The The U.S. Constitution is the supreme legal authority under which all other rights and statutes must be interpreted. It already recognizes a parent’s right to the care, custody, and control of their own child as a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws generally affirm this principle as well.


Amending The US Constitution is not necessary.

These protections already exist. The real issue often arises in state family court and dependency (CPA) systems, where constitutional protections are not always applied as they should be. For nearly a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children. Key cases include:
  • Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) — The Court held that the Due Process Clause protects parents’ rights to teach their children foreign languages, recognizing “the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children” as fundamental liberties.
  • Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) — The Court confirmed that parents may choose private or parochial schools for their children.
  • Stanley v. Illinois (1972) — The Court upheld the rights of unmarried fathers to the care and custody of their children.
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) — The Court protected an Amish father’s right to withdraw his children from public school to continue their education within their religious community.
  • Duchesne v. Sugarman (2d Cir. 1977) — The court recognized the family’s right to remain together without unwarranted state interference and affirmed children’s constitutional interest in maintaining emotional bonds with their parents.
  • Troxel v. Granville (2000) — The Court reaffirmed that parents have the authority to decide whether grandparents may have visitation.
 
The Strict Scrutiny Standard bars states from enacting Unconstitutional Laws
Under strict scrutiny, the state faces the highest burden of justification when it seeks to limit a fundamental right. The government must demonstrate that the challenged law or regulation serves a compelling state interest, that it is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and that it uses the least restrictive means available.

For example, during the Covid‑19 pandemic, states justified certain restrictions—such as quarantine or confinement—on the grounds of preventing viral spread. Even then, strict scrutiny requires the state to show that the measure is focused specifically on that goal, is neither vague nor overbroad, and that there is not some less restrictive alternative (such as mask‑wearing or physical distancing) would accomplish the same objective.

 

The six primary standards of evidence restrict state court judges 

Cours in the United States use six primary standards of evidence, each with a different threshold and a different party bearing the initial burden of proof. Shockingly, California family courts rely on the vaguest and lowest of these standards – the “Best Interest of the Child – which can mean anything a judge wants it to mean in order to remove a parent’s custody of their own child.

  • Beyond a reasonable doubt – Used almost exclusively in criminal cases, this is the highest evidentiary standard. The prosecution carries the burden and must prove every element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by the Fifth Amendment.
  • Clear and convincing evidence – A civil standard, occasionally used in juvenile dependency matters. It requires evidence that is highly and substantially more likely to be true than not — a firm belief or conviction in the allegations.
  • Preponderance of the evidence – Common in civil cases and sometimes used in juvenile dependency. It means “more likely than not.” In practice, it’s barely above a 50/50 split — the judge has almost the same chance of being wrong as being right.
  • Substantial evidence – Used mainly in appeals of administrative or governmental decisions. If any relevant evidence supports the agency’s conclusion, the decision is upheld — even if stronger evidence points the other way.
  • Best‑interest‑of‑the‑child — In California’s family and juvenile dependency courts, this is the governing standard for determining custody. It is intentionally broad, giving judges extensive discretion in weighing factors related to a child’s welfare. Critics argue that the standard’s vagueness invites inconsistent rulings, enables judicial overreach, and raises constitutional concerns about parental rights and due‑process clarity. They also contend that when the Legislature enacted it, lawmakers did not apply strict scrutiny, and that a true strict‑scrutiny review would likely have prevented its adoption.  JOIN RAISE YOUR RIGHTS TODAY!