In December, we, A Voice for Choice Advocacy, emailed you about a key legal case that would impact Parental Rights (that email is copied below this one). Last week, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously upheld the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children absent most outside interference. The case, In re C.J.C., Relator, was viewed as the most significant parental-rights decision in twenty years. A Voice for Choice Advocacy filed an amicus brief (attached) on behalf of a father, who prevailed and won custody of his child. (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/supreme-court-of-texas-protects-the-constitutional-rights-of-parents-in-landmark-child-custody-case-301084473.html)

All eyes were on the Texas Supreme Court, to determine whether it would build on the federal foundation of Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) -- when a divided U.S. Supreme Court noted that parental rights are “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court” but did not reach five votes to ensure that the strongest protections for parents apply nationwide. A Voice for Choice Advocacy felt that it was important in our brief to urge the Texas Supreme Court to clarify that states should apply strict scrutiny when such rights are involved.

The Troxel case was one of the key cases A Voice for Choice relied on in our lawsuit against SB277. While the Supreme Court of Texas did not opine on whether strict scrutiny should be applied in parental rights cases, the CJC case will ensure Texan parents will enjoy the strong protections advocated by the Troxel plurality and A Voice for Choice Advocacy. If a decision like CJC could be extended to California, it would make a significant difference in many families' lives.

The CJC decision gives us hope. Too many times, the government intrudes on the parent-child relationship, so we are very pleased that the Texas Supreme Court ruled for the father here. We look forward to the day when all states apply strict scrutiny to cases dealing with the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.

If you appreciate the work A Voice for Choice Advocacy is doing, please support us by making a donation today.

Christina Hildebrand

President/Founder

A Voice for Choice Advocacy, Inc.

www.avoiceforchoiceadvocacy.org

408 835 9353

Giving issues a voice, A Voice for Choice Advocacy advocates for people’s rights to be fully xxxxxxrmed about the composition, quality, and short- and long-term health effects of all products that go into people’s bodies, such as food, water, air, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.

cid:image001.png@01D258D9.A63ED990

WWW.AVOICEFORCHOICEADVOCACY.ORG

You are receiving this email because you signed up on the AVFC or AVFCA website or an in person sign up list or an AVFCA petition. If you would like to be removed from receiving all emails, please reply to this email with “Unsubscribe” in the email subject line. If you would prefer just to get Action Alerts, please reply to this email with “Action Alert Only” in the email subject line.

From: Christina Hildebrand [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 1:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [AVFCA] AVFCA supports Parental Rights by submitting Amicus Brief in next Troxel case
Importance: High

A Voice for Choice Advocacy weighed in on a Parental Rights case, In re C.J.C., Relator, that is before the Texas Supreme Court, and could be on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) was the last time parental rights came before the U.S. Supreme Court in which a divided plurality held that parental rights are “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion, stated, “But curiously, none of [his colleagues] articulates the appropriate standard of review." Justice Thomas went on to state that strict scrutiny should apply to infringements of the right to parent.

Troxel v. Granville was one of the key cases A Voice for Choice relied on in their lawsuit against SB277. However, the state of the law is unclear. Some states apply Troxel to grant strong protection for parental rights, while other states, like California, do not give much credence to the notion of parental rights. For these reasons, many of us have sought to clarify the Troxel decision. If strong parental rights were the law of the land, our SB 277 lawsuits would have likely been successful. We agree with Justice Thomas that a “fundamental right” has to have clear legal protections.

Our lawyers, including Brad Hakala, who was the key lawyer in our SB277 case and saw firsthand the confusion around the Troxel decision, have submitted a key amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court on behalf of A Voice for Choice Advocacy, and all of you who support parental rights.

If this case makes it to the Supreme Court (or if the Texas Supreme Court issues a clear ruling), it could be a game-changer for the parental rights issue in California. In re CJC would allow the Supreme Court to clear up that confusion once and for all, by re-establishing strict-scrutiny protection for parental rights in all 50 states. But first we have to get past the hurdle in Texas, which is where we submitted our Amicus Brief (attached).