Constitutional Motion Practice & Evidentiary Due Process in Family Court: Procedural due process guarantees litigating parents the right to timely notice, an impartial tribunal, formal evidentiary hearings, and the cross-examination of adverse witnesses before parental liberties are infringed (Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545). Filing timely constitutional objections and modular pre-trial motions prevents domestic relations courts from deciding fundamental custody rights through informal conferences, judicial fiats, or unsworn hearsay recommendations.
While I wouldn’t recommend it to most people, studying Supreme Court opinions is something I do for fun. I read them over and over again. I search them for new and different words or phrases. Tonight in doing this a number of things jumped out at me but one in particular really struck home.
How great would it be to all the parents out there who have their custody and possession restricted and are required to pay alimony if the United States Supreme Court were to say that alimony and child custody were on par with each other? Well they did say exactly that in 1953, “In the instant case, we recognize that a mother’s right to custody of her children is a personal right entitled to at least as much protection as her right to alimony.”
What this means is that a parent’s right to custody of their children is equally as important as the other parent’s right to collect alimony or child-support. What this means is that States, according to the US Supreme Court, should be enforcing custody agreements with as much zeal as they enforce alimony or child-support.