Connect with us


Texas Supreme Court Will Decide if Dad Will be Allowed to Share Daughter with Deceased Mom’s Ex-Boyfriend



On April 22, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court  heard oral arguments in a pivotal case that could determine whether parents have the constitutional right to raise their own children.

Lifesite News notes that the case, known as “In re CJC,” deals with a father who is battling against a non-relative for custody of his five-year-old daughter. The unrelated man was the fiancee of the girl’s mother, who died in 2018.

“It’s hard to imagine that a court of law would ever have to decide that a perfectly-fit father does not have the right to raise his own little girl, yet that’s exactly what’s at stake,” declared Jeremy Newman, director of public policy with Texas Home School Coalition (THSC), in a statement.

Trending: Polls Reveal Americans, Liberals Dramatically Overestimate Police Killings of Unarmed Black Men

“If this case goes the wrong way, it could set a terrifying precedent in which courts in the future don’t have to favor parents in custody battles. Anyone, regardless of family status, could lay claim to a child,” he stated.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024?

  • POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“What makes the case so significant is not just that an unrelated man was given custody of another man’s daughter, but that he was given custody on the grounds that the father had no greater right to custody than did a completely unrelated individual who happened to have cohabitated with her,” wrote Newman in a Texas Scorecard article that was published recently.

“This is a story that I don’t want any other parents to have to go through,” the girl’s father commented in a video titled “Ann is being unconstitutionally taken away from her Dad.”

“She’s already lost one parent,” said Chris —the father in this case— of his daughter, and “she wants to be with her other parent full time.”

“It’s disheartening to know that someone who hasn’t been involved in her life … can potentially have rights to her,” he remarked.

“She’s my daughter,” he asserted. “She’s my everything. She’s worth fighting for.”

“If we lose this case, it could have a devastating effect,” sustained Holly Draper, Chris’ legal counsel, “because it would set the precedent that boyfriends, nannys, roommates — anyone who happened to be living in the home with the child, and had a relatively minimal role in their life — can sue for custody and actually get rights and tie with your child.”

“If courts begin requiring fathers to share their parent privileges with other men who have no familial relationship with their child, then the status of fatherhood becomes diminished — and so do the incentives of men to become fathers and to fulfill their duties. This precedent would impact these legal rights for mothers as well,” precautioned Texas Values president and attorney Jonathan Saenz.

The legal team for the boyfriend argued that “Because Chris and Ann’s mother had previously agreed to split custody, the action of going to the court to authorize that split of custody was a ‘grant of parental authority’ to the court forever,” declared Newman.

They sustained that by doing so “Chris had ceded all his parental authority to the court when he made the decision to enter into this agreement with Ann’s mother,” he continued.

“The very basic question that the court is being asked to answer is whether or not parents have a constitutional right to raise their own kids,” Newman said to LifeSiteNews.

“The bottom line,” said Newman, “is if the court sides with the fiance, there’s a very real possibility we could end up in scenario in Texas where if you have a live-in boyfriend, or if you hire a nanny, or if you even have a student who you’re renting out a room in your house, you could give that person the legal right to take custody of your child,” simply for letting them live in your house for a brief period of time.

“When two fit parents go into court, they are not giving away their constitutional right with respect to any future non-parent down the road who is going to intervene in the future,” Draper told the court. “And the notion that that could possibly be the case should scare every fit parent.”

“This is an issue that, whether you’re on the right or you’re on the left, everybody can agree,” Draper said to LifeSiteNews.  “It seems to me like the entire political spectrum really ought to be on the same page.”

The dispute emerged after the child’s mother was killed in a car accident in 2018. During that time, the mother and father were divorced and were sharing approximately 50/50 custody of their daughter.

During the final 11 months of her life, the mother was living with her boyfriend. As a consequence, the daughter also lived with her mother’s boyfriend for about half of the aforementioned 11-month period.

Following the mother’s death, the daughter’s maternal grandparents filed a lawsuit against the father, in an attempt to gain custody of their four-year-old granddaughter. The court threw out the suit, highlighting the grandparents’ inability to demonstrate that leaving the father as sole custodian would bring about any harm to the child.

