Do they realize that the stereotypical grandmother who truly conjures up kind, loving images of cookie-baking and picnics DOES NOT have to sue to see their grandchildren? These are the grandparents WHO DO NOT NEED a 3rd party law to sue an UNFIT child for visitation or custody! If their child (the child's parent) is unfit, a drug dealer or abuser, an alcoholic, a child or spousal abuser, or any other manner of unfit, the grandparent CAN challenge for custody without these laws! When a state takes children, even temporarily, from the parent(s) because they are unfit or their competence is in question, the state SEEKS OUT available family FIRST before resorting to traumatizing a child by placing them in the care of strangers! This is what the state of New Jersey did with my own brother's 3 kids.

Several months of interviews and evaluations and running back and forth between PA and NJ and THERE WAS NO "3RD PARTY" PETITION FILED! They were being considered WITHOUT the 3rd party lawsuit. What happened? All 3 people mentally disturbed--3 children adopted out to total strangers! NO FIT GRANDPARENT NEEDS A LAW TO CHALLENGE VISITATION OR CUSTODY RIGHTS OF AN UNFIT PARENT!! So who needs these laws? THE UNFIT GRANDPARENTS! Why? Because without these laws, a FIT parent's judgement and decisions cannot be challenged! THESE LAWS ARE TO USURP THE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OF THE FIT PARENT! What grandparent sues their own child, says that that child is in fact a good and fit parent, and then takes them to court anyway for control over their child?

Well my mother did exactly that--she said IN COURT "No, she's a good mother..." Right. And I would finish the sentence "...I just want to have control here. Part of my psychosis is an unnatural, unhealthy, and dangerous dynamic that leads me to believe that I am still raising my own daughter, even though she is self-supporting and a mother herself. I have an unhealthy dynamic with children in general in that I believe you never ever stop raising your child, even though the law says you DO at the age of 18 and if I didn't get it right by that time, then dictating to a 39 year old woman isn't going to fix any mistakes I might have made." That is exactly why these laws are unconstitutional and always have been! They only usurp the parental rights and authority of the fit parent. How many states consider themselves obligated to observe the "harms test" rule in Troxel? Very very very few! PA tells me that statement only applies to Washington and anyway, that appeared in the justices' opinions, not the actual ruling. Sniff sniff.... smells like bullsh*t to me!

Do they realize that some people are unbalanced, abusive, and emotionally manipulating and those people don't all pass away before they reach a certain age? That these kinds of dangerous people often grow old and have grandchildren? As Parentsrights.net asked: What do unfit parents become? UNFIT GRANDPARENTS! Do they realize that 3rd party laws are being exploited by these dangerous, abusive, UNFIT grandparents to insinuate themselves into their own children's lives and wield power over them and their grandchildren? Don't agree with that last statement? Then you have absolutely no idea how many fit parents are being sued who were ALREADY ALLOWING THEIR CHILDREN TO VISIT THE GRANDPARENT. It is a very small percentage who sue after visitation has been completely terminated--I am one of those. The vast majority, including the infamous Troxel case, are filed by grandparents who simply want MORE time than the parents' schedule and sound judgement can afford--not sound controlling to you? How many are simply filing petitions so that they may have open access to all the child's medical, school, and other files normally protected against prying 3rd party eyes, and so that they can pick the days and times and length of visits. Still don't believe me? Then you must be one of the controlling, manipulative grandmothers!

Does the government realize that far more often than not, in order to put one of these orders in place, they must take a responsible decision made by a fit parent to safeguard their child and dispense with it, ironically endangering that same child in the name of "best interests?"

I invite you all to click the link above and review this same code as I am. Feel free to email me should you have any opinions on the following questions. What this piece of legislation should indicate is:

1)   Exactly what is the threshold for intrusion by which the state must adhere," as indicated by this federal code? What lines can they cross and what lines can't they cross by the most logical interpretation of this piece of legal code? Anyone? Anyone?

2)   Is it authority under parens patriae that enables states to take action under the broad veil of "best interests of the child," even when the child already has a fit parent making those decisions?

3)   If the state is empowered to act in the name of "best interests" of the child independently of--and superceding--the parent's determination of "best interests," then does parens patriae serve as an "end-run-around" of the USSC ruling in Troxel requiring a "harms test?"

Here's the original problem confronting me for the past two months and at the onset of creating this website. I decided to leave this text to show just how much crap I had to wade through to finally get what ended up being a very simple answer. Laws in this country are supposed to be approachable by the common person. How approachable are they when NONE of these public and government offices even knew where to find such an important piece of law, and then when you find it through a NON-GOVERNMENT website, it is totally beyond comprehension and appears on the surface not to even involve family matters or custody disputes at all. Part of being approachable must encompass not wording laws so as to go over the heads of every citizen except those trained in the double-talk of law? Ah, the art of using $50 words unnecessarily! Click the link taking you to Title 15, chapter 1 where you find the sections pertaining to parens patriae and YOU tell ME what the hell you're reading! Please find below the original text on this page, before the originating text on parens patriae was found:

This is a sticky subject because you see, I am currently trying to find exactly where the written federal authority on this matter is located...and have seemingly managed to stump the band on this one. Every official and office, even media outlet I've contacted to date has no idea where this can be found--but all seem to know the authority under parens patriae comes from some old english law. So.....this isn't England. You can't pull domestic laws from Spain and say they are enforceable here. You can't pull criminal code from Russia; you can't cite residential ordinances from France; you can't pull traffic code from Trinidad...get it? From where is this authority derived as it is exercised in THIS country? Where is the full written text wherein the federal government has granted this authority to states? Wouldn't that text also have to contain a definition of this power, and lay it out in its' scope and limitations? Isn't every other power or authority granted to states and even the federal government itself laid out in such a way? They say what they can do, when they can do it, when they CAN'T do it, and exactly who can do it.

