
Civil liberties do not vanish with unethical gain, nor does a child’s best interests navigate with fraudulent influence.
Civil liberties do not vanish with unethical gain, nor does a child’s best interests navigate with fraudulent influence.
Civil liberties do not vanish with unethical gain, nor does a child’s best interests navigate with fraudulent influence.
Civil liberties do not vanish with unethical gain, nor does a child’s best interests navigate with fraudulent influence.
When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, “due process entitles him to substantial protection of that interest.” This father, not fitting the mold of any archaic gender stereotype, has demonstrated that commitment tenaciously.
However, as gender assumptions and open-ended construction render adoption statutes vulnerable across the country, his substantive due process and liberty rights were overtly violated as the bond he shared with his child had been coldly severed. As written, he had reasonably satisfied the statute’s demands. He has maintained a fervent desire to raise his child, being sensibly fit and percipient to do so.
"Under our form of Government all authority is vested in the people and by them delegated to those who represent them in official capacity. There can be no offense heavier than that of him in whom such a sacred trust has been reposed, who sells it for his own gain and enrichment; and no less heavy is the offense of the bribe giver. He is worse than the thief, for the thief robs the individual, while the corrupt official plunders an entire city or State. He is as wicked as the murderer, for the murderer may only take one life against the law, while the corrupt official and the man who corrupts the official alike aim at the assassination of the commonwealth itself. Government of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the face of the earth if bribery is tolerated. The givers and takers of bribes stand on an evil pre-eminence of infamy. The exposure and punishment of public corruption is an honor to a nation, not a disgrace. The shame lies in toleration, not in correction. "
― Theodore Roosevelt, December 7, 1903
After learning of an induced birth that occurred on September 19, 2018 and a covert adoption plan from the mother’s equally stunned aunt, this father claimed paternity on October 11. Despite a distinct showing of the statute being satisfied and his having an established bond with his child, on March 8, 2019, for sordidly covetous reasons, his parental rights were wrongfully terminated.
Adoption statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of maintaining a natural parent’s rights. In re Adoption of B.M.W., 268 Kan. 871, 874 (Kan. 2000).
Natural parents are to have a liberty interest in the care of their children, privacy rights are to embody child rearing, and when a governmental entity acts to deny a citizen of life, liberty, or property interests, it must demonstrate a compelling interest to justify infringement, and the decision must come from a neutral decision-maker. The right to be the legal parent of a child is a right that cannot be abrogated except under compelling circumstances. In re C.L.A., 31 Kan. App. 2d 536, 539 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
Inappropriate gain is not a compelling interest or circumstance.
A parent’s right to the companionship of their children is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and protection. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).
Adoption does not create an exception.
INFRINGEMENT
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1O7tTK-O4XR6jlNBzaih4pyNkZZzvmCSq/view?usp=sharing
The last time that this father has seen his daughter, she cried out for him as he had to reluctantly walk away. She should have been in his custody only a few days later.
“Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too frightened, when we fail to speak up and speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.”
― Robert F. Kennedy, June 6, 1966
The Kansas Supreme Court had stated, "In an accompanying letter, he stated his intent to contest the adoption, maintaining that he had a life-long interest in being a father and had provided the mother with financial and emotional support during the pregnancy until she severed contact with him."
...
AND THEN THE COURT PROCEEDED TO AFFIRM THE RULING.
After a three day trial, The 18th Judicial District Court proclaimed falsehoods in the trial ruling (e.g., “there were times that she was without residence and was couch surfing”) after having deliberately misconstrued and disregarded evidence (e.g., “he was not emotionally supportive,” the mother lived free of financial obligation for most of the pregnancy), misinterpreted and ignored testimony (e.g., “he was not going to give her any money,” “he gave her no home or residence”), miscomprehended a plainly worded statute (e.g., “the statute does not let you make that decision”), abandoned precedent and neglected procedural law (e.g., a mother’s refusal of support is to factor in determining if the father provided adequate support, all the relevant surrounding circumstances are to be considered),
He has sought to correct this malefaction ever since, meeting unjust obstruction at every turn.
