|
|
Judiciary
|
|
|
Tennessee judges have been some of the best in the nation in upholding constitutional guarantees for families. However they have never issued a ruling applying strict scrutiny to a parent v. parent custody case. We have a letter from a Guardian Ad Litem which reads, "I have tried to tell both of them that if Chancellor Alissandratos determines that they cannot work together for the benefit of their child, he would have no hesitation in going beyond what is requested by either side including removing the child to a "better environment." This is a routine custody action consisting of two fit parents, where they have been pitted against each other by the law and legal practitioners in a fight for primary custody. So why is the GAL saying this judge would not hesitate to place the child with a third party? Is she merely bullying the parents, or is they prepared to rip the child from his parents' care? US SUPREME COURT: "The liberty interest at issue in this case - - the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT: "[W]e believe that when no substantial harm threatens a child's welfare, the state lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit." JUDICIAL OATH OF OFFICE: "...do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Tennessee...So help me God" JUDICIAL CANON 2(A): "A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." |
||
|
The interest of the parents in the care,
custody, |
||
