Alabama Family Rights Association

5 March 2010 - Alabama Family Rights Association announces March to Montgomery Event in Huntsville, Alabama on April 6, 2010 from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm at the Monaco Theatre.

First 100 Tickets Include Meet and Greet with Guests

ALFRA MEMBER MEET AND GREET TICKETS

  ALFRA member only Meet and Greet, each - $50

 ALFRA member only Meet and Greet, per couple - $90

------------------

NON-ALFRA MEMBER MEET AND GREET TICKETS

Non-ALFRA member Meet and Greet, each - $65

Non-ALFRA member Meet and Greet, per couple - $110

Limited Tickets Available

###

Father That Defied a Judge's Order Barring Taking His Daughter to Church On ABC 20/20

26 Feb 2010 - Tonight, a Friday, ABC 20/20 news program will be featuring the story of Joseph Reyes, an Afghan war veteran, and a Chicago father who defied a judge's order barring him from taking his daughter to church on his weekends.

This story has gained national attention and points directly to the need for family law reform.

This very same thing happened in Huntsville, Alabama a few years ago, however was not covered in the media.

Watch Joseph's story on 20/20, then go online and comment. Let the producers know you want to see more of these stories of judicial overreach.

20/20 airs on ABC affiliates around the nation on Friday nights at 9:00 p.m.

Tennessee - 'No Parent Left Behind" Equally Parenting Bill

This bill is identical to Alabama's - 'No Parent Left Behind'

It is getting hot in the Tennessee State Houses for Equally Shared Parenting, Your participation is needed.  Yes, this is Tennessee, but be assured they are supporting our efforts on the same issue here in Alabama. Tennessee HB2916 is a straightforward bill of few words which calls for equal parenting if the parents cannot come to their own parenting agreement.

This bill has the legislature and special interests on fire.

The first hearing was Tuesday. You can watch a video of the testimony from the ALFRA website.
 
Another round of testimony on the bill is scheduled for next Tuesday, March 2.

If you are within 100 miles of Nashville Tennessee you need to do whatever it takes and get to the statehouse to show your support for this bill. The Hearings begin around 1:00 p.m.

Fierce opposition is coming from the usual suspects; the bar association, the domestic violence groups, the Tennessee Women's Caucus and the National Association of Social Workers.

Isn't it amazing how those who benefit financially from the present system always tend to be against legislation that would give children full access to both their parent's. Anyway, make plans to be there, we need a good turnout to offset all the attendees from the opposition who will be paid with your tax dollars to be there and argue that your children are better off growing up without one of their parents.

Question of the day:

Do you know, or can you explain, how the current standard visitation parenting time of only 4 days per month with one parent came about?  Can you explain how that is in the best interest of any child absent unfitness of a parent?

The standard schedule of only 4 days per month and extended summer time amounts to an 18 year old spending 14 years of their life with one parent and only 4 years with the other parent.  No wonder there are such ills in society!

If you have these answers, please send us an email?

####

ALFRA's proposed Alabama Mobilized Parent Protection Act.

22 Feb 10 - Here are the Alabama Family Rights Association (AFLRA) recommendations to the House Judiciary Committee Bill regarding mobilized parents.

Our legal research team studied similar laws from sister states. Our version is consistent with those similar laws.

Alabama Mobilized Parent and Child Protection Act

SYNOPSIS:        This bill addresses (1) custody modifications to mobilized parents in the armed forces; (2) the right of first refusal of the secondary custodial parent to exercising physical custody when a mobilized parent is on active duty; and (3) when any legal action not listed within this Act is filed against a mobilized parent, provisions of the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) shall be applicable.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

Definitions

For the purposes of this article the following words shall have the following meanings:

(1)    ARMED FORCES.  The National Guard and the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces, the United States Army, the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Coast Guard, and the United States Air Force, and any other branch of the military and naval forces or auxiliaries of the United States or this state.

(2)     MOBILIZED PARENT. A parent who:

(a)    Is a member of the armed forces; and

(b)    Is called to active duty or receives orders for duty that is outside the state or country, which is consistent with provision of the SCRA.

(3)    SECONDARY CUSTODIAL PARENT. A parent who:

(a)    Has shared legal custody of a child.

(b)    Does not have physical custody, but has rights of visitation of a child. 

Actions filed against a mobilized parent.

