Skip to main content

Florence, Alabama Parent Files Constitutional Challenge to Alabama Supreme Court Opinion

------------------------------------
Did you know:

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Troxel vs Granville U.S. (2000) the following:

"The Due Process Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a “better” decision could be made."

Also the U.S. Supreme court said: When a state court issues a legal judgment or opinion based on "assumption" because no written findings of fact were listed - as the judge in this case - state courts have violated Due Process (fundamental fairness) as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Have you seen the two Polls over on the web site about the local judge this case is about?

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

On September 11, 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in Blackstock v. Davis, in an appeal of a child custody case involving the mother and father of a seven year old daughter.

On September 25, 2009, the father challenged as unconstitutional how the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a trial judge to decide the “best interest of the child” without any evidence Davis is an unfit parent who has harmed his child.

"The Father's constitutional challenge could have a direct and immediate impact upon the thousands of parents and children subject to custody orders in Alabama.”, stated Holly Wales, State President of Alabama Family Rights Association.

Th Father questions the authority of Alabama judges to take away parental rights in most custody cases. Davis argues as a fit parent, he is legally equal to the fit mother, and for that reason he is entitled to equal time with his daughter under the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

The Father and his ex-wife were divorced by a Tennessee court in 2002 when their daughter was an infant. Since 2003, the child has thrived under an equal-time court order, alternating four consecutive days at a time with each parent. This alternating equal-time schedule protects the child’s relationship with each parent as required by the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

But in 2006, an Alabama trial court changed the Tennessee courts’ equal-time parenting plan, giving the mother custody of the child 286 days per year, and the father custody of the child 79 days per year.

Giving the mother more than seventy-nine percent of the child’s time and the father less than twenty-one percent of the child’s time is unconstitutionally discriminatory. Davis claims the lopsided custody is unfair and is needlessly hurting his daughter’s relationship with him.

The father questions why the state of Alabama thinks he is not qualified to be an equal parent in his little girl’s life.

Constitutional law attorney Stanley Charles Thorne said, “This is an interesting case for a Constitutional challenge because the Tennessee courts and Alabama courts each looked at essentially the same facts, but reached radically different results using the best interest of the child standard.”


U.S. Constitution, Section 1, the Fourteenth Amendment

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Alabama Constitution, Section 13, Courts to be open; remedies for all injuries; impartiality of justice.

That all courts shall be open; and that every person, for any injury done him, in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have a remedy by due process of law; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay.
"The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum."
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This should be an interesting case. This could possibly change the entire thought process behind custody and support. Imagine if divorced parents split custody equally. There would be no legal reason for either parent to pay child support, they would be supporting the child equally.

Problem is, very few situations would allow for this to be beneficial to a child. Think about how hard it would be to go back and forth between two homes every other day. Having to lug everything around with you, personal belongings, homework, etc. Not having the ability to have a single place of solitude. This would be difficult for an adult, imagine what it would be like for a child. And the father and mother having to deal with each other every day. Didnt they divorce so that they wouldn't have to deal with each other every day?

So, truth be told, 50/50 split of custody would work in very few cases. Kudos to those that can make it work. This was probably an exception case in TN, I know the state of TN also leans toward every other weekend visitation for the father(thats what my sister and her husband had ordered in TN).

The welfare of the child should always override the rights of the parent. This case is based on the father and mother not being treated equally, therefore the father was discriminated against. I would venture to say that there was no discrimination if the decision is made based on the well being of the child (that being said, I still dont think Alabama should have overruled Tennessee in this situation.) To discriminate against someone implys that you gave someone else preferential treatment. If the decision was made based on what is best for the child in the situation (and not what is best for the mother), then the mother did not get preferential treatment, she just got the better end of the deal.

Kirk
Honestly, the more I think about it, if I were a judge in a situation where I was being accused of discriminating against one parent by ordering something other than 50/50 custody, I would probably change my mind and order the parents to live together. I would tell them that they dont have to be remarry, but they would have to find a suitable 'roommate' type situation, that way they would both have equal time with their child. If they were unable to comply, charge them both with contempt.

Its time that parents who divorce realize that life is not about them. Once they bring a child into this world, the parents happiness ALWAYS comes second to the best interests of the child.

Kirk
I actually knew a couple that rotated living in the same house with their kids...the father would live there a week and the next week the mother would live in the house...they had separate "master bedrooms"...it was an interesting concept, but the whole thing was crazy because the house looked like a tornado went through it when you walked in because they were both so hateful and angry with each other that the kids lived in filth because no one would clean house or do laundry or anything...it was more negative in my opinion than it was positive...but it was a novel concept...
quote:
Originally posted by Wild Irish Prose:
Good for the dad for challenging this. Family court is a joke for fathers (I've seen some family members go through a lot of crap over custody issues - just for being male). He should have equal time with his daughter.


WIP -

Yes, fathers get royally screwed. I think, IMHO, courts and judges should look more closely at the family situation and award majority custody to the parent that is better suited to raise the child. Too often it is defaulted to the mother unless she is a crack head.

But to put a child (especially a school aged child) in a situation where they are running back and forth is not fair to the child. Most parents split custody 50/50 (two weeks with dad, two weeks with mom) throughout the summer, but there has to be some stability during school. 50/50 is not usually a workable situation unless the parents live next door to each other.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
I actually knew a couple that rotated living in the same house with their kids...the father would live there a week and the next week the mother would live in the house...they had separate "master bedrooms"...it was an interesting concept, but the whole thing was crazy because the house looked like a tornado went through it when you walked in because they were both so hateful and angry with each other that the kids lived in filth because no one would clean house or do laundry or anything...it was more negative in my opinion than it was positive...but it was a novel concept...


Yep, I've heard of that too, and heard the same issues came up. Too many times the parents care more about themselves, or more about 'winning' over the other, than they do about their own children. Just childish....

Kirk
I think the main issue that the "dad" had was the child wasn't "in school" yet -- but I think the child may be old enough to be in school now...From the post last time the details said the mom was going to put the child in a Pre-K program and so when she filed for it the judge granted it even though she still had like 1 more year before she was "required" to be in school...so I'm not sure that he will gain much for his situation but it might help future fathers that are put in this situation...There is a reason it is called "joint custody" and not "50/50" custody...there is no way to allow school aged children true 50/50 time with both parents that live in different states...
OK, after reading the AL Supreme Court opinion, it seems like the father might have had better luck if he had actually followed through with his several commitments to move to Florence. Even the TN court realized in 2003 that the 4/4 arrangement probably wouldn't work when the child started school. I agree that men often get the shaft in family court. But here, the mother didn't have to show unfitness to get a custody modification. All she had to prove was a material change in circumstances (the child starting a structured pre-K program) and that a change in custody would be a remedy to the change in circumstances (she could attend school 5 days a week without interruptions). I feel bad for the dad but the appellate courts must necessarily give a lot of deference to the trial court that actually hears all the evidence first-hand. They can't re-decide the facts, only determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding the way it did. Pretty tough standard to meet most of the time. And I seriously doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case. You could probably count on one hand the family cases it has taken up in the last 50 years or more. The last one that comes to mind was the Troxel v. Granville case that defined grandparent visitation rights (or lack thereof) back in 2000.
I agree, in this case, AL should have left TN alone and told the mother that 'day care' does not qualify as school. Sounds like she did an end run around TN's ruling.

