Bell v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir. 1984)
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. 746 f 2d 1205, 1242-45; US Ct. App 7th Cir WI (1985)
Carson v. Elrod
No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976)
Doe v. Irwin (US. D. C. of Michigan 1985)
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied
without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political
institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14.
Doe et al, v. Heck et al (7th Cir. Ct. App. 2003)
The practice of “no prior consent” interview of a child, will ordinarily constitute a “clear violation” of the
constitutional rights of parents under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The investigative interview of a child constitutes a “search and seizure” and, when conducted on private property without “consent, a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances (imminent danger),” such an interview is an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the rights of the parent, child, and, possibly of the private property.
Elrod v. Burns (96 S. Ct. 1976)
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government.
Franz v. U.S.
A parent’s right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent’s
achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of
his children. A child’s corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. 707 F 2d 582, 595-599; US Ct App (1983)
Griswold v. Connecticut
The Constitution also protects “the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters” Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy, which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. 381 US 479, (1965)
Gross v. State of Illinois
State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal
constitutional rights. 312 F 2d 257; (1963)
In the Interest of Cooper (Kansas 1980)
Parent’s interest in custody of their children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional
protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous
loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection.
In re J.S. and C.
A parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
Kelson v. Springfield (US Ct. App 9th Cir. 1985)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally
protected liberty interest. (See: Declaration of Independence–life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution — No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) 767 F 2d 651; US Ct. App 9th Cir, 1985
Langton v. Maloney (527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. 1981)
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections.
Matter of Delaney (617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma 1980)
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children.
Matter of Gentry
A parent’s right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty” guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983)
May v. Anderson (73 S. Ct. 840 1952)
The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. 345 US 528, 533; 73 S. Ct. 840, 843 (1952)
Meyer v. Nebraska (43 S. Ct. 625 1923)
Parent’s rights have been recognized as being “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” 262 US 390; 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923)
Nicholson v. Williams
Suit challenged the practice of New York’s City’s Administration for Children’s Services of removing the children of
battered mothers solely because the children saw their mothers being beaten by husbands or boyfriends. Judge ruled the practice unconstitutional in a landmark class action suit in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Case No. 00-cv-2229.
Parham v. J.R. (1979)
Involves parent’s rights to make medical decisions regarding their children’s mental health.
Quilloin v. Walcott (98 S. Ct. 549 1978)
The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. 98 S. Ct. 549; 434 US 246, 255-56, (1978)
Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc.
Parent’s right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect.
Santosky v. Kramer (102 S. Ct. 1388 1982)
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for
procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that clear and convincing evidence rather than a mere preponderance were needed to terminate parental rights. 455 US 745 (1982)
Stanley v. Illinois (92 S. Ct. 1208 1972)
The Court stressed, “the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208 (1972)