What is the first union between two people? If it was given to Man and Women from God why do we need the State to make it legal? Perhaps we don’t or shouldn’t.
Man is to leave is Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife as one. So if the union is to be between husband, wife and God there is no room for the state to intervene.
How far can two people that are married without the legal technicalities without the state interfering?
With the divorce rate being 50% within five years and the process that both have to endure because they have a legalized marriage certificate from the state would turn anyone to hate the concept of marriage. Does it have to be that way?
Let’s fine out…
We are looking to interview professional people with backgrounds and history of religion, government and law.
Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
by: Pastor Matt Trewhella
Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This article attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?
1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.
2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.
In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.
3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.
As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.
4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"
Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.
Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.
By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.
5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.
The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."
See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.
When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?
God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.
In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.
Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.
History of Marriage Licenses in America
George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?
Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.
What Should We Do?
Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)
You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.
When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.
Matt Trewhella pastors Mercy Seat Christian Church, a non-incorporated non-501c3 free-church. This article is used with his permission.
Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.
This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227, or go to www.mercyseat.net
There are two primary ways by which noncustodial parents with child support orders may intersect with the criminal justice system.
On one path, the noncustodial parent is not in compliance with a child support obligation and that noncompliance may lead to incarceration (short-term, primarily in local jails) as a result of either a civil contempt or criminal non-support action taken by the state.
The other way is for noncustodial parents who are incarcerated for a criminal offense and have a current or delinquent child support obligation. The incarceration is not related to child support and they may be incarcerated for longer periods of time in a state or federal prison. While child support isn’t the reason for incarceration for these parents, the ongoing child support obligation has repercussions for their confinement, release and re-entry.
As of Dec. 31, 201 there were approximately 1.56 million people in federal and state prison. More than 50 percent of those inmates have one or more child under the age of 18, leaving an estimated 2.7 million children with a parent incarcerated. In addition, a 2003 study estimated that one quarter of inmates in prisons had a child support case. Based on current prison populations, this suggests that approximately 400,000 inmates have a child support case.
What the federal and state prison numbers do not capture are the numbers of noncustodial parents who are incarcerated in local jails for failure to pay child support. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that more than 730,000 individuals were incarcerated in local jails in 2013, but what’s unknown is how many of those inmates were incarcerated due to child support noncompliance. A 2009 study in South Carolina found that 13.2 percent of county jail inmates were behind bars for civil contempt related to nonpayment of child support.
There is a great deal that state child support programs are currently doing to reduce the use of incarceration for child support noncompliance. The most widely developed efforts are focused on removing barriers to employment that are faced by low income and/or formerly incarcerated parents. The potential financial benefits of diverting nonpaying parents from jail into employment programs, to the family and the community at large, are significant.
The distinction between those noncustodial parents who are incarcerated for failure to pay child support and those who are incarcerated for a separate criminal offense who also have child support orders is an important one. The available approaches to improving child support compliance and encouraging ongoing, consistent child support payments within these populations are very different, particularly considering the reasons for and potential length of the incarceration.
Incarceration for Failure to Pay Child Support
Noncustodial parents may face incarceration for failure to pay child support through civil contempt or criminal nonsupport. Civil contempt is used more commonly than criminal contempt and the sentence is typically less severe and for a shorter length of time. Many states, recognizing that no support can be paid when a noncustodial parent is incarcerated, have established programs to encourage full compliance with child support orders, both before and as a part of the civil contempt process. These programs include examining child support orders to reflect realistic amounts given the individual's circumstances and diversion programs to reduce incarceration rates and increase child support payments.
All 50 states have processes for criminal prosecution for failure to pay child support, however, this more severe punishment is very rarely meted out. These laws generally make criminal nonsupport a felony or misdemeanor. The fines and potential prison sentences, as well as the delinquent threshold amount in order for criminal prosecution to be triggered, vary state by state.
