Alabama Family Rights Association

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.

###

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.

###

Mississippi Court Orders Mobile, Alabama Father to Pay $20,000 in Child Support

26 Jan 10 - Isiah Golden of Mobile, has been ordered by a Madison County, Mississippi, court to pay back child support totaling $20,000 or go to jail, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said in a news release.

The Madison County, Miss., judge is allowing Golden to either come up with the money or go to jail. His sentencing date is set for April 12, 2010.

Hood said failing to pay child support is not a victimless crime. "The victims are Mississippi's children. All of these children have received state assistance during their lives because their dads aren't living up to their obligation," Hood said.

Mr. Mississippi Attorney General, Jim Hood, ALFRA wants to know if the state of Mississippi courts and Attorney General would go to such great lengths to protect Mr. Golden and his children's rights to a meaningful parent-child relationship?

Certainly child support is important, but we are reasonbly assured the Mississippi legal system is failing to protect the parent-child relationship more often than a protecting the parent not getting support.  After all the federal goverment gives the state three dollars for every dollar in collected child support. 

Child support is children having both parents!

####

I Have a Dream by Martin Luther King

18 Jan 10 - Only after your Civil Rights have been violated will you truly understand the speech.

Two months after the speech Congress passed the Civil Rights Act into law.

###

Can I Sue the “Other Woman” or “Other Man”? 

Jan. 4, 2010 - by Lee Borden at Lee's Divorce and Family Law Blog

CNN published its contribution last month to the continuing mythology surrounding the tort called “alienation of affection,” filing a lawsuit against that interloper who seduced your spouse and ruined your marriage.

Coverage like this is typical of journalism in America today, full as it is of breathless and sensational warnings of events that are extremely unlikely to occur.  I hear more than my share of plaintive requests from wronged spouses who want me to tell them that yes, they can sue that vixen who seduced their poor husband, or yes, they can sue that villainous co-worker who led their wife astray.

The CNN story itself points out that the tort is recognized in only six states, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. When I look up the population of those six states in the Census Bureau 2010 Data Book, I see we’re talking about a whooping 10.5% of the US population.

In Alabama and 43 other states plus the District of Columbia, you can’t do it. You have no right of action against the person who seduced your spouse. You can spend your money on lawyers and write threatening letters and post ads on billboards, but it won’t make a bit of difference other than to use up the money you need for other things and leave a trail of bitter words that may haunt you later.

For those who need legal authority, take a look at Ala. Code § 6-5-331, stating that “there shall be no civil claims for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, or seduction of any female person of the age of 19 years or over.” If you’re wondering whether the statute leaves open the possibility of a claim against a woman who seduced a man, the Alabama Supreme Court looked at this issue in Young v. Young, (Ala. 1938) and said no, the statute abolishes all civil claims for alienation of affections of husband or wife.

The Alabama courts have also read the statute expansively. In Bailey v. Faulkner, (Ala. 2006) rehearing denied, (April 21, 2006), the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a judgment entered on a jury verdict against a pastor who had begun a sexual relationship with a parishioner and employee of the church.

The facts were particularly outrageous. The pastor had persuaded the woman and her husband to stop seeing an independent marriage counselor and to use the pastor instead, and then the pastor began having sex with the wife less than a month later. Then when the husband had the chance to get a big raise by taking a job in another county, the pastor persuaded him to stay put, allegedly so he could continue having sex with the poor cuckold’s wife. Nevertheless, the Alabama Supreme Court stepped in to protect the pastor, saying that the language in the husband’s complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence were a meaningless sham and ineffective at hiding the true nature of the complaint, that of alienation of affections.

In short, this case is not about negligence or wantonness — it is about intentional conduct. The only claims stated by the allegations in this case assert the amatory torts abolished by § 6-5-331. Damages sought here are the species of damages recoverable for those torts. . . . One cannot sue to recover for injuries arising … from an interference with the marriage by simply casting the defendant’s conduct as a breach of contract, or negligence, or some other intentional tort. It is that kind of sham that the case law prevents. Bailey at 253.