A court shall apply the Servicemember Civil Relief Act to any legal action filed against a mobilized parent while said parent is on active duty in the armed forces.

Transfer of temporary physical custody of children of mobilized parent to the secondary custodial parent.

(1)    When a mobilized parent with primary physical custody of the children has been called to active duty, the mobilized parent shall notify the secondary custodial parent by written certified mail within 15 days of notice of said active duty assignment.

(2)    The secondary custodial parent shall have the right of first refusal to exercise primary parenting status with his or her children while the mobilized parent is on active duty. The right of first refusal does not apply to a biological parent that does not have shared legal custody of said children.

(3)    The secondary custodial parent must provide written notice to the mobilizing parent by certified mail within 15 days from receipt of notice stating intent to accept or refuse exercising primary custody of said children.

(4)    When the secondary parent refuses to accept temporary primary custody during the mobilized parent active duty assignment, the mobilized parent shall proceed with selection of a guardian as provided in the military care plan of the armed forces.

(5)    If a mobilized parent does not notify the secondary custodial parent consistent with provisions of this Act, the secondary custodial parent shall at any time file a legal petition with the court to exercise temporary primary custody while the mobilized parent is on active duty.

(6)    With proper notice the court shall grant temporary primary physical custody to the secondary custodial parent over the objections of the mobilized parent including overruling military care plan when the mobilized parent does not honor provisions of this act.

Temporary modification of decree for child custody or parenting time for children of a mobilized parent.
        
(1)  A court shall not permanently modify a decree for child custody or parenting time solely on the basis that one (1) of the parents is a mobilized parent.
        
(2)  Any modification of a child custody decree based on the active duty of a mobilized parent shall be temporary and shall revert back to the previous child custody decree at the end of the deployment, as appropriate.

Petition for assignment of parenting time rights to legal or biological relatives while a mobilized parent is out of the state on active duty military service.

(a)    When a mobilized parent has been called to active duty military service and the active duty service requires the parent to be out of the state for a period of at least ninety (90) days, the mobilized parent may petition the court with jurisdiction of the order granting parenting time for a modification of that order for the temporary assignment of that parent's parenting time rights to a legal or biological relative or relatives, provided said relatives, are fit, willing and capable of exercising said parenting times.  The mobilized parent shall be joined in the petition by the relative or relatives to whom the parent is seeking to assign parenting time rights.  The petition shall include a proposed parenting time schedule with the relative or relatives that shall not exceed the parenting time granted to the parent at the time of filing the petition.

(b)     A court shall hold a hearing regarding sub section (a) within 60 days from date petition is filed, and shall issue an order within 30 days of said hearing, unless the court has valid concerns to the fitness of said relatives.

(c)     Any time a valid concern of fitness regarding legal or biological relative or relatives of the mobilized parent is brought to the courts attention, the court shall order a home study or other investigation as required to protect the children. Said investigation shall conclude within 30 days concerns are brought to the courts attention.

(d)     Any findings of unfitness under subsection (c) shall be determined by clear and convincing evidence.  The court shall list written findings of fact to support such determination.

(e)     Any party that makes false accusations of unfitness against a military parent, and/or legal or biological relative of a military parent regarding sub section (a) and proved under subsection (c) shall be fined no less than $5,000, plus reasonable attorney fees payable to the parties required to defend such false accusations.

(f)     If the mobilized parent does not petition the court for said temporary modification within ninety days (90 days) of mobilization, the children shall remain first, in the primary care of the non-mobilized parent, provided said parent desires primary care of the children; or second, in the care of the guardian the mobilized parent approved under the military care plan required by the armed services. Said parenting times shall revert back to the previous custody decree at the end of the deployment, as appropriate.

(g)     The court shall presume unless the petitioning mobilized parent has been found unfit - by clear and convincing evidence - that said parent has a fundamental parental right to make best interests decisions for said children.

(h)     The court shall grant the petitioner's request for assignment of parenting time if the court finds that said parenting time is not inconsistent with this Act, and not inconsistent with the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.    

(i)     An order granting an assignment of parenting time rights pursuant to this Act shall terminate immediately upon the termination of the petitioner's term of out of state active duty military service.

NOTE: The Armed Services does not, as a matter of routine, investigate fitness of persons that a mobilized parent chooses to leave his/her children.  If said child best interest decisions of mobilized parents are satisfactory for the military, same should be satisfactory for the state.

