The following  was distributed to the attendees of the Oct 4, 2006 oral argument at the TN Supreme Court
Key Issues in AMH Appeal (Summary of Amicus Brief by Dr. Dongxiao Yue, a Citizen of PRC)
For full text of the brief and more information, please visit http://www.ForAMH.com
Why does this case matter to you? The AMH case ruling may affect your parental rights.
Hes� regular visits before January 28, 2001
I.         The custody arrangement with Bakers was temporary (Cloud, Yau testimonies on 99/06/04 order)
II.      Hes wanted to visit more (Bakers� journal)
III.    Bakers' determined efforts to hinder, restrict and obstruct Hes' visits (Bakers� journal)
IV.   Hes� attempts to get their child back (Written note with 3 options, May 2000 petition)
The 4 months: finding "willfulness" requires "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."
I.         Attempts - Hes made repeated attempts to visit Â
A. Â
B.  Multiple visits to Court seeking help on visitation and custody (Brown, Cloud testimonies)
C.  Filing the
D.  Custody determination includes visitation determination (TN statute 36-6-205(3) )
E.   Hes knew having custody of child could not help their immigration status
1.       Option #1 of Mr. He’s May 2000 proposal to Mr. Baker, saying Bakers must not report Hes to INS after AMH was returned to the Hes (memo, evidence presented by Bakers)
2.       Willfully failed to appeal of Court’s denial of May 2000 petition (trial court finding)
3.       Sent their second child Andy to
II.      Excuses - Hes had justifiable excuses for failing to visit
A.  Bakers did not want Hes back to their home any more (Bakers� testimony at trial)
B.  Police ordered Hes not to come back to Bakers� home (Bakers� written testimony in 2002)
C.  Hes had no place to visit, Bakers refused to communicate (ignored Hes� phone messages)
D.  Bakers� revised testimony does not meet the standard (hearsay, conflict with prior testimony)
E.   Police testimony is not clear and convincing (Deputy Astor: �Possibly, yes� on “that day�)
F.   Court’s finding that Hes were not intimidated is not clear and convincing (time shifting)
III.    No Knowledge - Hes were unaware of
A.  Knowledge of a known legal duty is necessary in finding willfulness (definition of “factor�)
B.  Magic number 4 (TN Statute) and due process
C.  Termination of parental rights is a state action (court is a part of the state, equal protection)
D.  Bakers have the burden to prove that Hes knew their legal duty
Invalidity and illegality of the Guardianship and No-Contact order
l       1999/06/04 consent order, guardianship was typed in without Hes� knowledge(Cloud)
l       Ex parte guardianship and “no-contact� order between the Judge and Bakers� attorney Parrish on
l       Signed the next morning by the Judge and Parrish in private (Parrish testimony)
Conclusion: No willful failure. Court erred, must reverse and return child. Hes� rights may not be deprived under any color.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â