However, this case going to the Supreme Court could set a precedent that would push 50/50 custody. The decision made will not be made regarding just this case, but how custodys are handled in general. By saying that joint custody (not 50/50) is discrimatory against one parent, the courts would probably have to do away with anything other than 50/50. I, personally, dont think that is going to happen due to my reasoning above. The judge in these cases is not making the decision in preference of the mother (and discriminating against the father), the judge is making the decision that is best for the child in general. Just because it is unfair does not make it discriminatory.

Kirk
What I want to know is why do these judges just assume that the mother would be the better parent? What, other than a difference in plumbing, do they use to make that decision? I've seen the torture my husband has gone through over the years because his ex-wife was automatically awarded custody of their kids simply because she was their mother. When, in actuality, she could have been bested in the parenting role by a rabid she wolf. They never even considered my husband as the primary custodial parent despite the fact that he is well educated, a retired LEO, a military officer and had a consistent employment record and made a good living.
I don't think that the Alabama Court deemed the father "unfit" -- or thinks he doesn't make a good parent...the "best interest of the child" is that the child would be able to attend school regularly at her school and if she spends 182 days with dad and 182 days with mom she wouldn't be able to be stable in one school system and that would put her at risk and make it harder on her to keep up with her fellow students...Unfortunately for parents that divorce, they are not thinking ahead of what will happen with their child when they split -- they are thinking of their own wants and needs and then demand that teh child be split in 2...it's not that they don't care about what happens to the kids -- it's just that the bigger picture isn't always as clear as it should be in that moment...

I think to hear the rest of the story -- where they were living when they were married, where they were living when they divorced, which parent moved to a different state, did both parents petition for sole custody, has either one moved on to another relationship, -- other questions like that would have to be taken into consideration to fully understand and give a true opinion of this case...

With family court cases unfortunately it is not always black and white--there are many factors that have to be considered when deciding the "best interest of the child" and unfortunately when 2 adults can't agree on their own how to handle something -- the court winds up having to make that decision for them and then they cry foul. I do think that father's get the short end of the stick more often than not, but until recent years statitistics have shown that mothers were the "rock" for their child so to speak...It used to be like 1 out of every 10 fathers would walk away and now it is like 1 of every 2 or 3 mothers walks away...I can't remember the exact statistic that I've quoted on here before...but when the law requires the child to be in school X number of days per year etc...it makes it harder to allow for that 50/50 split between the parents...

I'm sure you are a great father...I know it hits home, but don't doubt your worth as a father...and I have more faith in our kids seeing the reality and the truth in the situations and seeing that the parents are doing teh best they can to do what is best for them...and so long as you stay in her life as much as you can in the time you are allowed -- I have no doubt that your daughter will still bond and be "daddy's little girl" and will still want her husband to be like you some day...
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
OK, after reading the AL Supreme Court opinion, it seems like the father might have had better luck if he had actually followed through with his several commitments to move to Florence. Even the TN court realized in 2003 that the 4/4 arrangement probably wouldn't work when the child started school. I agree that men often get the shaft in family court. But here, the mother didn't have to show unfitness to get a custody modification. All she had to prove was a material change in circumstances (the child starting a structured pre-K program) and that a change in custody would be a remedy to the change in circumstances (she could attend school 5 days a week without interruptions). I feel bad for the dad but the appellate courts must necessarily give a lot of deference to the trial court that actually hears all the evidence first-hand. They can't re-decide the facts, only determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in deciding the way it did. Pretty tough standard to meet most of the time. And I seriously doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case. You could probably count on one hand the family cases it has taken up in the last 50 years or more. The last one that comes to mind was the Troxel v. Granville case that defined grandparent visitation rights (or lack thereof) back in 2000.


I agree with you
Santosky v. Kramer is a termination of parental rights case. The standard is, as you correctly point out, clear and convincing evidence (but evidence of what continues to vex courts). A simple custody dispute between two fit parents doesn't have the same standard of proof. Judge Suttle didn't terminate the father's rights here. He made a custody determination. Relying on cases like Santosky isn't going to work. TPR results in losing all legal rights to be a parent. That's far more severe than losing some custody time.
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Two things come to mind,

1.) In the opinion, the Supreme Court of Alabama identifies four or more possible inferences the circuit court could have made from the evidence. The father, for himself and his child, contends that neither the United States Constitution nor the Alabama Constitution permits the state to take fundamental rights based upon speculation about what the evidence might have shown. Clear and convincing evidence is required by Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982). Due process is denied when a trial judge does not enter written findings as to what the evidence was, and that it met the evidentiary threshold required to rebut the presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of their child.

2.) The child in this case had not started school at time of hearing. Further, he moved three miles from the mother right after final hearing in this matter, and did so prior to the child starting school, just as he told the Tenn court.


But the child has started school now...do you live within 3 miles NOW? So it took how long to move that close? I think the court may have gotten it right given the child was less than a year of being required to attend school -- so making the decision when it did gave the child time to adjust to the new schedule...if you are now living within 3 miles then why not just request to revisit the issue like the mother did and petition to have the judgement re assessed -- not go all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn a judgement from several years ago? Maybe I'm not understanding the time line right or something...
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Two things come to mind,

1.) In the opinion, the Supreme Court of Alabama identifies four or more possible inferences the circuit court could have made from the evidence. The father, for himself and his child, contends that neither the United States Constitution nor the Alabama Constitution permits the state to take fundamental rights based upon speculation about what the evidence might have shown. Clear and convincing evidence is required by Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 (1982). Due process is denied when a trial judge does not enter written findings as to what the evidence was, and that it met the evidentiary threshold required to rebut the presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of their child.

2.) The child in this case had not started school at time of hearing. Further, he moved three miles from the mother right after final hearing in this matter, and did so prior to the child starting school, just as he told the Tenn court.


You obviously are saying that pre-K doesn't qualify as school, or that it's OK to miss a bunch of days. There is a lengthy discussion of the testimony about a structured, school-like curriculum and the opinion says that dad didn't object to the child attending that particular "school." A lot of parents would dispute that a pre-K program, especially a private one that may be quite expensive, is CERTAINLY a school. And it doesn't help the trial court to make a decision if dad didn't move until AFTER the final hearing. The appellate court can't use that fact--it wasn't available to the trial court.
I dont know the specifics on the TN case, but I wonder if the situation was set up so that the father had to move to Florence before the child started school to maintain the 50/50 agreement? Then, the petition by the mother to change the custody arrangement due to the pre-K would have forced him to move up his planned move to be in compliance with what he told the TN courts.

There seems to be more to this than just what we have. Either way, it doesn't sound like either parent is thinking about the child long term. It sounds more like a custody battle than a discussion on whats best for the child. My sister and her husband have the 'his time, her time' mentality and it drives me nuts. I want to get them both in the room and tell them to both grow up (or slap some sense into them). They live a mile apart and my nephew could easily come and go as he pleases, but the parents are so caught up on one not getting anything over on the other that they cant do whats best for their child.