When findings are attacked for insufficiency of evidence, appellate courts are to determine whether substantial competent evidence exists and ensure that the law had been correctly applied. Instead of ensuring that the proceedings were fair and that the law was applied correctly, the Kansas Court of Appeals added several exponents of misconduct to an unmerited accumulation. Then the Kansas Supreme Court failed to follow horizontal stare decisis, mirroring the lower courts’ incivility. The evidence and testimony--when the statute and case law are appropriately construed--firmly put favor towards the adoption being voided.
The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decision-making process.
The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done," by ensuring that no person will be deprived of their interests in the absence of a proceeding in which they may present their case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against them.
Under Due Process, natural parents have a liberty interest in the care and management of their children. Under Equal Protection, the Constitution’s guarantee to privacy rights embodies the right in child rearing. It is a constitutional requirement that when a state works to deny citizens of life, liberty, or property interest, citizens must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.
When a natural father shows a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, due process entitles him to substantial protection of that interest. Not fitting the mold of any archaic gender stereotype, this father has proven that commitment tenaciously. As they are written, he firmly satisfied the Kansas adoption statutes to secure his parental rights. Research suggests that he is the first father in Kansas to fight the wrongful adoption of his child this extensively.
There is an equal protection violation in the fact that neither the adoptive couple nor the birth mother were made to endure any of the discourteous measures that had been fallaciously placed on this father.
The trial transcript and the 18th Judicial District Court’s ruling
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VUg_YgqyHZ0ibPo6y3m4FZj424k9AQjb/view?usp=sharing
The record's Table of Contents
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXkGul4PRNAwUYkj_e8t5E0ONvkVYJ31/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 2 of the record
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YN11H7ZwQ1Hvb8jyw-NO5r3Btbdgue5F/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 4 of the record
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1orOKXoR_eAfe55zRE8j-TA4iWxB1gKLE/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 10 of the record—the text messages
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cez_uLq9xBlE5yj4JJrZYYUH9ojcYuQ2/view?usp=sharing
Vol. 11 of the record—photo album
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10rnePZ5wOsecMdafBaHnIdQ58yGIO8ms/view?usp=sharing
The appeal briefs and the Kansas Court of Appeals’ decision
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m5dd-Du7kG4M56CUsO_BRXUeWzzaxzYd/view?usp=sharing
The petition for review briefs and the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17tlsA7HfHcJ5mISJ9iwSOpeYr-1QZRoe/view?usp=sharing
K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(1)(D) conflicts with the Void-for-Vagueness doctrine.
“...to provide support for the mother...”
Vague laws in any area suffer a constitutional infirmity. Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200 (1966).
Statutes that leave judiciaries free to decide, without legally fixed standards, what is satisfactory and what is not in each case is immensely unconstitutional. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-3 (1966). It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Luna v. City of Ulysses, 17 P.3d 940, 942 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). A vague law is no law at all. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019).
Most of her testimony had been perjury: “It was always about him?” “Yes, always ... He was extremely selfish throughout the entire pregnancy. He only ever cared about himself ... Frequently he was very selfish. I felt like he was doing all of this to make himself look good.”
He had been “doing all of this” because he loves his daughter.
On April 11, he had said, “Providing a safe environment for the baby is my number one priority,” April 18, “I love our daughter too much to make anything more important than her,” June 19, “When it comes to our daughter, her best interests are number one and she needs both of us.”
She did not respond.
On July 25, she had said, “I am in no place to even have a child right now. I seriously need you to get off my ass while I figure out what I am supposed to do.” He responded, “If she is mine, give her to me. I am more than capable.” She replied, “Fuck off. Leave me alone.”
He responded, “...If she is my kid, I don’t think so.”
On July 29, he said, “I am not sure why you act as if I have done something wrong to you, or why my willingness to take care of her somehow offends you, but I am just trying to be there for my daughter. I hope something good has happened since we last talked. I am worried about you.”
Again, she did not respond.
