Uncommon among the Uncommon

The following case had not been shepherded, it is worth investigating, shepherding, and looking into the United States Supreme Court records regarding the actual order of the United States Supreme Court. The case does not mention the manner or reason on why the biological father committed suicide, so the question is why? Not to impose a hard-burden on his children, however, if it was due to due process violations, and the account that he was abused via the system, then the Nation, his community, and individuals who want the system to bend the knee to the United States Constitutions has a right to know the history of this man who's life was taken, and why his children grew up without him.

The United States Supreme Court held;

"we again held that the “liberty of parents and guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.” We explained in Pierce that “[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Id., at 535

If what the United State Supreme Court states is true, then why are people being forced into poverty via the abuse of the child support system, why are the courts allowing parents and their children to be deprived of their parent-child relationships, and why are alleged non-custodial parents having to "terminate" their own parental rights inorder to stop the abuse from the child support system.

So why is it that since 2007, the biological mother has been deprived of the parent-child relationship and yet every summer the grandparents of the minor child's father has had custody and care of the minor child in the case of Adams v. Vermont Office of Child Support. Why was the alleged custodial parent allowed to deprive the child of the mother-child relationship despite the constitutional protections the United States Supreme Court clarification of such rights. How is that anything other than abuse against the mother and the child? In this case, the mother could not get access to the Court in Georgia, when she attempted via the Office of Child Support and when she attempted to send forms to the Cherokee Courts, when they returned her forms to her and refused to file the petitions. In this case, a NON-PARENT, multiple third parties have had more rights than the mother that they used the child as an example, "Take Justice Souter's hypothetical and assume that... we see in domestic relations fights sometimes children are used by one spouse against the other as part of the bargaining and so forth, and supposing you have a situation in which the mother of the child gets into a dispute with the grandmother that's totally unrelated to the welfare of the child, but decides for arbitrary reasons to deny visitation rights because it will further her ability to pursue whatever the dispute is".

A parental right is NEVER a TIE-BREAKER, it is a RIGHT! The Child's right to their parents is not a TIE-BREAKER, it is a child's RIGHT! Maybe this is why the Book of Salmon, the wisdom of who the mother truly is, for the mother would give up her own child, so that a child may live instead of the child being killed to settle a dispute over who the child belongs to. That does not mean in that story the child and the mother did not suffer greatly, it means the mother understood the War which had been waged. Remember it is not the grisly who will die to protect it's cubs, the grisly by it's own grisly nature will literally devour them for his own selfish satisfaction, the momma bear however will fight to the very last breath of her life so that her offspring may live.

Oral Argument

The United States Supreme Court says what?

Troxel

Cherokee County Case 16cve0164

The Trauma of Everyday Life Should be Enough to Wake You Up