
((please click on the show's name, or the link directly below that,
to be brought straight to the show's page))

FAMILIES AGAINST CORRUPTION FIGHTING CPSDate:           FRIDAY FEBRUARY 25, 2011TIME:          11 PM EST  {Eastern Savings Time}                     10 PM CST  {Central Savings Time}                       9 PM MST {Mountain Savings Time}                       8 PM PST   Pacific Savings Time}
Category: Family
Call-in Number:   1-646-727-1679
OUR SHOWS ARE DEDICATED FOR OUR DEAR, BELOVED FRIEND,
ROBIN {06/18/80~06/18/10}, AS SHE IS NOW WITH ANGELS,
WATCHING OVER HER PRECIOUS CHILDREN.  WE SUPPORT
HER FAMILY AS THEY TAKE ROBIN'S PLACE IN FAMILY
COURT~ FIGHTING CPS!

CHAT ROOM:To participate in the chat room, scroll down the page; you can enter
the chat room as a guest, or you can log into your blogtalk account,
and your user name for blog talk will appear in the participant's
window, as long you sign in (and have an account with blogtalkradio.com).
NOTE: This is NOW A 30 MINUTE blog talk, but we have up to
1 HOUR To talk together; however, the first 30 minutes of the
show will be recorded,and available for others to listen at any
time by visiting the show page, and using the blogtalk radio player.
NOTE: in order to be able to participate in the blogtalk, or to
participate in the chat room, you must call into the show, or enter
the chat room, within the first 30 minutes of this blogtalk; forthose who called in and/or enter the chat prior to the end of theshow (11:30 pm est),they will continue to remain on the call until12 am EST, but can remain in the Chat Room indefinitely.Also Note:
no one will be able to call in or enter chat room after 1130pm EST.
You can also click to below link, and then click on tonight's
show; if you do not see the chat room loading, after you
scroll down, then the chat room has not yet been opened
by me..
HOST:  FamiliesAgainstCorruption


Gathering of souls tarnished, but not totally
destroyed, by corrupted cps employees.

DISCLAIMER: WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS:
I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, HOWEVER, I AM A GRADUATE OF A PARALEGAL PROGRAM,
FROM A COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND DO HAVE AN AAS IN LEGAL ASSISTING;
THEREFORE, I CAN ASSIST OTHERS TO UNDERSTAND THE LAWS THAT PERTAIN
TO OUR GOVERNMENT'S ILLEGAL ABDUCTION OF OUR BELOVED CHILDREN,
as I can explain the laws/statutes, but without, actually, providing legal advice.
We, as a group, have many opinions, and opinions, as well as suggestions, are
warmly received (nothing wrong with arguing points, as this is what SUPPOSED
to go on in a 'court of law').

Also, any comment made by any quest of this show does not necessarily mirror
the beliefs of this blogtalk's owner, and vice versa; please note that under our
First Amendment (Free Speech), we are all entitled to our opinions, and are
able to express such, as per our Constitutional Rights.
LISA NJG4JUSTICE
njgrandma4justice@yahoo.com
facfcps@gmail.com

       Lisa NJG  "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent" Eleanor Roosevelt njgrandma4justice@yahoo.commyspace.com/njgrandma4justice 

AZ Sheriffs Can't Read Fourth Amendment

According to the article noted at the bottom of this blog, a statement made:

"The deputies appealed, claiming that they should be immune from liability because, they said, the right to be free from unreasonable searches was not clear enough for them to realize that threatening to remove a child if not allowed inside the home violated the Fourth Amendment. "

_____________

Thought I missed something, so for all of us to read. Do you understand these words?? as it seems the sheriffs in AZ didn't understand. (Please note, I also have a link in Spanish)
 Fourth Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



Enmienda 4
El derecho de los habitantes de que sus personas, domicilios, papeles y efectos se hallen a salvo de pesquisas y aprehensiones arbitrarias, será inviolable, y no se expedirán al efecto mandamientos que no se apoyen en un motivo verosimil, estén corroborados mediante juramento o protesta y describan con particularidad el lugar que deba ser registrado y las personas o cosas que han de ser detenidas o embargadas.

___________________

I wonder what grade the sheriffs got in the US Constitution Test??? (Ref: http://nfpcar.org/Constitution/index.htm & Most Definitely: http://nfpcar.org/Miranda/  )

_________________

Here is the story:
Original Link: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/az/201101240.asp

Appellate Briefs Filed in Arizona Illegal-Search Case

In March of 2005, two social workers and six deputy sheriffs descended on the home of John and Tiffany Loudermilk to “investigate” a two-month-old anonymous tip that their house was unsafe for children. After almost an hour of threats, the social workers finally threatened to take all of their children into custody if not allowed inside. The Loudermilks reluctantly agreed. The assembled officials took less than five minutes to determine that the allegations in the anonymous report were false.

