DHR Letter from Mark Davis

The below is a letter written by Mark Davis sent to Bob Maddox of the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Alabama Child Support Advisory Committee. The Committee Meets on Friday morning July 25, 2014.


July 22, 2014

Mark D. Davis
[REDACTED]
Florence. Alabama 35633
[REDACTED]@icloud.com

Mr. Bob Maddox, Legal Division AOC
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
[REDATED]@alacourt.gov

Re: Advisory Committee, Child Support, July 25, 2014

Dear Mr. Maddox:

I have the following concerns about the state of Alabama??™s application of child support services, child support enforcement and application of Alabama Rule 32 ARJA as related to Federal Title IV-D funding.

I am a voter, Alabama citizen, and an active divorced parent to a 12-year old daughter. In 2002, when our daughter was 18 months old, I was awarded equal custody in the state of Tennessee on a four-day rotating basis and ordered to directly support our daughter. The Tennessee order was implemented consistent to Title IV-D mandates revised in 1997 of the Federal Public law 104-193. I have always fully supported my daughter willingly out of love for her. In 2006, after my daughter??™s mother and I moved to Alabama, and while the 2002 Tennessee judgment remained pending on remand from an appeal in Tennessee, the state of Alabama modified the Tennessee judgment without requiring the Tennessee judgment properly registered pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3A-101 et seq., mandated by Title IV-D of 42 USC 666 and Public Law 104-193.

The 2006 Alabama child support judgment was reversed by the Alabama Appellate Courts in 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

In July 2012, I filed a federal complaint against three trial court judges, several employees within DHR, the local DHR attorneys and several local attorneys. The federal complaint was dismissed on immunity grounds and that decision was upheld by the 11th Circuit COA in November 2013.

In 2010, the Alabama DHR became involved in the private pending state court legal case to which the mother at all times had two private attorneys for legal representation.

In 2010, with the Alabama child support issue reversed and pending a hearing in the state trial court, the Alabama DHR was provided timely notice that the Tennessee judgment was not UIFSA registered.

At all times, including currently, the Lauderdale County Alabama DHR, Alabama DHR, Lauderdale County District Attorney Chris Connolly and/or AAG Jennifer Mims Bush have argued legal positions to the trial court, in briefs to the appellate courts, and to the State DHR hearing Officer Louise Shaddix in a state level DHR Administrative hearing indifferent to, and inconsistent with, federal Title IV-D law mandates.

A social worker at the Lauderdale County DHR explicitly advised Lauderdale DHR does not act without first seeking, and gaining approval from AAG Bush in individual cases such as mine.

I have multiple documents from my case showing not only is the Alabama DHR not honoring federal Title IV-D mandates, the Alabama DHR is not correctly training its social workers, the District Attorneys, the trial court judges, the appellate court judges and this committee.

In addition, and the purpose of this letter, Rule 32 ARJA conflicts with Alabama Code Section 30-3-150 et seq. Section 30-3-150 was enacted solely due to federal mandates of Title IV-D and Federal Public Law 104-193 for the state of Alabama to receive federal incentive funding. Records show the state of Alabama AOC and DHR are receiving such federal granted funding to implement alternative custody and support arrangements. However, the DHR and the AOC is not training judges and attorneys on this issue.

As for deviations from Rule 32 ARJA at (A)(1) states, “(a) Shared physical custody or visitation rights providing for periods of physical custody or care of children by the obligor parent substantially in excess of those customarily approved or ordered by the court… The existence of one or more of the reasons enumerated in this section does not require the court to deviate from the guidelines, but the reason or reasons may be considered in deciding whether to deviate from the guidelines…”

The Alabama appellate courts are not mandating trial judges or attorneys use parenting plans created with parental involvement on the issue of custody. Instead of making judicial determinations on the narrow facts of a situation that fosters two-parent involvement in children??™s lives, when the parents are no longer living together, absent an agreement by the parents, the trial courts order a “standard visitation schedule”. Despite local Rules have been abolished by the Supreme Court, every Alabama county uses a different standard visitation schedule. These local schedules are created by attorneys and local bar association, approved and used by the court, regardless of situations where one parent wants to be active in their child??™s lives. The appellate courts indicate any disagreement by the parents is a basis for not awarding joint physical custody or alternative parenting plan custody arrangements. This is contrary to the federal intent of Title IV-D that parents not the state should be making these decisions using parenting plans.

The conflict for parents is typically fostered by attorneys, general knowledge the state supports only one parent involvement that mandates fighting a court custody battle, and/or vague and difficult to understand restrictive standard visitation schedules. Often the pick-up and drop off times will vary for certain holidays during pending divorce and post-divorce. Or the schedule is written in a way not even attorneys can agree to its plain and ordinary meaning. This creates strife in the lives of the parents and children.

Federal Health and Human Services Data, Alabama DHR Data and creditable family dynamic research shows children are much better adjusted with two-parent involvement with the closer to equal time in the children??™s best interests when each parent is fit. The same data show Alabama??™s use of standard visitation arrangements is harmful to children and society.