Every state has a procedure for civil contempt that may be used for violations of various court orders. Civil contempt is designed to incentivize the defendant, or obligor in the case of child support, to comply with the court order. While incarceration is certainly an option when a child support obligor is noncompliant, civil contempt is not intended to punish the defendant, rather, it is intended to prompt compliance with the court’s order.
Federal law requires that civil contempt only be used when the noncustodial parent has the ability to pay and is willfully avoiding paying. State policies and practices vary in regards to how this limitation is implemented by the state child support agency. With noncustodial parents who are simply unable to pay their child support obligation, diversion or employment programs could have a significant impact in improving the likelihood of payment.
Some may see diversion or employment programs as letting the delinquent obligor off the hook, however, parents are generally ordered into these programs by the courts and may still face a period of incarceration for failing to follow the rules of the diversion program. For example, Georgia enacted house bill 310 during the 2015 legislative session to allow for a county diversion program for delinquent obligors who are in contempt of court. There are rules of the diversion program and “If the respondent fails to comply with any of the requirements…nothing shall prevent the sentencing judge from revoking such assignment to a diversion program and providing for alternative methods of incarceration.”
Diversion programs may reduce the number of non-custodial parents in jail, as well as increase the receipt of child support, reduce reliance on public assistance and save money from the reduced jail population. (See below for a discussion of state diversion programs). The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement also has an infographiccomparing job services to jail.
The majority of states use civil contempt to enforce child support orders, though limited data is available on how often it is used and the costs associated with subsequent incarceration.
State Diversion Programs
In addition to the legislation described above, Georgia has a series of problem solving courts, also called Parental Accountability Courts, which seek to remove barriers to non-payment of child support, such as unemployment, substance abuse, low level education. The overarching goal of these courts is to keep people out of jail for failing to pay child support, and to obtain support payments.
2015 Georgia HB 310: Creates a diversion center for child support obligors who have been sentenced for contempt of court for failure to pay child support. Allows people in the diversion program to travel to and from his or her place of employment and to continue his or her occupation. Details the requirements of traveling while in the diversion program. Requires the obligor to remain in the diversion center for the duration of the sentence, with the exception of traveling to and from work. Requires the obligor to pay alimony or child support as previously ordered, including arrears. Allows the obligor to participate in educational or counseling programs offered at the diversion center. Any additional funds that are available will go towards reimbursing the center for the cost (not to exceed $30 per day) of maintaining the obligor. Allows for alternative methods of incarceration if the obligor does not comply with the detailed requirements.
2015 Louisiana HCR 175: Urges and requests that the Department of Public Safety and Corrections make recommendations for the development of a work release program which would be suited for individuals convicted of offenses involving the failure to pay child support in order to facilitate employment and the fulfillment of child support obligations, and make recommendations to the Louisiana Legislature prior to the convening of the 2016 Regular Session.
Texas NCP Choices Program is a court diversion program that assists unemployed or underemployed noncustodial parents find and maintain employment. Program participants must spend 30 hours a week looking for a job, meet with the Workforce Counselor every week until employment is found, attend all court hearings and program appointments, comply with the child support order and stay in communication with their Workforce Counselor monthly following employment.
Participants paid $57 more child support 47 percent more often, showing a 51 percent increase in total collections. These results continued for 2-4 years after programs participation.
Participants paid their child support 50 percent more consistently over time
Participants were employed at 21 percent higher rates than non-participants, an effect that also persisted at least two to four years after the program
Participants were about one third less likely to file an unemployment claim in any given month in the first year after the program
The custodial parents associated with NCP Choices participants were 21 percent less likely to receive TANF benefits in the first year after the program, and 29 percent less likely two to four years after the program.
