LAUDERDALE COUNTY, ALABAMA JUDGE JIMMY SANDLIN REFUSES TO HONOR ALABAMA CASE LAW TO DENY A FATHER HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS
21 August 09 - Killen, Alabama - This is about teen relations, a baby, an adoption and a father's parental rights.
THE PARENTS
In July 2007, a sixteen year old girl becomes pregnant. She
was in a regular sexual relationship* with
two high school aged boys. A third boy, also a minor under the law, had relations with her one-time. The two actively involved boys
each claimed
to be the father; however sometime after the childs birth DNA tests proved that untrue. Then about 45 days later upon learning neither of the two boys were the father, the third boy assumed he may father. A DNA test verified that as true.
THE ADOPTING COUPLE
Meanwhile, the birth mother’s brother - a minister - and his wife take the child home from the hospital. They have intentions to adopt knowing three men have stepped up as the father.
The couple allowed the biological father to visit his child until they discovered a legal petition had been filed to establish
paternity, which he planned to block the adoption. At that point in June 2008 all contact between father and child ceased. That has remained to date, even though the father requested parenting time ordered by the court until all legal issues were resolved. The court never acted on this request.
THE ALABAMA FATHER PUTATIVE REGISTRY ACT
The only legal basis the
adopting couple argued to deny this father his parental rights, the father DID NOT sign the putative registry within 30 days of birth as the Putative Registry Act states, therefore, they claimed, he had no legal standing as the father. Recent compelling case law says signing the registry is not always required. The father did not about the Putative Registry requirement until October 2008 and he signed it at that time.
CASE LAW PROVIDED JUDGE SANDLIN
The father's attorney filed legal briefs with Judge Sandlin quoting case law from Alabama Court Civil Court of Appeals and The United States Supreme Court.
In J.L.P. v L.A.M. (10/31/2008)
The Alabama Civil Court of Appeals said, "The Alabama Putative Registry Act can be Unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, when a biological father has taken on the responsibility and intent to be an active father, and that signing the Putative Registry within thirty (30) days of birth is NOT required to establish a Father's parental rights."
In this case the biological father has been active in the child's life for several years. Then the mother's new husband attempted to adopt the child. While the biological father had not signed the putative registry, he had developed a parent-child relationship. As such the appeals court said he was afforded constitutional protections to block the adoption proceedings. Click Here to Read J.L.P. v. L.A.M.
In D.C.L. v. Marion County Department of Human Resources (11/21/2008)
The Alabama Civil Court of Appeals stated again, as they did in J.L.P., ..."The Putative Father Registry Act applies in adoption proceedings, .. and the failure to comply with its provisions does not constitute a ground for terminating parental rights."
This case DHR found a child dependant at three month old. DHR filed a legal petition to terminate the mother's parental rights. Three months later the biological father petitioned the court for "Motion for Adjudication of Paternity". DHR had named the biological father in the mother's termination proceedings, and the juvenile court appointed an attorney to represent the father. The father was present during legal proceedings to terminate the mother's parental rights, however the court went ahead and approved DHR to place the child for adoption, even though the father wanted his child. The judge ruled because the father had not signed the putative father registry he had no legal standing as the father. WRONG! The civil appeals court said paternity was established early in the legal proceedings by genetic testing, and that DHR had previously made a individualized service plan for the father. The appeals court said under the circumstances, there had already been an implicit, if not an explicit, legal decision regarding the father's paternity. The civil appeals court REVERSED the juvenile court with instructions for the court to formally issue a decision the father has legal standing regarding his child. Click Here to Read D.C.L. v. Marion County Department of Human Resources.
In
Lehr v. Roberson from the United States Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court said, "The significance of a biological connection is that offers the natural father
an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his
offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of
responsibility for the child’s future, he may enjoy the blessings of the
parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the
child’s development."
Click
Here to Read the United States Supreme Court Opinion Lehr v Roberson
THE COURT-ORDER
This CAUSE coming before the court upon the petition of [BIOLOGICAL FATHER] seeking to establish paternity of [THE CHILD], a minor child born THEREFORE THE PREMISES CONSIDERED, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, as follows, to-wit:
1. The Petitioner is deemed to be a putative father required to register with the putative father registry.
2. The Petitioner’s failure to register is a bar to his objection to the pending adoption.
3. The adoption proceeding is remanded to probate for proceedings consistent with this order.
4. The petition to establish paternity is dismissed.
DONE THIS THE 7th day of August, 2009
FATHER AND CHILD DENIED THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO HUMAN FREEDOM
The
father
in this particular case has done everything within his power and
control to be
an active father, but has been prevented by the mother's brother
- a minister - and sister in law. The father and child should not be severely and
forever penalized for not being able to
develop a significant parent-child relationship due to actions of a
childless couple
wanting to adopt. Further, Judge Sandlin has denied this father and
his child their fundamental right to human freedom, which is a violation of
the United States Constitution.
While the appeal will take ten to twelve
months, and another $10,000, an eighteen month old little boy is going without bonding time with his
biological father.
THE
FATHER NOW
The father, now age 20, is a student at the University of North
Alabama. He has taken parenting classes, and he is involved working
with young children in the after school program at the YMCA.
He has extended family for a support system. And, he has worked three
jobs to
help pay $ 30,000 tin legal fees to protect his parental rights.
* TEEN SEXUAL ACTIVITY
DO YOU KNOW: Teens from ages thirteen to nineteen are sexually active forty-five percent (45%) of the time. Change the age group to sixteen to nineteen and the percentage goes to sixty-five percent (65%). Source: Google internet search on teen sexual activity on 23 August 09.