​​​​​​BECOME A PARENT ADVOCATE TODAY!  CONTACT US AND SUBSCRIBE NOW TO VOLUNTEER.

Join the live Parent Advocate Meeting!

Join us on Zoom at 7 pm on Saturday! 

Just follow the calendar link.







                                                 


​​Join the Discussion:


Take Action:



​​​​Parental Rights Amendment:   Secure parent rights for generations to come!


International Petitions:  Children's Aid Society, Child Protection Services


Supporting Code and Law:  The Constitution of the United States                                             

                                                                Penal Code Title 8, Chapter 39


Supporting Articles:   Protecting Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities


Success Stories:        Family Awarded $1.1 Million After Kids Were Removed From Home


National Legal Resources and Advocacy Groups:



​​The Human Rights Tribunal is ready to hear cases for Human Rights violations pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 


Learn More...



One People

Subscribe to our

Channel.

Parent Advocate Log IN: 

Click here to Log in

Thank you for putting your trust in us.


We value our customers' privacy and do not share any personal information with any entity or organization without prior consent.  Our staff of volunteers are here to help you because we care.  If you believe that your privacy has been violated, please contact admin and we will resolve the issue directly.


Legal Disclaimer: This Website provides educational information and resources to those who is seeking to educate themselves on the juvenile court process. Any information provided may not be construed as the giving of legal advice to any person about a particular legal matter and should not be relied upon as the basis for taking a particular action or refraining from taking a particular action in any legal matter. If you want or need legal advice about a particular legal matter, you should consult a lawyer.

​​​
WE are parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, and, most importantly, members of a family.

Each one of us has experience and knowledge to share in helping create a peaceful reality.  It is our dedication to helping and sharing these experiences that help the tradition and history of our culture and diversity needed to create the connections for a peaceful reality.


www.//EarthCollege.org

​​​​​​The Coalition For

the Protection of

Children and

Families

​​​​​Brought to you by Earth College

We co-create a sustainable future through peaceful stewardship of all life.

Subscribe Today!  Together we can make the world a better place.

PDF Form: 



Form 1 application to proceed without fees and costs called ifp application

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/690/AO_440.pdf

Form to summons for a civil case form 2

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/690/AO_440.pdf



            COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (Non-Prisoner Complaint)


This form will only be used when directed by the court to do so

Otherwise you will not use it

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/usm-285instform.pdf


Case Index:  (Be sure to read the entire text of each case you will be referring to before using it.)


  • Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
  • Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
  • Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
  • Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
  • Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
  • Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
  • Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
  • Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
  • Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
  • ​Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
  • Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
  • Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Federal Supreme Court 'Pro Se':


The United States Supreme Court has stated:


“There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parent's’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. (Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.)

“The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The right to have our children has been found to be denied regularly.  U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in 2005 stated that “families were deprived of their constitutional rights when state child welfare officials threatened to separate parents from their children during abuse investigations.” (Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

This type of treatment of parents who are suffering from poverty and have disabilities is occurring nationwide at an alarming rate and is a level of discrimination which is not limited by race, religion, or nationality.  Many do not receive fair and adequate representation.  My family is but one of millions across the nation effected and I am asking for my rights to be upheald.

Please join us in protecting children and families from abuse and discrimination by the people sworn to protect us.

Parent Advocate Brian Kinter:  An interview about the illegal activities and fraudulent acts by cps of Ohio in his child custody matter of 2007.  Shortly after this interview he was given full custody of his children.  He continues to fight for justice in the child trafficking industry today.

​​Marbury v.Madison : 5 US 137 (1803) “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme law was logical, for certainly, the supreme law would Prevail over all other laws and certainly our founding fathers had intended that the Supreme law would be the basis of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be Null and void of law, it would bear no of power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near Nullity or a fiction of law.” If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury vs Madison


Federal Malpractice Manual:  8.3 Damages Claim  Against Cities and Counties Under Section 1983


Federal Supreme Court 'Pro Se':


​​If you feel that you have been a victim of Federal Constitution Violations, then you have the right to file a Civil Claim against the offending party. You do not need to have a lawyer to represent you and should consider self representation, Pro Se representation. If you choose Pro Se representation, it would be prudent for you to study the Federal Constitution.  Click on the link on the right side to download your copy of the Constitution of the United States.


The Parent Advocates are here to help direct you to resources for 'Pro Se' representation.  Please feel free to contact us.  We are here to help.  Just click the tab on the bottom right hand of the page for assistance.


Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), the principal federal statute under which you will sue to redress violations by officials of your constitutional rights, does not contain its own statute of limitations, i.e. the deadline by which you must file a lawsuit.


Jurisdiction Federal courts are authorized to hear cases brought under section 1983 pursuant to two statutory provisions: 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3) (1948) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (1948). The former statute permits federal district courts to hear cases involving the deprivation of civil rights, and the latter statute permits federal courts to hear all cases involving a federal question or issue. Cases brought under section 1983 may therefore be heard in federal courts by application of both jurisdictional statutes. State courts may also properly hear section 1983 cases pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause mandates that states must provide hospitable forums for federal claims and the vindication of federal rights. This point was solidified in the Supreme Court decision of Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1988).


The Felder case involved an individual who was arrested in Wisconsin and later brought suit in state court against the police officers and city for violations of his federal rights. The state court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to properly comply with a state procedural law. But the Supreme Court overturned the state decision, holding that the Wisconsin statute could not bar the individual's federal claim. To bring an action under section 1983, the plaintiff does not have to begin in state court. However, if the plaintiff chooses to bring suit in state court, the defendant has the right to remove the case to federal court.

​​

The Federal Supreme Court is divided into different sections and each state has their own forms which you can get by visiting your local Federal Supreme Court office.


You can download these forms.  Make sure that you fill out all of the information correctly.  There are three forms that you need to file together.  Be sure to double check with your local Federal Supreme Court office to make sure that your forms are appropriate.  




​            

​​​The First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of The Constitution of the United States protect Parental Rights as Fundamental Rights.  If anyone infringes upon these fundamental rights, you have the right to collect restitution.

The Constitution of the United States

"Influence of the Federal Supreme Court on the state supreme courts: the U.S. Supreme Court may hear appeals from state supreme courts only if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari). In theory, state supreme courts are bound by the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court as to all issues of federal law, but in practice, the Supreme Court reviews very few decisions from state courts. For example, in 2007 the Court reviewed 244 cases appealed from federal courts and only 22 from state courts. Despite the relatively small number of decisions reviewed, Professors Sara Benesh and Wendy Martinek found that state supreme courts follow precedent more closely than federal courts in the area of search and seizure and appear to follow precedent in confessions as well.[7]"

The Constitution of The United States of America