Black fathers
must reclaim
their children...
By Ronald E. Smith

At the beginning of the 21st century the plague of
social problems associated with the demise of the
American family is all too evident. And nowhere
is the plight of the traditional family more evident
than in the African- American community.

America’s inner cities are in a shambles. Detroit has a 75
percent out-of-wedlock birth rate, an 85 percent rate of
fatherlessness and a pathetic high school graduation
rate of 29 percent. Moreover, six out of every 10
families living in the state of Michigan have had
intervention by child protective services.

In 1960, somewhere between 66 percent and 80
percent of black children living in the inner cities lived
in intact families. Today the number is less than 33
percent. That is a calamity. In 1960 about 22 percent
of black children were born out of wedlock; today, the
number is somewhere between 70 and 85 percent, and
it’s getting worse.

The presumed good intentions of the 1960s “Great
Society” and the “War on Poverty” had just the
opposite effect on Black America. Social programs
produced public policies that have further divided the
black family. Victimization and entitlement have
become the accepted norm.

I certainly agree with those eminent members of my
community who believe that black men, in fact all men,
must stand tall and be “ responsible,” but I wholly
disagree with Mr. Roland Martin, and other prominent
individuals, like Dr. William (Bill) Cosby and Dr.
Allan Pouissant, who want to ‘blame’ black fathers for
the familial disconnect. With due respect to these intelligent
individuals, their conclusion is superficial. It is based
upon the thinking of someone who has not tasted first hand
what goes on in the trenches where familial demise begins [and
ends for many]: the family courts and state agencies
that constitute the ‘system’.

Once one takes the time to understand and
witness how the system works, (or doesn’t) one
quickly sees a glaring disconnect. The system is
driving fathers from their families with total disregard
for the social and economic consequences. The
system is destroying black families at light speed.

I am an African-American father. I love my children
dearly. I take my fatherhood responsibilities seriously.
But the mother of my children, who believed in
‘matriarchal superiority,’ was able to use a system
designed to exacerbate problems rather than alleviate
or reconcile them. She used the system to ensure that
I became irrelevant, and that drove me from my
children’s lives. I lived it. I watched it happen. I spent
the better part of my children’s lives working two full-
time jobs, making sure that excessive child support
was paid. I also spent time calling the Chicago Police
asking for assistance because my children’s mother
made it a game to hide the kids when Dad was coming.
Yet the system didn’t care. The system allowed my
children’s mother to teach our children to disrespect
me. This parental alienation followed my oldest son to
his grave, as he died at age 21, of liver cancer earlier
this year. In fact, the funeral arrangements made by
his mother had absolutely no mention of my family or
me in the obituary.

My surviving son is 20 years old and I was reminded
of the parental alienation of my sons recently when
my 50th birthday passed with no card or call from him.

It’s time for African-American leaders to become
objective about the dismal plight of the black family,
and proactive towards finding solutions. Blaming
black men is not the answer. The current ‘system’ and
the paradigm it has created and perpetuates, must be
restructured. Federal funding incentives that invite
the states to participate in the business of familial
destruction must be recognized, scrutinized and
changed.
Ronald E. Smith, president and CEO of Children Need Both
Parents, Inc. is a minister and family activist in Michigan.

