PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FOR

MICHAEL AND JENNIFER BRABSON

CASE NO: BCJ-16246, BCJ-15519

CENTER FOR FAMILY AND JUDICIAL

INTEGRITY
601 XAVIER STREET
SUITE 20
FORT SMITH AR 72901

APRIL 12, 2020

Page 1 of 10
 PARENTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO CHILDREN

Parenting rights are God given. They are also protected by the First, Fifth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In Troxel v. Granville, 99-138 [U.S.

06/05/2000 U.S. Supreme Court, November 1999], the Supreme Court ruled, The

Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty,

or property, without due process of law." We have long recognized that the

Amendment's Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, "guarantees

more than fair process." Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719 (1997). The

Clause also includes a substantive component that "provides heightened protection

against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests."

Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 301-302 (1993).

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 the Supreme Court. More than 95 years ago, in Meyer v.

Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), they held that the "liberty" protected by the

Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up

children" and "to control the education of their own."

Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925), they

again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the

upbringing and education of children under their control." It was explained in Pierce
Page 2 of 10
that "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct

his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for

additional obligations." Id., at 535. They returned to the subject in Prince v.

Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional

dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is

cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents,

whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can

neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166.

There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests,

Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason for the State to inject

itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make

the best decisions regarding their children, see, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.

This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now

established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434

U. S. 246, 255 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship

between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584,

602 (1979) ("Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of

the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have

consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982)

(discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody,

and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720 ("In a long line of cases, we

Page 3 of 10
 have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the

'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] ... to direct the

education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce).

Considering this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make

decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children

ERROR/DISCREPANCIES DISCOVERED

1. CPS USED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS GROUNDS TO PLACE

CHILDREN IN PERMENANT PLACEMENT WITH IRVINGS’

2. STATEMENTS MADE BY MS IRVING DURING GUARDIANSHIP

HEARING DOES NOT MATCH UP WITH PHYSICAL ACTIONS.

3. COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT JENNIFER DID NOT

AGREE WITH COUNSELORS BUT STILL PARTICIPATED
SHOWING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE KIDS TO HER.

4. STATE ADDS STIPULATIONS EVERY TIME PARENTS

COMPLETE SOMETHING AND ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE WHY
ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

5. COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE BOND BETWEEN THE

CHILDREN AND THE PARENT AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
IMPACT THE SEPERATION HAS ON THE CHILDREN.

Page 4 of 10
 ISSUE 1: CPS USED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AS GROUNDS TO PLACE
CHILDREN IN PERMENANT PLACEMENT WITH IRVINGS’

During the guardianship hearing the state attempted to introduce testimony to instill

that Jennifer and Michael relationship was fractured to the point that it created a threat to

the safety of the children. During this hearing, Ms. Irving testified that Jennifer would create

arguments with Michael based off of differences of opinions on religious opinions. She

testified about Jennifer’s issue with Michael “dipping” and how Jennifer compared it to

sorcery and that adult material on Michael’s phone was the equivalent to adultery. The

context of the testimony suggests that based upon Jennifer’s religious views that she could

not be a good parent.

Religious beliefs can vary greatly between individuals in the Christian faith. The

variances of religious beliefs are protected by the United States Constitution. Freedom of

religion is one of the founding principles of this country. To suggest that an individual that

believes that “dipping” is wrong per the bible, or that pornography is the same as adultery

is a threat to the child is blatantly wrong. For example, the Bible specifically states in

Mathew 5:26 “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already

committed adultery with her in his heart.”

The Bible is the reference for the Christian faith. It is viewed by many as an

instruction manual from God as to how to be a Christian. Considering the scripture noted

above, one could reasonably conclude that pornography equals adultery.

Page 5 of 10
 So for the court to allow the discriminatory act of using Jennifer’s beliefs as a

justification for the states action violates the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause of the

United States Constitution.

The Courts are implying that the Irving’s belief system is better for the children than

the Mother and Father of the children. This is a major red flag of discrimination considering

the Irving’s’ are employed by the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army is a ministry based

off of Christian beliefs.

ISSUE #2 STATEMENTS MADE BY MS IRVING DURING

GUARDIANSHIP HEARING DOES NOT MATCH UP WITH PHYSICAL
ACTIONS.

During the guardianship hearing Ms. Irving testified that she was fully willing to

promote the relationship between the children and their parents. She went so far as to say

that she would even offer up her home to the parents when they were visiting.

This testimony, obviously, impressed the courts and made them believe that the

Irving’s’ would be the best fit for the children since the relationship between the children

and the parents would be promoted by the foster family.

