De facto custodian... How do states....

[stk_agn]

How do states justify infringing upon parents' fundamental rights with the de facto custodian law?

 As I understand it, when confronted with a conflict between parents rights and state regulation, the court must apply the "compelling interest test". Under this test, the state must prove that its infringements on the parent's fundamental rights is essential to fulfilling a "compelling interest" and is the least restrictive means of fulfilling this state interest.
Simply proving the regulation is reasonable is not sufficient.

The United States Supreme Court has consistantly protected parental rights and was decisively confirmed in the recent case of Troxel v. Granville.

My question I suppose is,,, How can the state of Kentucky use the "best interest" rule to deprive the natural parents of custody of their children, [against a "third-party"] when the parent was exercising their parental right to see that their child did not live in poverty while they sought to better themselves?

I must add that the parent has never given up their superior right to custody and has never been proven or accused of being unfit.

What chances do you see in proving the parents constitutional rights (The 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments) have been violated?

[socrateaser]

In order to reach a legal conclusion on any issue:

1) obtain all of the facts of the case.
2) attempt to discern every possible legal issue that might be applicable to those facts.
3) state each issue succinctly, and its associated rule of law
4) apply the facts to the issue and analyze how those facts effect the stated issue from all possible viewpoints.
5) reach a legal conclusion, based on the analysis.

You are asking me to opine on a complex legal matter, absent any facts applicable to the case.

No facts = no issue = no rule = no analysis = no conclusion.