Factor (f) of the 13 "best interests of the child" criteria as defined in Michigan law says a lot-"the moral fitness of the parties involved". The problem is, as was true with my personal case, that the judges in many cases do NOT make a decision or ruling on this factor. Many state they "are not qualified" to decide on this factor.
Well, at least the judges seem to have gotten one thing right in all of this-how can someone who willingly and very frequently forgets and ignores THEIR OWN OATH OF OFFICE, swearing to uphold and abide by the Constitution of the United States and that of Michigan as well, be fit to decide on the moral fitness of a litigant appearing before him or her?
EVERY single time a Michigan family law judge makes a ruling other than joint physical custody, he/she is breaking and violating his/her personal oath of office.
Our Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES parents the right to raise and provide for their children WITHOUT government intereference.
So much for the judges being of moral or ethical correctness themselves!
And, what would the ruling on the "moral fitness" of a parent who runs away on false pretenses, armed with only fabricated allegations and false accusations be, if one was actually made? Why, mom would lose yet another of the "best interests" criteria, if the truth and the facts would be believed.
Father of Two.
Comments