Once the hearing was over and the Irving’s gained guardianship, their actions cone a

180-degree turn. The Irving’s have consistently and emphatically not promoted the

relationship with the children. The parents have filed numerous motions for contempt on the

Page 6 of 10
Irving’s for various violations of court orders and not promoting the relationship like they

stated they would.

It is my belief that Ms. Irving simply told the court what they wanted to hear, and she

had no intention on acting out those statements. This action tiptoes the line of perjury

considering she never acted on her statements and one could reasonably believe that she

never intended to. Without the intent to act, the statements that Ms. Irving made were a lie

and therefore perjury.

Proving that she perjured herself could be difficult. It would be encompassing some

form of speculation. Ms. Irving would most certainly claim she had every intent to comply,

but something changed her opinion. Even if perjury could not be proven, the noncompliance

goes to show that the best interest of the children is not to be in the home of the Irving’s as

they are not promoting the Parent-Child relationship.

ISSUE #3 COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT JENNIFER DID NOT

AGREE WITH COUNSELORS BUT STILL PARTICIPATED SHOWING
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE KIDS TO HER.

It has been noted throughout the case that the parents have not always agreed with

the opinion of the counselors or the state. The issue is that the Court has failed to give any

weight to the fact that the Parents have participated and complied with the recommendations

that were given despite their difference of opinion on the matter.

Page 7 of 10
 The mere fact of the parent’s willingness to participate and comply is evidence of the

love they have for the children. It further shows that the parents are acting in the best

interests of the children and are fully willing to step out of their comfort zone if the children

could benefit in any way.

The state attempts to paint the parents in a light to show that they are combatting

everything that has been given for them is not an accurate depiction of the reality. The Court

should recognize that the parents are willing to go to any length to benefit their children and

will do anything to get their children home.

ISSUE #4 STATE ADDS STIPULATIONS EVERY TIME PARENTS

COMPLETE SOMETHING AND ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE WHY ITS
NOT GOOD ENOUGH

The original goal that was implemented in this case was for reunification. A case plan

was drawn up and ordered by the court. The parents complied and completed services even

though there were disagreements. Instead of reuniting the children with their parents, the

state simply made an excuse and added more stipulations.

The irony of this situation is that the court agreed that the case plan was the steps

that the parents had to take in order to get their children back. It was not a plan designed to

allow the state to determine at a later date if the services were good enough.

Page 8 of 10
 To continue to add stipulations and services to an ongoing case suggest that a case

plan is nothing more than a ploy to allow the state to hold on to a child. The purpose of a

case plan is to remedy the issues that surrounded the child being removed from the care and

custody of the parent. Unless a new issue arises that was completely unknown, there is no

need for additional services.

To continue to withhold a parent from their children violates the constitutional

protections that have been put in place for parents by the United States Supreme Court over

the last 100+ years.

The court are just as responsible for this error as they continue to add services every

time the parents complete a class or program. These actions by the State and the Courts

allude to an abuse of power and resemble a schoolyard bully. In this case the parents have

complied with the stipulations and the Case plan, yet the children are still not in their home.

ISSUE #5 COURT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THE BOND BETWEEN THE

CHILDREN AND THE PARENT AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT
THE SEPERATION HAS ON THE CHILDREN

All throughout this case the court and the state has consistently disregarded the

impact the separation has on the children along with the bond that the children have with

their children. They have consistently disregarded the actions that both parents have had

with the children. All of the visitation reports show that there were no concerns with the

parents or the children’s behavior, that the parents were actively engaged during the

Page 9 of 10
visitation, brought gifts and food, and had a good relationship. The children have stated their

desire to return home and the affection that they have for their parents. This is being ignored

by the courts.

With that said the visitation with the children has decreased from the original 5 hours

down to 2-4 hours. The amount of time with the children should have increased from the

start as the parents completed services. The court allowed the Irving’s to move further away

from the parents making the bond between the children and their parents that much more

fragile. The Courts have allowed this case to drag out for a substantial period of time instead

of returning the children to their home.

There has been numerous studies conducted on the effects of a child being separated

from their parents and these studies have shown that the longer a child is kept from their

parents the greater the chance of long term depression and greater risk of mental illness as

a whole. Not only does it increase mental illness but aides in the destruction of the family unit

and creates a situation where the children are at a higher risk of committing a criminal

offense, being homeless, not graduating high school, underage pregnancy. The list goes on

and on.

The primary goal of the court is to promote familial integrity and to protect the

children from harm, not cause it or make it worse than it already is.

Page 10 of 10