Kirk
I knew there was more to this, thanks for the link to the info!

Now I have to say, from the court hearings, the father has promised to move to Florence numerous times and failed to follow through on the promise each time. Only when his custodial situation changed did he follow through on his committment to move. I might have more sympathy for him in this situation had he moved to Florence (as he promised) to make things easier on his child. You cannot expect a four year old to live two seperate lives, one in Florence and one in Decatur. Had the father moved to Florence so that the child could do things like maintain relationships with friends and have some type of consistency, then this might not have been an issue at all.

Just sitting back, looking at what was presented as evidence, I cannot side with the father on this. I agree that fathers get the short stick sometimes, but thats the way it is. This father was told in TN that the 4/4 arrangement would have issues when the child started school. He knew that this was coming. He should have been in Florence doing everything he could to make the transition easier instead of waiting to the last minute and then complaining when his ex wife gave up on waiting for him to move.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by lawguy07:
Here's a link to the opinion for anyone who's really interested: http://www.alabamaappellatewat...ads/file/1061445.PDF


Thanks Lawguy -- it's nice to get to see the rest of the story and not just the spin...NF -- I wish you luck man, but you really need to stop picking and choosing the information you post. you did the same thing with the other case you kept talking about on here and we kept pointing out the flaws and holes. If you truly want what is best for your child -- stop the drama and be the father you are meant to be...if judges were like in the Bible days I wonder which parent would yelll Stop the madness first? You? 90% of custody arrangements are just like yours with more time with the mom...like I said, I don't think the court thinks you are a bad parent, but if you haven't fulfilled your end of the bargain you can't expect to get anything different...wait a minute, isn't that the definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over and expecting to get a different result?
Unlike the Scott case, I have great sympathy for this father. From what I understand, the wife sought the divorce. I once knew of a couple from California who moved to Yellow Creek; once the wife became pregnant, she sought a divorce. A child was all she had wanted from the marriage. The father had to move back to California, and the mother stayed here. Very sad.

I'm not sure if this is a similar situation, but a man who marries and fathers a child should have a reasonable expectation of remaining in the marriage. I'm sure it's not easy to change jobs, move, etc., when a man finds that his wife is leaving with their child.
I'm curious as to exactly what "legal issues" kept him from moving in the beginning. If those "legal issues" were of a nature that the court would consider the father and "unfit parent" then that would explain a lot...


Oh and the part you quoted -- if it was left out of the final opinion -- it is actually irrelevant and should have no bearing...again, pulling the points you like that pose your opinion on something and not actually part of the final court decision...You can't do that...you can't pick a part of an arguement and use it as an opinion of the court...unless the court states it...
While I dont particularly agree with the TN courts 4/4 decision (mostly due to where the two parents lived), I do have concerns that the Alabama court system seems to have ignored the obvious concerns that the TN courts had regarding the mother and her actions. The mother is apparently driving a wedge between the father and his child. And I did notice that the majority of the witnesses that testified in regards to the childs welfare were either friends with the mother or attended her church. I think there was one witness that testified impartially about the effects the 4/4 situation would have on a child (which was my concern as well), but they failed to address the effects that driving a wedge between the father and daughter would have.

IMHO, Alabama applied to old thought of 'the mother will always be the better parent and should always get custody' to this case. It does not look like the Lauderdale county judge even considered how the mother was acting now and in the past when he made his decision. Apparently the appeals court noticed it but the Supreme court struck down the appeals court decision, not based on whether or not they were right but based on the belief that the appeals court did not have the ability (legally) to reweigh evidence. So basically, if the Lauderdale county judge is an idiot, as long as he follows the law in regards to the proceedings, it doesnt matter how assinine his decision is, the appeals court has no jurisdiction.

I am still of the opinion that the father should have moved to Florence immidiately. He knew this mother was going to be a pain to deal with, he knew she would use anything she could against him, he should not have given her the ability to use him living in Decatur against him, because it was an issue to the AL court when these cases were decided.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
I'm curious as to exactly what "legal issues" kept him from moving in the beginning. If those "legal issues" were of a nature that the court would consider the father and "unfit parent" then that would explain a lot


To my knowledge there was never an issue the father was an unfit parent. To the contrary, the Tenn court and the Tenn court of appeals praised the father for his actions to be in the minor child's life. The remaining issues in Tenn. were to establish a primary parent.

As I understand it the father was out thousands of dollars in legal fees both in Tenn. and Ala. and that placed him in a position that slowed the move to Florence. The legal fee situation to remain an active father I've been told left him pretty much broke. Something like $30,000 in 5 years.

DC, or others - do you think this father should have just walked away back in 2002-2003 and never fought to have a relationship with his daughter?

Remember now, equal custody was court-ordered in Tennessee, according to the Tennessee Court of Appeals because, "the mother had refused to adhere to the plain requirements of the parenting plan, and that she had purposely and deliberately embarked on a course, which if not stopped would eventually erode the relationship between the father and child."

They said this about the mother only fifteen months prior to the Alabama trial court giving her primary physical custody.

Read the 2004 Tenn Opinon here




Never said you were an unfit parent -- but in the original message this was your arguement to the court....

quote:
On September 25, 2009, the father challenged as unconstitutional how the Alabama Supreme Court allowed a trial judge to decide the “best interest of the child” without any evidence Davis is an unfit parent who has harmed his child.


No, I don't think you should have walked away from your child, that would have made you unfit. But with you apparently it is "all or nothing"...the court gave you time with your child -- not as much as you wanted -- but they didn't remove you from the child's life. Had you walked away completely that would have been your own fault. It is unreasonable to expect a 50/50 split with a child and fighting that was a delay of the inevitable. Unlike the other boys case that you've been talking about -- no one took your child from you. They lessened your time with her, but if you make the most of every minute that you have with your child and you foster a positive relationship with your child and you are careful to not bad mouth the mouth and make the child feel they have to choose sides -- then I think that you could have a greater impact on your child than you ever give yourself credit for. As it stands, the main thing the child will remember is mommy and daddy being angry and lawyers and courtrooms and drama...

Again, why haven't you just filed to amend the custody arrangement now that you are less than 3 miles away? Instead of dragging the old stuff, that obviously could more negatively impact the case than change it -- why haven't you petitioned for a 50/50 split again with the mother? It is harder to change a court's mind -- especially when appeals have been denied etc -- why haven't you just gone back to the court and shown that the child NOW would benefit from it...Father's have that right too to amend the arrangment. That is not limited to the custodial parent...Why are you hammering at something that you can't change and risking the chance that a different judge looking at your case NOW might would see your point and amend the arrangement?
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
Oh and the part you quoted -- if it was left out of the final opinion -- it is actually irrelevant and should have no bearing...again, pulling the points you like that pose your opinion on something and not actually part of the final court decision...You can't do that...you can't pick a part of an arguement and use it as an opinion of the court...unless the court states it...