Virginia’s Intensive Case Monitoring Program (ICMP) was established by the Virginia General Assembly in 2008 (HB 1257). ICMP is a diversion/referral program for noncustodial parents following an administrative determination or order of the court. If a parent is in court for failure to pay child support, they may be referred to ICMP for case monitoring and referral services. The program then refers participants to “(i) employment services, to include employment assessment, employment search, and employment training; (ii) family services, including parenting skills, co-parenting skills, and relationship-building activities for parents and children; (iii) educational services, including GED preparation and GED testing; (iv) housing services, including referrals to organizations that operate shelters and provide subsidies; (v) document assistance, including referrals to organizations and assistance in securing vital records, driver's licenses, commercial driver's licenses, or other documents; and (vi) social services, health and mental health services, substance abuse services, or other services that may be necessary to enable the person to pay child support owed in the future.” Of the 979 program participants since ICMP was first enacted, 326 have graduated, 277 are still active and 376 were dropped for noncompliance with program requirements. Further, through December 2011, the program had collected over $3 million dollars, showing significant increases in average monthly child support payments among all three groups.
In Seattle, Wash., the King County Prosecutor’s Office operates a Navigator Program consisting of two full-time paralegals who are there to assist parents “navigate” the child support system. The navigator program is voluntary and open to parents who are involved in the Family Support Division’s Contempt of Court Unit or those who have been referred by the Division of Child Support because they are in search of employment or educational and training opportunities. The navigators connect parents with community partners who can assist the parents with obtaining housing, food and utilities.
Similar to the King County Prosecutor’s Office’s Navigator Program, the Washington State Division Child Support operates a program called Alternative Solutions. Alternative Solutions is a statewide program that seeks to connect parents with over 3,500 community resources across the state. These community resources are available to help parents with finding a job, training, housing, food, medical care or legal resources. In addition, the program can assist parents with lowering child support payments, reducing state-owed debt, and other case management actions, such as getting a suspended driver’s license back.
In addition to diversion and work release programs, states have also looked at the ways in which child support orders are established to ensure child support obligations are being calculated, as federal law requires, on the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay. State efforts to establish orders that reflect a parent’s current earnings are designed to promote regular payment of support and reduce the likelihood a parent will fall behind on child support and accrue debt.
The other population of incarcerated noncustodial parents are those who are in prison for criminal offenses not involving child support and who have current and/or delinquent child support orders. On average, an incarcerated parent with a child support order has the potential to leave prison with nearly $20,000 in child support debt, having entered the system with around half that amount owed.
According to 2013 data from the Bureau of Justice:
46 percent of incarcerated parents have HS diploma or equivalent, as compared to 82% of men ages 18-34
Nearly 60 percent of black men who are high school dropouts have done time by their mid-30s
About two-thirds of people in prison or jail were employed at least part time before arrest with a median income of less than $1000 per month.
In addition, in Illinois in 2013:
There was 5,589 active orders for currently incarcerated noncustodial parents involved in the IV-D child support program with 6,646 cases
There was $986,000 in new current support debt per month with more than $97.4 million in accumulated debt.
There was 15,387 current or formerly incarcerated parents in the Illinois IV-D caseload
41 percent of those incarcerated parents had an average income of $10,136 per year prior to incarceration
The remaining 59 percent had no reported income prior to incarceration.
Modification during Incarceration
Whether a parent is incarcerated or not, a material and substantial change in circumstances is required to modify child support orders in the majority of jurisdictions. Two situations that may be treated as a material and substantial change in circumstances are incarceration and unemployment.
Some states allow incarceration to be considered a substantial change in circumstances allowing for modification while others do not allow incarceration alone to be a sufficient reason for modification and would require other circumstances to be shown in order to modify. State policies regarding modification of child support during incarceration vary and depend on a number of factors.
A significant reduction in income due to a job loss or job change is generally considered a material and substantial change for purposes of modifying child support, as long as the job loss or reduction in earnings was involuntary. Conversely, voluntary un- or underemployment in order to avoid payment of child support is not considered to be a material and substantial change of circumstances and therefore does not warrant consideration for modifying child support.
Most states treat imprisonment as involuntary unemployment which means the obligor could request a modification. Certain exceptions to this determination exist if the reason for the incarceration is related to the failure to pay child support or avoidance of child support. A small number of states treat incarceration as voluntary unemployment because the crime, which led to the inability to work or pay child support, is considered a voluntary act. As such, modification of child support during incarceration is not allowed in those states.