HSLDA reviewed the case and sued the social workers, their attorney, and four of the deputies for violating the Loudermilks’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. We also sued the social workers for threatening to remove their children without justification.

The judge denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss in September 2007, and then denied their motions for summary judgment in March 2010. The deputies appealed, claiming that they should be immune from liability because, they said, the right to be free from unreasonable searches was not clear enough for them to realize that threatening to remove a child if not allowed inside the home violated the Fourth Amendment.

Click here to read their brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).
In HSLDA’s answering brief, we argued that the law has been clearly established for at least 10 years, ever since we successfully sued social workers on behalf of the Calabretta family in a similar case. We also demonstrated that any reasonable officer should know that threatening to remove a child to gain the “cooperation” of the parents is inherently coercive and that the officers should have known so at the time.
Within the next few weeks the appellate court will either decide the case or will schedule oral argument. In the meantime, proceedings in the trial court are on hold.

Other Resources

“Judge Upholds Family’s Right to Day in Court”
July/August 2010 Court Report: “Family Wins Round Two”
September/October 2009 Court Report: “Arguments Proceed in Federal Lawsuit”
January/February 2008 Court Report: “Judge Slams Coercive Tactics”
“Judge Rules Social Worker Fear Tactics Unconstitutional”
“Social Workers and Sheriff’s Deputies Violate Family’s 4th and 14th Amendment Rights”
 ____________________
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,
Granpa Chuck

Keep the Competive Edge for Us Common Folk

Many of our holiday wish-lists include cell phones, smart phones and flat-screen TVs. But the industries that push those products have their own wish-lists.
They want to stop efforts in the New Year designed to give us a better deal on our phones, Internet and cable! They know if they can keep the status quo, they can continue their sneaky fees and confusing billing tactics that drain our wallets each month.
These media giants may be planning their attack, but we’ll be there to stand up for consumers in the New Year! Consumers Union will work to inform you about the latest telecom industry tricks, and arm you with information so you can get the best deals. And we'll continue to fight to improve your finances, as well your family's health and safety!
Your $15 gift will help us fight for your rights and support our work in the New Year!
Your donation will help us keep you involved in a range of consumer issues – your financial security, health care and family's safety – and continue to fight for your rights. In the telecom arena, we'll be working to make companies:

• Text or email you before you go over your cell phone limits, so you don’t get hit with huge overage charges.
• End excessive early-termination fees if you cancel your contact.
• Allow your phone to work on any provider’s network, so you can get the best deal on minutes, text messaging and Internet.
• Don't eliminate competition through mega-media buyouts – such as the Comcast/NBC merger – so our cable and Internet bills aren’t padded to cover the cost, and free programming isn’t taken away.
• Have limits on how they monitor your online activity, especially sensitive health, financial, race and sexual orientation information that many now track.

The special interests are powerful, having spent millions this year to push their agenda.  We don’t need millions, but we do need your help so we can continue to work for consumers in the New Year on these and other issues.
Your $15 donation will help us fight for your rights! Give before Dec. 31!
We understand times are tough, so if you can’t donate, please forward this to others so they can join the fight. Thank you for all you do!
Sincerely,
Kathy Mitchell
Consumers Union Action Fund, Inc.
506 W. 14th Street
Austin, TX 78701

20 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

From: http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}&DE=#_fn1)
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:

• It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law.  It is no mere statement of altruism.^1.
• Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.^2.
• Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.^3.
• The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.^4.
• The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation.  Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.^5.
• The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.^6.
• Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty.  This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.^7.
• A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures.  This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.^8.
• Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.^9.
• Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.^10.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:

• Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.^13.
• The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.^14.
• A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.^15.
• According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.^16.
• Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.^17.
• Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.^18.
• Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.^19.
• Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions,  without parental knowledge or consent.^20. 
• Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.^11.
• A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.^12.

---

NOTES:

1. -Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda”:
   “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”
   
   United States Constitution, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
   
   UNICEF  “Convention on the Rights of the Child” says: “the Convention is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations.” Available at http://www.unicef.org/crc/ on 12/2/2008.
   
2. -Vienna Convention Article 26 (supra);
   
   United States Supreme Court, Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888): “By the Constitution of the United States, a treaty and a statute are placed on the same footing, and if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control, provided the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing.”
   