Alabama DHR and US Department of Health and Human Services statistics reveal that children from one parent homes account for: 90% of homeless and runaway children; 85% of youths sitting in prison; 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger; 75% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers; 71% of pregnant teenagers; 71% of high school dropouts and 63% of youth suicides.

The state of Alabama since 1997 has accepted federal Title IV-D grant funding to implement alternative child custody arrangements and parenting plans by placing parents in charge of their children rather than the state. However, Rule 32 ARJA conflicts with Federal mandates. The DHR and AOC is not properly training judges on the importance of two parent involvement.

It appears the state presumes federal child support incentive funding will not arrive should the local courts mandate parents to have more than “standard visitation” with the non-custodial parent as Rule 32 describes or otherwise to order both parents to directly support their children.

In my case, the state of Tennessee honored the federal Title IV-D mandates. Alabama does appear to know what they are. The below shows Alabama DHR and AAG Jennifer Mims Bush is not properly training the DHR nor the judiciary. Facts show the DHR is taking actions to which no statutory or judicial authority has been granted by the legislature. Said acts and omissions are in direct violation to the state of Alabama??™s state plan 42 USC 654 filed with the Federal Government. This violates 42 USC 666, CFR 205.10, due process, equal protection and other federal laws.

Federal Title IV-D mandates citizens must be given a hearing by an independent judicial and/or administrative hearing officer. See 42 USC 666.

Mrs. Louise Shaddix, the DHR administrative hearing officer verbally agreed in a DHR hearing that everyone at DHR is well aware the Tennessee judgment in my case must be properly UIFSA registered before Alabama has legal authority to act. I have audio of her verbal statement.

Mrs. Shaddix admitted she is employed by the Alabama DHR, and her office is located in the DHR headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama. She indicates she has more than 30 years with DHR.

Despite Shaddix??™s verbal statements her administrative order affirmed all DHR acts and omissions in my case.

42 USC 654 and 42 USC 666, CFR 205.10 sets forth due hearing requirements that shall meet due process standards. See CFR 205.10 (“State plan (42 USC 654) under title I, IV-A, X, XIV, or XVI(AABD) of the Social Security Act shall provide for a system of hearings under which: (1) The single State agency responsible for the program shall be responsible for fulfillment of hearing provisions which “shall meet the due process standards set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), and other due process standards as set forth in 205.10.”).

The Alabama DHR, including Mrs. Shaddix in the administrative hearing, repeatedly indicated DHR is representing only the Mother. This position is not consistent with Alabama code Section 38-10-1.1 or an Ethics Opinion issued by the State Bar in 1996 that indicates the DHR only interest is in representing the states interests in the child. The same was provided to Shaddix and DHR.

As the facts of my case show, if the state has not paid monies for the direct benefit for the child – the state has no compelling interest to take any legal position inconsistent with federal mandates. Rather, it has a duty under law to advise the judiciary of the Title IV-D requirements including UIFSA mandates.

But, of course, the facts of my case show, the DHR doesn??™t know Title IV-D law, instead does what it wants with no accountability to anyone.

DHR Adverse Action Prior to Due Process Hearing

In December 2012, when the child support issue was pending on appeal in the Courts, the Lauderdale DHR social worker Judith Shelton took administrative action adverse to me prior to providing a due process administrative hearing. This is a federal mandate of the state plan 42 USC 654, 42 USC 666, CFR 205.10 that requires DHR to honor due process requirements of Goldberg v Kelly of the US Supreme Court.

DHR Adverse Acts Prior to Due Process Hearing

Specifically, Judith Shelton reported alleged child support arrears to the credit reporting agencies and issued tax-offsets. Although, I timely filed a due process administrative hearing request in December 2012 out of an abundant of caution because DHR is known to me based upon information and belief not to honor Federal Title IV-D mandates. At that time DHR was acting judicially in the courts. No administrative hearing was granted and the issues of credit reporting or offsets were not before the circuit court. I discovered said adverse acts by Ms. Shelton??™s own admission in a March 3, 2014 administrative hearing with Shaddix. Alabama and federal law show when an administrative hearing request is made a hearing must be given and no adverse action can be taken during the pending hearing request. The DHR Billing notices clearly indicate the same. No administrative hearing was granted on the December 2012 request. The Shaddix hearing was timely requested in July 2013 upon my receiving my very first child support billing notice from DHR. Yes, this is correct. I received no billing notices from DHR prior to and until July 2013. I had no prior notice from DHR of its December 2012 administrative acts until the March 2014 administrative hearing timely requested upon arrival of the first billing notice.

Credit Reporting of Arrears Not Codified by State Statute

As to the reporting to the credit agencies, the Alabama legislature never codified in statute for the reporting of child support arrears to the credit reporting agencies. The Alabama DHR is acting outside the scope of the Title IV-D, and Alabama law in violation of Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43.

The Alabama legislature codified every aspect of 1996 Federal Title IV-D mandates on child support enforcement except for the state reporting alleged arrearages to the credit reporting bureaus.

