Name: ACFLJ
Address: 1401 21st Street Suite R Sacramento

Join ACFLJ in making a difference!

ACFLJ™ is a Christian nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and advocating in legal and community arenas to defend and preserve the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals across the United States—especially those involving parents and families.

Through the generous support of our volunteers and donors, we provide vital resources, assistance, and hope to families facing hardship. We invite you to explore our mission further and discover how you can partner with us in this important work.

Thank you for visiting ACFLJ™!

Donate Now

LANDMARK CASES

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

The Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, ending judicial deference to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes and empowering courts to independently assess constitutionality, thereby facilitating more civil suits challenging agency actions that may infringe on fundamental rights like parental authority.

Troxel v. Granville (2000, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of fit parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children without undue state interference.

Santosky v. Kramer (1982, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Blessing v. Freestone (1997 U.S. Supreme Court)

The Court required clear and convincing evidence of harm (or parental unfitness) before a state may terminate parental rights, protecting parents' fundamental interest in the care and custody of their children from insufficiently supported state intervention.

Blessing v. Freestone (1997 U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Blessing v. Freestone (1997 U.S. Supreme Court)

Unanimously held that neither custodial parents nor their children have a privately enforceable federal right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to compel a state to achieve "substantial compliance" with the overall requirements of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

The Court held that a judgment without proper personal jurisdiction is void ab initio, with no validity, and may be collaterally attacked at any time—a Fourteenth Amendment due process rule that allows indefinite challenges to family law orders (e.g., custody or support) entered without valid jurisdiction.

Parham v. J.R. (442 U.S. 584, 1979, U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

The Court upheld parental authority in certain contexts, noting that "natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children," reinforcing a presumption against state substitution of judgment for fit parents.

Tumey v. Ohio (1927, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Holding: "No man can be a judge in his own case"—due process violation if judge/referee has personal/financial interest (relevant to referee bias/conflicts).

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

A state court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident parent in a support modification action without minimum contacts—doing so deprives the parent of due process.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923, US Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kamp v. Kamp (NY-specific, often cited for void orders)

Established the fundamental parental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children as a protected liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Kamp v. Kamp (NY-specific, often cited for void orders)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Kamp v. Kamp (NY-specific, often cited for void orders)

Holding: Void judgments/orders can be collaterally attacked at any time—there is no statute of limitations on challenging lack of jurisdiction.

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Holding: Lack of subject matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void ab initio and non-waivable, allowing attack anytime.

Weiss v. Weiss (NY-specific family law)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Holding: Visitation rights are independent of child support obligations—cannot condition one on payment of the other.

Who We Are

Core Advocacy & Research Areas

• Pro se - Education and Clerical Assistance

• In-Depth Legal Analysis

• FOIA Requests & Government Transparency

• Public Education & Awareness Campaigns

• Drafting Sample Motions, Petitions, and Proposed Legislative Reforms

Substantive Focus Areas

• Family Law Reform

• Civil Rights in Domestic Relations Cases

• Child Support Accountability & Transparency

• Custody & Visitation Equity

• Presumption of Shared Parenting

• Protection Against False Allegations

• Parental Alienation Recognition & Prevention

• Domestic Violence Laws & Due Process Protections

• Guardian ad Litem & Court-Appointed Expert Reform

• Title IV-D Funding Incentives & Conflicts of Interest

• Relocation Restrictions & Move-Away Cases

• Enforcement of Parenting Time Orders

• Paternity Establishment & Disestablishment

• Grandparent & Extended Family Rights

• Adoption & Termination of Parental Rights Safeguards

• Parental Rights & Protection of the Parent-Child Relationship

• Constitutional Law (Due Process, Equal Protection, and Fundamental Liberties)

Jurisdictional & Institutional Advocacy Targets

• Local Family Courts

• State Trial Courts & Family Divisions

• State Courts of Appeals (Intermediate Appellate Courts)

• State Appellate Courts (including specialized divisions)

• State Supreme Courts

• Federal District Courts

• U.S. Courts of Appeals (Circuit Courts)

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Federal Courts (general oversight and habeas review in family-related matters)

• Interstate Jurisdiction Issues (UCCJEA/URCCJEA)

Expanded Advocacy & Litigation Focus Areas

• Federal Civil Rights Lawsuits Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Challenging violations by state actors—such as judges, caseworkers, or agencies—in family court or parental rights proceedings; typically filed in U.S. District Courts for alleged deprivations of due process, equal protection, or other constitutional rights under color of state law)

Additional Related Areas

• Schools & Parental Rights in Education

• Judicial Bias, Training, & Accountability

• Federal & State Legislative Advocacy

• Whistleblower Support

This platform is not a law firm. Legal services are provided by independent attorneys. No attorney-client relationship until engaged.

