11th Judicial Circuit Court Lauderdale County, Alabama

In September 2006, Mike Suttle modified a previous Tennessee child custody judicial determination that safeguarded the fundamental rights of the Child to freedom of associations with each fit parent. Read here what the 2004 Tennessee Court of Appeals said about the need to safeguard the parent-child relationship.

With knowledge of the Tennessee Order and without any allegations or findings of parental unfitness, Mike Suttle granted Parent A's request to significantly limit the Child's relationship with Parent B.

Mike Suttle determined over Parent B's objection it was in minor child's -- a daughter -- best interests to attend daycare 35 hours each week rather than spend one-half of that time in Parent B's personal care, which the child had been accustomed and thriving due to a Tennessee Court judgment implemented against Parent A's wishes. At daycare the child was cooped up in a 12'x12' room watching videos with 15 other children most of the day.

In June 2007, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed Mike Suttle.

In September 2009, the Supreme Court of Alabama making unfounded assumptions reversed the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and held Mike Suttle's restrictive Order would remain in place.

In April 2010, the Alabama the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded the Child Support issue for a second time.

In May 2010, Parent B petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States. The Petition was denied on October 4, 2010.

Meanwhile, Mike Suttle retired in 2009.

In March 2011, Gilbert P. Self denied Parent B's Motion to Dismiss the September 1, 2006 Order as being a void judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Parent B argued Mike Suttle's Order violated fundamental God Given parenting rights. Parent B timely filed Notice of Appeal in the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals.

In October 2011, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied Parent B's appeal. Justice Terry A. Moore in an written opinion said,

"The simple fact that a court has erroneously applied the law does not render its judgment void."

Justice Moore relied upon case law that was not on point to fundamental parenting rights.

This determination is on now appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States. A decision whether that Court will accept the case is expected in March 2012.

See the supporting argument here.