Mark, you post memes about the Constitution as if quoting amendments will erase your record. But the truth is the very protections you cite are what allowed the system to fully hear you out — and then hold you accountable. Let’s break down each of your “bullet points.”

1) “1st Amendment: You have the right to speak, to petition the court, and to defend your family without retaliation.”

Reality check:
Yes, you had the right to speak and petition — and you used it. You had attorneys. You had hearings. You had filings. You weren’t silenced; you were heard.

But when the dust settled, the evidence showed you weren’t defending your family — you were undermining them. While Melissa and Russ were showing up at every appointment, you were dodging DV and mental health evaluations, refusing to use the court-approved communication tool, and posting memes instead of parenting.

The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee your narrative wins. It guarantees your voice gets a hearing. You had that.

2) “14th Amendment: The State cannot takeaway your care, custody, and control of your child without due process.”

Reality check:
Due process means notice, hearings, counsel, and a path to fix the problem. You had all of that. You had attorneys. You had hearings. You had clear court-ordered steps to restore parenting time.

But here’s what happened:

• Restrictions for Liam were already in place because your behavior destabilized his treatment. Dr. Rao documented how you pressured Liam to abandon his medications, filled his head with conspiracy-driven beliefs, and even forced him to sign a bogus “contract” denying his diagnosis.
• Instead of doing the work, you doubled down. In the middle of the GAL investigation, you were hit with another domestic violence charge.
• You then turned your hostility on the Guardian ad Litem herself — yelling, screaming, and threatening during interviews. She had to report that you couldn’t be trusted to control yourself. And the obvious question followed: If this is you under the microscope, what does your self-control look like when no one is watching?

That’s not “no due process.” That’s due process producing consequences.

3) “Strict Scrutiny: Any government interference with parental rights must pass the highest constitutional test.”

Reality check:
Exactly. Parental rights are fundamental — courts only restrict them when there’s a compelling reason, and they must do so in the narrowest way possible.

Your restrictions weren’t blanket erasure. They were narrow safeguards with a clear off-ramp: complete evaluations, follow medical guidance, pay support, communicate responsibly, and parenting time could be restored.

That’s the definition of strict scrutiny applied: restrictions narrowly tailored against documented harm.

4) “Clear and Convincing Evidence: Judges need proof, not accusations, before restricting your rights.”

Reality check:
That’s exactly what happened. The evidence was overwhelming and corroborated:

• Medical evidence from Liam’s psychiatrist showing coercion, medical risk, and your oppositional behavior.
• Witness testimony like Rob Peters, who described you laughing and filming while your guest screamed obscenities at kids during Nathan’s basketball game.
• Court records documenting skipped evaluations, contempt for non-support, and repeated refusals to follow orders.

“Clear and convincing” isn’t just a phrase in your meme. It’s the reason you lost parenting time — because the bar was met, in spades.

Bottom line:

The Constitution doesn’t protect you from consequences. It guarantees you a fair shot. You got your hearings, your attorneys, your process. What sank you wasn’t the State — it was your own record.

You post slogans about rights. The courts had evidence of harm. And when the two collided, the evidence won.