U.S. Supreme Court COOPER v. AARON, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) 358

U.S. 1 COOPER ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

v. AARON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Fn No. 1.

Argued September 11, 1958. Decided September 12, 1958.

Opinion announced September 29, 1958.

...Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ."

Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506, 524.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136.

A Governor who asserts a [358 U.S. 1, 19] power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-398....

We have forwarded these excerpts from Sup. Ct. decisions to our big list for your information. The American Coalition for Fathers and Children For Membership information call 1-800-978-DADS, or see ACFC's homepage at: http://www.acfc.org American Fathers Coalition - 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 148 Washington, D.C. 20006 1-800-978-DADS (3237) afc@capaccess.org http://www.erols.com/afc Subject: On Fundamental Rights & Mocking The Constitution

In condensing the collection of decisions, it came to me that we are obsessed with the rights of the individual, while at the same time forgetting that one person's rights become another person's burden. Yet, all of the intelligent and clever legal and constitutional arguments that are being made have one underlying concern. They are made to demonstrate the presence or absence of the validity that one's right's can be made to be inferior to another one's. At the base of all of this is that no-one exists in isolation. We all are parts (or at least should be) of systems that themselves are parts of levels in a hierarchy of systems comprising civilization.

The very foundation of the whole hierarchy of civilization is the group of social systems made up by these systems: husband-wife; parent-child; sibling-sibling; the family comprised of all of them; and, last but not least, the system of the extended family. Some have recognized that and the one very profound truth arising out that fact: any system is greater than the sum of its parts, but only then if all of the parts interleave, communicate, mesh and function well with one another. All of these clever arguments ignore one important aspect. That is the obligations of an individual to the social systems of which he is a member.

Thereby we ignore the needs and rights of all systems within society, because to demand one's rights requires that someone else is obliged to grant them. By ignoring obligations, each entity will feel entitled to enforce its rights, if necessary, to the extent that it will rob others of theirs. What we have then is not a well-functioning society anymore that is better than the sum of its parts, but rather a conglomerate of entities, or better yet, a mob - at worst, the end of civilization as we know it. It appears that the best legal minds have not come to terms with that truth, or else they would not be so terribly confused as appears to be the case in the bewildering array of judgments relating to the basic social system of society: the family. Would it be totally unrealistic to ask our legal minds to consider not only whether the state might have rights that are superior to those of the individual, but to think of the family unit in terms of a legal entity that has rights as well - with obligations and rights in relation to both, all of its members and the state?

Would it be totally strange to ask our legislators to consider addressing the rights and liberties of the family and, in connection with that, the obligations that an individual has toward the family and the state? Consider what would happen if we were to build the only one of the Ten Commandments that contains a promise as a constraint into constitutional rights: "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." Why are we surprised and dismayed that we can't do well without it? Are we truly that smart that we can afford to ignore the wisdom that civilization lived by for thousands of years? -WHS

Additional reading:

The Charter Revolution & The Court Party Seizing children — a tactic for the destruction of the family and to attain state-control of the population Throughout history, rampant child apprehensions and state-ownership of children went hand-in-hand with totalitarian regimes and tyrannies.

Antiquity

— The apprehension of children – boys – in antiquity 20th Century — Evolution of the Hitler Youth ...in a series of coldly and shrewdly calculated moves, radical extremists usurped the youth movement that was very much splintered along political and religious ideological lines and consolidated it into a unified and rigorously controlled sector of the German population. The slogan that motivated the Nazi leaders was an adaptation of a slogan attributed to Napoleon "Who controls the youths controls the future!" (Wer die Jugend hat, hat die Zukunft), although its origins go back to Socrates (whom Plato, in Republic, has offer this advice to philosopher kings: "Take all the children from their parents and rid the city of adults."), and, as the history of Ancient Greece shows with respect to Sparta, even farther back in antiquity.

ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), 410 U.S. 113

ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY,

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 No. 70-18. Argued December 13, 1971

Reargued October 11, 1972, Decided January 22, 1973

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see [410 U.S. 113, 156] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460, 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result).... MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

...Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra. See also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166; Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541. As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170]....

-----------

 

 a. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT 

 (from an article published in The Liberator)

From Dave Usher usher@mo.net   Thanks to Murray Steinberg for sharing these with us.

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Our legal minds will put the cites below to good use. Please feel free to share them with your attorney. For future reference, these are being added to the ACFC legal cites page. - ACFC Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.

Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on the government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673; 427 U.S. 347, (1976).

The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent's right to "the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children" is an interest "far more precious" than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533; 73 S.Ct. 840, 843, (1952).

The Court (U.S. Supreme Court) stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection."

A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1972)

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S.Ct. 549; 434 U.S. 246, 255-56, (1978) Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, (1886)

The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law.