Most states that allow for modification during incarceration require the noncustodial parent to be proactive in making that request. This process requires the incarcerated parent to know of the modification procedure and access the necessary resources in order to obtain timely modification. Most recently, however, California passed legislation which requires the suspension of a child support order to occur automatically when an obligor is incarcerated or involuntarily institutionalized. In addition. Vermont and Wisconsin allow the child support agency to file a motion to modify the child support orders of incarcerated obligors.
Modification of Child Support Orders during Incarceration
2015 California AB 610: Requires the suspension of a child support order to occur by operation of law when an obligor is incarcerated or involuntarily institutionalized. Creates an exception to the automatic suspension of child support orders to include obligors who are incarcerated or involuntarily institutionalized for domestic violence or failure to pay child support. Authorizes the local child support agency to administratively adjust account balances for child support cases managed by the agency if the agency verifies that arrears and interest were accrued in violation of these provisions, that specified conditions relating to the obligor's inability to pay while incarcerated and the underlying offense for which he or she was incarcerated do not exist, and neither the obligor nor the obligee object to the adjustment. Details the procedures for notifying the obligor and obligee about the suspension or adjustment of the child support order. Clarifies that the child support obligation will resume following the obligor’s release from incarceration.
2015 Texas HB 943: Current law presumes that a child support obligors earnings are equal to the federal minimum wage for a 40-hour week, absent evidence to the contrary, for purposes of calculating child support. This bill makes the presumption inapplicable in cases where the child support obligor is subject to an order of confinement that exceeds 90 days and is incarcerated in a local, state, or federal jail or prison at the time the court makes the determination regarding the party’s income.
2015 Hawaii SB 913: Requires the Department of Public Safety to collect data relating to the number of incoming offenders into the state correctional system who are parents, and the number of children they have that are under the age of eighteen, in order to provide services to incarcerated parents and their children. Requires a plan for the management of the data collected and public disclosure of the data.
Illinois has several programs that are working with incarcerated parent who have child support orders. The Paternity Establishment Prison Project (PEPP) enables noncustodial parents to establish paternity while incarcerated through genetic testing or voluntary acknowledgements of paternity and then establish an administrative child support order based on that determination of paternity. From this program came Project CHILD (Collaboration Helps Inmates Lessen Debt), which has been in place for more than 10 years and assists incarcerated noncustodial parents with review and modification of support orders. Project CHILD includes dedicated, specially trained staff, who go into prisons to talk to incarcerated parents, provide the required forms and answer any questions they may have.
Minnesota’s “Child Support Liaison” program allows newly incarcerated noncustodial parents to speak with a child support enforcement representative upon intake into prison. That liaison then educates and informs the offenders about the child support system during inmate orientation, facilitates communication between the offender and the county child support enforcement agencies, and helps families support their children while the noncustodial parent is incarcerated. The liaison is also available to assist incarcerated noncustodial parents with the typical child support enforcement services, such as requesting a modification, obtaining genetic testing and other child support issues the parent may be facing.
Texas recently performed a demonstration project called Behavioral Interventions to Advance Self-Sufficiency (BIAS). This project used behavioral economics to help incarcerated parents apply for child support modification by changing the way child support enforcement staff contacted and interacted with incarcerated parents. The project increased the application for modification response rate from 28 percent to 39 percent.
While there is a great deal that we do know, there is also a lot that we do not know, including how many incarcerated parents have child support orders and how many people are incarcerated for nonpayment of child support. Having this information could greatly inform both child support and criminal justice policy in the states.
Questions to Consider:
How many noncustodial parents are incarcerated in county jails for failure to pay child support?
Do these parents have the ability to pay the amount of support that is court-ordered, or the amount required to get out, or stay out, of jail?
What is the cost of incarceration in county jails?
How much child support has been collected by using civil contempt?
How much child support has been collected by using diversion programs?
What administrative or judicial process exists to adjust child support once a noncustodial parent is incarcerated?
Is incarceration treated as voluntary or involuntary unemployment?
