All persons, groups of persons and, in some cases, even animals have rights.
You can't even begin to understand "rights" until you understand the concept of conflicting rights. It is because rights often conflict that no rights are absolute. All rights diminish as soon as they begin to impact someone ELSE's rights.
Who among the following do not have rights in a child custody dispute: the CP, the NCP, the child, the state or third parties such as grandparents? The answer: ALL of these parties have rights, as stated in my second paragraph.
You may want to take anyone else's rights away, so that only YOUR rights remain. You may even wish it a LOT. But you can't take other person's rights away. Nor SHOULD you be able to do that. Parents have rights. Children have rights.
A parent's "right" to parent is supported only to the extent that it meets the right of a child to BE parented, otherwise it would be an unfair imposition on the rights of the child. So parents' rights derive directly from, and are contingent upon, the child's interests and rights.
Parental authority is normally NOT unfair to the child, however, because the child DOES benefit from their parents having authority. A parent's AUTHORITY supercedes a child's will, but not the weight of their interests.
The "fundamental right to parent your children" is not found in the Constitution, so your references to the Constitution miss the mark. Parents do have powerful rights, because their rights generally coincide with the best interests of the child and the courts have determined that familial ties matter to a child. However, parents' rights begin to falter as soon as they begin to become a detriment to a child. The standard is detriment, not physical harm.
Whether you like it or not, detriment IS the standard where one person's rights become impacted by another person's rights. Your right to play loud music at night ends at the point of detriment to your neighbor, not at the point of physical harm to your neighbor. The "harm" standard is your creation and has no legal precedent or basis - another "Loose" interpretation of the Constitution. In legal terms, the word "injury" is usually bloodless.
This brings us to your second statement about rights: "2. The fundamental right to a fair trial -- which none of us are getting under a Preponderance evidentiary standard. The implicated right requires a Clear & Convincing evidentiary standard. This means that there's not only a Procedural Due Process hole in the proceedings, the trial itself is fundamentally unfair and deprives you of your fundamental right to fundamental fairness."
You are fundamentally wrong. Fairness to ALL parties, not just the one YOU agree with, is the right of all Americans. In civil cases, this means you had better get used to the word "preponderance". In fact, since the subject matter is the placement of the child, the interests of the child require a HIGHER standard to bypass than the interests of the parent.
Jim, like it or not, this is FACT, and it is the indisputable law of the land. As soon as you start referencing the Constitution, you fall on your face because you are fighting against the Constitution, caselaw precedent, common sense, popular opinion and the laws of 50 states. You are left arguing what you think SHOULD be true, not what the law or the Constitution says.
As soon as you try taking away other people's rights, your arguments are fundamentally wrong.