You do not think it is relevant the court quoted one aspect of the maternal grandmother's comments, but then left out she also said the child had been the same for many years? This was a four year old she was talking about at that!

Something is wrong about that, don't you think?


This quote if it is not part of the actual opinion is part of the discussion but just like with what a lawyer argues -- unless it is part of the actual decision of the court -- it is not a relevant arguement to a case. It may be grounds to get something reviewed, but you again are using it like it was part of the actual court's decision...

quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
The mother appealed to Tenn Court of Appeals and in their order they said, ( which the ASC left out of their opinion) "the mother had refused to adhere to the plain requirements of the parenting plan, and that she had purposely and deliberately embarked on a course, which if not stopped would eventually erode the relationship between the father and child."

The TCA said this about the mother only fifteen months prior to Judge Suttle giving her primary physical custody."


The statement may have been made but it obviously wasn't enough of an observation for the court to include it in their final decision...

I would probably not like the mother in this situation because I think that both parents are vital in raising a child whether they are "married" or "divorced"...but I disagree with blaming the court for a whole situation that was inevitable...you can't split a child 50/50 when they are school aged...and even if you get them when they are aged 6-10 50/50 -- once they get to be teens and involved in other things -- what are you going to do == tell them no, they can't be with their friends because they have to spend their time with you?

Did the mother demand or ask for more child support? Was money her motivation or is she just vindictive?
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
I would probably not like the mother in this situation because I think that both parents are vital in raising a child whether they are "married" or "divorced"...but I disagree with blaming the court for a whole situation that was inevitable...you can't split a child 50/50 when they are school aged...and even if you get them when they are aged 6-10 50/50 -- once they get to be teens and involved in other things -- what are you going to do == tell them no, they can't be with their friends because they have to spend their time with you?


From reading Tenn order it seems to be a final order with no intent on changing it when school started. That how it reads anyway.



Why can't you share children in school? What data to you have to support that claim? Is just an assumption on your part because it is different that you are accustomed.

BTW, Do you know who implemented the current standard alternating weekends. How is 79 days with a father and 286 days with a mother best for a child with two loving parents?


Current child development research does not support these arrangements and I would be interested in knowing why you think shared would not work?

As for teenagers, here again it comes to being reasonable vs. being unreasonable. No one expects teenagers to stay home with parents and keep them from their friends.



1. You are in Alabama now -- not TN -- so if you petition the Alabama court to change the arrangement now then you might have a better chance of getting the arrangement you are wanting.

2. There is nothing to say that 50/50 wouldn't be good if you lived close enough -- as you do now but not as you were when the final judgement was made -- so that the child could have their same friends and their same school, however, if you apply for that 50/50 you can't just decide to move or the mother decide to move and put the kid through this all over again. That is why they 79 days with one parent and 286 with custodial parent -- for the consistency of the school/parent/whole situation. It's not that you get X hours with mom and X hours with dad that makes a better kid -- it's teh whole of the situation. It is harder to have that consistency when you have 2 separate homes. You are basically wanting to reinvent the wheel. The wheel may need oil but it doesn't need to be reinvented.

Let me just add something to your idea of the way that courts look at fathers. I have numerous friends that have joint custody with their exes and kids. They all pay child support and they all argue over time with the kids and manipulating the kids and playing games. BUT I also know 3 different men that are the custodial parents of their kids. One father has custody of 1 son. Another father has custody of 3 kids (one was even the wife's niece that they adopted and then their 2 kids) and the 3rd has custody of his adopted son. One of those situations, the mother left him for another woman -- so of course, the court ruled for the father, but in the other two -- the court was persuaded by the actions of the fathers to provide homes for the kids, to provide stability and discipline and to make any and all arrangements necessary to be the better parent for the kids. These are 3 situations IN ALABAMA...They are not in TN, MS, New York -- ALABAMA...I have known all 3 families for several years and I know the whole stories of each of them...and if the Alabama judge decides for the fathers in these 3 cases, I have no doubt that the judges would have no problem deciding for the father if the totality of the circumstances provided that the father was going above and beyond the minimum to provide and be that custodial parent.

I truly feel for you in this situation, but I do fear that there is a bigger agenda here that you are pursuing and that agenda is more important at times. As with the other case, I don't think this forum is the appropriate place to "try your case"...I think you have an obvious problem with Judge Suttle and with Judge Sandlin -- and I worry taht maybe that is why you won't attempt to file for a change in the arrangement -- I think you may fear that you have already made the bed and they won't see past it to allow you more time wiht your child.

Which, on another note, yes the custody arrangement may read 79 days with dad and 286 days with mom, but I know MOST SITUATIONS the kids have more equal time with both parents when special occasions come up, when one parent wants a break, when another parent has a change in work schedule and they have more free time or when they just simply ask "hey can I see my kid tonight?"...just because the paper says you get 79 days doesn't mean that is all you will get...especially if you try and play nice and make the situation work the best for all involved...
Dixie,

Are you sure NF is the father in this situation? I may have missed it, but I didn't see that. I was getting the feeling that NF is taking issue with some of the child custody situations in the area.

I do get the feeling there is a bigger agenda, and that agenda might be to get this issue out to the public. If you think about it, these situations would never be known by the general public if not for this medium. How often do we hear about how family court is handled unless we are in family court? We, as a community, dont see the totality of our family courts decisions on a regular basis like we do with other judges. The family court operates under the radar and has no real recourse regarding their decisions. We, as a community, are blindly trusting that these judges are making sound decisions.

In this case, I question the decision of the judge. To not even consider the TN ruling seems odd. The fact that the court of appeals disagreed with him is odd as well. Remember, the Al Supreme Court didnt fault the appeals court for their line of thinking, the Supreme Court said that the appeals court had no legal grounds to overturn the judges line of thinking becuase the appeals court job is to determine if the proceedings were handled legally, not if the decision was sound based on the evidence presented.....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
WIP -

Yes, fathers get royally screwed. I think, IMHO, courts and judges should look more closely at the family situation and award majority custody to the parent that is better suited to raise the child. Too often it is defaulted to the mother unless she is a crack head.

But to put a child (especially a school aged child) in a situation where they are running back and forth is not fair to the child. Most parents split custody 50/50 (two weeks with dad, two weeks with mom) throughout the summer, but there has to be some stability during school. 50/50 is not usually a workable situation unless the parents live next door to each other.


I agree that this isn't the most stable situation for a child, but having divorced parents isn't either; it's going to be hard no matter what. My point is, I've seen fathers relegated to nothing more than weekend babysitters with this arrangement. Taking your kid to Chuck-E-Cheese on Saturday or just playing with him/her for a few hours ('cause that's all you really have time for) is not a normal parent/child relationship. If mom has primary custody, she's going to make primary decisions on school, discipline, etc. A father can't truly get involved that way just on the weekends, unless his relationship with his ex is amicable and she involves him on these decisions - which we all know rarely happens.