Title IV-D requires the states to first enact state law that supports Title IV-D. It does not create federal law for the states to enforce without authority from the state legislature.

State Law and State Plan Governs DHR Authority

This is shown by reviewing the Alabama State Plan filed with the federal government mandated by Title IV-D, 42 USC Section 654.

a. Example One:

The State Plan filed under 42 USC 654 shows Alabama elected not to enact a law requiring the use of procedures for enforcement of child support orders with respect to a child of minor parents, if the custodial parent is receiving welfare assistance under Part A of Title IV-D, that shall be enforceable, jointly and severally, against the parents of the non-custodial minor parent of such child in accordance with 42 USC 466(a)(18).

The state of Alabama legislature did not enact this particular Title IV-D mandate and it is not enforceable by the Alabama DHR.

b. Example Two:

The State Plan indicates it has in effect laws requiring the use of procedures authorizing withholding, or suspension or restriction of driver's licenses, professional and occupational licenses and recreational and sporting licenses in accordance with 42 USC 466(a)(16).

However, at the time the State Plan was approved the Ala. Code did not include “Sporting licenses”.

The State Plan notates this fact and said “Sporting licenses” will have to be added to the list of type of licenses and will require amending Alabama's license suspension act in the 1999 session.

c. Example Three:

The State Plan indicates Alabama has procedures in place on the reporting of arrearages.

The Alabama Code the DHR in its child support policy and procedural manual relies upon to grant it authority to report to the credit agencies is Section 38-10-7 enacted in 1979.

A further read of Section 38-10-7 said “(The) Court making the determination” …. “shall retain jurisdiction…”

Nowhere in Ala. Code Section 38-10-7 does it expressly mention credit reporting of arrears or the granting DHR the authority to automatically take enforce actions without court authority.

The consumer credit reporting section of Title IV-D Law 42 USC 666 was not enacted by the federal government until 1997. See Public Law 104-193.

It is a legal impossibility for the DHR to presume the Alabama Legislature intended for Ala. Code Section 38-10-7 to replace the Legislature??™s refusal to enact a 1997 provision of Title IV-D Section 466(a)(7).

It is not within the providence of the Alabama DHR to act as a legislative or judicial body. Ala. Constitution 1901, Art. III, Section 43. Also see US Constitution Art. I, Section 1; Art. II, Section 1; Art. III, Section 1. Also cnf. Ex parte Christopher, (1120387) ___So.3d___ (2013).

DHR Failures to Follow Federal Title IV-D Mandates

Now, back to DHR failures to follow federal mandates. In 2010, 2011, 2012, December 2013 and January 2014, the undersigned requested to view the entire case file the Alabama DHR has on me and our daughter. The DHR refused.

The Lauderdale DHR social worker advised me that Jennifer Mims Bush advised her not to allow review of the case file, although, I had subpoenaed the case file quoting federal case law and US Supreme Court case law of my due process right to view the file. Said subpoena was squashed by the Alabama DHR Hearing officer Louise Shaddix. Shaddix indicated I didn??™t have a right to view my case file. Although, the State Plan 42 USC 654 due process mandates of CFR 205.10 said I have a right to review the entire case file.

In the Administrative hearing Lauderdale DA Chris Connolly said, “We are in the 11th Circuit, I don??™t have to honor 8th Circuit law” which I had provided to the DHR to support my federal legal rights to view the file.

The 8th federal circuit held a plaintiff should have a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense subject to CFR 205.10 due process safeguards. Page v. Preisser, 585 F. 2d 336, 341 (8th Cir. 1978)(“Reasonably construed, 45 C.F.R. § 205.10 "plainly entitles the [recipients] to examine the entire contents of their files prior to and during an appeals hearing.").

Because a state chose, voluntarily, to participate in the federal program. In doing so, it is obliged, in promulgating regulations, to conform to federal regulations. See Shea v. Vialpando, 416 U.S. at 253. Otherwise the acts are void under the supremacy clause.

In my case, as quoted to the DHR, including Jennifer Mims Bush, the US Supreme Court has specifically held that, under the Supremacy Clause, federal Spending Clause legislation trumps conflicting state statutes or regulations. See Blum v. Bacon, 457 US 132, 145-46, (1982) (holding the provisions of a New York welfare program that conflicted with federal regulations under the Social Security Act invalid under the Supremacy Clause); Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 604 (1972) (holding a California regulation that conflicted with the Social Security Act invalid under the Supremacy Clause); Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282, 285 (1971) (holding an Illinois statute and regulation that conflicted with the Social Security Act invalid under the Supremacy Clause). The 8th Circuit Court applied these cases to invalidate state regulations under the Supremacy Clause. Jackson v. Rapps, 947 F.2d 332, 337 (8th Cir.1991) (invalidating a Missouri regulation under the Supremacy Clause because it conflicted with federal regulations under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, 42 USC §§ 601-615 (1988)), cert. denied, 503 US 960 (1992).

