Welcome to my blog and the reference point in my fight against an archaic, unjust family court system in Marshall County, Alabama. I plan on posting my thoughts, items of interest, and resources I find helpful in hopes that it can be helpful to someone else. Now take a deep breath. Here I go...

Please visit http://www.alfra.org for the only organization in Alabama that promotes the concept that children need each of their fit parents.

Monday, November 14, 2011

legalized kidnapping, that is all you can call this...

In drafting and redrafting my civil rights complaint against the State of Alabama, and the Marshall County Department of Human Resources, I came across this little piece of disturbing case law.  Literally, my skin crawled.

I will post a more in depth explanation of what actually occurred here.  However, what you should read is that anyone can allege to DHR that you are abusive to your kids, and DHR will subsequently take your children from you and force you to undergo psychological examination without due process of law. This is just a couple years ago that it happened and from Marshall County, so it's current.

The worst part for this mother is that no psychiatrist in this State would accept the rates that DHR would pay for her evaluation.  So DHR took her kids, and said to start getting visitation with them she has to undergo psychological evaluations.  No doubt they made her pay child support for those kids which they forcibly took even though it is not mentioned in this appeal.  Then DHR refused to pay the amount necessary for the ordered services, which prevented the mother from being able to get her kids back while invariably increasing the amount of time they could collect child support on the children. DHR has that incentive payment to think about now, they can't just leave money on the table, right?!?

Despite repeated motions for "show cause" hearings and an appeal to the Alabama Court of Appeals, the mother was repeatedly denied her rights of due process, deprived of her associational rights with her children, and denied her basic, fundamental constitutional rights as a parent.  Through a procedural sleight of hand the appeals court affirms the lower court's unconscionable decision to further the State imposed separation between a mother and her children.

I am going to dig deeper into this one, but for now I have my own civil rights lawsuit to finish.  I am shocked, angry, and most of all disappointed more than you could know.  It breaks my heart that this could happen in America.  I am descended from a long line of patriots who have answered their nation's cry for help anytime she called, some laying their lives down in her defense.  This is not why they died.  This is not what they risked everything to protect.

We shall make good on their ultimate sacrifice.  It will NOT be in vain.  That's not a threat, it is a promise.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.


 -- March 20, 2009

J.W.K. (“the mother”) appeals from the denial by the Marshall Juvenile Court of her request for a hearing. In July 2007, the Marshall County Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) responded to a report that the mother and her husband had physically abused A.W. and V.W., two of their minor children. On October 2, 2007, the Marshall Juvenile Court determined that A.W. and V.W. were dependant (?) and placed them in the custody of DHR (case nos. JU-03-140.02 and JU-03-142.02). The juvenile court awarded the mother supervised visitation and ordered her to complete a psychological evaluation.

The mother filed motions to show cause on March 12, May 13, June 11, and June 13, 2008, all seeking the immediate return of A.W. and V.W. and all presenting substantially the same allegations. On June 13, the juvenile court, after conducting a permanency hearing and a hearing on the mother's motions to show cause, entered orders on the issues raised at the respective hearings. On July 15, the mother filed a “request for expanded visitation” and a “request for hearing.” On July 18, the juvenile court denied the mother's request for a hearing by a handwritten entry on the case-action summary. The mother now appeals from the juvenile court's denial of her request for hearing.1

DHR argues that the juvenile court's order denying the mother's request for a hearing was not an appealable final order. “ ‘[A] final judgment is a terminative decision by a court of competent jurisdiction which demonstrates there has been complete adjudication of all matters in controversy between the litigants within the cognizance of that court.” ’ Dabbs v. Four Tees, Inc., 984 So.2d 454, 456 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So.2d 623, 625 (Ala.1976)). “ ‘[T]he test of a judgment's finality is whether it sufficiently ascertains and declares the rights of the parties.” ’ Coosa Valley Health Care v. Johnson, 961 So.2d 903, 905 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (quoting Ex parte DCH Reg'l Med. Ctr., 571 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Ala.Civ.App.1990)). In this case, the juvenile court's denial of the mother's request for a hearing did not adjudicate “all matters in controversy between the litigants” in the underlying, ongoing dependency cases. Therefore, because the juvenile court's order is not final, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the mother's appeal.

We note that we have the discretion to treat an appeal from a non final order as a petition for writ of mandamus. Fowler v. Merkle, 564 So.2d 960, 961 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). Therefore, in an appropriate case, we could treat an appeal from an order denying relief from a reunification plan, when the evidence shows that the trial court exceeded its discretion by entering a reunification plan that is patently unreasonable or unfeasible, as a petition for a writ of mandamus. However, in this case, the mother merely alleged that she could not undergo the dialectical behavioral therapy ordered by the juvenile court because no Alabama provider would accept her as a patient under DHR's payment plan. The mother did not present any evidence to support that allegation; therefore, we cannot determine whether the juvenile court exceeded its discretion by denying the requested relief. As a result, mandamus relief is not appropriate in this case.

Because the mother's amended notice of appeal was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to consider the mother's purported appeal as to case no. JU-02-969.02 (see note 1, supra). Because the order denying the mother a hearing is not a final order, we lack jurisdiction to consider the mother's appeal as to case nos. JU-03-140.02 and JU-03-142.02. Accordingly, the mother's appeal is dismissed.


THOMAS, Judge.

THOMPSON, P.J., and PITTMAN, BRYAN, and MOORE, JJ., concur.

Wow, that is all I can say, WOW.  If this doesn't make it a little harder to sleep at night, I don't know what will.  It is a fine piece of motivation for me I can tell you that.  Mr. Patterson is starting to harness his fury towards constructive ends now.

We are all going to have to stand TOGETHER, UNITED AS ONE, in defense of parents civil rights, to correct these travesties of injustice which have occurred at OUR hands, the perpetrators of this tyranny being our government officials.  Some we put in office, some were appointed, but we are nevertheless responsible.  Their power flows from our "consent" right?  Well, my "consent" is hereby revoked.

View the original text here:


No comments:

Post a Comment