I saw Judge Judy on Larry King talking about this once - right after the Alec Baldwin rant on his daughter. She thinks family court should mandate 50/50 custody - in most cases, except abuse, of course; I agree with that. Although, I'd be the first person to encourage a person to get out of a truly bad marriage, I think people bolt too soon these days. If you know that after the divorce, custody will be split 50/50, no matter what, I think you'd be more likely to try and make the marriage work. JMHO
Kirk,

I understand the Tenn. ruling for equal time was due to the mother's behavior toward the father-child relationship, and before the remand hearing in Tenn. took ever place the mother came to Alabama and basically used the same reasoning she attempted in Tenn. That is no legal basis to modify custody as there were no material change of circumstances. That is what the civil appeals court decided. Also, as I understand Ore Tenus does not have application on the basis of law. Yet, that is what the state supreme court used as its reasoning.
quote:
saw Judge Judy on Larry King talking about this once - right after the Alec Baldwin rant on his daughter. She thinks family court should mandate 50/50 custody - in most cases, except abuse, of course; I agree with that. Although, I'd be the first person to encourage a person to get out of a truly bad marriage, I think people bolt too soon these days. If you know that after the divorce, custody will be split 50/50, no matter what, I think you'd be more likely to try and make the marriage work. JMHO


Studies on divorce show women are the ones most likely to file divorce.

Studies also show when 50/50 custody is mandated that divorce filings in those states are much lower.
I agree that 50/50 should be used when possible, but to do so would require so many things be worked out perfectly (living arrangements for both parents, etc.) I do think that 50/50 should be considered more often, but requiring it in most or all cases is impracticle. I can see where, if a state ordered 50/50 more often, it may make the parents think twice about divorce.

Thats interesting about the studies showing women are most likely to file divorce, I had not seen that. It makes sense though, as a man, if I knew I was going to have to pay child support and support a separate household for myself, I would be more willing to make a marriage work. Personally, I think that the court could do much more in these situations. Like order that part of the support be placed in a trust for college or medical bills, that way some of the support goes toward savings. Too many times you see or hear about a woman driving a brand new car that receives child support, yet the person paying the support cant afford to live much above the poverty level.

There is too much emphasis put on the belief that a mother should always get custody unless she is shown to be unfit. It was different when mothers stayed home with their children, but that is not the case anymore and its time for society (aka the legal system) to catch up.

Kirk
I had a statistic on another thread that said something like 10 years ago, 1 of 8 fathers would leave and now it is like 1 of every 2 mothers will leave. Maybe it should no longer be "assumed" that the mother should have immediate custody, but many times I don't think the courts have the funding or resources to truly investigate who would make the better parent so they err on the side of caution and since the mother has the bond of giving birth and carrying the child for 9 months -- they give it to her until proven otherwise...

As a woman, I would take issue with the man taking the child I had carried for 9 months and bonded with etc -- and not giving me custody...especially if he just had an agenda and was trying to prove a point and further that agenda...Now if you can prove me unfit, by all means, go for it, but if you can't prove me an unfit parent -- that I don't provide for my child, that I don't take care of my child's health and mental well-being, that I don't keep my child clothed and fed, that I don't take time to spend with my child, that I don't educate my child and teach tehm to be a good person, that I don't be a mother and love and care for my child -- if you can prove that I neglect or abuse my child -- try it...but if you can't prove that I'm unfit -- if you can't prove that I'm not doing the best I can then you are barking up the wrong tree...Now, if I was a woman that was doing drugs, had a different man in my bed every night and that my child had nothing to eat but crackers and ketchup and had to get themselves up for school etc...then you might have a case, but otherwise, you have to share...you can't get anymore than I can and you certainly won't get the chance to get more....Does the mother in this case do any of those things or NOT do anything of those things? Is she an unfit mother? "you" say the father is not unfit -- how is "he" fit? What does "he" do different that would make him the better parent than the mother?

Again, I ask, why not apply for a new custody arrangement? Nothing is ever written in stone -- until you are dead...but trying to get the court's to change the ruling of the TN and then AL courts is less likely to happen...I think what's really sad is you can't see that I really want you to get what you deserve in the case -- I'd like you to have a wonderful relationship with your child...I just fear that by going the route you are -- you are going to not get what you so desperately want...Sorry I'm not the "atta boy" kind of cheerleader...but I do wish you the best...like I said -- I know several men that are the custodial parent in this area -- it can be done -- so maybe if you asked again and since you finally moved close enough -- the 50/50 could be a possibility...
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
As a woman, I would take issue with the man taking the child I had carried for 9 months and bonded with etc -- and not giving me custody...especially if he just had an agenda and was trying to prove a point and further that agenda...Now if you can prove me unfit, by all means, go for it, but if you can't prove me an unfit parent -- that I don't provide for my child, that I don't take care of my child's health and mental well-being, that I don't keep my child clothed and fed, that I don't take time to spend with my child, that I don't educate my child and teach tehm to be a good person, that I don't be a mother and love and care for my child -- if you can prove that I neglect or abuse my child -- try it...but if you can't prove that I'm unfit -- if you can't prove that I'm not doing the best I can then you are barking up the wrong tree..


Dixie,

I feel your pain in this but, let me ask you this, other than carrying your child for nine months, how did you bond with your child any different than the father? My wife did not breast feed, as many women dont nowadays, so honestly, after our child was born, her and I bonded fairly equally with her. So, as the father, I would have to say we would have every feeling that you just stated above, just as strongly as you stated it. Yet the courts always err on the side of the mother, as if the fathers relationship with the child should be second rate. I think it was you that mentioned that fathers with visitation are no more than babysitters. That is not what a father wants to be. And so many mothers know that the courts are going to err on their side and they use it to their advantage, keeping 'control' over their exes. Something has to change with the way the divorce rate is climbing. These children grow up thinking that the fathers dont want them because the mother is so controlling of the visitation time. How many times have you heard a father told 'thats not what the judge laid out in the custody agreement' Who cares about the custody agreement. Do you think that it is going to hurt a child to spend a couple of afternoons with their father a week?

A good solution would be to grant a father more visitation 'hours'. Not just days that the father is to be with the child, but a certain number of hours each week during the week for the father to spend time with the child in the evenings if the father wishes to and can make it work with his schedule. There would be days that the child would have to be with the father, then there would be 'hours' that the two parents would need to come up with for the father to spend time with their child in shorter (couple of hour) time periods. It could either be during the week or on the 'mothers' weekend. Why is it that the father always ends up being the one jerked around in custody battles? The courts have to realize that the fathers need more time than the courts are giving them and, in many cases, the mothers won't give the father any more time than the court allots in the custody agreement.

Kirk
This is an interesting commentary between a mother and father not fighting over a child, yet they want their children with them. That is a natural response to caring parents regardless of martial status.

How would your feelings be any different for the father and mother in this particular situation? None, I would think!

quote:
What does "he" do different that would make him the better parent than the mother?


I haven't seen the father attempt to keep the child from the mother as she appears to be intent.

Does this bare on her fitness as a parent?

I have viewed the father's website about the judge. I haven't seen anything where he wants to keep the child from her mother.

In an earlier post someone asked what research have you seen to prove that 50-50 when parents live in the same community is not good for the child. What research do you have?

