Petition to Reunite
Judah with His Father

Introduction:

Every child has the God-given right to love and be loved by both their mother and father, free from interference, manipulation, or alienation. Judah’s story is one of injustice, a father fighting tirelessly to remain in his son’s life despite his mother alienating him, blocking all communication and visitation since 12/22/2023 without any legal justification. Since David’s dissolution with Judah’s mother in 12/11/2019, David’s inalienable rights have been repeatedly violated as well as Judahs, an 8 year old boy.

This website is dedicated to bringing awareness, seeking justice, and demanding accountability to all parties involved. By signing this petition, you are standing up for Judah’s God-given right to have both parents actively involved in his life. Because no minor should ever be used as a weapon, and no loving parent should ever be pushed away.

About This Petition:

Upon signing this petition, you stand with the U.S. Constitution in demanding justice for Judah and upholding David’s rights as a father. There has been no evidence brought forth that David Duarte is a criminal, felon, abusive, or anything that would justify Judah’s deprivation of his Father. There is a court order in place that is not being obeyed by Judah’s mother and David Duarte has filed all of the necessary evidence in the case no. 18STFL13220 on the public record at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, every parent—regardless of gender—has the right to be involved in their child’s life without unlawful interference or discrimination. Due Process protections guarantee that no parent should be deprived of their God-given rights without fair and just legal proceedings. Yet, David has been forced to fight an uphill battle against a system and a corrupt attorney that has failed to protect Judah’s constitutional protections, well-being and best interests.

Violation of Rights:

Attorney Kristin Trutanich is acting in bad faith and failing to uphold the best interests of Judah by continuing to deprive him of a relationship with his father without any legal justification. Rather than addressing the merits of my motions seeking rightful access to my son, she routinely moves to have sanctions imposed against me, falsely claiming that my filings are frivolous.

By attempting to label me as a vexatious litigant, she is attempting to obstruct my fundamental right to petition the court for redress of grievances—a direct violation of my First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. This tactic is not only legally baseless but also serves to intimidate and suppress my ability to fight for my sons rights.

Such conduct is an abuse of the legal system, designed to silence a father who is simply trying to be involved in my son’s life. The court must recognize this unjust obstruction and ensure that Judah is not further harmed by being wrongfully deprived of his father. This constitutes a blatant violation of Judah’s rights under 18 U.S. Code § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law), which is a federal crime for any individual, including legal representatives or officials, to willfully deprive someone of any guaranteed rights under the U.S. Constitution. By obstructing David’s rightful relationship with his son, those involved have not only acted unjustly but have also violated federal protections designed to prevent such abuse of power and government overreach.

The right of a minor to have both his mother and father is not just a moral obligation—it is a lawful and equitable one under the word of God and the U.S Constitution. Judah deserves the love, guidance, and presence of his father just as much as his mother.

These repeated violations by Judah’s mother and Attorney Kristin Michele Trutanich CA BAR # 235990 have caused David and his family irreparable harm, profound emotional distress, significant disruptions in his career, financial strain, and substantial lost time with his son that can never be replaced. David has tirelessly pursued legal remedies and devoted countless hours navigating complex legal procedures and processes to restore his God-given rights to be a father.

Points in Authorities:

Here is a list of points of authority supporting the principles of popular sovereignty and the right of children to have equal access to both parents in California Family Courts:

1. We the People

• Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793)
  “The people of the United States are the sovereigns of the nation, and their sovereignty is exercised through their representatives in Congress.”
• Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849)
  • Reaffirmed that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and that sovereignty ultimately belongs to the people.
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
  • “Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.”
• Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
  • Confirmed that sovereignty resides in the people.
• Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011)
  • “The federal government exists to serve the people, but it derives no authority from itself.”

2. California Family Law Supporting a Child’s Right to Both Parents

• California Family Code § 3020(a)
  • “It is the public policy of this state to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing in order to effect this policy.”
  • This law establishes that children have a right to both parents and that courts must promote co-parenting.
• California Family Code § 3011
  • This statute directs the court to consider the health, safety, and welfare of the child when determining custody but does not permit one parent to unfairly withhold access from the other.
• California Family Code § 3040
  • The court must prioritize the best interest of the child and presume that both parents are fit unless proven otherwise.
• California Family Code § 3022
  • Grants the court authority to make custody orders that ensure a child maintains a relationship with both parents unless clear evidence shows it would be detrimental to the child.
• California Family Code § 3080
  • Creates a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child when both parents agree to it.
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (U.S. Supreme Court)
  • Established that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children, including a right to maintain a relationship with them.
• Burchard v. Garay, 42 Cal.3d 531 (1986)
  • The California Supreme Court ruled that maintaining a meaningful relationship with both parents is in the best interest of the child.
• In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25 (1996)
  • The court emphasized that custody determinations must serve the child’s best interests and not be used as a tool to alienate one parent.
• In re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal.App.4th 533 (1998)
  • Courts should prevent parental interference that disrupts a child’s bond with both parents.
• In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal.4th 1072 (2004)
  • Established that parental relocation decisions must take into account the child’s need for stability and access to both parents.

3. Legal Principles Against Parental Alienation

• California Family Code § 3027.5
  • Prohibits a parent from making false allegations of abuse to interfere with the other parent’s custody or visitation rights.
• California Penal Code § 278.5
  • Criminalizes depriving a lawful custodial parent of their rightful time with their child.
• Federal Law – 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Violation of Rights Under Color of Law)
  • Makes it a federal crime to deprive someone of their constitutional rights under color of law, including the right of a parent to maintain a relationship with their child.
• Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due process must be upheld in family law cases, particularly when a parent’s fundamental rights are at stake.

The Law is Clear:

• Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children and maintain a relationship with them.
• Children have the right to fair and equal access to both parents.
• Parental alienation and undue interference violate California law, family court precedents, and constitutional protections.
• Delaying court proceedings solely to obstruct a parent-child relationship is not in the child’s best interest and contradicts legal standards.

This joint petition seeks to uphold these principles and demand that courts enforce these protections, ensuring that children are not used as tools of alienation and that both parents have a fair and equal role in their child’s life.

Sign This Form to Bring Justice To Judah’s Life