Mike Suttle Judge 11th Judicial Circuit, Lauderdale County, Alabama
This website is about the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Lauderdale County, Alabama. In 2006 Mike Suttle determined - over a fit Parent's objection - that it was in a minor child's best interests for her to attend daycare 35 hours each week, rather than spend one-half of that time in a Parent's personal care. The Child had been accustomed to, and thriving, living half of her time with each parent. This due to a Tennessee judgment implemented solely to safeguard the child's right to a parent-child relationship with each parent. At daycare the Child was cooped up in a 12'x12' room watching videos with 15 other children for most of 35 hours each week. The 2006 judgment has bounced around on appeal being reversed twice by the Court of Civil Appeals, and once upheld by the state Supreme Court.
Now in 2012, the appeals process has not concluded. Mike Suttle has since retired. Gilbert P. Self is now the presiding judge. The issue outlined here is on appeal a second time in the Supreme Court of the United States. The legal argument, which was not ripe for judicial review in the first appeal, is a simple one: Is a judgment void when that judgment violates a fit parents fundamental rights to make child rearing decisions, when those decisions do not intrude upon the other parents fundamental rights, and the decision does not harm the child.
Although there is abundant law the answer is yes, in October 2011 Justice Terry A. Moore of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals in a written opinion said, "The simple fact that a court has erroneously applied the (child custody) law does not render its judgment void."
In November 2011 the Alabama Supreme Court denied review. Although in June 2011 that Court issued an opinion Ex parte E.R.G. that is the most powerful legal opinion in the United States on safeguarding "fit parents" fundamental rights. The fit parent standard using the same caselaw relied upon in E.R.G., including the E.R.G. opinion, was argued in briefing to the Court of Civil Appeals.
Fit Parent Legal Standard
The Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte E.R.G. and D.W.G., quoting the Supreme Court of the United States, is clear the U.S. Constitution, "requires that a prior and independent finding of parental unfitness - by clear and convincing evidence - must be made before the court may proceed to the question of whether an order disturbing and limiting a parent's 'care, custody, and control' of his or her child is in that child's best interests."
In addition, the E.R.G. Court quotes a long line of law since 1923 from the Supreme Court of the United States including Justice Scalia's dissent in Troxel v. Granville that, "recognizes that the right of parents to make decisions regarding a child's care, control, education, health, and religion, as well as with whom the child will associate, is a fundamental right that arises "as an inherent consequence of the parent-child relationship independent of any case law, statute, or constitutional provision."
The Troxel Court said, "The Due Process Clause - of the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment - does not permit a State (judge) 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."
Why is the state of Alabama judiciary refusing to honor essential fundamental law safeguarded by the Constitution which they have taken an oath to uphold and to support?