3. -Vienna Convention (supra) and Article 2 (g):  “‘party’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force”
   
4. -United States Constitution, Article VI (supra, Note 1)
   
5. -Arlene Bowers Andrews, Implementing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 171 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1999): “The Convention is generally regarded as having two classes of rights for the purposes of self-execution, one class that is self-executing and one that is not self-executing."
   
6. -United States Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), at 170 L.Ed. 2d 190, 219, “And  whether the treaties underlying a judgment are self-executing so that the judgment is directly enforceable as domestic law in our courts is, of course, a matter for this Court to decide.”
   
7. -Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights, Frequently Asked Questions on International Humanitarian, Human Rights, and Refugee Law, (2002), available at http://www.icva.ch/doc00001023.html#24:
   “Human rights law also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the various treaties. This includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring that the remedy is effective. The fact that a state has a federal or devolved system of government does not affect a state's obligation to implement human rights law.”
   
   United States Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.”
   
8. -United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 43 (amended) and 44. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art43.
   
9. -Vienna Convention, Article 27: “ A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
   
10. -Vienna Convention, Article 19, available at available at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.law.of.treaties.convention.1969/19.html; also
    
    Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, The American Journal of International Law, Vol 89 No 2, 343-344 (Apr. 1995):
     “Reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law and practice are of dubious propriety: if states generally entered such reservations, the convention would be futile.  The object and purpose of the human rights conventions, it would seem, are to promote respect for human rights by having countries—mutually—assume legal obligations to respect and ensure recognized rights in accordance with international standards. Even friends of the United States have objected that its reservations are incompatible with that object and purpose and are therefore invalid.
    …By adhering to human rights conventions subject to these reservations, the United States, it is charged, is pretending to assume international obligations but in fact is undertaking nothing.”
    
11. -United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a):
    “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”
    
    United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia), CRC/C/GC/8, (2006):
    “The Committee is issuing this general comment to highlight the obligation of all State parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment…. Addressing the widespread acceptance or tolerance of corporal punishment of children and eliminating it, in the family, schools and other settings, is … an obligation of State parties under the Convention.”
    
12. -United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a), (supra)
    
13. -The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide for Children and Young People (April 2008), available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/01081649/1: “You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs.  Your parents should help you think about this.”
    
    Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section B, University of London, 29-30 (2006):
    “Unlike earlier treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not include a provision providing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents’ beliefs. In addition, the child’s right to freedom of expression and the right of the parents to initially give direction and later only guidance, strengthens the argument that children are entitled to participate in decisions so that their education conforms to their own convictions....  The second question is whether a child has the right to choose a religion.
    Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, parents do have the right to provide direction to the child. Such parental power, however, is subject to two restraints:
    • First, such direction should take into account the evolving capacities of the child, as expressly required by the Convention.
    • Second, the direction should not be so unyielding that it equals coercion.
    It can also be argued that the right to freedom of religion in the Convention on the Rights of the Child ought to be read together with article 12 which gives the child the right to express his own views in the matter of choice of religion."
    
14. -United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3(1): “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
    
    Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, University of London, 46 (2006):
    “Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child.  Thus, the Convention challenges the concept that family life is always in the best interests of children and that parents are always capable of deciding what is best for children.”
    
15. -United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12(1): “State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”
    
    Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group: “Human rights law also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the various treaties. This includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring that the remedy is effective.”
    
    Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, 137: “State parties are obliged to ‘assure’ to children who are capable of forming views the rights to express those views ‘in all matter affecting the child’ and to give those views’ due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’.  By incorporating a reference to ‘all matters affecting the child’ there is no longer a traditional area of exclusive parental or family decision making.”
    
16. -ibid., at 36: “[T]he United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, criticized Egypt and Indonesia on the proportion of their budget spent on defence, as compared to the proportion spent on children’s social expenditure."
    
    The Committee also criticized Austria, Australia, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and others failing to spend enough tax dollars on social welfare for children:
    
    Paragraph 46, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Austria, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 38th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.251 (2005).
    
    Paragraph 17 and 18, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Australia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.268 (2005).
    
    Paragraphs 18 and 19, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Denmark, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 40th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/DNK/CO/3 (2005).
    
    Paragraph 10, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 31st sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.188(2002).
    
17. -United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31(1): “States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.”
    
18. -American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law: Children's Rights in America: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Compared with United States Law, p. 182.
    
19. -Paragraph 52, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 43rd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/IRL/CO/2 (2006):
    “While noting that social, personal and health education is incorporated into the curricula of secondary schools, the Committee is concerned that adolescents have insufficient access to necessary information on reproductive health.  The education is optional and parents can exempt their children.”
    
