DadsDivorce Live host, Dan Cuneo, discusses, with Constitutional Attorney, Charles Stanley Thorne, the Constitutional implications surrounding the hotly disputed Kate Hopkins custody case.
DadsDivorce LIVE: Your Constitutional Rights
DadsDivorce Live host, Dan Cuneo, discusses, with Constitutional Attorney, Charles Stanley Thorne, the Constitutional implications surrounding the hotly disputed Kate Hopkins custody case.
Since parenting is a fundamental right. Why is custody and access in the courtroom for fit parents to begin with? It is a family crisis issue not a legal issue requiring court intervention. Simply put, the court should not be involved in custody issues — Family problems need to be dealt with in a therapeutic/mediative environement. If the court ends up involved then the fitness of either or both parents at this point is questioned? Equal time or any other presumptions are beyond the purview of the court.
Father
Re; Kate Hopkins case, Stanley Thorn Attorney. Yes, Equal Protection, 14th and 5th Amd apply to demand 50/50 time as a starting point. I sued Ventura County under Equal Protection in 4th District Court. Ventura county had to hire five private federal practice lawyers, cost them $100K to fight me off. I had a class action suit granted, but eventually got tossed on the 11th amendment, states rights,( basically the feds shouldn’t get into state issues.) Which is just an easy way for the 4th district court to avoid a thorny issue. Good on Mr. Thorn for his great work. This is the begining of the end of the slavery of divorced father hood. The 80 day rule is clearly unconstitutional, as is any thing lesss then 50/50. Here in CA the counties get matching federal dollars for child support collected, so the counties have a monitary incentive to strip children away from father. The more time away from dad, the more child support and the more matching fed dollars the county gets to collect. (This bill was put fourth by then senator Biden, now Vice President, thanks Biden you goddamed moron.)