Tuesday, May 8, 2007
QUILT SPECIFICATIONS
SPECIFICATIONS: If you wish to make the squares youself, there should be ONE 5-inch x 5-inch square for EACH child. The fabric may be new or used and taken from old clothes, sheets, baby blankets, or even purchased new at a local store where fabrics are sold. If you wish to cut the squares from something that your child/ren used or wore, that will be fine. We ask that you please put EACH child's first name or initial and last name, date of birth or age, State case is/was in (town NOT needed), date they became victims of Family Court Corruption, or were STOLEN by CPS and placed in Foster or Kinship care, Date they returned home/aged out of system/SOLD into adoption or indicate if still in out of home care, or whatever applies, on the square that is representative of them. You may hand-write the information on the square with a permanent magic marker or ink pen, embroider it, use fabric paints, or even scan a picture on the computer, print it out, and transfer it to the squares. You are also welcome to cut the squares a little larger then 5-inches by 5 inches --- I will trim them down when I start to use them.If you wish to just submit your child's information for inclusion in this quilt, all you need to do is send (mail or email) the above information for the child and they WILL be included in the quiltIf you wish to have the child's photo included in the quilt, the cost for the photo square is $ 3.00, which is to cover my cost of materials for making this. It is NOT a money-making scheme. Examples of these squares are visible in the posted photos of this quilt. You may mail the photo you wish to have used, or email the photo. Please mail your payment for the photo squares to the address given below.We want these squares to be "personal" for your child so that when seen, people will realized that these are and were REAL children who have been victimized by Government Corruption in Family Courts and or Child Protective Services Agencies. I will post and make photos of this quilt available throughout the construction of it.This QUILT will make its DEBUT in Washington DC on August 18, 2007, at the national Rally being held there to bring attention to the plight of our families and our children. It will also be displayed wherever there are other rallies, conventions, or affairs in which it has the chance to raise awareness about what is going on and happening to our children and make it known to our elected Public Officials that WE WANT CHANGE and PROTECTION for our families. To participate in this project, Please send the squares representative of your child/ren to, or email the information to ghead@wccs.netQuilt Projectc/o Gail HeadPO Box 392Paradise, TX 76073WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT~!!! DO IT for the love of your child/ren. Sincerely,Gail Head
WASHINGTON DC RALLY - AUGUST 18, 2007
About the Washington DC Rally - AUGUST 18, 2007Washington DCRally - AUGUST 18, 2007 We are individuals, organizations and churches united nationwide. We represent varied cultures, religions and ethnicities. We meet in Washington DC, to peacefully exercise our first amendment right to assemble and to respectfully petition our government for a redress of grievances. Our grievances relate to governmental interference with and, the destruction of, our nation's family structure. DCRally 2007 will take place at the historic site of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. DCRally 2007 commemorates the 44th anniversary of the Civil Rights Movement. DCRally 2007 is the extension of the Civil Rights Movement. DCRally 2007 addresses the state’s failure to recognize and protect our Fundamental Rights. It’s time for our Federal Congress to recognize and protect our Fundamental Rights. DCRally 2007 is coming to Washington DC because our government condones the stealing of children from their homes and selling them in the adoption market. Our government has opened the door for illegal step-parent adoptions...which is breaking the hearts of America's children of divorce. DCRally 2007 is coming to Washington DC because government is profiting from the destructive methods used in child support collection and its refusal to entertain Shared parenting because it is profiting from child support collection procedures. Government is turning parents into felons making it impossible to gain employment. DCRally 2007 is coming to Washington DC because governmental agencies are profiting from destroying households, families and relationships. Government is allowing the medicating of our children senselessly without regard for long term effects. They are making test subjects of our children for profit. We are coming to Washington DC because government has taken our right to discipline our children out of the household and given social workers the ability to destroy families through falsification of documentation, stealing children and punishing parents. We are coming to Washington DC because when paternity fraud takes place, government continues to collect child support from parents with no biological connection and refuses to spend resources on locating the correct parent simply because it is profitable. Everyone wins except the family These are God given Fundamental Rights, Guaranteed by the United States Constitution yet violated by each state based on its greed to collect monetary incentives through its callous treatment of human beings. Our goal is to raise the funds and provide transportation for every American whose family has been destroyed. Start involvement in your area because: WE MUST COME TOGETHER “GOVERNMENT HAS COME INTO OUR HOUSEHOLDS AND WE WANT THEM OUT”
FAMILY PRESERVATION and RECONCILIATION ACT of 2007
Family Preservation and Reconciliation Act of 2007
110th CONGRESS
2nd Session
To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the
upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.