    Paragraph 14, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 8th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.34 (1995).
    
20. -Katie Hatziavramidis, Parental Involvement Laws for Abortion in the United States and the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child: Can International Law Secure the Right to Choose for Minors?, 16 Tex. J. Women & L. 185, 202-203 (Spring 2007):
    “The unmistakable trend in the United States is to consistently increase anti-choice legislation, particularly with respect to minors. Ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child by the United States holds a strong possibility of assisting minors who seek abortions without parental interference.  [*203]  The Convention may offer the best hope for securing adolescent reproductive freedoms on a global level. If enough diplomatic pressure were exerted on the United States to compel it to ratify the treaty, the CRC could provide significant improvements in the outlook for reproductive freedom for minors.”
    
    Paragraph 3, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Columbia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 42nd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3 (2006): “The Committee notes with appreciation…decisions of the Constitutional Court on…the partial decriminalization of abortion.”
    
    Paragraph 55, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Chile, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 44th sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/CHL/CO/3 (2007): “The Committee…is concerned over the high rate of teenage pregnancies, the criminalization of the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances….”

Parents Don't be Fooled by the UN Treaty

Watch This video and then Visit Our site on the 

Proposed United States Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment

Link: http://www.nfpcar.org/Rights/index.htm
 Also
20 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Status of the Resolution to STOP the CRC

20 Things You Need to Know about the CRC

Are Criticisms of the CRC All 'Myths'?

An In-Depth Analysis of the CRC

Conflict in Parents' Constitutional Rights

Recently, a member of our Discussion Group presented this Reference:

PARENTING AS A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT(*See Note a bottom of page)
When you read the above document; and my reply below, please consider these points:

• Is there a "Balance" between Parents' Rights & Children's Rights?
• Are Laws Really Needed to Guide us in Raising Our Family?
• When you Defend your Family, why is it so important to know the Statutes for Your State, particular to your concerns?
• We must become an Advocate, and yes, admit to ourselves there is indeed conflict, corruption, biases, etc in our government.  And then most importantly say OK, and ask ourselves, in knowing this>> "What are We going to do about it to Protect Our Families?? 

 Here is my reply in an effort to present ALL the story of Conflict in Our Constitutional Rights

This is indeed some good reference material for supporting the principle of "Due Process" in our Family Court system. A principle not currently in place in our Family Court.

I hope those supporting the Parental Rights US Constitutional Amendment have used this as a Reference. See more on this Amendment>> http://nfpcar.org/Rights/index.htm  An Amendment which is in battle with the UN Children Rights Proposal. And, to date, the US hasn't accepted this Proposal. "The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it.^[1]"  Link to more information>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child 

Of course, then there is CAPTA. For the group here is the status of the 2010 update of CAPTA>> http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3817:  Sarcastically, I always add "New and Improved"

So many conflicts that challenge our Rights as Parents for Our Children.

"Sometimes it just takes one small voice to make a world of difference...
I challenge you to be one of those voices"

*Note: PARENTING AS A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT was authored by a civil rights attorney, as an argument in a case for a parent's rights. Currently it should not be using this argument at all (it is not a formal document, or is it a published article, just a part of someone's case). It is to show what a civil rights attorney wrote about parental rights, which is not one of our amendments, or BILL OF RIGHTS, as parental rights are implied in the 17th amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May you find Strength in Your Higher Power,GranPa Chuck
  Check Out Our Collectibles>> http://rscrapz.com
  My Family Rights Affiliation>> http://nfpcar.org/FPA/emails/Current.htm
  Defend Yourself>>

Judges Bench Book -- May be a Valuable Source of Information

Judges Bench Books
See Disclaimer

Just a Thought ~ Introductory Reading ~ What are Judges Bench Books? ~  Judges Bench Guide in Your State

Just a Thought

Judge Leonard Edwards wrote an article for the Judges Page on the National CASA website where he says that judges need to stop rubber stamping these cases and enforce the "Reasonable Efforts" requirement, but they are afraid a "No Reasonable Efforts" ruling could cost their state millions of dollars.  There is also at least one Judges Bench Book (California) that is referred to as "The Smoking Gun" because it very clearly states that the courts MUST rule during the initial hearing (after removal) that it is contrary to the best interest of the child to be returned home, otherwise the state is NEVER eligible for federal funding.  You can see it for yourself at http://www.thesociologycenter.com/EvidenceBooks/Bench%20Guides%20SmallFile.pdf on pages 2, 3 and 13.