Now I'm trying to locate the originating document...I'm trying to find it. Why? How better to go over it with a fine-toothed comb and see if, and where, the state may have over-stepped its' bounds and violated my rights? So finding it is what I wanted to do. Guess what? NOBODY KNOWS THE LOCATION OF THE ORIGINATING BODY OF LAWS GRANTING THIS AUTHORITY TO STATES, let alone where any limits on this authority may be! Hindsight is 20/20...and funny as hell! Did you click the link above yet? This title and section expressly empower the states' attorneys general. Parens Patriae is exercised by the attorney general--got it? Now, guess which is one of the offices to email me back saying "Uh, we can't find it....uh, it's common law....uh, it's only referred to in specific cases--it's an unwritten thing. Yeah, that's the ticket." Get this: the attorney general specific to my district! If you don't find that funny, you're just not paying attention! My email and faxed responses from media outlets, the Pennsylvania governor's office, the PA attorney general's office, my state representative's office, and others are right here!(No wonder I was having trouble finding the originating federal text. Check out some of these responses!)

Trying desperately not to be confusing here, pick any law or portion of the constitution that expressly allows any government authority to do anything. It says 1)what government authority is being empowered. 2)what they are being empowered to do. 3)where and into what areas that power is to extend. 4)what requirements must be satisfied in order to exercise that power. 5)the specific limits to that power. 6)what conditions must first exist before any action can be taken to exercise that power. So I live in PA. And sure that no state can simply dub themselves something and then begin issuing orders, particularly orders which affect parental authority, the custody of ones' own child, and ones' own right to regulate their associations and the associations of their child, I began looking for the original text. I checked the law library...nothing. I scoured the internet...I kept being dragged kicking and screaming BACK to that old England reference. I then emailed the governor, the attorney general, my state representative, one senator in charge of a committee pertaining to safeguarding children, and numerous local and national media outlets....nothing!

Ah, the attorney general. Might not have been so funny had the person in his office trusted with sending out official responses at least KNOWN WHERE TO FIND THE FEDERAL STATUTE EMPOWERING THE OFFICE HE'S WORKING IN! Here's the lengthy, complicated, confusing information he needed to know: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 15c-g. That's United States code. So what he had to email back was Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 15c-g. So instead of saying he didn't know, I got a multitude of BS answers with no basis in reality. The attorney general doesn't know where the federal government has empowered his office....hmmmm? I know damn well I'm in PA.

****UPDATE**** It turns out the person responding to me is the assistant or deputy attorney general, who stands by their previous response in that the written text at the link above is some anti-trust statute. WONDERFUL!!! That means there is nothing stating that attorneys general or states may extend that power to custody matters or children in general without attempting to derive authority from old english law! It also explains why you read the text and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with guardianship over children. Mind you, I like that idea so that children are not at the mercy of unfit abusive parents. Now, to use that to second-guess decisions by fit parents when those decisions pose no harm or potential harm to the child? NO! If PA can not demonstrate the ability to exercise such authority responsibly, then PA should not be able to exercise it at all. This is a state for whom a foster care agency failed to pick out a burly man--over 6 feet tall--in a dress!! Still want to say you're acting on some unwritten authority? PERFECT!! Another HUGE step closer to one multimillion dollar class-action law suit! The state's authority under parens patriae is UNWRITTEN but my right to raise my child as I see fit and to regulate my associations and the associations of my child ARE WRITTEN: the 5th and 14th amendments.

From an assistant at the attorney general's office I got a history lesson (you guessed it--England again) and a suggestion to check the law library (didn't I say I had already tried that in my initial email to you?) From the state representative's office, I got a fax of a portion of PA's domestic code that merely references the term, as in "PA, acting as parens patriae..." Well, that hardly addresses the initial request, does it? (Hey hey, don't knock this woman at the representative's office! If not for her, I still wouldn't have the information. This is the woman who got it wrong, and then KEPT LOOKING! The girl at the attorney general's office got it wrong...then got it wrong again...then actually got snippy with me because I hadn't diligently explored her incorrect response fully. Well, I don't need to fully explore a cow's butthole to know it stinks in there, and I didn't have to go far to realize she was as off the mark as she could be. Huge thank you to the lady at my state representive's office--competence and dedication...we like that. We like that a lot.)

I don't believe there is a state currently which is not exercising this power, however NO state may take on any authority or power not granted to it by the federal government or constitution. I believe that's so states cannot imbue themselves with any manner of limitless, boundless authority. Why? So that individual states cannot empower themselves in such a way as to allow itself to intrude without sufficient reason (just cause) or having to abide by a proper course of action (due course.) This makes it harder for states to operate in any way which would contravene liberties guaranteed private citizens in the constitution...or does it?

What does this have to do with 3rd party custody disputes? Well, because currently many states rely on their authority under parens patriae to determine "best interest of the child" as their justification for making custody arrangements with your child...even when their idea of "best interest" contradicts the parent's idea of "best interest." In fact their stated authority to determine "best interest of the child" is specifically rooted in their assumed power as parens patriae. So if no written authority exists, then states have simply empowered themselves to contradict parents' decisions where ever they decide they disagree--beginning to comprehend how intrusive and boundless this authority can be? "We don't like that decision you made. We have a better one (in whose opinion????) and if you don't abide by OUR decision, we will jail you and possibly take your child away." That is currently the implied and even practiced boundary of the authority of parens patriae, at least as practiced in my state of PA barring the discovery of the full written text wherein the federal government has given ANY state the right to exercise this power over citizens.