There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, (1965) Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protection public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S.Ct. 1598, 435 U.S. 963, Il, (1977)

Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1972)

Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S.Ct. 1879; 466 U.S. 429

Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored... the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S.Ct. 1102; 4340 U.S. 268 (1979)

The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of sex. No longer is the female destined solely for the homes and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7, 10; 95 S.Ct. 1373, 1376 (1975)

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. WI., (1984)

COMPELLING STATE INTEREST

The following Supreme Court decisions were cited in a published opinion by Chief judge Norman K. Moon of Court of Appeals of Virginia June 3, 1997 in the case Williams and Williams v. Williams and Williams 24 Va. App. 778; 485 S.E. 2d 651 (June 3, 1997)

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.

The Supreme Court noted its "historical recognition that freedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S.Ct. 1388; 455 U.S. 745, (1982).

In applying the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has held that "[w]here certain fundamental rights are involved... regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a 'compelling state interest' ...and ...legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. State interference with a fundamental right must by justified by a "compelling state interest." Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113, 155 ; 93 S.Ct. 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973)

State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clause of 14th Amendment... fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights... Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those pre-existing fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution.

Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, as recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] ...

Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923).

In addition to recognizing as a fundamental liberty interest the right of parents to raise their children, the Supreme Court has also established that the Constitution's guarantee to fundamental privacy rights also embodies a fundamental right to parental autonomy in child rearing. The Court acknowledged a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 3210 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431-U.S. 494 (1977)

The Supreme Court has clearly established that to constitute a compelling interest, state interference with a parent's right to raise his or her child must be for the purpose of protecting the child's health or welfare. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 230 (1972)

Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620: D.C., WI (1973)

SUPPORTING FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS

The rights of parents to care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin , 440 F Supp 1247; U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985)

Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437: 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980)

A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 58-95-599; U.S. Ct. App. (1983)

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981)

A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App. Div. (1983)

The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205, 1242-45; U.S. Ct. App 7th Cir. WI. No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child. Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976)

The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC Section 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F 2d 1328, (1981)

The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982) U.S. Supreme Court It would seem that the Constitution is violated more than it is honored in matters involving domestic relations. -AFC

BREAKING THE SILENCE: JOURNEYS OF HOPE (PBS; October 2001) An hour-long national documentary that takes an innovative look at domestic violence in America, demonstrating the ways victims are breaking the destructive cycle of abuse and creating healthy, stable lives. Domestic violence defies easy categorization by race, age, economic or social standing. It happens to a disturbing number of women and children, and until recent years, has been cloaked in a blanket of silence. Rather than document the tragic circumstances of domestic violence cases, the program focuses on the process through which victims become survivors, offering domestic violence sufferers, policymakers, and concerned citizens examples of how to fight this devastating problem. (NCFR Media Awards Competition — Runner-Up; DSA Vision for Tomorrow Award)

In October 2003, Molly and her young son left Florida, their home of five years, for a vacation visiting family in Texas. It was a difficult time in both their lives, but with reassurances of love and protection from family, Molly knew they would be all right for the couple of months they intended to stay.

Just after the holiday season, Molly’s former husband, abuser and alleged father of her young son began attempting to make contact with them to see the child, disregarding very specific Domestic Violence Court Protective Orders totally restricting contact and visitation between this abusive man and his ex-wife and her child. Molly reported his stalking behaviors to the police department of Plano, Texas, whose response never erred on the side of caution. On at least 8 occasions, the Plano Police refused to protect the mother and child and would not enforce the valid out-of-state order for such protection.

The alleged father began to conspire with Molly’s unstable and estranged biological mother in an effort to give the maternal grandmother custody of this beautiful child and to get the Texas Courts to grant visitation to the abusive father. He had managed to do and “get away” with much since his release from an Oklahoma prison in 1994. He knew that with the assistance of those Grandmommy contacted - acquaintances of hers within the local Child Protective Services system - allegations of severe abuses by Molly against her son would be their ticket to standing in family court.

The abuses cited were abuses Grandmommy herself had levied against the child, the child’s older sister and against Molly herself, as well as several drug trafficking and manufacturing allegations, and even sexual abuse allegations which, ultimately, would be proven to be exactly what he, himself, was committing against his new stepdaughter at home in Waxahachie, Texas.


Abuse Ignored

Molly reported outcries of sexual abuse against her ex-husband, made by her daughter, to the authorities, to the children’s therapist, school officials and CPS social workers. Oddly, despite attempting to inform the authorities of these outcries and despite photographic evidence of her ex-husband’s violation of Florida domestic violence court protective orders, the authorities repeatedly turned a deaf ear toward the concerns regarding the safety of mother and child. They “administratively closed” an investigation of sexual abuse against this man, despite a finding of risk that this man was, at the current time, living with, and possibly abusing his stepdaughter from a marriage subsequent to his relationship with Molly.