2007
A BILL
To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the
upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Preservation and Reconciliation Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that--
(1) the Supreme Court has regarded the right of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children as a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty within
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as specified in Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); the right
of parents to the care and custody of their children has been recognized as "a
fundamental right protected by the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments" in
Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 1251 (D. Mich. 1977), as "far more precious than
property rights" and by the Supreme Court as an "essential" right that protects a
substantial interest that "undeniably warrants deference, and, absent a powerful
countervailing interest, protection," in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953),
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645
(1971); and the Supreme Court has held in Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 2000 (99-
138), that "the liberty interest at issue . . . 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. . . . [I]t 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."
(2) this right has been acknowledged for centuries by the common law, and by the
tradition of western civilization, which recognizes that parents have the responsibility
to love, nurture, train, and protect their children;
(3) the role of parents in the raising and rearing of their children is of inestimable
value and deserving of both praise and protection by all levels of government;
(4) some decisions of Federal and State courts have treated the right of parents not as
a fundamental right but as a non-fundamental right, resulting in an improper standard
of judicial review being applied to government conduct that adversely affects parental
rights and prerogatives;
(5) parents face increasing intrusions into their legitimate decisions and prerogatives
by government agencies in situations that do not involve traditional understandings of
abuse or neglect but simply are a conflict of parenting philosophies;
(6) governments should not interfere in the decisions and actions of parents without
compelling justification; and
(7) the traditional 4-step process used by courts to evaluate cases concerning the right
of parents described in paragraph (1) appropriately balances the interests of parents,
children, and government; and
(8) the in-tact family is a cornerstone for our society and children are best raised in
an in-tact family; and
(9) Congress recognizes the benefits of marriage for men, women, children and
society as a whole and has expressed its intent for marriage through legislative
incentives and programs involving the use of federal funds promoting marriage and
the family; and
(10 ) state government intrusion into the family, absent compelling justification thus
establishing an empowered custodial parent and disenfranchised non-custodial parent
is an incentive for divorce and inconsistent with Congress’ intent.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect the right of parents to the care and custody of their children and to direct
the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right;
(2) to protect children from abuse and neglect as the terms have been traditionally
defined and applied in State law, such protection being a compelling government
interest;
(3) while protecting the rights of parents, to acknowledge that the rights involve
responsibilities and specifically that parents have the responsibility to see that their
children are educated, for the purposes of literacy and self-sufficiency, as specified by
the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);
(4) to preserve the common law tradition that allows parental choices to prevail in a
health care decision for a child unless, by neglect or refusal, the parental decision will
result in danger to the life of the child or result in serious physical injury to the child;
(5) to fix a standard of judicial review for parental rights, leaving to the courts the
application of the rights in particular cases based on the facts of the cases and law as
applied to the facts; and
(6) to reestablish a 4-step process to evaluate cases concerning the right of parents
described in paragraph (1) that--
(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that--
(i) the action in question arises from the right of the parent to direct the
upbringing of a child; and
(ii) a government has interfered with or usurped the right; and
(B) shifts the burdens of production and persuasion to the government to
demonstrate that--
(i) the interference or usurpation is essential to accomplish a
compelling governmental interest; and
(ii) the method of intervention or usurpation used by the government is
the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.
(7) To preserve the institution of marriage and maintain familial ties.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE- The term `appropriate evidence' means--
(A) for a case in which a government seeks a temporary or preliminary action
or order, except a case in which the government seeks to terminate parental
custody or visitation, evidence that demonstrates probable cause; and
(B) for a case in which a government seeks a final action or order, or in which
the government seeks to terminate or restrict parental custody or visitation,
clear and convincing evidence.
(2) CHILD- The term `child' has the meaning provided by State law.
(3) PARENT- The term `parent' has the meaning provided by State law.
(4) RIGHT OF A PARENT TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING OF A CHILD-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a
child' includes, but is not limited to a right of a parent regarding--
(i) directing or providing for the education of the child;
(ii) making a health care decision for the child, except as provided in
subparagraph (B);
(iii) disciplining the child, including reasonable corporal discipline,
except as provided in subparagraph (C);
(iv) directing or providing for the religious teaching of the child; and
(v) inculcating moral and ethical principles.