The above cases stand for the proposition that the Supremacy Clause indeed applies to Spending Clause enactments and makes them supreme when challenged by conflicting state enactments. Also see King v. Smith, 392 US 309, 316, 326-27 (1968) ("once a state has accepted federal funds, it is bound by the strings that accompany them").

In June 2013, the DHR Lauderdale District Attorney Chris Connolly filed a petition for contempt in the Lauderdale County Circuit Court against me. The contempt petition indicated I was in contempt of an April 5, 2013 order. All issues of the April 5, 2013 order were on appeal in the Alabama Appellate Courts when the DHR filed its contempt petition in the circuit court.

Despite the above stated Title IV-D, 42 USC 654, CFR 205.10 and Goldberg v Kelly due process violations and contrary to law and regulation, the DHR sought, and the circuit court determined on September 17, 2013, I was in contempt for 60 months and jailed me for 60 days. Although, I provided receipts of direct expenses expended on the child for more than $23,000.

Remember during this time the Alabama child support issue had been reversed multiple times and the only valid order, the Tennessee order that ordered me to directly support our child. The Tennessee order has never been UIFSA registered in Alabama in accordance to 42 USC 666. The record shows state has never paid any monies for the child.

Also, remember the trial court is solely trained by the Alabama DHR on Title IV-D mandates under contract with the AOC.

In my case, the Alabama DHR has repeatedly taken legal positions without affording me an independent hearing.

The DHR has been and is acting contrary to Title IV-D mandates in the taking of legal positions with the trial court and appellate courts that are contrary to federal mandates.

These issues are not presented for resolution by the committee. They are presented to show the committee that the state of Alabama DHR - trained by Jennifer Mims Bush - and the AOC contract with the DHR, and its acts and omissions are out of compliance with Title IV-D mandates on multiple issues.

CONCLUSION

The Alabama AOC receives Federal Title IV-D incentive funding. The AOC has a contract with the Alabama DHR on child support issues, which in turn goes to the County level DHR. My case file shows more than one case number for only one child. I have not been afforded due process protections that Alabama agreed with the federal government. I have not been allowed to review my case file. DHR has taken adverse action to me without affording me a hearing as I timely requested. DHR is not authorized by Alabama statute to report child support arrears to the credit reporting agencies.

The problem: there is no accountability. The judicial branch automatically defers to the executive branch Alabama DHR and Jennifer Mims Bush. The DHR and Jennifer Mims Bush does not honor federal Title IV-D mandates. Nor does the DHR properly inform those placed in charged to educating. Said acts and omissions are violating the separation of powers clause of the Alabama and US Constitutions and the supremacy clause, the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

The state of Alabama out of compliance with Title IV-D mandates and these issues must be addressed. The starting point is making Rule 32 ARJA consistent with Alabama Code 30-3-150 et seq. enacted to receive federal funding under Federal Public Law 104-193. That is to do away with standard visitation schedules throughout the state and mandate Rule 32 provide for alternative child custody arrangements and alternative child support orders.

Thank you for your consideration of the above referenced facts and I look forward to hearing from the committee in a timely manner.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Mark D. Davis________________________
Mark D. Davis

XC:

Gordon Bailey, Chairman,
300 Dexter Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Judge Aubrey Ford, Jr., Co-Chairman
Jennifer Mims Bush, DHR Legal Counsel
Faye Nelson, Alabama Child Support Director
Angela Campbell, DHR Program Mgr Mobile County
Penny Davis, Alabama Law Institute
Mr. James D. Jefferies, Esq,
Mary Moore, Circuit Clerk Perry County, Alabama
Julia Kimbrough, Attorney Shelby County, Alabama
Judge Julie Palmer, Circuit Judge Jefferson County, Alabama
Judge Billy Bell, Circuit Judge Madison County, Alabama
Mr. Stephen Wright, Esq.
Mr. Stephen R. Arnold, Esq.
Mr. Scott Hoyemm Alabama Administrative Office of Courts
Mr. Alex W. Jackson, Esq. Alabama Supreme Court
Michael Polemeni
Ms. Faye Nelson, Child Support Enforcement Division, Alabama DHR

Alabama Senator Paul Sanford
Alabama Senator Cam Ward

Mary Sell, Florence Times Daily
Josh Moon, Montgomery Advertiser
CBS 8 News Montgomery
ABC 32 News Montgomery
WSFA 12 News Montgomery
FOX News Channel
US Health and Human Services Office of Children and Families
US Congressman Mo Brooks

*****

We wonder if we'll be seeing any of this in the TimesDaily?



Shoalanda

Catching Up with Mark Davis

We've received the following communication from Mark Davis. We have his permission to publish it in toto and unedited:

I filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission about Alabama DHR reporting me to the credit reporting agencies when there is no Alabama statute that grants it.

The complaint was forwarded to the federal government's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov).

Word arrived today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now has an active investigation regarding the issue.



Also there was a state level hearing with the DHR on their acting adverse to me.