In October, 2022, Father filed a motion for relief from judgment due to a lack of due process. Such a motion has no time limit, yet the district court denied the motion due to time limitations. The denial is currently being appealed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pvq-UBaDbCBVbBumSEPqOh6SPF_hWPO0/view?usp=share_link
"U.S. judges have the responsibility to protect constitutional rights. Goss v. State of Illinois, 312 F.2d 257, 259 (7th Cir. 1963). But where civil liberties are periled by an estranged system that has become dangerously comfortable, it needs to be recalled that it is the citizen’s civic duty to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies; foreign and domestic. When a government destroys rather than secures unalienable rights, U.S. citizens have the right to abolish that government, for these rights are to subsist independently; the government exists only to protect them. The implementation of Kansas adoption law and its affirmation in Baby Girl G. have expressly traduced the revered standard. Citizens are to be held accountable only to laws that are just and equally enforced. Vague or arbitrary law is no law at all. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019). And while adoption statutes are depicted to be strictly construed in favor of the natural relation, these vital precedents were completely disregarded. See, e.g., In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 430 (Kan. 2010); In re Adoption of G.L.V., 286 Kan. 1034, 1042 (Kan. 2008); et al. "
After spending a considerable amount of time preparing and submitting a Writ of Certiorari, SCOTUS denied this father's pro se petition and subsequent filings.
The petition for writ of certiorari and related briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JNhyyv3hEy4z0bqdHIiiRXWNZVCFFZc4/view?usp=sharing
Continuing as a pro se litigant, this father filed a civil complaint against the adoptive resource for violations of rights; wrongful adoption; civil conspiracy; factual cause; conversion; loss of consortium; interference with possessory, parental, and custodial rights; intentional infliction of emotional distress; constructive and intrinsic fraud; unjust enrichment; abuse of process; false light; calumny; specific intent; wrongful family separation; and economic and non-economic loss. Despite what should have been a decisively favorable effort, the U.S. District Court judge dismissed the complaint.
Civil Complaint briefs and orders
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RpWxKGwnNf1bMFVv7W-cFGw1vIifh5M2/view?usp=sharing
The complaint filed regarding the trial court
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RwtG6FE0N9PEf7Evp_lUA9NyADTPf-TH/view?usp=sharing
The initial response from the Secretary
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gUTaZ4UCDxuiKbewotthxhFXbNdwDPm8/view?usp=sharing
The response from the Inquiry Panel, affirming
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19UwmiJMFl6HJXzwOKWXUx54INGdVeeX-/view?usp=sharing
A complaint was filed on the opposing attorney
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eUApjlInXDWBTrSdNvvxtenY4_u__qE7/view?usp=sharing
The irrational response (claiming original petition alleged specifics that it did not)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FRz-l-aVweLhGey3DyyttkD4dOAV-HJe/view?usp=sharing
The original petition (specific "allegations" highlighted)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sNgvaDIW6KJk_-fBfTQdMlC6IYu4JWho/view?usp=sharing
My Reply
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15s38BjdJUBJGoIWG0dXVOY_qmnzRJUNU/view?usp=sharing
The perplexing response
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N8eMqADPGipiW0e1oH1CCMqSn8JZC7s9/view?usp=sharing
The initial petition to terminate parental rights, filed on September 21, 2018:
“The parental rights of the possible fathers should be terminated by reason of their relinquishments or for one or more of the following reasons: a. The possible fathers are expected to abandon and neglect the child after having knowledge of the child’s birth. b. The possible fathers are unfit as parents or incapable of giving consent. c. The possible fathers are expected to make no reasonable efforts to support or communicate with the child after having knowledge of the child’s birth. d. The possible fathers, having knowledge of the pregnancy, failed without reasonable cause to provide the birth mother support during the last six months of the pregnancy. e. The possible fathers abandoned the birth mother even though aware of the pregnancy.”
The disciplinary administrator office’s response to a related complaint:
“However, in this instance he did have a factual basis to assert the allegations made in the initial petition. Some of the facts his prefiling investigation discovered were the father’s issue with depression (grossly misconstruing a very common condition); his use of marijuana and methamphetamines (three clean urinalyses, a voluntary intake assessment not recommending treatment, and use had ceased prior to adoption proceedings); that despite having two jobs providing $150.00 in support (she had no financial obligations for most of the pregnancy and I had ensured all prenatal needs were met); failing to help the birth mother move knowing she was being evicted (She had said, “I talked with my aunt and she said I can store it all there. I super appreciate your offer to help I just feel like I’m asking a lot of you by doing this.”); and, that the birth father had indicated he would take the child from the birth mother (horrendously taken out of context).”