ALFRA - MD 2010-02-22

###

Military Parents Called To Active Duty Deserve a More Detailed Bill

18 Feb 10 - ALFRA appreciates the attention from the Alabama House Judiciary Committee working to make the lives of our military parents better, but more can be done to ease their already difficult burden while serving our country.

The new version of HB408-VET Sub released by the committee only requires military parents to pay substantial attorney fees to defend any legal action,  and nothing is outlined regarding how child custody matters will be handled.  The new version is premised on the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which is 146 pages.

Read the SCRA highlights to the family law section here.  

Why make our military parents pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to protect their custody rights that can be spelled out in a statue?

Several states have a detailed law to protect military parents custody arrangements including our sister state Tennessee.

ALFRA studied these laws of sister states and 'No Parent Left Behind' is written premised on those existing laws.

House Judiciary Committee you can do better to protect child custody rights of our veterans.

###

Alabama Lawmakers Violating Oath?

17 Feb 10 - HB408-VET is the bill considered by the Alabama House Judiciary committee on Wednesday.

Contents of the bill reads that it prohibits judges from altering custody of parents in the military; yet, it is strongly premised on a judges determination of child's best interest.  HB408-VET permits a judge to override a fit parents determination of the best interest of the child.

The law of the land in the Supreme Court of the United States in a long line of case law says a determination of a child's best interest between fit parents and a judge, the judge must defer to a fit parent. See Troxel v Granville U.S. 2000.

Being divorced or in the military does not make a parent unfit.

HB408-VET does not address preventing judges from overriding a fit parents decision for his or her child's best interest.

HV408-VET on the surface looks great, but it gives judges unlimited power over fit parents and on that point the bill is unconstitutional.

Keep in mind, we are talking about fit parents.  Only after a parent has been determined unfit by clear and convincing evidence does the state (judges) have the constitutional right to overrule the parents.

HB408 is not consistent with our bill 'No Parent Left Behind' - read it here - is written based on Constitutional protections.

HB408-VET as written, until or unless a parent has been found unfit, the state of Alabama has no business making a determination regarding the child's best interest in place of a fit parent.  See Santosky v Kramer U.S. 1982 and Troxel v Granville U.S. 2000.

This is not our commentary but commentary that is law of the land of the United States Supreme Court. 

"No state legislator can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it." See Cooper v Aaron (1958) Supreme Court of the United States.

Bills passed by our lawmakers that have taken an oath to uphold the constitution are subject to federal sanctions in both their personal and official capacities.

There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interests, Parham v. J. R.. U.S.

"[O]ur constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is the mere creature of the State and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations.

There is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents' ability to make the best decisions regarding their children, see, e.g., Reno v. Flores U.S.

Why are Alabama lawmakers considering unconstitutional laws? 

###

Alabama House Judiciary Committee Meets to Consider Bill

15 Feb 10 - The Alabama House Judiciary Committee meets at 9 a.m. Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010, in room 123 at the Alabama Statehouse to consider a bill that would prohibit a judge from altering custody in a divorce case because a parent has been called for active duty in the National Guard or Reserves.

Read 'No Parent Left Behind' here.

###

Alabama's Paw Paw Bill Clearly Unconstitutional According to United States Supreme Court

02 Feb 10 - The Alabama House last week passed 99-0 a grandparents [parenting time] Bill - called the Paw-Paw Bill - it now goes to the Senate for a vote. Read it here.

Why is the Alabama legislature passing Bills that have been Ruled Unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Troxel vs Granville, U.S. (2000).

When the state of Alabama addresses children being removed from one parent without any judicial findings of unfitness, by clear and convincing evidence, that of itself shall resolve grandparents being absent from children's lives.

###

South Alabama Parents Needed for Federal Class Action Against State of Alabama

02 FEB 10 - Constitutional law attorneys working on behalf of Alabama parents are taking the State of Alabama to federal court.

The attorneys are seeking parents from the southern region of the state for a federal class action case asking a federal question regarding how Alabama decides custody.
 
Please review the following.  If you or someone you know are similarly situated contact us by email.  The information provided will be forwarded to the attorneys.  NO PHONE CALLS, PLEASE.

Include a name, telephone number, best time to call, and a brief outline of your legal situation.

1)      Parent must be from state of Alabama south of Birmingham.

