Tennessee Child Custody Case Invokes 14th AmendmentWritten by: Rob Print This Article
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
A Tennessee child custody case involving a little girl named Kate Hopkins and her father Jeremy Hopkins is developing into a test of the 14th Amendment equal protection by the law. If the 14th Amendment is found to apply to child custody rights as it appears it should, then it follows that the apparent and widespread bias of the US courts against fathers is unconstitutional. Therefore this case could affect child custody decisions across the entire United States.
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The 14th Amendment has previously been used to strip an abusive Child Protective Service social worker in California of immunity after illegal actions she took against family by removing their children without an emergency or a warrant. See CPS Social Worker broke US Constitution 14th Amendment for more information.
In this Tennessee child custody battle, the mother moved away from the area to Pennsylvania and has impeded the father’s access to their daughter. This is a common action in divorces involving children. Mothers frequently disregard the interests of the children to have both parents involved significantly in their lives and walk all over the rights of fathers in most areas of the United States. And they typically do this with the complicit knowledge and cooperation of courts and law enforcement.
The father, Jeremy Hopkins, is reportedly a lawyer, but despite legal education and knowledge superior to that of most fathers, the results to date haven’t been far different from those of other fathers. Mothers who refuse to allow their children reasonable and frequent contact with the fathers often do this with judicial complicity that relegates fathers to no contact or very limited visitation. The four judges involved in the case to date did not order the shared parenting plan required by the Tennessee Legislature and Tennessee Supreme Court.