ALABAMA MUST HAVE A COMPELLING STATE INTEREST BEFORE INTERFERING WITH FIT PARENTS

5 Feb. 12 - In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)  the U.S. Supreme Court declared,

"Where certain fundamental rights are involved... regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a 'compelling state interest' ...and ...legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. State interference with a fundamental right must be justified by a "compelling state interest.”

Before an Alabama Court may constitutionally infringe upon the fundamental liberty interest rights of either fit Parent, the action must survive a "strict scrutiny" legal analysis by showing the infringement serves a "compelling state interest" and that there is no less intrusive way for the State of Alabama to satisfy this compelling interest. This "strict scrutiny" legal analysis is required in a fundamental liberty interest rights case, such as when the State of Alabama adjudicates Child custody.

As between two fit Parents in a typical Alabama child custody case, the State of Alabama has no "compelling state interest" which permits the State to do anything except treat each fit Parent on an equal footing with the other Parent. In other words, there is no legally sufficient basis for the Court to treat one fit Parent’s fundamental liberty interest rights as more important than the other fit Parent’s fundamental liberty interest rights. So when an Alabama Court makes a judicial determination for Child custody which treats the Parents unequally, judges fail to protect the constitutional rights of each fit Parent and Child. It is on this point the State of Alabama is failing Children, Parents, Families and Society.