Can incarcerated noncustodial parents modify their child support orders?
Can the agency or judicial entity automatically modify a child support order?
Will debt and interest accrue while the parent is incarcerated?
About This NCSL Project
NCSL staff in D.C. and Denver can provide comprehensive, thorough, and timely information on critical child support policy issues. We provide services to legislators and staff working to improve state policies affecting children and their families. NCSL's online clearinghouse for state legislators includes resources on child support policy, financing, laws, research and promising practices. Technical assistance visits to states are available to any state legislature that would like training or assistance related to this topic.
The Denver-based child support project staff focuses on state policy, tracking legislation and providing research and policy analysis, consultation, and technical assistance specifically geared to the legislative audience. Denver staff can be reached at (303) 364-7700 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
NCSL staff in Washington, D.C. track and analyze federal legislation and policy and represent state legislatures on child support issues before Congress and the Administration. In D.C., Joy Johnson Wilson at 202-624-8689 or by e-mail at email@example.com and Rachel Morgan at (202) 624-3569 or by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Lawsuit to be filed @ Parents Day 2016: Justice for U.S. family court victims
Victim? Join the Association, be in the communications army, receive justice.
Introduction / Fast Track:
If you want to join now, just jump down to the registration form at the bottom of this Homepage, or first read the Overview just below, and/or learn about the very powerful constitutional Arguments that are fully hammered within the Complaint.
If you are hoping to find some power legal ammo for use in your own personal family court case, then you still want to see our Arguments page, also the upper areas of ourF.A.Q. Page, and provided just for you, also check out the free Legal Tips page.
Go here to connect with likeminded citizens in your own State or Commonwealth, upon your choices of groups on Facebook, Google Groups, Yahoo! Groups, and more.
Self-check your own recruiting statistics live, in real-time, on the Leaderships page.
Overview of Class Action Lawsuit:
With filing scheduled for official Parents Day, this federal class action suit seeks two primary goals in court relief: (1) shutdown and radically correct both of the main unlawful "family court" systems nationwide because of multiple, grossly unconstitutional issues each; and, (2) shutdown all of related federal HHS/ACF “carrot and stick” programs that are partial blame for causing #1.
This class action lawsuit also demands one secondary form of relief, a declaration (Order) from the federal court that the unlawful deprivations of child custodial rights from all registered class action plaintiffs are void, hence fully restoring the prior legal and physical child custody of all registered plaintiffs who qualify and join below. This ability to directly restore fundamental rights is because of the legal nature in swearing under penalty of perjury that each such parent is actually qualified to receive all such relief. Further, all of the other millions of "similarly situated" parents out there will be able to use this same declaratory relief ordered by the federal court, and proceed back to their respective family courts (using an attorney of their choice if and as needed), to go through the process for essentially the same guaranteed results. The difference is only that those other millions of parents were not already in this class action lawsuit, formally, by swearing their own qualifications to receive relief under penalty of perjury.
Named Parties of Suit:Plaintiffs include a legal association formed via registrations of the first 51,764 qualifying U.S. family rights activists joined (CAPRA - "Constitutional Association of Parental Rights Advocates"), plus all class action plaintiffs (the millions of all other American family rights victims out there). This lawsuit will be strictly about the parental rights of *natural/biological* parents and the affected children/families of those parents. This lawsuit is not about any rights of adoptive parents, foster parents, grandparents, or etc. Defendants are the 50 States/Commonwealths, Congress, and US HHS/ACF. We may or may not also add DC as another named Defendant similar to the 50 States/Commonwealths, but it’s really not necessary, and DC is a very different creature under the law, not really like a State/Commonwealth. See our F.A.Q. Page for further information on all the named and class action parties, with related details, and/or see directly on the Complaint's cover page (first page), provided by this link.
