Ohio Dad Files Writ of Certiorari to Protect Parental Rights in Custody Determinations
(COLUMBUS) – An Ohio father who has been doing battle with that state’s lower courts pertaining to the custody of his children for more than 12 years is finally moving up in the world. On Oct.17th, Michael Galluzzo, who has been challenging his state's child custody statutes as being unconstitutional, filed 2 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The first case derives from a constitutional challenge to the state's custody statutes. At issue is the authority of the state to deprive a fit parent of custody in a divorce case without a finding of unfitness by the use of clear and convincing evidence to deny custodial rights.
The second case derives from a child support issue originating from Champaign County, raising a number of constitutional issues to address the failures of the Ohio courts, including the right to custody, right to compel witnesses, and double jeopardy.
Originally filed in April 2001, the case has slowly worked its way through the lower courts to where it is presently. The cases are tied together in several ways.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that parents have fundamental liberty interest to raise their children, upholding the rights of parents to raise their children without undue state intrusion for more than 80 years.
Galluzzo cites cases such as Stanley v. Illinois (1971), Santosky v. Kramer (1982), and Troxel v. Granville (2000), where the Supreme Court held that parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest. Laws and individual orders against such rights have a level of review called strict scrutiny applied.
In Santosky, the court articulated that in order to terminate parental rights, the state must prove its allegations of parental neglect or misconduct by “clear and convincing evidence.” Lacking a compelling interest where fundamental rights are at stake, the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment does not allow the placing of citizens into separate classes (custodial and non-custodial), without a finding of clear and convincing evidence of unfitness by one of the parents.
The cases are seminal in a long history of U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to fundamental rights that should properly establish constitutionally compliant procedures between suitable and fit parents in a divorce situation with children.
The Court has addressed the rights of adoptive parents, grandparents, unwed parents, single parents, unfit parents, state agencies, and legal guardians. The ultimately critical, and unresolved issue remaining is the determination of the rights of fit parents in divorce and child custody cases.
The first case derives from a constitutional challenge to the state's custody statutes. At issue is the authority of the state to deprive a fit parent of custody in a divorce case without a finding of unfitness by the use of clear and convincing evidence to deny custodial rights.
The second case derives from a child support issue originating from Champaign County, raising a number of constitutional issues to address the failures of the Ohio courts, including the right to custody, right to compel witnesses, and double jeopardy.
Originally filed in April 2001, the case has slowly worked its way through the lower courts to where it is presently. The cases are tied together in several ways.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that parents have fundamental liberty interest to raise their children, upholding the rights of parents to raise their children without undue state intrusion for more than 80 years.
Galluzzo cites cases such as Stanley v. Illinois (1971), Santosky v. Kramer (1982), and Troxel v. Granville (2000), where the Supreme Court held that parental rights constitute a fundamental liberty interest. Laws and individual orders against such rights have a level of review called strict scrutiny applied.
In Santosky, the court articulated that in order to terminate parental rights, the state must prove its allegations of parental neglect or misconduct by “clear and convincing evidence.” Lacking a compelling interest where fundamental rights are at stake, the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment does not allow the placing of citizens into separate classes (custodial and non-custodial), without a finding of clear and convincing evidence of unfitness by one of the parents.
The cases are seminal in a long history of U.S. Supreme Court decisions pertaining to fundamental rights that should properly establish constitutionally compliant procedures between suitable and fit parents in a divorce situation with children.
The Court has addressed the rights of adoptive parents, grandparents, unwed parents, single parents, unfit parents, state agencies, and legal guardians. The ultimately critical, and unresolved issue remaining is the determination of the rights of fit parents in divorce and child custody cases.
posted by Michael Burns at 10:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home