Heritage Defense Foundation's Amicus Briefs
Heritage Defense Foundation's Amicus Briefs
Active Cases
Active Cases
arrow_drop_down_circle
Divider Text
Stary v. Ethridge
Stary v. Ethridge
PENDING
PENDING
Court: Supreme Court of Texas (Docket No. 23-0067)
Filed: July 11, 2023
Status: Oral arguments heard on October 29, 2024
Summary: In a divorce proceeding, a lifetime protective order was issued against the mother based on an unproven felony. Our brief argued that this shocks the conscience, setting dangerous precedent for parental rights, and asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse.
Filed: July 11, 2023
Status: Oral arguments heard on October 29, 2024
Summary: In a divorce proceeding, a lifetime protective order was issued against the mother based on an unproven felony. Our brief argued that this shocks the conscience, setting dangerous precedent for parental rights, and asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse.
Past Cases
Past Cases
arrow_drop_down_circle
Divider Text
M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
CERT. DENIED
CERT. DENIED
Court: United States Supreme Court (Docket No. 23-450)
Filed: November 29, 2023
Outcome: Cert. Denied
Summary: Indiana DCS removed a transgender child from fit parents who refused to affirm his transgender identity. The child reached majority while in custody. Our brief argued this was a violation of God-given parental rights and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert.
Filed: November 29, 2023
Outcome: Cert. Denied
Summary: Indiana DCS removed a transgender child from fit parents who refused to affirm his transgender identity. The child reached majority while in custody. Our brief argued this was a violation of God-given parental rights and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert.
In Re Ashley Pardo and Daniel Pardo
In Re Ashley Pardo and Daniel Pardo
FAVORABLE OUTCOME
FAVORABLE OUTCOME
Court: Supreme Court of Texas (Docket No. 19-0760)
Filed: September 4, 2019
Outcome: Stay lifted; Dismissed
Summary: A child was removed because of perceived urgency based on miscommunication between DCFS and the doctor. Our brief argued that allowing the department used unreasonable investigative actions to create a false urgency which was then used as manufactured evidence to justify the removal, and we asked that the child be returned immediately to his parents.
Filed: September 4, 2019
Outcome: Stay lifted; Dismissed
Summary: A child was removed because of perceived urgency based on miscommunication between DCFS and the doctor. Our brief argued that allowing the department used unreasonable investigative actions to create a false urgency which was then used as manufactured evidence to justify the removal, and we asked that the child be returned immediately to his parents.
COPYRIGHT © 2010-2024 HERITAGE DEFENSE FOUNDATION.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – PRIVACY POLICY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – PRIVACY POLICY
Information on this site is not legal advice or a substitute for legal advice.