Also, I would be interested to know how did the current alternating weekend become standard and what research shows a child only visiting with a parent, ususally a father, is best for the child?

Most adult children of divorce will tell you they wanted more time than alternating weekends with a parent but was prevented by the court or the custodial parent.
Last edited by Mrs Ed
Kirk -- I never said that fathers were mere babysitters...I have too many with joint custody that are close to me to make that comment.

And I see we have another multiple personality showing up...funny how taht always happens...there is no research that I am aware of showing "time with parents" and which is better. Judges typically rule on the custody arrangement built arouond a school year type schedule -- where the child is with the custodial parent who is responsible for their school attendance etc...and the "time off" is spent with the non-custodial parent. Right or wrong, it makes sense to have that "structure" built into the child's world especially when chaos often comes when parents divorce.

As far as bonding, typically, the mother is off for the first 6-8 weeks full time with the child to have more bonding time as well...so there is a 24/7 relationship for those few weeks...While SOME fathers are as hands on as you Kirk, not all fathers are as such...yes, times have changed and the fathers are more involved than when I was a baby...and the court has to adjust to that, but once a child gets school aged -- the consistency of "home" has to be a bigger priority. Any parent that is in a divorce situation has the ability to make that situation work to their advantage if they choose too. I have dated guys in the past that had terrible relationships with the ex and as such they were both playing games and teh kids were pawns in that game -- and that always broke my heart because it only hurt the kids in the long run and there was no "winner". At the same time, I have dated guys that have great relationships with their exes and work well to accomodate the relationship with the child so that they both have a rewarding relationship. Like I said before, just because the court papers say 278 days with mom and 79 days or whatever with Dad doesn't mean that is absolutely how it has to be -- that is the court's order, but common sense and flexibility can make that work out to being a more rewarding relationship for both parents and the child...it is all in how mature you handle the situation....and if the mother does nothing but give you a hard time -- you always have the option of going back to court and asking for a change...if "this father" has spent this much money on appeal after appeal etc...I'm sure the money to go back to court to request a change would not be a problem...
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Like I said before, just because the court papers say 278 days with mom and 79 days or whatever with Dad doesn't mean that is absolutely how it has to be -- that is the court's order, but common sense and flexibility can make that work out to being a more rewarding relationship for both parents and the child...it is all in how mature you handle the situation....and if the mother does nothing but give you a hard time -- you always have the option of going back to court and asking for a change...if "this father" has spent this much money on appeal after appeal etc...I'm sure the money to go back to court to request a change would not be a problem...



DC, you sound like a reasonable person, so what makes you think this particular mother has "common sense" and "flexibility" and "maturity"? In my conversations with the father, he has never said he wanted the child from the mother. He also said certainly it would have been best for her to reasonably work with him on parenting their child, but she has not do so.

Are you blaming the father for fighting to keep a relationship with his child??

Seems the Tenn court ordered equal-custody to maintain relationships with both parents due to the mother's behavior.

From what the father has told me she still will not allow anything outside of the court ordered schedule. Court records show she has insisted in two courts the child needed full-time day care more than even one day with her father.

Additionally, the Tenn court said, "the mother had refused to adhere to the plain requirements of the parenting plan, and that she had purposely and deliberately embarked on a course, which if not stopped would eventually erode the relationship between the father and child."

Do you understand how the legal system works? There are legal standards required to modify custody.

And those legal standards were not followed in the court, that is why the father is challenging the constitutionally of the courts judgment.
quote:
there is no research that I am aware of showing "time with parents" and which is better. Judges typically rule on the custody arrangement built arouond a school year type schedule -- where the child is with the custodial parent who is responsible for their school attendance etc...and the "time off" is spent with the non-custodial parent. Right or wrong, it makes sense to have that "structure" built into the child's world especially when chaos often comes when parents divorce.


In Huntsville, they have parenting classes required with divorce. I talked with a couple of their instructors about what type of custody works best. They said it can be "whatever the parents want it to be."

Kirk and DC would you be surprised that there is meta-reviewed research by the APA that says children in equal custody do as good as children in married home, and that children in sole custody do less than children in equal custody or in married situations.

No one can say how the altering weekend custody times began, or say how that is best for children, but they "just think" that is good because "that's how the courts" have done it for more than thirty years.
What part of you have the right to modify the custody arrangement do you not understand? Yes, I understand how the legal system works and if this mothe was as "immature" and "unflexible" as you make out like she is -- then you would have cause to bring a "new argument" to ANY court to modify custody. Especially, if you have been on the up and up and in the right and have documented every little thing to prove your point -- which any good family law attorney will tell you to do...I don't this mother, like I said, I probably wouldn't like her, but part of me has to wonder and question if MAYBE -- just MAYBE -- she MIGHT have good reason to support her feelings about the father...you are only giving us the "one side" of the story and we all know there are 3 side -- the mother's, the father's and the truth...If she is such a terrible mother and is such a witch and causing the child harm -- WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING FOR FULL CUSTODY AND DEEMING HER UNFIT???

Like I said, if all the things I've read about this particular case on here -- you have grounds to file for a NEW CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT especially since you now live in the same city...but you are still holding a grudge and wanting to clear your name and rectify something in your mind that you think was wrong -- and I don't disagree with you that it was a questionable decision, but to me, if you truly want a 50/50 split with the mother -- you should be filing for an amendment instead of fighting a battle that was lost several years ago...

Again, you are quoting something from the Tenn court that you stated earlier was not part of their "final opinion"...something said "in court" like, "man I'm hungry for lunch" -- is not relevant if it is not in the final opinion...I know you are holding on to that one line from the whole proceeding and hanging your hat on it -- and I hope you win with it...It may have been part of the paperwork you filed to get your appeal to the high court, but it still may not be enough to get the high court to rule the case be revisited...

also, you are holding on to the statement "that the mother could erode the relationship with the father and child" -- again, I remind you that the relationship with the daughter is ALL UP TO YOU. If you make the most of every minute that you get with her and you make it be a reassuring and positive relationship -- you can undo what you think the mother is trying to undo...your actions and attitude alone will speak volumes to the daughter...the best way to win a fight is to kill them with kindness -- if you teach her the right to counteract the wrong she will see...you must have faith in the child and in the love for that child that it will work out in a good day...that is ALL UP TO YOU and no court can do that for you...

Please understand -- I'm trying to help you here. I'm telling you to file for a new custody arrangement. I'm not telling you to give up. I'm just saying that I think you need to pick your battles and this one I'm not sure is the one that needs to be fought...it's kind of like the Iraq war...we went into it with one vision and now our vision has changed -- we still support the troops but we know we need to get out...
quote:
WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING FOR FULL CUSTODY


That's the problem with society, why the need to fight for custody? Children need two parents.

DC and Kirk wrote each have natural parenting feelings toward their children.

Absent harm to the child courts should defer to the parents with how they want to raise their child. It may not be how you would do it, but that doesn't mean its wrong. No one on this thread has given any valid reasons why equal custody would not work. Just they don't "think" its good.

