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.
Original Post