Family Preservation and Reconciliation Act of 2008
110th CONGRESS
2nd Session
To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the
upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.
2007
A BILL
To protect the fundamental right of a parent to the care and custody of a child and to direct the
upbringing of a child, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Family Preservation and Reconciliation Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress finds that--
(1) the Supreme Court has regarded the right of parents to direct the upbringing of
their children as a fundamental right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty within
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as specified in Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); the right
of parents to the care and custody of their children has been recognized as “a
fundamental right protected by the First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments” in
Doe v. Irwin, 441 F. Supp. 1247 1251 (D. Mich. 1977), as “far more precious than
property rights” and by the Supreme Court as an “essential” right that protects a
substantial interest that “undeniably warrants deference, and, absent a powerful
countervailing interest, protection," in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533 (1953),
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), and Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645
(1971); and the Supreme Court has held in Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 2000 (99-
138), that “the liberty interest at issue . . . the interest of parents in the care, custody,
and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this Court. . . . [I]t 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.”
(2) this right has been acknowledged for centuries by the common law, and by the
tradition of western civilization, which recognizes that parents have the responsibility
to love, nurture, train, and protect their children;
(3) the role of parents in the raising and rearing of their children is of inestimable
value and deserving of both praise and protection by all levels of government;
(4) some decisions of Federal and State courts have treated the right of parents not as
a fundamental right but as a non-fundamental right, resulting in an improper standard
of judicial review being applied to government conduct that adversely affects parental
rights and prerogatives;
(5) parents face increasing intrusions into their legitimate decisions and prerogatives
by government agencies in situations that do not involve traditional understandings of
abuse or neglect but simply are a conflict of parenting philosophies;
(6) governments should not interfere in the decisions and actions of parents without
compelling justification; and
(7) the traditional 4-step process used by courts to evaluate cases concerning the right
of parents described in paragraph (1) appropriately balances the interests of parents,
children, and government; and
(8) the in-tact family is a cornerstone for our society and children are best raised in
an in-tact family; and
(9) Congress recognizes the benefits of marriage for men, women, children and
society as a whole and has expressed its intent for marriage through legislative
incentives and programs involving the use of federal funds promoting marriage and
the family; and
(10 ) state government intrusion into the family, absent compelling justification thus
establishing an empowered custodial parent and disenfranchised non-custodial parent
is an incentive for divorce and inconsistent with Congress’ intent.
(b) PURPOSES- The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to protect the right of parents to the care and custody of their children and to direct
the upbringing of their children as a fundamental right;
(2) to protect children from abuse and neglect as the terms have been traditionally
defined and applied in State law, such protection being a compelling government
interest;
(3) while protecting the rights of parents, to acknowledge that the rights involve
responsibilities and specifically that parents have the responsibility to see that their
children are educated, for the purposes of literacy and self-sufficiency, as specified by
the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972);
(4) to preserve the common law tradition that allows parental choices to prevail in a
health care decision for a child unless, by neglect or refusal, the parental decision will
result in danger to the life of the child or result in serious physical injury to the child;
(5) to fix a standard of judicial review for parental rights, leaving to the courts the
application of the rights in particular cases based on the facts of the cases and law as
applied to the facts; and
(6) to reestablish a 4-step process to evaluate cases concerning the right of parents
described in paragraph (1) that--
(A) requires a parent to initially demonstrate that--
(i) the action in question arises from the right of the parent to direct the
upbringing of a child; and
(ii) a government has interfered with or usurped the right; and
(B) shifts the burdens of production and persuasion to the government to
demonstrate that--
(i) the interference or usurpation is essential to accomplish a
compelling governmental interest; and
(ii) the method of intervention or usurpation used by the government is
the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.
(7) To preserve the institution of marriage and maintain familial ties.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE- The term `appropriate evidence' means--
(A) for a case in which a government seeks a temporary or preliminary action
or order, except a case in which the government seeks to terminate parental
custody or visitation, evidence that demonstrates probable cause; and
(B) for a case in which a government seeks a final action or order, or in which
the government seeks to terminate or restrict parental custody or visitation,
clear and convincing evidence.
(2) CHILD- The term `child' has the meaning provided by State law.
(3) PARENT- The term `parent' has the meaning provided by State law.
(4) RIGHT OF A PARENT TO DIRECT THE UPBRINGING OF A CHILD-
(A) IN GENERAL- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a
child' includes, but is not limited to a right of a parent regarding--
(i) directing or providing for the education of the child;
(ii) making a health care decision for the child, except as provided in
subparagraph (B);
(iii) disciplining the child, including reasonable corporal discipline,
except as provided in subparagraph (C);
(iv) directing or providing for the religious teaching of the child; and
(v) inculcating moral and ethical principles.
(B) NO APPLICATION TO PARENTAL DECISIONS ON HEALTH
CARE- The term `right of a parent to direct the upbringing of a child' shall not
include a right of a parent to make a decision on health care for the child that,
by neglect or refusal, will result in danger to the life of the child or in serious
physical injury to the child.
(C) NO APPLICATION TO ABUSE AND NEGLECT- The term `right of a
parent to direct the upbringing of a child' shall not include a right of a parent
to act or refrain from acting in a manner that constitutes abuse or neglect of a
child, as the terms have traditionally been defined and applied in State
criminal law.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERING WITH OR USURPING RIGHTS
OF PARENTS.
(1) No Federal, State, or local government, or any official of such a government acting under
color of law, or any other party, shall interfere with or usurp the right of a parent to the care
and custody of the child of the parent or to direct the upbringing of the child of the parent,
and that in accordance with long established legal doctrines presuming (a) that each parent is
fit and (b) that fit parents are presumed to act in their child[ren]’s best interest; no removal of
a child from the care of any fit parent absent a finding of parental unfitness by clear and
convincing evidence may be effected; unless
(2) that parent has been criminally charged and convicted for the abuse or neglect of that child
as defined and applied in State criminal law; or
(3) removal of the child is necessary due to danger of imminent or substantial harm to the child.
(4) It is the specific finding and intent of this bill that public policy is furthered, and a that
child[ren]’s best interest is served, by maximizing the amount of time a child[ren] spend with
each parent in the event the parents divorce, separate or are never married.
SEC. 5. STRICT SCRUTINY.
No exception to section 4 shall be permitted, unless the government or official is able to
demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the interference or usurpation is essential
to accomplish a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly drawn or applied in a
manner that is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the compelling interest.
SEC. 6. CLAIM OR DEFENSE.
Any parent may raise a violation of this Act in an action in a Federal or State court, or before
an administrative tribunal, of appropriate jurisdiction as a claim or a defense.
SEC. 7. ATTORNEY'S FEES.
Subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988 (b) and (c))
(concerning the award of attorney's and expert fees) shall apply to cases brought or defended
under this Act. A person who uses this Act to defend against a suit by a government
described in section 4 shall be construed to be the plaintiff for the purposes of the application
of such subsections.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Act or of an amendment made by this Act, or any application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this
Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision to any other
person or circumstance shall not be affected.