My son has a child in equal custody on a 7 day rotating basis and has for years and it works just fine. There are no problems for the child.
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Ed:
quote:
WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING FOR FULL CUSTODY


That's the problem with society, why the need to fight for custody? Children need two parents.

DC and Kirk wrote each have natural parenting feelings toward their children.

Absent harm to the child courts should defer to the parents with how they want to raise their child. It may not be how you would do it, but that doesn't mean its wrong. No one on this thread has given any valid reasons why equal custody would not work. Just they don't "think" its good.

My son has a child in equal custody on a 7 day rotating basis and has for years and it works just fine. There are no problems for the child.


You've obviously the whole rest of the post. That statement was in response to the accusations that this mother is not reasonable fair or mature...if she is not a good mother why is he not fighting for full custody? She is not here to defend herself -- we are only getting the one side of the story...

He already has joint custody. If he wants more time with his daughter -- all he has to do is petition the court for a change. He refuses to do that. He wants the court to undo their previous decision and remove the stigma from that decision on his life. The agenda behind this appeal is my issue not that the child needs both parents.

Every child needs 2 parents. Every child needs SOME TIME with both parents. I think equal time with a child is great, but the agenda behind this "appeal" is my issue...He refuses to just petition the court for a change...it makes me wonder why? Why won't he do what every other father has done and petition the court and justify why he deserves more time with his child and prove that he is a worthy winner in this case? Instead he just wants the courts to say they were wrong...that doesn't win anything for anyone...that just continues this process for even longer than necessary...He could petition family court and have hearing within months...instead he petitions for an appeal which tends to take years...

The bad thing is -- all ya'll are reading is that I'm not gung ho "go daddy" with this guy...I'm fully supportive of 2 parent families and 50/50 time...I just think there is a better, more efficient, and possibly easier way to get to that resolution...
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Like I said before, just because the court papers say 278 days with mom and 79 days or whatever with Dad doesn't mean that is absolutely how it has to be -- that is the court's order, but common sense and flexibility can make that work out to being a more rewarding relationship for both parents and the child...it is all in how mature you handle the situation....and if the mother does nothing but give you a hard time -- you always have the option of going back to court and asking for a change...if "this father" has spent this much money on appeal after appeal etc...I'm sure the money to go back to court to request a change would not be a problem...


The reality is that the primary caregiver (usually mom) holds all the cards. Unless you've got the family court judge living with you, you can't enforce the court orders, and most people don't have the cash to constantly go back and forth to court. Trust me on this; I've seen it. Honestly, you know how vindictive women can be, Dixie; I've seen that, too. "Common sense and flexibility" are rarely used with these women.

Yes, I have a unique bond with my son because I carried him for nine months and took care of him almost completely for the first couple of years of his life. That doesn't, however, give me ownership; his father has just as many rights. Unfortunately, the courts don't see it that way. Again, men are more or less relegated to weekend babysitters as it stands now.

I'm just going to respectfully disagree with you on this one, Dixie.
yes he is Tru -- just look a little harder and you'll see...

WIP -- I never said ALL women were reasonable, but I've watched enough to know that after a little time and "killing them with kindness" and other ways of "handling them" many women -- even the most vindictive -- lose the fun of the fight and give in more than most will realize. I've never been vindictive...I've been hurt more times than I can count and still haven't gone out for revenge, but I know I am very different...HOWEVER, many MEN are just as vindictive and given the way "this mother" ended the relationship and he felt like he had no say so...that and given the fact that she manipulated the system to her advantage gives "this father" just as much reason to be vindictive as the woman...

However, I don't mind if you disagree...It's all good. I just dislike seeing people manipulate the facts and the law and try to make out like they are not...the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:....the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...


DC, the agenda is your issue?

This is about a court that did not honor established well known Alabama law.

The trial court was reversed by five(5) learned appeals court judges, to only be overruled by the Supreme Court of Alabama based solely on speculation and assumption.

Do you NOT see something wrong with that?

The agenda by the father - if any at all - is as any citizen would expect of the courts 1.) follow the law 2.) rule not on inference and speculation but on the overall facts.

All too often Alabama courts do not honor law but honor what they feel like at doing at a particular time. That is wrong. Finally, society - i.e. the general public - has no clue the courts are operating in such manner.

Was it you that said in another thread that making this information available to the public was good?


I thought "the father's issue" was being a parent to his child...if that is his issue -- he has routes of rectifying that situation now that he hs moved and complied with the court's requirements...but if "his" issue is as you state -- expecting the court to follow the rules then my statement stands -- the "agenda" is my issue...if he had no recourse, if he couldn't go back to the court to request a change -- then I could see a bigger issue, but he has recourse. I have 2 friends requesting changes in their arrangements as I type -- it costs just as much money to file a new change as it does to appeal it to the high court...

If the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court -- then you know, the original decision just might have been right -- it wasn't what you wanted but that doesn't make them wrong in their opinion.

The public is not ignorant -- just because you want them to be -- that is not the case...Most people never have to deal with family court and MOST don't have the negative issues that you have with them...this is not a case, in my opinion, that merits "public outcry" -- there are far worse things than getting 79 or so days with your kid as opposed to 150+ -- how you make that relationship worth while makes all the difference in the world...Had the court removed all visitation and said you can't see your child at all -- that is something I would see as a great injustice because just as was pointed out before and I won't rehash them again and continue to go in circles.

I wish you the best with this case. I think you have wasted precious time by not filing for a chnage in custody and going before a different judge (since yours was Suttle) and seeking a change...I think your agenda is to make a name in the "family courts" and to continue to criticize Suttle and other judges that make tough decisions every day of the week...while I don't always like the decisions--I have to trust that they are doing their jobs...I still see that while the decisions weren't what you liked the courts ruled as they saw fit -- which is what they are supposed to do based on law and the totality of the circumstances...please keep us updated but I'm not going to repeat myself...
AGain, if the agenda is to have the relationship and more time with the child -- request a change in the custody arrangement...Unless you had intentions of "home schooling" your child -- then the judge made the right decision -- a year early -- but the right decision to give the time to adjust...I see the logic in the decision...but then I'm an outside observer who isn't taking the decision as a blow to my ego or my ability -- I'm taking it for what it was a "best interest of the child" related to custody decisions as deemed by the court...like I said, just becasue you don't like the answer doesn't mean it is not the right answer...again, the judge did not deem you unfit and did not take your child from you...he took time away but if you make the most of the time -- as a stay at home father -- you should still have a great relationship with your daughter...Good luck...
Educational material FYI

Click to read U.S. Supreme Court case Troxel vs. Granville U.S. (2000)


If you remove/replace the grandparent rights statue used in Troxel and replace it with "Children's Best Interests" both terms are used in overly broad terms, which the US Supreme court held in Troxel is unconsitutional.


Click to read APA Study on Joint Physical Custody

Several persons have made comments about equal parenting is not good for children. Yet, no one has explained 1.) who came up with the alternating weekend time or 2.) how that is any better for children than a joint custody arrangement.

Others have also made comments the judge in this case made the correct decision.

How does one explain how the civil appeals court reversed the trial judge after reviewing all the evidence, but the supreme court only "assumed" the trial judge did his job?