As I have said since 2010, federal regulations mandate the previous Tennessee child support judgment that ordered me to directly support our daughter be registered in Alabama in accordance to a particular mandate.

The state hearing officer Louise Shaddix verbally agreed with me on this issue and said "everyone at DHR knows well that an out of state judgment must be registered in Alabama."

Well, that was never done.

This means my being jailed was illegal.  I am fully supporting Katie consistent with the only valid court order... the Tenn order.

Although, the hearing officer will not issue an order for 30 days, I suspect she might cover for DHR. She is employed by DHR.

Another federal violation by the DHR  is that Federal law indicates I am to have an independent hearing by an independent hearing officer.

I have attached a written summary of the issues addressed in the DHR hearing. The summary includes quotes from the Alabama child support and procedures manual showing the DHR fraudulent failures.

I have redacted personal information including my daughters name. You have my permission to publish it, either as a whole or in sections.

This involves public monies and the public should know about it.

Finally, the federal regulation regarding an administrative hearing CFR 205.10 said that I am entitled to view "all documents" in the DHR case file prior to the hearing. I have requested to review the case file since December 2013.

Chris Connolly objected and said that I am not entitled to view it. The hearing officer agreed indicating the file is "confidential".

The 8th federal circuit court of appeals quoting the US supreme court said when Alabama agreed to accepted federal funding it is mandated to follow federal regulations regardless of the state agency policies, otherwise the state agency is violating the supremacy clause of the US Constitution. See the first page of the summary.

Chris Connolly's response on my viewing the DHR case file is that he is not required to follow 8th federal circuit case law. Connolly said we are in the 11th federal circuit. Never mind, the 8th circuit is quoting the US Supreme Court.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men. Yet, Chris Connolly is of the opinion he is above the law.

*****

We welcome comments on Alabama DHR!



Shoalanda

Ethics Complaint Brought Against Judge Mike Jones

Kenneth Paschal, Director of Government Affairs for ALFRA, has brought an ethics complaint against Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge Mike Jones. The suit has been filed on behalf of the minor child of Mark Davis.

How many ethics complaints against judges are filed each year in Alabama? Since 2000, the yearly average is 156. Obviously these complaints are not a great rarity, but neither are they an every day occurrence in each of Alabama's 67 counties.

Just what does this ethics complaint say? The complaint itemizes five charges against Jones; however, our opinion is the accusation that the good judge allowed personal malice against Mark Davis to affect his ruling(s) is one of the complaint's strongest points.

The judicial inquiry committee has informed Mr. Paschal that it may be at least eight weeks before any action is taken on the complaint. We're waiting, and the citizens of Alabama are watching.



Shoalanda

Mark Davis is Free!

Mark Davis was released from the Florence-Lauderdale Detention Center earlier today. Did Judge Mike Jones reconsider his sentence? No, as we understand it, several of Mark's supporters were able to combine funds in order to pay the back child support which the state says Mark owes.

This is not an end, but a beginning. We'll have more on this later, but in the mean time: Congratulations, Mark! Enjoy your freedom.

*****

The Shoals Democratic Club Meeting will be held on Monday, October 21, 2013, 6:00 p.m., at the Operating Engineers Hall, Local 320, Dr. Hicks Blvd. Florence, Alabama.  The keynote speaker for the 6:30 program is Mr. Bradley Davidson, Executive Director of the Alabama Democratic Majority. The public is invited to attend.

*****

Local state representative Lynn Greer has announced he wants a bill passed to "take lies out of" Alabama campaigns. Good. That should make the campaign season about two hours long...



Shoalanda

A Word About Mark Davis & Alabama Justice

A letter about Mark Davis:

I am a close friend of Mark Davis. I want to thank you for your patience and understanding and becoming a friend with Mark Davis. He is a good man, a good father, a good citizen, a good professional photographer, a law-abiding citizen, taxpayer, voter, and positive contributor to our community.

I want to share with you a few thoughts in hope that it provides you with additional perspective of what many fit parents and innocent children are being subjected to by the Alabama legislators, lawyers, judges (who are ALWAYS lawyers by trade), DHR, AOC, and the opposing misguided parent of their child(ren).

I attended the court hearing at which Mark was given to what amounts a life sentence in jail.

There were several of us present who care about Mark and his daughter.

We each have endured and continue to endure the abusive acts by Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and the other misguided parent(s) of our children.