MAKING HEADLINES

They're Coming For Your Parental Rights- Here's What You Need To Know - Ep. 85™

"Is our child a creature of our state or under our authority" - Christy-Faith

Don Hubin - The Constitution and Child Custody™

" States routinely violate fundamental constitutional rights" - Don Hubin

Mistake Prisoner: Man Claims He Was Wrongly Imprisoned For 5 Years (Full Episode) | Paternity Court™

Missed his court date - Judgement 5 years jail - DNA test revealed not his child

Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat™

" Walter L. Scott went to jail for failure to pay child support, it sent his life into a tailspin" - New York Times

Man Became Homeless Because of Child Support Payments (Full Episode) | Paternity Court™

Can't pay my bills because my checks have been garnished - 66.3%

Why are Traditional Therapies Worse than Worthless for Parental Alienation?™

Research confirms that therapy while children live primarily with the favored parent rarely repairs parent-child relationships and may worsen alienation.

ALLEGED ISSUES

Incarcerating parents for unpaid child support is never in the child's best interest.
States require child support payments without any proof the money is used for the child.

Common Sense Isn't Common

No amount of money justifies jailing a parent, ever, as it destroys future earning potential, piles on unpayable debt, and harms the child's long-term emotional and financial stability.

Nor is freezing a parent’s driver’s license ever in the child’s best interest. Suspending a license often prevents the parent from getting to work, earning income, or even visiting the child—directly undermining the very financial and emotional support the system claims to protect. These punitive measures create a downward spiral of unemployment, deeper poverty, and family disconnection, leaving the child worse off in the long run.

For too long, fathers have endured systemic inequities in family courts, often facing denial of fundamental civil rights through discriminatory laws, procedures, policies, and practices. These injustices have resulted in the deprivation of constitutionally protected liberties, including the sacred parent-child relationship.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests," protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)). No right is more precious than this bond between parent and child—nothing, not even financial support, can fully replace the irreplaceable value of active, meaningful involvement in a child's life. Moreover, absent a showing of unfitness, separating a fit parent from their child solely on vague "best interest" grounds risks impermissibly intruding on this protected liberty.

Compounding these concerns, child support systems often lack transparency, with no guaranteed proof that payments directly benefit the child rather than other household expenses. True equity demands accountability and fairness for all parties.

To confront these pervasive issues, we must unite nationally to reform discriminatory elements that disproportionately impact fathers, restoring balance and protecting constitutional rights.

Through advocacy, we seek to eliminate laws, procedures, policies, and practices that unfairly disadvantage parents primarily fathers, ensuring every parent has the opportunity to remain an active, engaged family member without undue state interference.

Your support is vital: educate yourself on these issues, pledge your commitment to reform, or donate to fuel our efforts in research, education, FOIA inquiries, and developing sample resources for fairer family law outcomes.

Join ACFLJ™ today to champion equitable family laws through in-depth legal analysis, strategic information requests, educational initiatives, and assistance in drafting proposed solutions and sample documents.

The resources and information provided by ACFLJ™ are for educational and advocacy purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. We recommend consulting a licensed attorney for personal legal needs.

We're Hiring!

Join Our Team

Join Our Growing Team – Opportunities Available

*The platform is not a law firm. Legal services are provided exclusively by independent licensed attorneys.

Full or Part-Time Positions We are seeking talented software engineers, data scientists, investigative journalists, paralegals, and licensed attorneys to join the platform development team. Roles focus on software design, product development, creation and maintenance of generic legal templates, educational content, compliance oversight, and quality assurance. These positions do not involve direct client representation, case-specific legal advice, or review of individual user matters.
Clerking and Experiential Learning Opportunities for Law Students Are you a law student or prospective attorney interested in gaining hands-on experience in legal technology and access-to-justice initiatives? The platform welcomes inquiries from students eager to contribute to the development of tools that empower underserved communities.
Clerking opportunities are rooted in the tradition of civil rights advocacy and focus on supporting the creation of educational resources, generic form libraries, and technology that connects individuals with independent licensed attorneys. Participants will work on product development and research under the supervision of platform development staff—not on individual client cases or legal representation. All user-specific legal services are provided exclusively by independent panel attorneys.
To learn more or submit your application. We look forward to hearing from you.

ACFLJ's mission

LEGAL ANALYSIS

fair family laws fathers rights child support

We seek legal analysis which involves a comprehensive review of the legal framework to determine whether the laws align with the principles and provisions outlined in the constitution.

FOIA REQUESTS

LEGAL ANALYSIS

By submitting FOIA requests, we hope to gain access to the information necessary for our research & analysis - with the aim of promoting transparency and accountability within the government.

EDUCATION

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

Exploring the implications and challenges of family laws, such as gender bias, legal intricacies, enforcement hurdles, and constitutional considerations.