Ultimately, the allegations against Molly were dropped and she was cleared of any charges of abuse or neglect against her son. Life seemed quiet once again. Molly and her son needed to wrap up the last of the Court appearances and gather the remaining portion of their belongings for shipping home. For the most part, their nightmare was over….or so they thought.

The Abduction

On May 2, 2004, Molly’s son went to church, never to return home. She was told that he went to ‘spend time with Grandmommy’ after church, but it soon became clear that Grandmommy and the alleged father had fostered relationships with the local police and CPS and that her son would not be coming home. Two days later, on May 4, 2004, Molly was approached by an agent of CPS who asked her to sign custody of her beloved son over to Grandmommy while she was investigated yet more allegations of abuse made against her reported by her ex-husband and Grandmommy. Molly refused, of course, demanding to speak to her attorney. She attempted to report the abduction of her son to the Plano Police, but was handed the excuse of “it’s a civil matter”.

She obtained a court order to have her son returned to her and when Molly answered the door on May 7, she was humiliated and victimized by being apprehended and escorted to mental hospital for observation based on a false affidavit filled out by the CPS agent and signed by Grandmommy. Finding no cause to detain her, Molly was released within 24 hours.

During that 24 hour period, Grandmommy, the abusive ex-husband/father and the Plano Police used the 8 year old child to coerce the apartment complex manager to hand over a key, allowing for the unlawful entry, search and seizure, and theft of Molly’s property. Over $10,000 worth of property and goods were stolen with the assistance of law enforcement that night. Upon Molly’s return to the ransacked apartment, she found it unlocked, windows open, the family dog gone, the stove left burning and other heat producing items left overturned and hidden with crumpled papers around it; that, if left unchecked much longer, would have likely caught fire, and destroyed not only their possessions, but likely endanger the lives of themselves or others in the same housing complex.

Molly was truly alone with virtually no family assistance to speak of. Her beloved child was abducted by her own mother and abuser who openly stalking her with the aid of the Plano Police and a CPS social worker. This was only the beginning…

It has been two years since the abduction of her son, ransacking of her apartment and theft of her property, and no arrest has ever been made. Molly has endured the system, working services required by CPS in an attempt to regain custody of her son. She had been placed under a gag order when she attempted to speak out and publicly expose the injustices of Plano Police and Collin County CPS when her son was placed in foster care where he was beaten, abused and overmedicated on psychotropic drugs.

Molly was ultimately stripped of her rights to her son in court hearings she was not allowed to attend. She was restrained by Texas Courts from contact with her son. She was called a “flight risk” that she might take her son home to Florida.

The CPS caseworker even notes in her case file “this is a case of child custody dispute, not a case of child abuse.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Why Didn’t They Listen To Me?!” Molly sobbed as she looked at the picture of her former husband, Ronnie Cummings, the man who stalked her and assisted in the abduction of her son. He was now featured on the front page of Bay News 9 after his arrest for Child Molestation – A crime that could’ve been stopped two years earlier if they had listened to her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fugitive From Justice

In January 2006 Molly was in Houston visiting the home of the founder of an advocacy group out of Houston, Tx., when everything changed.

After 10 years of running from her abuser, Ronnie Cummings, Molly knew well the eerie feeling that came with sensing danger from her ex. She got this feeling, which prompted her to leave Florida around Christmas 2005, on a Greyhound bus. They received the phone call.

On January 28, 2006 Ronnie Cummings, Molly’s ex-husband and abuser was arrested in Florida, found to have been staying 3.15 miles from her home, as a fugitive from justice on a warrant out of Ellis County, Texas. Cummings has been indicted on several counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor. He allegedly took photos of the molestation and attempted to sell them on the internet.

The primary victim was the daughter of the very woman who began making the false allegations against Molly two years before in retaliation for Molly reporting the possibility of this child being at risk for molestation!

Molly fell to her knees sobbing “Why didn’t they listen to me? Why?” knowing that if they had, the victim(s) may have been saved over two years before! Awaiting trial in Waxahachie, Texas, the man she spent ten years running from has been exposed. But why isn’t Molly and her son reunited yet? Why have there been no arrests related to Molly’s case with her son, for the violations of the protective order, or in the theft of over $10,000.00 worth of Molly’s property, which included her family videos and wedding rings - items she cannot replace. Why did Collin County protect a child abuser, wife beater and sexual predator and place this mother and child in harm’s way?

Victims of domestic violence should be protected no matter what state their protective order was issued in. Abusers should not be allowed to use the system as a weapon. A mother and child should be protected by law enforcement from her abuser no matter what state she is in. Help end the cycle of abuse; a cycle that can only be stopped if we all work together.

(UPDATE: Ronnie Cummings has plead guilty to charges as is seen in the news articles posted below)