2)      Parent had equal-shared custody by agreement or by court-order.

3)      Equal-shared custody was modified/changed by another court order and one parent was granted physical custody.

A mother that lost custody is needed most, however since mother's have court-ordered custody 85% of the time, fathers are needed too.

Send to info@alfra.org

Note: Do not be concerned about lack of money for legal fees.

###

 

Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States

28 Jan 10 - Paul J. Southwick of California filed a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES with the following questions presented.

I. Whether a state Supreme Court may deny review under the fifth and fourteenth amendments where a lower court of appeal has acknowledged a violation (deprivation) of an appellant’s due process.

II. Whether a state Supreme Court must mandatorily grant a petition for review and yield to the supremacy clause when that state’s constitution authorizes judicial discretion to decide what cases it will review after a due process deprivation has been acknowledged.

III. Whether it is a further denial of due process or equal protection not to treat an appeal as a peremptory writ and remand for further proceeding consistent to the right to have a full, fair, and fundamental hearing, including live cross examination, or the proffering of documentary evidence.

IV.  Whether it is a miscarriage of justice, or an obstruction of justice, for a deputy state attorney general representing a county in intervention to strike the augmenting of an official certified transcript of a prior O.S.C. hearing, during the interlocutory stages of the appeal, that presents a prima facie fact the respondent has committed felony perjury, conspiracy, witness tampering, or has fabricated evidence in conjunction with a fraud upon the court.

V. Whether a denial of due process or equal protection is an abuse of judicial discretion.

To read Paul Southwick's Brief to the United States Supreme Court, in full, click here.

****

Shaken Baby Simulator Dolls and Alabama Judge Jimmy Sandlin's Paternity Court

28 Jan 10 - Florence, Alabama - Recently, an Iraq combat war veteran with the Alabama National Guard - that is also a divorced father - told ALFRA dealing with Alabama Family Court caused more post traumatic stress than being in combat.  Why? Because as a caring and loving father he is limited to visiting with his children only four days per month, not by choice, but by court order.  The father lives only three miles from his former wife, and the divorce and custody issues took place years ago.

Shaken Baby Doll Simulators and Paternity Court

State legislators, Sen. Bobby Denton, D-Muscle Shoals, Rep. Tammy Irons, D-Florence, and Rep. Mike Curtis, D-Greenhill helped secure money for thirty new shaken baby simulator dolls obtained with an $11,000 grant through the Lauderdale County Children's Policy Council, which Lauderdale County Family Court Judge Jimmy Sandlin controls.

Three of the shaken baby simulator dolls will be used in what Judge Sandlin calls "paternity court".  This is a 16 week court appointed program, we assume for divorcing parents.

The dolls represent a drug addicted baby, shaken baby syndrome and fetal alcohol syndrome.  The transparent head of the doll exposes the brain, making it clear what happens when a baby is shaken; death.

ALFRA agrees the dolls are needed as an educational tool in appropriate circumstances, but is concerned with a judges use of the term "Paternity Court”.
 
Why are divorcing or single fathers in Alabama courts treated differently solely because of their gender? 

If Divorcing Father's have 'Higher than Normal' Anger Issues, Who Causes It?

The #1 news Story for 2009 in the Florence Times/Daily is about a divorcing father that killed his soon to be ex-wife hours after the first day of a divorce and custody hearing.  He also killed his daughter, his sister and nephew.  He then traveled to his nicer than average home in Morgan County and burned it to the ground.  Finally, he walked to the woods behind the home then shot and killed himself.

Additionally, since December 15, 2009 there have been two murders in Lauderdale County related to divorce or child custody situations.

Sadly, because of these events there are four (4) small children left without parents.

Certainly, ALFRA does not justify murder in any circumstance.  But something caused these parents to snap.

Why did they feel so desperate, feel they had no other alternative? 

State of Alabama and Courts Should Accept Some of the Responsibility

Some of anger by fathers that comes about at divorce is caused by the courts.  Routinely - without any legal basis in fact - many fathers are exculded from their children's lives.

When will the state of Alabama get it that divorce and custody laws in Alabama need updating?

$11,000 for thirty new shaken baby doll simulators is money well spent, but how much money has the state of Alabama spent on educating family law judges regarding how their biased decisions of excluding children from one parent? 

Absent a legal ruling of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, children need both parents.

###