Indiana Child Custody Laws

The Legal Case Against Alabama's Worst-in-the-Country Immigration Law

When Alabama’s HB 56 was signed into law it was universally condemned by immigrant and civil rights groups as the harshest anti-immigrant state law to be passed. And as the lawsuits pile up—legal challenges to Arizona’s SB 1070 have been followed by lawsuits against the Utah Compact , Indiana’s SB 590 and most recently, Georgia’s HB 87—immigrant rights groups have vowed to file suit against Alabama’s, too.

“It’s a wish list of restrictionist immigration provisions at the state law level,” said Kevin Johnson, dean of the law school at the University of California, Davis. Alabama’s HB 56 combines the harshest provisions of anti-immigrant ordinances and state laws that have been passed in recent years.

Alabama attempts to criminalize every aspect of life for immigrants by making it illegal for undocumented immigrants to work, rent housing, go to school and get a ride in the state. Like its predecessor, Arizona’s SB 1070, the Alabama law also makes it a criminal offense to be in the state. Under the new law, contracts that undocumented immigrants enter into will not be enforceable. It also includes an anti-immigrant iteration of another popular GOP policy point: a voter ID provision that requires all voters supply proof of their citizenship.

The question on everybody’s minds is whether the Department of Justice will go after Alabama, and the other states that are passing their own immigration laws, the same way it has gone after Arizona. The DOJ has thus far withheld comment on potential litigation against these other states.

With or without the feds, immigrant and civil rights groups have vowed to challenge Alabama. I spoke with Johnson and Vivek Malhotra, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU, about some of the law’s provisions. The ACLU, together with a coalition of other groups, including the National Immigration Law Center, has joined suits challenging the laws in Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Utah and, of course, Arizona. Here are a few of their core arguments:

The Alabama law   requires public schools to ask students who try to enroll in K-12 classes about their immigration status , and to track and report data to the state board of education and the state legislature. Schools will have the right to report students and their parents who are undocumented. “This flies in the face of the Supreme Court decision in 1982, Plyer v. Doe, which upheld the right of every child to access public education regardless of their immigration status,” Malhotra said.

Stuart Showalter Law Blawg: Indiana Court of Appeals Remands ...

Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates is a volunteer organization advocating for the best interest of children and families. We provide speakers, legal assistance, legislative and judicial testimony and facilitators. Executive Director Stuart Showalter provides this Law Blog as free opinion on various issues to readers. Reader submissions of topics are welcomed. Send to showalter@incra.info Briefly, Craig Scarberry is the Anderson, Indiana man who lost custody of his children in November 2010 because Madison Superior Court Master Commissioner George G Pancol found that Craig had changed his religion from Christian to agnostic and was therefor unfit to have custody of his children. The order was appealed and a Motion to Stay (not enforce) the order was filed which was granted, resulting in the children being returned to the previously practiced 50/50 parenting time and joint legal custody. Pancol recused himself during that process. The immediate Order states, “Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 37(B), this cause is remanded to the Madison Superior Court for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. No hearing shall be held nor new evidence received. This Court retains jurisdiction over this appeal. The Madison Superior Court is ordered to file with this Court new findings of fact and conclusions of law that are compliant with Indiana Trial Rule 52(A) within (20) days of the date of this order.” Here is Indiana Appellate Rule 37(B) “Effect of Remand. The Court on Appeal may dismiss the appeal without prejudice, and remand the case to the trial court, or remand the case while retaining jurisdiction, with or without limitation on the trial court's authority. Unless the order specifically provides otherwise, the trial court or Administrative Agency shall obtain unlimited authority on remand. “ My understanding of this Order is, the Court of Appeals does not believe that there is sufficient findings and conclusions upon which they can review to determine if custody of the children was properly modified and therefore the trial court needs to redo its findings and conclusions. The argument before the Court was not whether the trial court improperly modified custody, but rather, whether the modification was improperly based upon Mr Scarberry's religious preference. It is clear upon a reading of the so-called findings and conclusions that such was the case.

The history of Indiana law

Divorce Laws Indiana

Child Custody Made Simple, Understanding the Laws of Child Custody and Child Support

Child custody & visitation law and practice

West's Smith-Hurd Illinois compiled statutes annotated