Here is a snapshot of the people who were there to support, care for, and love Mark:

Supporter A: U.S. Navy veteran who proudly served to risk his life and limb to protect you and your family; career as an Airline Pilot who you trust to fly your family safely around the USA; father of two girls; law abiding citizen; taxpayer; voter; born and raised in America; legal resident of Alabama – not an illegal immigrant (I inject that because of the immigration issue receiving plenty of media coverage while the fact that our children go abused by the Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and misguided parents is continually ignored); 

Supporter B: Retired with over 20 years from U.S. Army U.S. Navy veteran, volunteered to die for your family, who proudly served to protect you and your family; currently working for free as a Family Rights Advocate with the non-profit family rights organization Alabama Family Rights Association (ALFRA); father of one girl; law abiding citizen; taxpayer; voter; born and raised in America; legal resident of Alabama – not an illegal immigrant(I inject that because of the immigration issue receiving plenty of media coverage while the fact that our children go abused by the Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and misguided parents is continually ignored);

Supporter C: Career as an HVAC repair person; father of one son attending Auburn University; blue-collar, hard-working, law-abiding citizen; taxpayer; voter; born and raised in America; legal resident of Alabama – not an illegal immigrant (I inject that because of the immigration issue receiving plenty of media coverage while the fact that our children go abused by the Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and misguided parents is continually ignored); 

Supporter D: decades in a career as a professional optometrist; owns his own business/practice; father of 3 children; law abiding citizen; taxpayer; voter; born and raised in America; legal resident of Alabama – not an illegal immigrant (I inject that because of the immigration issue receiving plenty of media coverage while the fact that our children go abused by the Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and misguided parents is continually ignored); 

Supporter F: for many years a professional business owner and operator of a machine shop; father of one girl; blue-collar, hard-working, law abiding citizen; taxpayer; voter; born and raised in America; legal resident of Alabama – not an illegal immigrant (I inject that because of the immigration issue receiving plenty of media coverage while the fact that our children go abused by the Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and misguided parents is continually ignored)

Supporter G: U.S. Navy veteran served to protect you and your family at the cost of his life and limb; career as a professional Firefighter and EMT who you trust to provide life-saving services for you and your family and risks his life for you and your family; father of one son; law abiding citizen; taxpayer; voter; born and raised in Alabama; legal resident of Alabama – not an illegal immigrant (I inject that because of the immigration issue receiving plenty of media coverage while the fact that our children go abused by the Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, and misguided parents is continually ignored);

No criminals. No thugs. No deadbeats. No threats. None.

What do every one of these individuals have in common? Our children and us have been abused, violated, persecuted, punished and nearly, I say nearly because we have not given up, destroyed by the laws of this State, the abuse by the Alabama judges, lawyers, AOC, DHR, legislators and misguided parents who seek to deny our children the God-ordained fundamental right to BOTH parents.

We are not thugs. We are not law-breakers. We are not threats to society. We are not violators. We are not abusers. We are not criminals. We are not burdens upon the taxpayers. We are not THE problem.

What else do we have in common? We have merely asked to do that which society constantly harps about: To be equally responsible, to be equally allowed, to raise our children AND for our children’s fundamental rights to BOTH parents be equally protected for the betterment of not only us and our child, but for the greater good of the community around us.

And in asking such a humane request, our children and we have been punished.

Here is the irony that is very difficult to think about and sort out and get through:

The day of Mark being given to what amounts a life sentence by Judge Jones, just before Mark’s hearing, a young white male appeared before Judge Jones, charged with drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia, plead guilty, was sentenced to prison for 24 months on one charge and 12 months on the other charge by Judge Jones, fined ridiculous amounts of money to be paid to various “victim” groups, fined various amounts of money to be paid to the court and lawyers, and then….wait…..wait…….wait….Judge Jones suspended his sentence and ordered him free on probation and he was allowed to leave a “free” man. While still under the control of the legal system via parole office, the man was free – not incarcerated for life or for any amount of time.

What crime has Mark Davis committed that has harmed or threatened anyone in society?

Mark took care of himself and his daughter. Mark was no burden on the taxpayer in any shape or form. Nor has his daughter ever needed or been given any State taxpayer support via welfare of any kind.

Now, Mark is being taken care of by the taxpayers and his daughter goes without her father. The facts reveal that this child is now greatly at risk for harm to herself or others due to not having her father in her life.

I believe Mark is to be incarcerated for a very long time because he can’t do what Judge Jones has ordered him to do. This is inhumane. But we know this is Alabama justice at its finest.

This entire issue is not about law, case law, court opinions, child support $$$$, etc…This entire issue is about children needing BOTH parents. For over 40 years, we as an American society have not only accepted, but supported, the systematic removal of one fit parent from the life of the child, usually dad in over 90% of the child custody rulings (out of respect for the importance of mothers, this is also happening to them in a smaller but no less important percentages). Yet, then society complains of the fallout when the child is denied, robbed, stolen, ripped from one parent, half of who they are, half of their identity, half of an entire network of extended family to love, support and guide them through what is a really tough world. We would no more support poking out one of a child’s good eyes or chop off one of their legs yet we support the child being ripped from one of their loving parents. End result: lost generations of current children and past children who are now dysfunctional adults. This is man- made. It can be changed for the better if the people want it to be changed.

In my wildest imagination I never thought that asking to be equally responsible for the rearing of our children would result in such harsh and inhumane treatment of not only us fit parents but result in the abuse and punishment of our children. This is living daily horror that we and our kids do our best to survive. This is standard pattern and practice by Alabama judges, lawyers, DHR, AOC, legislators and many misguided parents.

