Dad Brings Federal Challenge to Alaska's Child Custody Laws
After Ten Years Of Legal Battles, A Non-custodial Parent's Federal Constitutional Challenge Makes Its Way Into The Alaska Supreme Court
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Aug 5, 2005 - After ten years of fighting to obtain his legal right to the custody of his daughter, a father who is under Alaska law, a non-custodial parent, filed an appeal in the Alaska State Supreme Court.
The father posted the required bond on August 1, 2005 to complete the filing deadlines. The case is Lamb vs. Pierce case number S-11943.
The father brought a federal challenge against Alaska's custody laws and the lower court under Superior Court Judge John Suddock, denied the father's request to have the laws declared unconstitutional.
The court cited that the State of Alaska had a compelling interest in the case.
However, in the case Lamb vs. the State of Alaska, the State argued that, ”In summary, the State has no interest in this private custody matter.” The suit against the State eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court docket where the case died.
The father argues in brief, ” it (the State) has no compelling interest in this case, and without a compelling reason to intervene, the State does not have the federal constitutional authority to sever the custody of one's child. The State must find the parent unfit or actual harm to the child.”
The father states that ”it is a little ironic that the Alaska Supreme Court has found more protection to own four ounces of pot in your home than to raise your child. On a sliding scale it seems that pot carries more weight than the parent-child relationship. For the State to intervene on owning pot, the State must show harm, but it doesn't have to show harm when it severs the custody of a child to a parent.”
Tlamb775 {at} aol.com
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Aug 5, 2005 - After ten years of fighting to obtain his legal right to the custody of his daughter, a father who is under Alaska law, a non-custodial parent, filed an appeal in the Alaska State Supreme Court.
The father posted the required bond on August 1, 2005 to complete the filing deadlines. The case is Lamb vs. Pierce case number S-11943.
The father brought a federal challenge against Alaska's custody laws and the lower court under Superior Court Judge John Suddock, denied the father's request to have the laws declared unconstitutional.
The court cited that the State of Alaska had a compelling interest in the case.
However, in the case Lamb vs. the State of Alaska, the State argued that, ”In summary, the State has no interest in this private custody matter.” The suit against the State eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court docket where the case died.
The father argues in brief, ” it (the State) has no compelling interest in this case, and without a compelling reason to intervene, the State does not have the federal constitutional authority to sever the custody of one's child. The State must find the parent unfit or actual harm to the child.”
The father states that ”it is a little ironic that the Alaska Supreme Court has found more protection to own four ounces of pot in your home than to raise your child. On a sliding scale it seems that pot carries more weight than the parent-child relationship. For the State to intervene on owning pot, the State must show harm, but it doesn't have to show harm when it severs the custody of a child to a parent.”
Tlamb775 {at} aol.com
3 Comments:
I have also filed a writ of mandamus in WV federal court asking for the family court ruling to be thrown out. I hope I do not have to wait 10 years to gain success. Contact madmenunited.org how to start the process and hopefully someday win your custody back!
ROUGH DRAFT
Missing cites with exception of MOJ.
I. The States' Compelling Interest
This Court in Lamb vs. State of Alaska has stated to the effect:
“...The parties each raise arguments on appeal regarding whether the State has an interest in this case. Lamb identifies the State interest in the case as 'keeping litigation to a minimum in custody proceedings and ensuring that the best interest of the child is served.'” See Alaska Supreme Court Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 1030 - June 13, 2001 pg 7 para 10.
This Court went on to state that ”But Lamb's arguments are not on point. Lamb is correct that the State of Alaska has an interest in the adminstration of its custody laws.” See Alaska Supreme Court Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 1030 - June 13, 2001 pg 7, para 11.
This Court was in agreement with the Strate of Alaska's argument that ” In summary, the State has no interest in this private custody matter. The mere fact that a litigant disagrees with a court order does not create a case of actual controversy as between the litigant and the State.” See Exhibit C State of Alaska Brief in the case Lamb vs. State of Alaska Superior Court No. 3AN-99-10166 Civil [Exc. Vol. I]
It has been settled by this Court vis a vis the State's argument that the State does not have a compelling interest in this case.
Arguably, the compelling interest for the State of Alaska is to maintain the parent - child relationship absent showing harm. The scientific evidence proves this and the facts and evidence are undisputed in this case. infra .