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

drafting solutions fair family child support

We formulate solutions and best practices for intricate family law matters

CONSTITUTIONALITY PROVISIONS

FIRST AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION…CENSORSHIP OF A PARENT

FIFTH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION…FREEDOM NOT TO SPEAK,

EIGHTH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION…CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISH…

NINTH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION… ENUMERATED RIGHTS…

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION…FAMILIAL DECISIONS

ARTICLE VI, CLAUSE 2, US CONSTITUTION…SUPREMACY CLAUSE

ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 1, U.S. CONSTITUTION… CONTRACT CLAUSE

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 9, CLAUSE 3, U.S. CONSTITUTION… NO BILL OF ATTAINDER

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

18 U.S.C. § 1581 — Peonage; obstructing enforcement

18 U.S.C. § 1589 — Forced labor

18 U.S.C. § 1592 — Unlawful conduct with respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor

18 U.S.C. § 241 — Conspiracy against rights

18 U.S.C. § 242 — Deprivation of rights under color of law

18 U.S.C. § 1951 — Interference with commerce by threats or violence (Hobbs Act)

18 U.S.C. § 1961 — Definitions (for RICO — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)

18 U.S.C. § 2382 — Misprision of treason

28 U.S.C. § 1691 — Seal and teste of process

28 U.S.C. § 455 — Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Civil action for deprivation of rights

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) — Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

42 U.S.C. § 1994 — Peonage abolished

34 U.S.C. § 12601 — Pattern or practice of unlawful conduct by law enforcement

ACFLJ™ ADVOCATES mission

BOOTS ON THE GROUND

CAMPAIGNING SIGNATURES

fair family laws advocating child support

Parents coming together to fight for a cause related to family laws can be a powerful way to advocate for change. Forming support groups, organize rallies, and raise awareness

CAMPAIGNING SIGNATURES

signatures fair family laws child support

Gather the necessary number of signatures to introduce or amend legislation

LOBBYING

CAMPAIGNING SIGNATURES

LOBBYING

fathers rights constitutional child support

To actively lobby in both State legislatures and Congress to advocate for the passage of new "Fair Family" laws

Contact Us

Submissions are reviewed in the order received. We strive to acknowledge receipt within one week, though response times may be longer during periods of high volume—thank you for your patience and understanding. Please note: This form is for general inquiries and feedback only. The platform is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice, representation, or case-specific guidance. No attorney-client relationship is formed through submission of this form or any response you may receive. All user-specific legal services, including document review and customization, are provided exclusively by independent licensed attorneys through our optional Attorney Review Tier. Responses to general inquiries will be limited to public information, educational resources, or referral to appropriate independent professionals.

Name*

Phone

Email*

Where did you hear about us?

Attach Files

Attachments (0)

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

American Coalition for Family Law & Justice™

1401 21st Street Suite R Sacramento, CA 95811

Welcome

American Coalition for Family Law & Justice™

Join ACFLJ in making a difference!

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Congress has the power to create laws, the President has the power to veto them, and the Supreme Court may declare laws Unconstitutional - Cornell Law School

LANDMARK CASES

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Troxel v. Granville (2000, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Santosky v. Kramer (1982, U.S. Supreme Court)

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024, U.S. Supreme Court)

Blessing v. Freestone (1997 U.S. Supreme Court)

Blessing v. Freestone (1997 U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Blessing v. Freestone (1997 U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Parham v. J.R. (442 U.S. 584, 1979, U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S. 714, 1878, U.S. Supreme Court)

Tumey v. Ohio (1927, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923, US Supreme Court)

Kulko v. Superior Court (1978, U.S. Supreme Court)

Kamp v. Kamp (NY-specific, often cited for void orders)

Kamp v. Kamp (NY-specific, often cited for void orders)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Kamp v. Kamp (NY-specific, often cited for void orders)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Weiss v. Weiss (NY-specific family law)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

Lacks v. Lacks (NY Court of Appeals, 1976 or related principles)

CITATION COUNTS OF LANDMARK CASES DISTINCT JUDICIAL OPINIONS

Who We Are

Core Advocacy & Research Areas

Substantive Focus Areas

Jurisdictional & Institutional Advocacy Targets

Expanded Advocacy & Litigation Focus Areas

Additional Related Areas

MAKING HEADLINES

They're Coming For Your Parental Rights- Here's What You Need To Know - Ep. 85™

Don Hubin - The Constitution and Child Custody™

Mistake Prisoner: Man Claims He Was Wrongly Imprisoned For 5 Years (Full Episode) | Paternity Court™

Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat™

Man Became Homeless Because of Child Support Payments (Full Episode) | Paternity Court™

Why are Traditional Therapies Worse than Worthless for Parental Alienation?™

ALLEGED ISSUES

Common Sense Isn't Common

We're Hiring!

Join Our Team

Apply Now

I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree...that an unjust law is no law at all.

ACFLJ's mission

LEGAL ANALYSIS

LEGAL ANALYSIS

LEGAL ANALYSIS

FOIA REQUESTS

LEGAL ANALYSIS

LEGAL ANALYSIS

EDUCATION

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

DRAFT SOLUTIONS

CONSTITUTIONALITY PROVISIONS

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

ACFLJ™ ADVOCATES mission

BOOTS ON THE GROUND

CAMPAIGNING SIGNATURES