About Us
Family Rights Foundation was created with the direct purpose of protecting the inalienable rights of parents to raise their children in accordance with their personal beliefs, values, and customs. Within America, under the guise of protecting children, loving and innocent parents are having their children removed by Child Protection Services at an alarming rate. Many of these removals are based upon little more than differing opinions on appropriate parental decision making; be it healthcare, education, religion, lifestyle, or otherwise. It is our position that the removal of many of these children is against the inherent legal rights afforded to parents and children under our governing laws and United States Constitution.

The law is clear that States are not to act within the “capacity of a parent” within dependency matters brought forth by Child Welfare agencies. However, Child Welfare continues to assert its authority onto countless American families in situations that amount to little more than contested parental decision making. It is our position that this is unlawful in the vast majority of these cases, as the law instructs that the presumed best interest of a child lies within whatever lawful decisions parents make on behalf of their children.

Family Rights Foundation was created to serve and protect all American citizen parents. We do not discriminate based age, disability, income, race, or sex. We equally support all religious beliefs, medical beliefs, lifestyle beliefs, etc, as we strongly hold that all parent are free and protected to make such decisions on behalf of their children in collaboration with physicians, educators, and spiritual leaders of their choosing.

Parents that find themselves subject to discrimination and oppression of their legally protected rights to raise their children are encouraged to look over website, visit our informational links, and contact us directly for assistance.

Sister Organizations:
We believe that unity of our shared mission to protect the rights of American parents is essential to achieving legislation that protects, upholds, and strengthens parental rights. We welcome you to contact us directly with community partnership requests, and to be added to our resource page to be shared with families. Please provide links to your website as well as direct contact information for our consideration.

Legal Representation:
Attorneys that find themselves representing a client within the above scenarios are welcome to contact us directly for applicable information, community resources, and case strategy information.

Legislators and staff are welcome to contact us directly with requests for more information regarding listed topics of interest, community partners, collected data, etc.

The 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 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972)
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.

Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980)
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 protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect.

Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977)
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 their government.

Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976)