Center Minnesota without expressing that intimacy to the other partner and that partner receiving that

expression without that person hope intimate associate therefore an admin association while still a
unique type of association is undeniably an expressive association they cannot be separate now there
are expressive associations that are not intimate such as your belonging to a a political party for this is
an expressive association of all the members of the party but all the members of that party are not
intimate with one another they're not close they don't share private aspects of their life are the
hallmarks of so always always always keep that in mind your intimate and expressive association with
your child is an individual right and your child both have is protected as an individual right it is protected
as a First Amendment right you as a bit natural parent have every right to establish this association and
maintain your minor child and not protect their rights on their own they cannot express that their rights
on their own but you as their fifth parent have every right to say my child is more to have an association
with me because I am a fifth parent who has a constitutionally protected right to make this choice my
child and I expressive association the Supreme Court has expressed this idea almost exactly like this and
let's talk about what the what they said the preme court said we have emphasized that the First
Amendment protects family relationships and that's about as simple as it gets and they said a whole lot
of other things in this sentence but he says of this sentence that matter that I absolutely hold true is that
we have emphasized that the First Amendment protects family relationships word to the Supreme Court
caught my words so your state court judge and your other than the opposing attorney can argue all they
want but they're not arguing with me they're not arguing with you they're arguing with the United
states Supreme Court good luck with that for them now one of the things they'll throw at you is that the
First Amendment says absolutely nothing about association they're right there word association is not in
the First Amendment so how is it the First Amendment protected right it's what's called a penumbral
right or it's one of the rights that emanate from the First Amendment and it's there and it's protected
precisely because the First Amendment protects speech but it doesn't protect speech in a vacuum it
doesn't protect your right to speak in an empty room it protects your right to speak with other people
and it protects those other people's right to receive what you have to say and that only happens if you
can associate with those other people and therefore the right to association is undeniably essential and
necessary to protect the right of speech and so that's where the right of association comes from that's
why it's a First Amendment right it's also protected by the 14th amendment and you will see this quite a
bit as a liberty interest but that liberty interest the definition of liberty in the 14th amendment
incorporates the definitions of all the protected elements of the First Amendment that's how the
Supreme Court applies First Amendment protections to the states by incorporating the First
Amendment definitions into the word liberty under the 14th amendment so even when the 14th
amendment protects your right of association against state action it's protecting the definitions that are
inherent in the First Amendment and those elements of individual liberty that the First Amendment
protects so in in essence when the when the court talks about 14th amendment protections for
association it's not it's not talking about different kind of association or different definition of association
just talking about those associational definitions that are inherent in the first amendment and that the
number right of first amendment speech and great the right to educate your child and your child has the
right to receive that speech from you from a purely intimate standpoint a close family standpoint you
have the right to share intimacy with your child explain to your child that you love your child and that
you care deeply about them and how they feel and what they believe and how they're getting along in
life and all those things that matter to us from a concept of matters of conscience not matters that the
state can interfere with but private matters of personal choice and things like religion and your place in
the world your place in the universe these are things that come from the heart come from the most
personal aspects of ones being and they are protected as matters of concern and your intimate
association with your child requires that expression and it requires your child to be able to receive that
so when the when your custody court interferes with that they are gonna fearing what will your your
most basic First Amendment rights and your child's most basic fundamental rights and this is critical
because there are rules that come along with First Amendment violate and those rules are very strong
there are a lot of them they are well litigated there are tons and tons of cases the spring court has said
you have these rights the Supreme Court said children have these rights minor children have these
rights and they are protected against the governor they're not protected against parents telling the child
what they can and can't say but they are protected from the government telling your child what they
can and can't say you're telling you what you can or can't say so your state tort judge cannot become a
super parent and start dictating to you what you can and cannot say to your child that is a clear violation
of the First Amendment that will not survive any kind of challenge under the family code or the idea of a
child's best interest it's just absurd and the courts would hold it so if they're proper courts apply First
Amendment law so your rights to your child were inherently when the constitution was created and
even when the 14th amendment was ratified your rights to your child were a special type of property
right so when our founding fathers established the constitution and they thought about protecting
parental rights which surely they did because several of them were parents Thomas Jefferson was a
single parent his wife had died and he spent many years abroad while his children his daughters when
they care of another family member you think for a second Thomas Jefferson thought it was in the the
government's power to take his children away from him just because he was away as a diplomat in
France you're out of your mind he did not and he certainly thought the constitution protected those
rights under property law because children were considered a certain type of property if you go back far
enough in your states codes and how they dealt with with custody rights you'll find that it was usually
put into the states property code now we can no longer tolerate the idea of children on this property
even if it was a special kind of non chattel property it's not like they were slaves but they were treated
as property in that the adult parent had pretty much total control over the far more control than we
have today rules of property were a good clean way to deal with this because they were clear rules they
were well understood everybody understood them and the courts from how they deal with them and
follow the street Center for now the problem with that of course was that the property laws were
applied unequally right and and all the property when they weren't allowed over the property and that
moving once create and all in attempting to if women more authority over their children away from
property rights is Mike is holding that when you come forward and create an association with your child
and take over the responsibility of being a parent care for the child you look out for their interest that
means the constitution protects your rights that's how your rights get protected by the constitution now
with women is presumed this happens because they carry the child in their bodies for nine months they
give birth to the child they're there obviously when they give birth and generally people are witnessing
all this so the bond between mother and child is presumed because of this so there are situations where
this presumption would not hold for instance if the if the mother gave birth in isolation nobody knew
she was pregnant which happens occasion and perhaps she abandoned the child immediately after she
was there she might not have even known she was pregnant it happens sometimes women don't even
know they're pregnant they have babies and they're just they don't know what's going on so these kind
of situations that presumptions might not hold up i actually have to the mother abandons the baby the
baby
Reunification

In re Joshua M . (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 467, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 110 ; see 42 U.S.C. § 629a(a)(7).) At the
dispositional hearing, the court is required to order the agency to provide child welfare services to the
child and his or her parents. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) Services "may include provision of a full array of social
and health services to help the child and family and to prevent reabuse of children." (§ 300.2.)
Reunification services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family.