Although the court found that the father was a fit parent, the court still granted partial custody to the boyfriend. It argued that the boyfriend was not required to provide the same level of proof as the grandparents.

The judge was in agreement with the boyfriend’s argument that he should receive the same treatment as the actual father.

As this case made waves in the Texas court system, certain pro-rule of law groups have filed amicus briefs in defense of the father’s constitutional rights, which included the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Texas Home School Coalition, Alliance Defending Freedom, Parental Rights Foundation, and A Voice for Choice Advocacy.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also filed a brief in support of the father.


Mara Elvira Salazar is No Friend of America First Nationalism

Republican leaders would be wise to ignore all of her political advice.



If there’s one Republican leader that young activists should never listen to, it’s Florida Congresswoman Maria Elvira Salazar. 

Salazar, who is a Cuban American, has been an outspoken advocate of loosening U.S. immigration laws. In fact, she even confronted known immigration hawk and key Trump adviser Stephen Miller at a Republican Study Committee weekly lunch on February 24, 2021. She specifically criticized Trump’s immigration message and demanded that the GOP be more inclusive in its outreach.

“I told him [Miller] that the GOP needs to attract the browns,” stated Salazar. “We, for the last 30 years since Ronald Reagan, have not sent the right message to the browns,” she continued. “Reagan was the last guy who gave a path to citizenship to 3 million people … 35 years ago. It’s time for us to do the same thing that Reagan did.”

Salazar doubled down on her pro-immigration message when she went on Larry Kudlow’s show on March 2 and declared that former President Donald Trump would have done better with Hispanics by advocating for looser immigration. Journalist Ryan Girdusky noted how some of Trump’s advisers were already pushing for amnesty lite policies:

Girdusky added that Salazar was rather unhinged in her criticism of Miller’s vision for the GOP:

Salazar made a lot of noise about the Hispanic vote, despite ignoring how Trump improved his Hispanic numbers between 2016 and his re-election bid in 2020 from 28% to 32%. And he did so without much Hispandering or campaigning on passing amnesty. 

The unsavory fact that the GOP consultant class and the likes of Salazar refuse to acknowledge is that the Black Lives Matter unrest alone likely pushed significant segments of the Hispanic population into the Democrats’ arms. BLM radicalism alienated Americans of all backgrounds., but Hispanics were not having any of this kind of ruckus. Even Hispanic Democrats, of all groups, largely supported strong military action during the riots.

In reality, Hispanic support for Trump is largely based on his bluster and political bluntness, which many minority groups find comfort in. 

However, Republicans like Salazar gets it all wrong by thinking that expanding immigration both legal and illegal is a key to the Republican Party success. The Republican Party will have to concede that they can make gains with Hispanics at the margins but they cannot expect to win the majority of the Hispanic vote due to Hispanics’ propensity to support many causes ranging from gun control to more government involvement in healthcare. Data from the Pew Research Center demonstrates these beliefs among Hispanics. Nevertheless, there are some avenues for outreach with this demographic  but they must be done right. 

The key for Republican success is the white working class voters, which played a crucial role in putting Trump over the top in the Midwest back in 2016. These voters are not the most reliable in terms of turnout, but they comprise a vast segment of the American electorate. Any candidate who can activate them could potentially build a hegemonic electoral coalition for years to come. The goal for a sane Republican campaign is to maximize turnout and support among the WWC. 

Such inroads with WWC voters are more important than meeting a diversity quota the likes of Salazar and naive Republican strategists would like the party to pursue. Any nationalist campaign worth its salt would be promoting the following: Infrastructure projects targeting the Midwest, the restriction of both illegal and legal immigration, and re-shoring programs to bring jobs back. 

On the other hand, following Salazar’s program is the way that the GOP will become irrelevant and alienate many WWC voters who are already on the fence with regards to the Republican Party. These voters are not going to gravitate towards Republicans just because of the “R” next to their name. They still must be catered to and pushing for amnesty is one way to turn working class voters off.

Under Salazar’s watch, the GOP will simply be going back to the politically correct ways of the Bush administration. To tap into the sleeping giants that is the WWC, Republican leaders should ignore everything Salazar has to say and get fully behind nationalist policies such as immigration restriction, infrastructure development, and re-shoring. 


Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!