Welcome to our Family!

BECOME A PARENT ADVOCATE TODAY!  CONTACT US AND SUBSCRIBE NOW TO VOLUNTEER.

The ACLU does not currently help parents involved in CPS disputes.  There has not been enough coverage.  To request legal action on behalf of millions of Americans who have been denied our Civil Liberties:  File your Complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union today!  125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004 or call 212-549-2500.

One People

Earth

College

​​​
WE are parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, and, most importantly, members of a family.

Each one of us has experience and knowledge to share in helping create a peaceful reality.  It is our dedication to helping and sharing these experiences that help the tradition and history of our culture and diversity needed to create the connections for a peaceful reality.


 ​​​Coalition4protection.com

Subscribe Today!  Together we can make the world a better place.

PDF Form: 



Form 1 application to proceed without fees and costs called ifp application

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/690/AO_440.pdf

Form to summons for a civil case form 2

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/690/AO_440.pdf



            COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS (Non-Prisoner Complaint)


This form will only be used when directed by the court to do so

Otherwise you will not use it

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/usm-285instform.pdf


Case Index:  (Be sure to read the entire text of each case you will be referring to before using it.)


  • Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
  • Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
  • Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
  • Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)
  • Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974)
  • Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
  • Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977)
  • Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978)
  • Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)
  • ​Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
  • Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
  • Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Federal Supreme Court 'Pro Se':


The United States Supreme Court has stated:

“There is a presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason or compelling interest for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question a parent's’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children. (Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.)

“The state may not interfere in child rearing decisions when a parent is available.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The right to have our children has been found to be denied regularly.  U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in 2005 stated that “families were deprived of their constitutional rights when state child welfare officials threatened to separate parents from their children during abuse investigations.” (Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

This type of treatment of parents who are suffering from poverty and have disabilities is occurring nationwide at an alarming rate and is a level of discrimination which is not limited by race, religion, or nationality.  Many do not receive fair and adequate representation.  My family is but one of millions across the nation effected and I am asking for my rights to be upheald.

Please join us in protecting children and families from abuse and discrimination by the people sworn to protect us.

Federal Malpractice Manual:  8.3 Damages Claim  Against Cities and Counties Under Section 1983


Federal Supreme Court 'Pro Se':


​​If you feel that you have been a victim of Federal Constitution Violations, then you have the right to file a Civil Claim against the offending party. You do not need to have a lawyer to represent you and should consider self representation, Pro Se representation. If you choose Pro Se representation, it would be prudent for you to study the Federal Constitution.  Click on the link on the right side to download your copy of the Constitution of the United States.


The Parent Advocates are here to help direct you to resources for 'Pro Se' representation.  Please feel free to contact us.  We are here to help.  Just click the tab on the bottom right hand of the page for assistance.


Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983), the principal federal statute under which you will sue to redress violations by officials of your constitutional rights, does not contain its own statute of limitations, i.e. the deadline by which you must file a lawsuit.


Jurisdiction Federal courts are authorized to hear cases brought under section 1983 pursuant to two statutory provisions: 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3) (1948) and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 (1948). The former statute permits federal district courts to hear cases involving the deprivation of civil rights, and the latter statute permits federal courts to hear all cases involving a federal question or issue. Cases brought under section 1983 may therefore be heard in federal courts by application of both jurisdictional statutes. State courts may also properly hear section 1983 cases pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause mandates that states must provide hospitable forums for federal claims and the vindication of federal rights. This point was solidified in the Supreme Court decision of Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 108 S. Ct. 2302, 101 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1988).


The Felder case involved an individual who was arrested in Wisconsin and later brought suit in state court against the police officers and city for violations of his federal rights. The state court dismissed the claim because the plaintiff failed to properly comply with a state procedural law. But the Supreme Court overturned the state decision, holding that the Wisconsin statute could not bar the individual's federal claim. To bring an action under section 1983, the plaintiff does not have to begin in state court. However, if the plaintiff chooses to bring suit in state court, the defendant has the right to remove the case to federal court.


"Influence of the Federal Supreme Court on the state supreme courts: the U.S. Supreme Court may hear appeals from state supreme courts only if there is a question of law under the United States Constitution (which includes issues arising from federal treaties, statutes, or regulations), and those appeals are heard at the Court's sole discretion (that is, only if the Court grants a petition for writ of certiorari). In theory, state supreme courts are bound by the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court as to all issues of federal law, but in practice, the Supreme Court reviews very few decisions from state courts. For example, in 2007 the Court reviewed 244 cases appealed from federal courts and only 22 from state courts. Despite the relatively small number of decisions reviewed, Professors Sara Benesh and Wendy Martinek found that state supreme courts follow precedent more closely than federal courts in the area of search and seizure and appear to follow precedent in confessions as well.[7]"


The Federal Supreme Court is divided into different sections and each state has their own forms which you can get by visiting your local Federal Supreme Court office.


You can download these forms.  Make sure that you fill out all of the information correctly.  There are three forms that you need to file together.  Be sure to double check with your local Federal Supreme Court office to make sure that your forms are appropriate.  




​            

The Constitution of the United States

The Constitution of The United States of America