For the past four decades, our government has continued to pass legislation that has slowly taken away our power as people to maintain our family relationships. Instead of assisting our families to address the problems that we all face, governments’ answer has been to take our families apart and destroy the relationships of Parents. Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews, Cousins and the entire family structure as a whole. They have taken away our ability to discipline our children by medicating them with the net result of undisciplined children committing violence in the streets of our major cities. They have utilized a variety of methods to accomplish this goal with all methods being profitable. The bottom line is that government has put our children up for sale. This Peaceful Protest will address every destructive method:



CPS – Government has given the Child Protective Service Agency the ability to come into the homes of our nation’s families, take our children and sell them on the adoption stage. Instead of using its funding to assist and repair our nation’s families, they are selling our children to strangers and paying private agencies to do so.



Dissolved Marriages – Government has given our courts the ability to award our children as if they were prizes to one parent or the other with total disregard for the relationships destroyed with the NON CUSTODIAL PARENT or that biological side of the child’s family. This includes Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews, Cousins and Siblings. With virtually no regard to Shared Parenting one parent in most divorced cases becomes a visitor with their children. This nation’s family law attorneys have built a thriving business by driving a wedge between divorcing couples which destroys the relationship between two individuals who should be urged to work together which is in the best interest of the ­FAMILY Most, if not all of these attorneys accomplish this at a rate of about $200.00 per hour.



Child Support Enforcement – Government has given this agency the power to incarcerate, suspend professional licenses, driving privileges, destroy credit ratings, and criminalize non custodial parents. Instead of assisting parents to reach their obligatory goals, they are punishing parents who may lose a job or become ill or any reason other than refusal to pay. All parents are not dead beat most of them are DEAD BROKE.



Domestic Violence – Government has given the courts the ability to destroy relationships between parent and child when allegations are made and prior to a sufficient investigation. While we stand in support of fighting domestic violence, we believe that false allegations should carry sanctions.



Friend of the Court – Government has given this agency the power to declare a parent as abandoning their children during the divorce process. Divorcing couples are not abandoning their children, and the FOC should foster an ongoing, parental relationship between both parents and their offspring. The practices of FOC, is profitable to the system.



Paternity Fraud – Government has allowed its state agencies to collect child support from a parent even after DNA testing proves that this particular person is not biologically connected to the child. Their reason is that if you have a relationship with a child, you have an obligation. That obligation concludes at financial responsibility. We need government to find the responsible parent and have that parent step up to the plate and stop robbing people to pay for children that does not belong to them biologically. We encourage these people to maintain a relationship but we protest government taking their money wrongfully. And of course, to collect from a person even though that person has been proven not to be the parent is profitable to the system.





These are the issues that we as a collective group who are peacefully protesting change in the way government does business with this nation’s families. We are protesting to put an end to the destruction of family relationships for profit by this government’s systems. We ask you all to donate for mass transportation whether it be; $5.00, $50.00 or $500 every contribution will help achieve our goal of bringing 250,000 people together on August 18, 2007. After your donation, pack your suitcase and board a bus at a location in your hometown and join us all in Washington.





Just like a friend who comes to visit you and just won’t leave:



GOVERNMENT HAS COME INTO OUR HOUSEHOLDS AND WE WANT THEM OUT!!!!!!