(B) NO APPLICATION TO PARENTAL DECISIONS ON HEALTH
CARE- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child' shall not
include a right of a parent to make a decision on health care for the child that,
by neglect or refusal, will result in danger to the life of the child or in serious
physical injury to the child.
(C) NO APPLICATION TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT- The term `right of a
parent to direct the upbringing of a child' shall not include a right of a parent
to act or refrain from acting in a manner that constitutes abuse or neglect of a
child, as the terms have traditionally been defined and applied in State
criminal law.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERING WITH OR USURPING RIGHTS
OF PARENTS.
(1) No Federal, State, or local government, or any official of such a government acting under
color of law, or any other party, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to the care
and custody of the child of the parent or to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent,
and that in accordance with long established legal doctrines presuming (a) that each parent is
fit and (b) that fit parents are presumed to act in their child[ren]’s best interest; no removal of
a child from the care of any fit parent absent a finding of parental unfitness by clear and
convincing evidence may be effected; unless
(2) that parent has been criminally charged and convicted for the abuse or neglect of that child
as defined and applied in State criminal law; or
(3) removal of the child is necessary due to danger of imminent or substantial harm to the child.
(4) It is the specific finding and intent of this bill that public policy is furthered, and a that
child[ren]’s best interest is served, by maximizing the amount of time a child[ren] spend with
each parent in the event the parents divorce, separate or are never married.
SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.
No exception to section 4 shall be permitted, unless the government or official is able to
demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the interference or usurpation is essential
to accomplish a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn or applied in a
manner that is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.
SEC. 6. CLAIM OR DEFENSE.
Any parent may raise a violation of this Act in an action in a Federal or State court, or before
an administrative tribunal, of appropriate jurisdiction as a claim or a defense.
SEC. 7. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c))
(concerning the award of attorney's and expert fees) shall apply to cases brought or defended
under this Act. A person who uses this Act to defend against a suit by a government
described in section 4 shall be construed to be the plaintiff for the purposes of the application
of such subsections.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, or any application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this
Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision to any other
person or circumstance shall not be affected.
110th CONGRESS
2nd Session
To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the
upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.
2007
A BILL
To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the
upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Preservation and Reconciliation Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that--
(1) the Supreme Court has regarded the right of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children as a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty within
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as specified in Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); the right
of parents to the care and custody of their children has been recognized as "a
fundamental right protected by the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments" in
Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 1251 (D. Mich. 1977), as "far more precious than
property rights" and by the Supreme Court as an "essential" right that protects a
substantial interest that "undeniably warrants deference, and, absent a powerful
countervailing interest, protection," in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953),
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645
(1971); and the Supreme Court has held in Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 2000 (99-
138), that "the liberty interest at issue . . . 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. . . . [I]t 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."
(2) this right has been acknowledged for centuries by the common law, and by the
tradition of western civilization, which recognizes that parents have the responsibility
to love, nurture, train, and protect their children;
(3) the role of parents in the raising and rearing of their children is of inestimable
value and deserving of both praise and protection by all levels of government;
(4) some decisions of Federal and State courts have treated the right of parents not as
a fundamental right but as a non-fundamental right, resulting in an improper standard
of judicial review being applied to government conduct that adversely affects parental
rights and prerogatives;
(5) parents face increasing intrusions into their legitimate decisions and prerogatives
by government agencies in situations that do not involve traditional understandings of
abuse or neglect but simply are a conflict of parenting philosophies;
(6) governments should not interfere in the decisions and actions of parents without
compelling justification; and
(7) the traditional 4-step process used by courts to evaluate cases concerning the right
of parents described in paragraph (1) appropriately balances the interests of parents,
children, and government; and
(8) the in-tact family is a cornerstone for our society and children are best raised in
an in-tact family; and
(9) Congress recognizes the benefits of marriage for men, women, children and
society as a whole and has expressed its intent for marriage through legislative
incentives and programs involving the use of federal funds promoting marriage and
the family; and
(10 ) state government intrusion into the family, absent compelling justification thus
establishing an empowered custodial parent and disenfranchised non-custodial parent
is an incentive for divorce and inconsistent with Congress’ intent.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect the right of parents to the care and custody of their children and to direct
the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right;
(2) to protect children from abuse and neglect as the terms have been traditionally
defined and applied in State law, such protection being a compelling government
interest;
(3) while protecting the rights of parents, to acknowledge that the rights involve
responsibilities and specifically that parents have the responsibility to see that their
children are educated, for the purposes of literacy and self-sufficiency, as specified by
the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);
(4) to preserve the common law tradition that allows parental choices to prevail in a
health care decision for a child unless, by neglect or refusal, the parental decision will
result in danger to the life of the child or result in serious physical injury to the child;
(5) to fix a standard of judicial review for parental rights, leaving to the courts the
application of the rights in particular cases based on the facts of the cases and law as
applied to the facts; and
(6) to reestablish a 4-step process to evaluate cases concerning the right of parents
described in paragraph (1) that--
(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that--
(i) the action in question arises from the right of the parent to direct the
upbringing of a child; and
(ii) a government has interfered with or usurped the right; and
(B) shifts the burdens of production and persuasion to the government to
demonstrate that--
(i) the interference or usurpation is essential to accomplish a
compelling governmental interest; and
(ii) the method of intervention or usurpation used by the government is
the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.