The U.S. Supreme Court has said in five parental cases (all are linked in the one post below ) that between a judge and a parent - a judge should defer to a fit parent, even if a judge thinks his decision is better.

Now, certainly this post is NOT in attempt to sway your opinions, however, here is some educational material worth a read, if you have opinions as have been stated here.

As for Dixie Chick, please read the entire opinion before you go claiming only certain parts are selected to benefit a certain position.
Last edited by Nurturing Father
quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Educational material FYI

Click to read U.S. Supreme Court case Troxel vs. Granville U.S. (2000)

Click to read APA Study on Joint Physical Custody

Several persons have made comments about equal parenting time wasn't good for children. Yet, no one could explain who came up with the alternating weekend time or how that is any better for children than a joint custody arrangement.

Others have also made comments the judge in this case made the correct decision. It is more than interesting how the civil appeals court reversed the trial judge after reviewing all the evidence, but the supreme court only "assumed" the trial judge did his job. Never said equal time wasn't good for the kid...

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in five parental cases (all are linked in the one post below ) that between a judge and a parent - a judge should defer to a fit parent, even if a judge thinks his decision is better. The judge did defer to a "fit parent" that parent just wasn't you.


Now, certainly this post is NOT in attempt to sway your opinions, however, here is some educational material worth a read, if you have opinions as have been stated here.

As for Dixie Chick, please read the entire opinion before you go claiming only certain parts are selected to benefit a certain position.


I told you several posts earlier that I am done discussing this topic with you and I wish you the best with your case.
Did you know:

The U.S. Supreme Court said in Troxel vs Granville U.S. (2000) the following:

"The Due Process Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a “better” decision could be made."

Also the U.S. Supreme court said: When a state court issues a legal judgment or opinion based on "assumption" because no written findings of fact were listed - as the judge in this case - state courts have violated Due Process (fundamental fairness) as required by the U.S. Constitution.

Have you seen the two Polls over on the web site about the local judge this case is about?
Posted on another thread 1/17/09 at 4:27am


quote:
Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
Judge Ned Suttle hasn’t positively affected this father and his daughters’ life. In a child custody modification case initiated by the mother, Judge Suttle did not properly apply Alabama law to factual evidence presented his court. Overwhelming evidence proved our little girl was well-adjusted and thriving, and the mother was continuing on the course that previously resulted in a Tennessee court order for equal-shared custody. Judge Suttle was reversed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for his deliberately wrong decision (Davis v Blackstock Ala Civ App 2007).

Judge Suttle modified custody to the mother with complete knowledge the Tennessee Appeals Court said equal custody is best because ...“This record contains abundant evidence [mother] has refused to adhere to the plain requirements of the parenting plan and that she has purposely and deliberately embarked on a course which, if not stopped, would eventually erode the relationship between [father] and [child]. (Davis vs. Davis, TN 2004)."

Judge Suttle agreed with the mother that our 4 year old daughter needed 35 hours per week in daycare instead being in the personal care of her father. A father the Tennessee trial judge called “loving and nurturing.” With Judge
Suttle’s absolute knowledge the mother unsuccessfully attempted the same reasoning only 15 months earlier in a Tennessee court saying, “Our 18 month-old needed spontaneity of daycare to prepare her for schooling.”

To date, a total 9 learned judges from Tennessee and Alabama with legal costs to father of $30,000 have reviewed specific facts and circumstances to our individual situation. 8 of those 9 judges have issued legal opinions that court ordered equal-physical custody is best based for our little girl. Only Judge Ned Suttle condoned the mother’s judicial forum shopping to limit the father-child relationship.

See legal documents to back up these factual statements at <www.whyjudgesuttle.com>

In my humble opinion retirement is exactly where Ned Suttle needs to be.

I am the father.
Mark Davis
Florence, Alabama
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
I had a statistic on another thread that said something like 10 years ago, 1 of 8 fathers would leave and now it is like 1 of every 2 mothers will leave. Maybe it should no longer be "assumed" that the mother should have immediate custody, but many times I don't think the courts have the funding or resources to truly investigate who would make the better parent so they err on the side of caution and since the mother has the bond of giving birth and carrying the child for 9 months -- they give it to her until proven otherwise...

As a woman, I would take issue with the man taking the child I had carried for 9 months and bonded with etc -- and not giving me custody...especially if he just had an agenda and was trying to prove a point and further that agenda...Now if you can prove me unfit, by all means, go for it, but if you can't prove me an unfit parent -- that I don't provide for my child, that I don't take care of my child's health and mental well-being, that I don't keep my child clothed and fed, that I don't take time to spend with my child, that I don't educate my child and teach tehm to be a good person, that I don't be a mother and love and care for my child -- if you can prove that I neglect or abuse my child -- try it...but if you can't prove that I'm unfit -- if you can't prove that I'm not doing the best I can then you are barking up the wrong tree...Now, if I was a woman that was doing drugs, had a different man in my bed every night and that my child had nothing to eat but crackers and ketchup and had to get themselves up for school etc...then you might have a case, but otherwise, you have to share...you can't get anymore than I can and you certainly won't get the chance to get more....Does the mother in this case do any of those things or NOT do anything of those things? Is she an unfit mother? "you" say the father is not unfit -- how is "he" fit? What does "he" do different that would make him the better parent than the mother?

Again, I ask, why not apply for a new custody arrangement? Nothing is ever written in stone -- until you are dead...but trying to get the court's to change the ruling of the TN and then AL courts is less likely to happen...I think what's really sad is you can't see that I really want you to get what you deserve in the case -- I'd like you to have a wonderful relationship with your child...I just fear that by going the route you are -- you are going to not get what you so desperately want...Sorry I'm not the "atta boy" kind of cheerleader...but I do wish you the best...like I said -- I know several men that are the custodial parent in this area -- it can be done -- so maybe if you asked again and since you finally moved close enough -- the 50/50 could be a possibility...


That is sexist and discrimination against the father. Why should some woman just be able to rip someones child away because they want to fool around? I am happily married to my first wife but I have a friend who this happened to. His wife was fooling around and wanted a divorce. He actually asked her to just stay married and she could see who she wanted just so his kids would not be taken away. She would not and actually acts like the scorned woman when she was the one fooling around. My friend spent 65K just fighting to get joint custody. It should be as simple as this if the father is a fit parent then he gets joint custody. If he does not if he wants custody then no child support or alimony.
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nurturing Father:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DixieChik:....the agenda in this is my issue...I'll say again, I wish this father all the best...


The public is not ignorant -- just because you want them to be -- that is not the case...Most people never have to deal with family court and MOST don't have the negative issues that you have with them...this is not a case, in my opinion, that merits "public outcry" -- there are far worse things than getting 79 or so days with your kid as opposed to 150+ -- how you make that relationship worth while makes all the difference in the world...Had the court removed all visitation and said you can't see your child at all -- that is something I would see as a great injustice because just as was pointed out before and I won't rehash them again and continue to go in circles.

I pretty sure you would not feel the same if you were the one one getting 79 days.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×