Mission, Vision & Values

A national civil-rights organization establishing and restoring constitutional safeguards in state family courts.

OUR MISSION

The Due Process Project works to establish and restore constitutional safeguards in state family courts by documenting systemic irregularities, advancing evidence-based reform, and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals and families. We are a national civil-rights organization, beginning with targeted pilot projects in Washington State, across the country and in a unified demand for Federal Family Law Reform.

OUR VISION

A country where state family court judicial systems operate with transparency, accountability, and full adherence to the United States Constitution; ensuring that every family and individual receives the due process and equal protection the law guarantees, no matter where in the United States they live.

OUR VALUES

  • Nonpartisan

    We transcend political divisions to focus on constitutional principles that protect all Americans.

  • Constitutionally Grounded

    Every initiative is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment and established civil rights law.

  • Trauma-Informed

    We design every interaction with sensitivity to the experiences of those we serve.

  • Data-Driven

    We collect procedural indicators, not personal narratives, but to build evidence for systemic reform.

  • Transparency

    We believe public oversight of judicial proceedings is essential for a fair legal system.

  • Accountability

    We create foundations for holding the system accountable through documented patterns.

  • Community-Centered

    Safe, structured, trauma-informed engagement is at the heart of everything we do.

THE DATA PROJECT

Documenting constitutional irregularities nationwide through procedural indicators

  • What We Collect

    - Whether hearings occurred

    - Whether evidence was reviewed

    - Whether findings were made

    - Whether ADA accommodations were provided

    - Whether private actors exercised judicial power

    - Whether appellate review was accessible

    - Targeted case facts

  • What We Do NOT Collect

    - Personal stories

    - Gendered narratives

    - Allegations against individuals

    - Personal diagnoses

    - Private family law case details

    - Arguments for personal law suit

Your experience becomes part of a nationwide pattern that will be used to inform legislation, support federal intervention, and expose systemic failures.

WASHINGTON STATE AS AN EXAMPLE

Why Washington is our first case study for constitutional reform

Washington is uniquely positioned for a constitutional pilot because it exhibits:

  • Rulemaking without legislative review

  • Internalized judicial oversight

  • Expanded immunity doctrines

  • Unchecked delegation to private actors

  • Inconsistent county practices

  • Limited appellate access

These conditions create a closed system where constitutional drift is measurable and predictable.

REVIEW THE ANALYSIS

A National Civil Rights Movement

We collaborate with attorneys, researchers, and advocates across jurisdictions and the nation.

Our goal is to build a national framework for constitutional accountability in state courts.

Why Due Process Matters in Family Court

Family courts are run by the states, but that does not mean they operate outside the Constitution. When a state interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to raise their child, the Constitution requires meaningful due process. That includes real evidence, real procedures, and real protections before the government can restrict a parent’s liberty.

Parental rights are among the most protected liberty interests in American law. When the state seeks to limit them, it must meet a heightened standard, clear and convincing evidence, because the stakes are that high.

Due process is the safeguard that keeps government power in check. It is the foundation of fairness. It is the American way.

What Current Research Reveals

Across the country, families report strikingly similar experiences in family courts: inadequate notice, rushed or truncated hearings, decisions based on unsworn allegations, and the inability to present evidence or cross‑examine witnesses. These patterns reflect what legal analysts describe as widespread procedural failures that undermine the constitutional protections guaranteed to parents when the state intervenes in matters involving their children. The constitutional standard is clear — parental rights are fundamental liberty interests, and the state must provide heightened safeguards, including meaningful notice, a real opportunity to be heard, and decisions based solely on evidence in the record. Yet none of the sources identify a single state where these protections are applied consistently. Instead, they describe a system marked by inconsistency, elevated risk of erroneous deprivation, and recurring departures from due‑process norms.