(7) To preserve the institution of marriage and maintain familial ties.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE- The term `appropriate evidence' means--
(A) for a case in which a government seeks a temporary or preliminary action
or order, except a case in which the government seeks to terminate parental
custody or visitation, evidence that demonstrates probable cause; and
(B) for a case in which a government seeks a final action or order, or in which
the government seeks to terminate or restrict parental custody or visitation,
clear and convincing evidence.
(2) CHILD- The term `child' has the meaning provided by State law.
(3) PARENT- The term `parent' has the meaning provided by State law.
(4) RIGHT OF A PARENT TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING OF A CHILD-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a
child' includes, but is not limited to a right of a parent regarding--
(i) directing or providing for the education of the child;
(ii) making a health care decision for the child, except as provided in
subparagraph (B);
(iii) disciplining the child, including reasonable corporal discipline,
except as provided in subparagraph (C);
(iv) directing or providing for the religious teaching of the child; and
(v) inculcating moral and ethical principles.
(B) NO APPLICATION TO PARENTAL DECISIONS ON HEALTH
CARE- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child' shall not
include a right of a parent to make a decision on health care for the child that,
by neglect or refusal, will result in danger to the life of the child or in serious
physical injury to the child.
(C) NO APPLICATION TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT- The term `right of a
parent to direct the upbringing of a child' shall not include a right of a parent
to act or refrain from acting in a manner that constitutes abuse or neglect of a
child, as the terms have traditionally been defined and applied in State
criminal law.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERING WITH OR USURPING RIGHTS
OF PARENTS.
(1) No Federal, State, or local government, or any official of such a government acting under
color of law, or any other party, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to the care
and custody of the child of the parent or to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent,
and that in accordance with long established legal doctrines presuming (a) that each parent is
fit and (b) that fit parents are presumed to act in their child[ren]’s best interest; no removal of
a child from the care of any fit parent absent a finding of parental unfitness by clear and
convincing evidence may be effected; unless
(2) that parent has been criminally charged and convicted for the abuse or neglect of that child
as defined and applied in State criminal law; or
(3) removal of the child is necessary due to danger of imminent or substantial harm to the child.
(4) It is the specific finding and intent of this bill that public policy is furthered, and a that
child[ren]’s best interest is served, by maximizing the amount of time a child[ren] spend with
each parent in the event the parents divorce, separate or are never married.
SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.
No exception to section 4 shall be permitted, unless the government or official is able to
demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the interference or usurpation is essential
to accomplish a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn or applied in a
manner that is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.
SEC. 6. CLAIM OR DEFENSE.
Any parent may raise a violation of this Act in an action in a Federal or State court, or before
an administrative tribunal, of appropriate jurisdiction as a claim or a defense.
SEC. 7. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c))
(concerning the award of attorney's and expert fees) shall apply to cases brought or defended
under this Act. A person who uses this Act to defend against a suit by a government
described in section 4 shall be construed to be the plaintiff for the purposes of the application
of such subsections.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, or any application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this
Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision to any other
person or circumstance shall not be affected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
