[email protected]
The Burdick Law Firm<br />205.565.8909
  • Home
  • Attorney Profile
  • Practice Areas
  • Burdick Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Recommendations
  • Links
  • News & Public Docs

HB289 / SB190 Grandparent Visitation Bill

1/22/2014

3 Comments

 
The grandparent visitation bill must not be signed into law. As written this bill completely disregards the rights of fit parents. The state would have the power to interfere in every parent-child relationship in Alabama without any state interest being involved. Under this bill if a parent is an ideal parent in every regard they can still be forced to surrender to the court the authority to decide who their children spend time with. Under this bill a fit and loving parent who allows their children to regularly visit with grandparents they cannot even hint to the grandparents that such visits might not continue. If they do then the grandparents can file a petition with the court to force regular visits that if not complied with may result in the jailing of the parent pursuant to the court's contempt powers. Under this bill a grandparent is able to wield the incredible power of the state if they can show (1) that they have had regular contact with the child for 12 months, and (2) that the child's feelings could be hurt (emotional harm) if the grandparent does not continue to visit with the child. Our legislators must not console themselves and say that "surely, no judge would use this statute in so harmful a manner." However, experience tells us otherwise, and even without the benefit of experience the risk is too great. If a judge does undertake to use these powers granted herein who can stop him? The answer is no one; at least not anytime soon. The judge's ruling is protected in the first instance will be protected by the fact that there will be no jury there to monitor the situation. Further, in many cases these proceedings are not open to the public and can be done without any oversight by the public on the trial court level. Then if the matter is appealed the judge's use of power will be protected again under the ore tenus rule. This rule allows the appellate court to simply trust the trial court's assessment of the facts. Thereby the appeals court is free to say, "Well, I wasn't there at the trial so I have to believe that the child's feelings  might be hurt in the future if grandpa cannot come over to the house anymore." The only way the legal damage can be undone is by years of costly litigation and appeals. And once the litigation is over the family is left in pieces. They have just spent years warring against each other as enemies and now are left to find a way to be a family again. 

This bill as written grants incredible power to the state over intimate, personal, family relationships without even a pretense of preserving a state interest. It is hard to imagine a more invasive, authoritarian piece of legislation.

A copy of the bill is provided below.
3 Comments
Darlene Dreisch link
2/17/2014 12:24:02 pm

Trial held in Alabama without notice to Benjamin, his mother or his father (in Florida) on Aug. 19, 2008. Benjamin's parents did not have legal representation at this trial. Social worker testified that there was no cause for their intervention into Benjamin's custody. Legal and physical custody given to grandparent, with parents having no right whatsoever to visitation. Trial held in violation of Constitutional law and without regard to Federal Juvenile Code or the Alabama Code of 1975.

What we're trying to do: Reunite Benjamin with his mother and stepfather in Maine; and restore Benjamin's faith in justice after the judicial system failed him.

What is at stake: A child's right to be raised by his parent(s), free from government intrusion; a child's right to an attorney of his choice; a child's right to be heard in court; a child's right to be protected from mental and physical abuse by guardians as well as the judicial system; a child's right to justice.

1. Benjamin was forcibly taken from his mother without evidence, CPS involvement, or a hearing on April 11, 2008, in Florence, AL.

2. Benjamin was denied a trial within 48-72 hours after being taken from his mother.

3. Benjamin was refused an attorney of his choice the Lauderdale County, AL family court judge.

4. Benjamin was denied the right to be heard in court.

5. Benjamin's rights to be protected from an abusive non-parent were ignored by two states, and three CPS agencies.

6. Appealed to Alabama Appellate Court -- appeal denied based on "ore tenus". Constitutional arguments not ruled upon because they were not brought before the Court, even though I was not given a chance to address the court or afforded Due Process.

7. AL Supreme Court denied Cert Writ.

8. March 2012 -- Filed for hearing on Constitutional rights issues in Lauderdale County Court, promptly rubber-stamped "denied".

9. Filed 2nd Appeal with the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Constitutional Rights Violations. GAL "aligned" with grandparent's attorney. Reply brief timely filed July 23, 2012. Awaiting ruling--Denied.

10. Praying that justice will be served this time around. If not, on to the AL Supreme Court and Federal Courts, as necessary. As of Feb. 17, 2014--courts have refused to even hear our case. We have yet to have our day in court. It's been 6 years and 5 months since mother and son have seen each other due to the Unconstitutional actions of Alabama's courts.

Reply
Joshua Graham
3/20/2015 09:24:44 am

What can we do to stop this? My wife and I have been in battle with my mother-in-law for 3 years now. This cannot go through. I will stand by my guns to stop this. How can I help.

Reply
Elizabeth Renee Gingerich
4/5/2016 02:22:01 pm

Interesting....

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Austin Burdick

    Austin is an experienced litigation and constitutional law attorney.

    Archives

    September 2018
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    May 2015
    February 2015
    May 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    November 2012

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    The following language is required pursuant to Rule 7.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.