Federal Judge strikes Alabama’s restrictions on PFRs living with minor children.
In Henry v Abernathy, a Federal Judge ruled that Alabama’s law restricting PFRs (persons forced to register) from living with minor children is unconstitutional. The State is enjoined from enforcing that section of the law.
The case describes Alabama’s law (ASORNA) as “the most comprehensive and debilitating sex offender scheme in the country.” Perhaps unique to Alabama is that ASORNA imposes a lifetime ban on all registrants from living with minor children without any vehicle, avenue, petition or means of relief.
The State of Alabama further argued that the plaintiff could not demonstrate a fundamental right to reside with a minor child. The Judge disassembled that claim and indicated that the right to parent is one of the oldest liberties protected by the US Supreme Court and parenting involves living together.
Narrow tailoring is an equally important part of the Judge’s ruling. Amongst other things, the State claimed high recidivism as a need to not tailor narrowly which the Judge dismissed and stated the “overbreadth of …(the statute).. is breathtaking.”
Well, it’s something closer to Florida at least.
And it’s in the 11th Circuit Court of Federal Appeals, which covers Florida.
I was convicted in Alabama and after being in for 10 years I found out that if I live in Alabama the I had to pay 10 dollars a month in the county I work in and 10 dollars a month in the county I work in. Plus other laws that violate the US Constitution.
Living with minors even your own family was one of the requirements.
So, the state came up with rental trailer homes in a swamp for sex offenders.
Alabama does not believe in the US Constitution and make their own laws and over ruling ‘Law of the Land’ decisions.
I appreciate this quote from the ruling:
“Sex offenders are not second-class citizens, and anyone who thinks otherwise would do well to remember Thomas Paine’s wisdom: ‘He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.’” Doe 1 v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp.
3d 1310, 1339 (M.D. Ala. 2019) (citations omitted).
Just because a judge deemed it unconstitutional doesn’t really fix the problem. There was no laws keeping me from getting my visitation of my kids after my divorce 25 years ago. But my ex wouldn’t let me spend time with my daughter and the court wouldn’t let me do anything about it. All they have to do is refuse to do anything. There was no reason except being on the registry.