FOR ALL OF LEGISLATORS THAT STILL TREAT CHILDREN
AS CHATTELS OF THEIR PARENTS

IT IS NOT THE INTEREST IN THE CHILD,
BUT OF THE CHILD!

SYLLABUS BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

U. S. Supreme Court Gault, 387 U.S.1, 13, "i bid "
Neither the 14th amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone.{428 U.S. 132. 141}
"Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority.
Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the constitution and possess Constitutional rights."
IN SOME CASES, HOWEVER,THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION SUPERSEDES STATE LAW AND PROVIDES EVEN GREATER PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN FORMAL FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS.
IN THOSE CASES, AS IN THE STATES CASES, THE COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST IN THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN AND HAS NOTED THAT THE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS ARE A COUNTERPART OF THE REPOSNSIBILITIES THEY HAVE ASSUMED.
THUS, THE "LIBERTY" OF PARENTS TO CONTROL THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN THAT WAS VINDICATED IN MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), AND PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), WAS DESCRIBED AS A "RIGHT,
COUPLED WITH THE HIGH DUTY IN A RECOGNIZED AND PREPARE {THE CHILD} FOR ADDITIONAL OBLIGATON. "Id., at 353.

THE LINKAGE BETWEEN PARENTAL DUTY AND PARENTAL RIGHT WAS STRESSED AGAIN IN PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944),
WHEN THE COURT DECLARED IT A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE
"THAT THE CUSTODY, CARE AND MUTURE OF THE CHILD RESIDE. {463 U.S. 248, 258}
FIRST IN THE PARENTS, WHOSE PRIMARY FUNCITION AND FREEDOM INCLUDE PREPARATION FOR OBLIGATIONS THE STATE CAN NEITHER SUPPLY NOR HINDER." Ibid.

IN THESE CASES THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF LOVE AND DUTY IN A RECOGNIZED FAMILY UNIT IS AN INTEREST IN LIBERTY ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTION PROTECTION.

SEE ALSO MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S.(PLURALITY OPINION). "{S}TATE INTERVENTION TO TERMINATE {SUCH A} RELATIONSHIP...MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PROCEDURES MEETING THE REQUISITES OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE "SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 455 U.S. 745,753 (1982)

JUSTICE STEWART CORRECTLY OBSERVES:

PARENTAL RIGHTS DO NOT SPRING FULL-BLOWN FROM THE BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD.
THEY REQUIRE RELATIONSHIPS MORE ENDURING"
441 U.S. at 397 (emphasis added). 16
"BUT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A BIOLOGICAL LINK DOES NOT MERIT EQUIVALENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION.
THE ACTIONS OF JUDGES NEITHER CREATE NOR SEVER GENETIC BONDS.
"{T}HE IMPORTANCE OF THE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP, TO THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED AND TO THE SOCIETY, STEMS FROM THE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS THAT DERIVE FROM THE INTIMACY OF DAILY ASSOCIATION, AND FROM THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN PROMOT{ING} A WAY OF LIFE  THROUGH THE INSTRUCTION OF CHILDREN...
AS WELL AS FROM THE FACT OF BLOOD RELATIONSHIP "SMITH v. ORGANIZATION OF FOSTOR FAMILIES FOR EQUALITY AND REFORM
431 U.S. 816, 844 (1977)(quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231-233 (1972) 17 {463U.S. 248,262}

OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THE STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, LEGISLATORS,AND ALL THE STATE AGENCIES TO FOLLOW THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULINGS "

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT IN SUCH SITUATIONS, AS IN ALL SITUATIONS INVOLVING CHILDREN,
THE
"BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN
MUST BE THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION."
These words were not to be used just as a lip service,
but to be practiced in EVERY CASE,
EVERY DAY IN EVERY WAY BY EVERY ONE.
IF THEY ARE NOT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO AN APPEAL.