I hope you read my letter and I thank you for your time. I did not write this to be public consumption. I wrote this to you for you to have more insight as to how we and our kids are being treated. However, I respect your expertise on what you do with it as you see fit that will help Mark and his daughter and many other fit parents and children.

*****

The above letter has been edited to delete actual names. We have discussed the publication of this letter with the writer and have omitted some personal information.

*****

Should children of illegal immigrants receive state funds for WIC, etc., while our children are no longer offered Head Start, etc. Interesting question, isn't it? We'll have more...



Shoalanda

Other Points of View/Site Problems?

It's often easy to think the Shoals area is better...or worse...than other areas of our country. Better? We do have beautiful waterways and vistas not found everywhere in the U.S. We also have wonderful residents who give meaning to the term "Southern Hospitality." Other than that, are we that different from others in our everyday lives?

How about the worse part? Are our problems worse because of the economy and living conditions in some areas of the Shoals? Let's look at a recent comment by Deb Willbefree on child abuse:

I don't know what it is like down in Alabama, but I suspect it is similar to PA. In my observation, it is not the village that falls short--it is the child protective system and the laws.

There are very few child abuse cases up here that, along with the report of the abuse, the news does not also include mention that neighbors had called the police, called child protective services...called and called.

One recent and extreme case here is the poster child for why child abuse happens. A 6 year old child--who weighed 24 pounds--was found lying in the street, in a diaper, in February. A passing motorist found him and called police.

Upon investigation, the little boy had a twin sister. Both had been locked in a bedroom for a long time....with a potty chair. They were the size of 2 year olds.

Get this: Child Protective Service were on the case! For YEARS. Had people in and out. A pediatrician had called the authorities due to their small size when they were THREE MONTHS old.

They're doing well in foster care. The parents were put in jail last month I forget how many decades long their sentence was. The children had served six years.

The village is only as good as the authorities. Unfortunately. And we have to keep calling...

It seems cruelty to those who cannot fight back is universal. We urge everyone to be dilligent; you just might save a life.

*****

Our friend Mark Davis remains in jail. We are sorry there are no real updates, but urge everyone to write to encourage Mark at this time. You may also contact Judge Mike Jones and let him know how you feel about his handling of this case...lawsuit against him and all.

*****

Several friends/readers have recently commented that our site has been either hard or impossible to load. We have added nothing to the site, but Blogger did change its software for importing photos and for making comments. We have contacted Blogger about the problem, but have not received any feedback as yet. If you have a problem, please make us aware of it.



Shoalanda

Charges Against Mark Davis?

Yesterday we blogged on our friend, photographer Mark Davis. We received this comment that we're republishing here:

Its important to note that Mark's 2006 child support order was overturned by the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals and remanded to the Lauderdale County trial Court to be corrected.

This is another reason why the only valid child support order was the $0 order from the TN court.

When Judge Jones finally "corrected" it in April 2013, Jones had charged him for 5 years of daycare expense when Mark's daughter was not in daycare and attending public school. Judge Jones also charged Mark for health care premiums for his ex wife and her husband. It also appears that Judge Jones may have calculated the child support using the new increased guidelines vice the old ones that would be applicable to this case. Additionally Judge Jones charged Mark 12% interest instead of 7.5% pursuant to applicable law.

All of these over charges created an child support arrears of $34,000 which Judge Jones ordered to be paid immediately. Mark had no means to pay that.

Mark appealed, and the case is still with the AL Civil Court of Appeals.

Even though Mark wasn't paying child support through the State, he still paid for his child's braces, school lunches, extracurricular activities, clothes, food, and medical expenses. He frequently wrote his ex wife asking if there were any financial needs for his daughter that needed to be taken care of. The reply was no.

Mark submitted receipts for the above which the judge even stated in his order that he was not going to give Mark credit for.

Bottom line, the State wants its Title IV-D funding. Mark was exposing officials unlawfully accepting this money so they decided to shut him down and throw away the key.

Mark is truly one of the best men you will ever meet. He is a true Christian and I will forever stand by his side!

If Mark could bond out on $600 we would have him out today. Unfortunately, the only way for him to be released is for him to purge himself of the Civil Contempt and pay the approximate $34,000 in full.

If he wishes to contest the fact that the amount includes 5 yrs of daycare expenses for when his child wasn't even in daycare, or that the above amount includes health insurance costs for his ex wife and her husband, he would have to post a supersedes bond and pay 150% of the judgment amount.

This information was given to us from his attorney.



Shoalanda

Sue Judge Mike Jones, Get Thrown in Jail?

 If you're a regular reader, you know that Shoalanda is a friend of Mark Davis. We make no pretense to be anything else. We admire Mark and want you to know his story if you're not familiar with it. We understand there are two sides to every story, but we're asking you to consider what has happened here...in Alabama...in Lauderdale County.

Mark and his wife had a daughter while living in Tennessee. A short time after the child was born, Mark and his wife divorced. The divorce decree gave each parent equal custody--joint custody if you will. Sometime after that, Mark's ex-wife moved to Alabama, and he followed in order to remain an active parent in his daughter's life.