Clearly, none of these misconceived “facts” were alleged in the initial petition.
Men Deserve More: Applying the Biological Rights Doctrine to Adoption Law
(MacIsaac-Bykowski, M. 2020)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pi9-PYlku7lgKbUFJq4Kkx4gKK1YzhBR/view?usp=sharing
Adopting Civil Damages: Wrongful Family Separation in Adoption
(Seymore, M. 2019)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UJSMrpyOqSw57QZur9fRKm5LCjX747Wn/view?usp=sharing
Unequal Protection: Examining the Judiciary’s Treatment of Unwed Fathers
(Potash, B. 2018)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19n_Rw7fSxBRku8Bn8bh-BYYr9gutP8zk/view?usp=sharing
Grasping Fatherhood in Abortion and Adoption
(Seymore, M. 2017)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1__T_FxM6qbqd2X8FNQuWkcbWPdKEX2aT/view?usp=sharing
The Ties That Bind: Reevaluating the Role of Legal Presumptions of Paternity
(Kolinsky, H. 2014)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k5hr0V1fCO-Oe_FzvAjkz3MXv9CMWMZA/view?usp=sharing
Blood over Bond?
A Call to Define Kansas’s Requirements for Biological Fathers to Retain Parental Rights
(Novak, W. 2013)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LxW0_uIUM2Vr-G0gqzR38p9AiNwA3YVv/view?usp=sharing
Two to Tango, One in Limbo: A Comparative Analysis of Fathers' Rights in Infant Adoptions
(Ryznar, M. 2009)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QujJCXOnPDG6d1UsNnHnE9U5stfr9h8S/view?usp=sharing
The Paradox of Unmarried Fathers and the Constitution:
Biology "Plus" Defines Relationships; Biology Alone Safeguards the Public Fisc
(Oren, L. 2007)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jZAdhHvhS1ClhN3mMLL_qz7o30JM_oZT/view?usp=sharing
Thwarted Fathers or Pop-Up Pops?:
How to Determine When Putative Fathers Can Block the Adoption of Their Newborn Children
(Oren, L. 2006)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10UxHV0MLb5qwqz92v8GFHSxYuenFNegv/view?usp=sharing
Unequal Rights: The Fourteenth Amendment and De Facto Parentage
(Ake, A. 2006)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UOtlU-ATaZ8YD9XOUjQAVpp8tJu2IiT7/view?usp=sharing
Establishing the Biological Rights Doctrine to Protect Unwed Fathers in Contested Adoptions
(Craig, T. 1998)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iMZ9f2ewBuaXeRc8EaTAiLgbQMLL0KTO/view?usp=sharing
Protecting the Father-Child Bond Against Nonpaternity Action:
Legislative, Judicial, and Constitutional Approaches
(Hirczy, W. 1995)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zrMdt4Sxjfw2R9CtlbYrMhMA9gvJwmmB/view?usp=sharing
Unwed Fathers’ Rights, Adoption, and Sex Equality:
Gender-Neutrality and the Perpetuation of Patriarchy
(Shanley, M. 1995)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1feLbM8eZIJ61De4c8w0pXTyaiI7zBMlL/view?usp=sharing
Putative Fathers' Rights: Striking the Right Balance in Adoption Laws
(Zdon, T. 1994)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/163C_efCPiLapgm4IDoDrWyqRkupFO5Hq/view?usp=sharing
Father Knows Best:
The Unwed Father's Right to Raise His Infant Surrendered for Adoption
(Zinman, D. 1992)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Anzj_YYx4lj289HHKDf0TNfqNcQ2CUbe/view?usp=sharing
Feel free to contact us.
All content and pictures are shared with the permission of the rightful owner, Paul Allen Fiscus.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.