In this case, the Appellant lost custody to an event that was actually responsible for correcting the child's illnesses. This action is opposite to the federal doctrine that a fit parent will look out for the best interest of their child. And that the relationship has the sanctity and respect that in order for it to be severed, the State must show a compelling interest.
One would be hard pressed to come up with a logical reason on how the State of Alaska is looking out for the child's best interest when the State severs the protective and responsible behavior of a fit parent to the child's benefit.
When you severe the protective realtionship of a fit parent over their child, events such as what the Appellant cites in affidavitt arise.
Upon putting medcinal cream on the child's vagina because of the common occurances of yeast infections, the child stated to the Appellant that a young adolescent had ”stuck her finger up her butt.” Any caring parent would be alarmed.
The Appellant spoke to the Appellee about the situation and to no avail, nothing was done. The Appellant then notified the Division of Youth and Family Services (now called Office of Children Services) about the comment.
To the amazement of the Appellant, the person who took the call was a supervisor and told the Apellant in a derogatory tone “you have to report it.” The Appellant stated to the supervisor that indeed he was. The supervisor then became argumentative and said “no you haven't. The Appellant then stated to the supervisor that by law she was now obliged to investigate the matter. She never did. No one did.
Later, it was found out and reported in the local newspapers that this supervisor had a young woman who was in effect a ward of the State, and that the young woman was staying with the supervisor and that the son of the supervisor was having sex with the young woman at the home of the supervisor.
By news accounts the supervisor knew this was going on. And later she quickly moved to California.
The Appellant argues that news stories upon news stories show these occurances of absues are happening daily and are being done under the guise that State is looking out for the best interest of the child.
As the State of Alaska stated, this is a private matter. However, the sincerity of the State's argument does not pass the reasonable person test when it comes to private matters.
A cynic can argue that the State cares more about money than it does about maintaining healthy parent-child relationships.
Case in point, the State has stated on motion that it intended not to respond to the Motion for Declartory Judgment because statutory law barred the State from being involved in “private custody matters.”
However in that same motion the State states that it filed a Motion to Modify Child Support under the captioned case listed. One has to ask, how is it that in this private custody matter, the State can get itself involved in private matters when it comes to money but it can't when it comes to custody ? Where is the contreversy between the State Of Alaska and the non-custodial parent when it somes to child support?
Civil Rule 90.3 allows a trial judge to set child support in the private matter, but there is no triggering mechinism that compels the State of Alaska to file motions in the private matter unless of course the State of Alaska is owed money by the non-custodial parent. That would be the sole reason for a controversy to exist between a non-custodial parent and the State. The custodial parent certainly has the opportunity to motion the court to modify child support.
This Court in Lamb vs. State of Alaska has stated “This court has explained that “the 'basic idea' [of the actual controversy requirement] remains that the conduct of one party adversely affects the interest of another.”
This Court went on further to state ”Lamb claims further that his claim is 'a constitutional claim being made against Alaska Statues 25.20.0900 and 25.24.150' Lamb's claim then, as we understand it, is that the State's application of its custody laws, A.S. 25.20.090 and A.S. 25.24.150, which allegedly violate the equal protection clause, the due process clause, the First Amendment, and the separation of powers doctrine, adversely affects his legal relationship with his daughter. Lamb's allegations do not constitute an actual controversy between himself and the State. ” See Alaska Supreme Court Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 1030 - June 13, 2001 pg 5 para 7-9
Why the disparate treatment in the actual controversy requirement when it comes to money and maintaining a healthy relationship between the child and parent? The State won't intervene in the private matter of custody unless the child is in harm, but it will certainly intervene when it comes to money even when there is no showing of hram to the child.
These are the evils in the laws that pertain to custody of children. The State will pick and chose its arguments and when it has a compelling interest.
I have also been in a fight with the State and the supreme court over the interprtive laws of the states and the courts including there rules of court and the fact they have no binding authority outside of court, including the fact that the State and the judges are not in complianc with the federal regulations and that they are using rules of court to abrogate individual rights for the purpose of gaining federal monies under the Title IV-D acts(social Security Act) under title 42 U.S.C. this action was filed in the supreme court S-11736 the response is a joke and seriously makes one wonder who are these jokers that call them selves judges when they are nothing more than administrative employees impersonating officers of the State of Alaska. The issue is now going to the Ninth Circuit court of appeals
Post a Comment
<< Home