Constitutional arguments include those regarding flagrant injustices within the child custody/support/visitation realm ("family court" actions between two natural/biological parents over their minor child/ren), those regarding flagrant injustices within the child protective services realm ("family court" actions by government social workers versus one or both natural/biological parents over child custody), along with those intended to shutdown and terminate all related federal fundings ($4+ billion annually on Title IV-D and similar, and $2-3 billion annually on portions of Title IV-A, IV-B, IV-E and similar), i.e., all of the carrot and stick federal funding schemes driving many injustices in both of those two "family court" victimization realms. See our Arguments page for details.
The communications army in direct support upon filing this class action is the most motivated and passionate army humanly possible, because it is CAPRA, the association lead plaintiff itself, consisting of all highly determined family rights activists, each and every single one of them. But there is another powerful motivation, a very significant financial incentive, in addition. Of the several different claims ("Counts") against those HHS/ACF federal funding programs, each includes a qui tam action, typically known as "whistleblower" actions. Federal laws mandate and expressly require reward payment to plaintiffs successfully bringing a whistleblower action. The formula mandated by law requires reward payments to be no less than 15%, and up to 30%, based upon certain factors, of the past six (6) years of all such annual federal fundings, and we're talking about $6-7 billion/year at issue... In other words, even the absolute minimum reward required by law (15%) still translates into roughly $5.4-6.3 billion... But, being overly generous, we'll even offer to settle for a mere 1/10th or even 1/20th of that statutory minimum, and the amount is *still* so staggering that each of 51,764 qualifying family rights advocates can be rewarded for their communications time in victory with various reward amounts starting with at least $3k for the base, and going up from there based upon personal recruiting efforts (so that the best motivated communicators, those who most often successfully communicated their recruiting message, will then also actually and fairly earn the highest rewards, as it should be). If you are personally qualified to participate, join by using the registration form just below. For more information first, please review our F.A.Q. Page, as well as our Leaderships and Recruitment pages.
Even further, as a Member of CAPRA you may also optionally enter and compete within either/both of the YouTube and radio media contests to win additional reward shares.
Qualify and Join Here:
Basically, if you are a parent of one or more natural/biological children, you also were unlawfully victimized by either above-described American "family court" system within the past four years (whether still currently or not), and you currently live in one of the 50 States/Commonwealths, you qualify to be a Member of CAPRA and fully participate in everything described upon this website. However, there are per-geography limits.
For various reasons, the total membership of CAPRA will be limited to a maximum of the first 51,764 qualified registrants, which is population-density based, including up to twelve (12) Members allowed to join and participate from the very least populated, most rural Localities, and likewise by different population-density thresholds, up to a max of twenty-eight (28) Members from each of the many most populated Localities.
About 95% of all such 3142 U.S. Census "Localities" are called "[something] County" while the rest are county-equivalents, like "boroughs" and "census areas" in Alaska, "parishes" in Louisiana, and even "independent cities" like St. Louis, Baltimore, and others, which are cities not part of any counties, with their own borders, etc. Using different population thresholds, each different Locality is shown with either three (3), five (5) or seven (7) CAPRA membership slots on this example spreadsheet. We are using four (4) of those (real) spreadsheets together, each with 12,941 slots, for a grand total of 51,764 maximum CAPRA membership slots available across the nation, hence "three" slots shown on the single spreadsheet for a Locality is actually twelve slots available, "five" is actually twenty slots, and "seven" shown is actually 28 slots.
So, in order to qualify and join CAPRA successfully, you must not only qualify under the regular "legal standing" factors described above and detailed on the form below, but you also must be amongst the very first set of people within your own geography (first come, first served, per each "County" and equivalent Locality) who register and join the earliest in setup for later spreading our lawsuit news in that area. Join now:
PLEASE NOTE -- THIS IS A *SCROLLING* FORM BELOW, SO JUST SCROLL THE FORM DOWN TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS, USING ITS OWN SCROLL BAR
PLEASE NOTE -- THIS IS A *SCROLLING* FORM ABOVE, SO JUST SCROLL THE FORM DOWN TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS, USING ITS OWN SCROLL BAR
Note: This website is under constant construction. So, please don't hesitate to come check back often for important updates, especially by also double-checking the Case News page.