A mother shouldn't be stripped of custody of her child unless that mother is found to be unfit. Judges shouldn't be able to just violate one's most basic constitutional rights because he or she is bound by campaign contributions instead of the law.
Every single party on the opposing side of my child custody case, Trotter v. Ayres, made contributions to Judge Carlton LaTain Kell’s election or reelection to the bench, to include the attorney for the grandfather and step-grandmother, Debbie Pelerose, the Senior judge who first heard my case, G. Grant Brantley, the Guardian Ad Litem’s firm, Huff, Woods and Hamby (Dian Woods was the GAL), the firm the grandparents retained to answer my U.S. Supreme Court petition and even the now Georgia state Attorney General, Sam Olens whom I served the petition upon. This is all not a coincidence. It was also not a coincidence that the grandparents were allowed three trials over the course of nineteen months to secure a victory. Although the matter was fully adjudicated the first time, complete with the testimony of a psychologist, the grandparents were given two “do-overs”- without appeals- until they won. It wasn’t a coincidence that the judge ignored five of my motions which would have secured my due process rights- even one to enforce one of his own orders. It is not a coincidence that the attorney Pelerose instructed the court reporter to withhold the third set of transcripts on appeal from the appellate court. It was also not a coincidence that the trial court “misplaced” the first two sets of transcripts, evidence that I was granted physical custody at the first two trials. The Court of Appeals then reacted with a favorable decision for the grandparents citing they needed the transcripts in order to review the substantive enumerations of error I asserted. None of this is coincidental. This was a concerted effort to secure and maintain a victory for the grandparents by any means necessary even if it meant disregarding the constitution of the United States, procedural law and even Georgia’s own precedence, which parallels the constitution.
The judge did not find me unfit. As a matter of fact, he found me fit with a loving relationship with my daughter. Still, he removed my child from my home and severed my custodial relationship with daughter. He even revoked the legal custody I had always maintained. He cited that I was “hostile” towards the grandparents, thus unable to act in my daughter’s best interest. Although the grandparents acquired my daughter by taking her from her father, throwing him in the street, and then keeping her without my knowledge, the judge found that the grandparents had a “bond” with my daughter, thus this “bond” and my daughter’s “best interest” superseded my constitutional right to custody of my child so long as I was fit. This may sound logical, however, the constitution does not support applying the legal “best interest” standard where a dispute of custody is between a parent and a THIRD PARTY. Legally, the court can only apply the best interest standard between TWO PARENTS. The only appropriate legal standard where a parent stands to lose custody to a third party relative, would be the fitness standard: Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) citing Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304 (1992):
"The best interests of the child," a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion -- much less the sole constitutional criterion -- for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. Even if it were shown, f or example, that a particular couple desirous of adopting a child would best provide for the child's welfare, the child would nonetheless not be removed from the custody of its parents so long as they were providing for the child adequately. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 54 L. Ed. 2d 511, 98 S. Ct. 549 (1978). Similarly, "the best interests of the child" is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves.
Georgia’s own precedence says the exact same thing.
Childs v. Childs, 237 Ga. 177 (227 SE2d 49) (1976)
However, where a third party (e.g., a grandparent) is being awarded custody of a child as part of a divorce case, or where such a third party sues to obtain child custody from a parent, the test is not simply the "best interests" or "welfare" of the child because the parents are being deprived of custody of their child. In such cases, a parent is entitled to be awarded custody by the trial court unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that such parent is unfit or otherwise not entitled to custody under the laws. Conroy v. Jones, 238 Ga. 321 (232 SE2d 917) (1977); Drummond v. Fulton County Dept. of Family &c. Services, 237 Ga. 449, 451 (228 SE2d 839) (1976).
It's right there in black and white.
Although the United States Supreme Court has upheld the inherent, constitutional rights of the fit parent to rear and make decisions for his or her children, for eighty seven years, it denied my petition. I presented the highest court with a legitimate Federal Question: "Can a judge apply the same best interest logic from Troxel v. Granville's visitation provisions for grandparents, to a dispute of child custody?" If the anwser was no, it had to reaffirm and tweak the misconception in the Troxel decision. If it was yes, it would have had to explain how it was turning over eighty seven years of precedence. The highest court chose to do nothing. There should be a safeguard for Pro Se litigants who are forced to seek justice on their own for lack of money to pay a high-powered lawyer. If the Pro Se litigant is able to make the viable argument for relief- relief should be granted- especially if there's eight seven years of case law to back up the argument. Justice shouldn't be a privilege or some right of passage. The Supreme Court shouldn't be an entity in and of itself. It's duty is to the American people and it shouldn't have the discretion, to pick and choose whether or not it will correct violations of inherent civil liberties.
If I were a bad mother, I would not continue to fight. I would let my daughter stay one thousand miles away from me and accept the fact that a judge, awarded full custody to her paternal grandfather and his wife. But, the fact is, just as in the Raymond v. Raymond case these people were able to buy my daughter’s custody with the campaign contributions. The FBI is now investigating the Usher/Tameka Raymond case for corruption. Tell the FBI, it needs to investigate ALL cases of child custody corruption in the state of Georgia- not just those that involve celebrities.
This is America where there is supposed to be liberty and justice for all. Yet, as the judge was bound by these campaign contributions and not the law, he willfully disregarded his own court order, disregarded the prior custody order already in place, disregarded the following procedural and substantive statutes: O.C.G.A 16-5-45, Interference with Legal Custody, O.C.G.A. 19-9-23 that provides that the grandparents should not have been able to respond to a Writ of Habeas Corpus with a file for custody, O.C.G.A. §§ 15-14-5, 5-6-41(e), that says that transcripts should be filed in the court, and 15-6-21 where he simply ignored five of my motions for procedural due process, although the said statute instructs judges to rule on motions in a timely manner or be impeached. The Court of Appeals of Georgia picked up where he left off and simply refused to review my case.
I liken the violation of my most basic liberty, to raise my own child whom I brought into this world in peace, to being raped and the denial of justice as being spat on, especially after nine years of service to my country. I now have no legal right to make decisions for my first born child, educational, medical, or otherwise, completely opposite of what the 14th Amendment affords me so long as I am fit. Legally, I am no longer her mother. No judge in America has a right to do this.
Stop this egregious injustice and violation of civil liberties from happening to any other fit parent. Tell the FBI to reinforce the fact that the LAW is paramount in a courtroom where children's lives are being decided- not the dollar.