If your spouse has been unfaithful to you, you have every right to feel outraged, betrayed, and rejected. You should be angry, and you should go slightly insane. That’s sort of your job. Your anger, however, should be directed at the person who swore to be faithful to you, not the one with whom they dallied.

###

Cut the Power of the Family Courts

December 25, 2009 by Phyllis Schlafly

Do you think judges should have the power to decide what religion your children must belong to and which churches they may be prohibited from attending? We have long suspected that family courts are the most dictatorial and biased of all U.S. courts, routinely depriving divorced fathers of due process rights and authority over their own children, but this December a Chicago judge went beyond the pale.

Cook County Circuit Judge Edward Jordan issued a restraining order to prohibit Joseph Reyes from taking his three-year-old daughter to any non-Jewish religious activities because the ex-wife argued that would contribute to "the emotional detriment of the child." Mrs. Rebecca Reyes wants to raise her daughter in the Jewish religion, and the judge sided with the mother.

As Joseph Reyes' divorce attorney, Joel Brodsky, said when he saw the judge's restraining order, "I almost fell off my chair. I thought maybe we were in Afghanistan and this was the Taliban." The lawyer is appealing.

Doesn't the First Amendment extend to fathers? Apparently not if they are divorced. This case sounds extreme, but it is a good illustration of how family courts, the lowest in the judicial hierarchy, have become the most dictatorial of all courts because of the tremendous number of families and amounts of private money they control and the lack of accountability for their decisions.

In another divorce case this year, a family court in New Hampshire (where the state motto is "Live Free or Die") ordered ten-year-old Amanda Kurowski to quit being homeschooled by her mother and instead to attend fifth grade in the local public school. Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the court-appointed expert's view that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that Amanda "would be best served by exposure to multiple points of view."

Where did family court judges get the power to decide what church and what school the children of divorced parents must attend? Family court judges have amassed this extraordinary power by co-opting and changing the definition of a time-honored concept: "the best interest of the child."

This rule originally came from English common law as compiled by William Blackstone in 1765, and meant that parents are presumed to act in their own children's best interest. For centuries, English and American courts honored parents' rights by recognizing the legal presumption that the best interest of a child is whatever a fit parent says it is, and should not be second-guessed by a judge.

When states revised their family-law statutes in the 1970s, the "best interest of the child" became disconnected from parents' decisions, and family courts assumed the discretion to decide the best interest of children of divorced and unmarried parents.

The notion that persons other than parents should decide what is in a child's best interest is illustrated by the slogan "it takes a village to raise a child." Those who use that slogan understand "village" to mean government courts, government schools, or government social workers.

The trouble with the best-interest rule is that it is totally subjective; it's a matter of individual opinion. Parents make hundreds of different decisions, and should have the right to make their decisions even if they contravene the self-appointed experts.

Whether the decision is big (such as where to go to church or school), or small (such as playing baseball or soccer) there is no objective way to say which is "best."

Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on evidence presented in open court, and there is no objective basis for deciding thousands of questions involved in raising a child, judges call on the testimony of expert witnesses. A big industry has grown up of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, custody evaluators, and counselors who are eager to collect fees for giving their opinions.

Having opinions produced by persons with academic degrees is a way to make subjective and arbitrary judgments appear objective. With the volume of cases coming through family courts, judges can evade responsibility for controversial decisions by rubber-stamping opinions of these court-appointed experts.

Scientific American Mind published a scholarly paper in October 2005 by three noted psychologists who explained that the practice of allowing courts to be de facto decision makers "is legally, morally and scientifically wrong. . . . Parents should determine their children's lives after separation, just as when they are married. . . . Parents, not judges or mental health professionals, are the best experts on their own children."

Source: www.eagleforum.org

###

Alabama Attorney's Can Lie Under Oath

28 December 09 - Alabama Civil Court of Appeals issued an opinion last week that said attorney's can lie under oath as long as it is part of a trial.  It goes on to say this is "...long standing Alabama law...."

Read the opinion here.

###