When Katie became old enough to enter kindergarten, Mark's ex-wife sought to have the custody arrangement amended. She wanted to have control of the child's schooling, and Judge Mike Suttle agreed, striking down the original Tennessee decree. Now the State of Alabama said that Mark could have Katie only four days (two weekends) a month.

Mark, who acts as his own attorney, felt the judgment was invalid. Over the past six or so years, Mark has been involved in litigation to secure 50% custody of his daughter which he feels is legally his. During this time, Mark did not pay child support since it was his opinion the original Tennessee decree was the valid one--not the one issued by Judge Suttle.

After Suttle retired from the bench, Judge Mike Jones took the case. At some point Mark sued several individuals involved in this litigation, including Judge Jones. Now Jones has jailed Mark for contempt of court.

This is not standard procedure, although it is in Jones' power to do so. We ask why it was done. If it's not standard procedure, has it been done in retribution for the lawsuit?

The wording of the orders which sent Mark to jail is apparently somewhat nebulous. Some feel it could be considered an ongoing edict, effectively keeping Mark there for years if he doesn't pony up a huge chunk of cash...with an illegal amount of interest.

We have been very concerned for Mark since learning of this situation and today called the Florence-Lauderdale Detention Center. We were informed that the court order is for 60 days, but that there is a provision of a $6,000.00 appeal bond. In other words, if Mark (or anyone) pays $600.00 plus a small fee to a bail bondsman, he can be freed right now. We are not sure if this is correct or not, but we hope it is.

Here is a link to a Facebook page set up on Mark's behalf:

Free Mark Davis

We're asking each of you to consider this incident: Could it happen to you? Think about it...



Shoalanda

A Child in Danger? Yes! - Part III

Mike Jones

Mark Davis is now desperate to remove his daughter from the custody of his ex-wife. With no immediate help forthcoming from the courts, he has decided to take his case to the court of public opinion. Mark has sent the following letter to all Lauderdale County churches:

LAUDERDALE Judge MIKE T. JONES is knowingly and willfully allowing a 10 year old Innocent Little Girl be subjected

to immoral, illegal and Criminal acts under Alabama law.

My name is Mark D. Davis. I am a 48 year old Christian active parent with shared equal custody of a 10 year old little girl. 

A court petition and verified affidavit was recently filed with Judge MIKE T. JONES. The petition requested a temporary restraining order or emergency hearing to protect the little girl from being exposed to the daily care, custody and control of a lesbian couple, Tina Smith and Tifanie Reaves. Tina and Tifanie are openly engaged to be married. Tifanie openly and regularly use the “F” word, and both are known to listen to despicable rap music using the same language, they are known to drink alcohol and use illegal drugs. In recent court testimony the mother, Tonya Blackstock (Smith), confirmed she allows our little girl to stay daily (and some overnights) with her openly lesbian sister, Tina Smith. Tina Smith in open court testimony admitted she is in a lesbian relationship and living with Tifanie Reaves.

On 10/22/12 JUDGE MIKE T. JONES was provided three Alabama Supreme Court rulings that are clear the law in Alabama indicates: 

A.   “The "detrimental effect" of homosexual conduct is established by the great mass of Alabama law, which prohibits and condemns homosexual conduct…”

B.   “Homosexual behavior is an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it. That is enough under the law to allow a court to consider such activity harmful to a child…”

C.   “Homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense (Class A misdemeanor) under the laws of the state…”

D.  “…No matter how much society appears to change, the law on homosexual conduct has remained steadfast from the earliest history of the law (since 1533), and that law is and must be our law today. The common law designates homosexuality as an inherent evil, and if a person openly engages in such a practice, that fact alone would render him or her an unfit parent.” 

On 10/25/12 JUDGE MIKE T. JONES DENIED my court petition for a temporary restraining order or emergency hearing. JUDGE MICHAEL T. JONES is willfully allowing an innocent little girl exposed daily to illegal, immoral and criminal acts under Alabama law.

Contact Judge MIKE T. JONES at (256) 760-5831.

View all documentation provided to Judge MIKE T. JONES at markdavisphoto.com/michaeljones.pdf

We reiterate that there are few real winners in Family Court matters; however, the more we learn of our system in Lauderdale County, as well as the entire state, the more we believe that a complete overhaul is in order. Will that eradicate all problems? No, but it's a step in the right direction.

*****

Sources in Colbert County tell us Tanisha Tetter Welch, first cousin of accused murderer Ronald Weems, is being held without bond until her November 20th court date for sending harassing communications concerning the murder of Amanda Taylor. We will correct that Welch was not arrested at work (she apparently does not have a job), but at a physician's office.

*****

Autumn Wood? We've received a comment concerning Autumn Wood, admitted killer of Brooklyn Hollins. While this comment contained no specific words that are unacceptable to publish, it did contain certain sexual imagery that we do not wish our blog to convey to our readers. We'll have more to say on this next week.



Shoalanda