In Sorrell v. Henson Holly with Frank and Alan openly and knowingly violated constitutional law.  They know parental rights are fundamental, that a compelling state interest must be proven prior to infringements into such rights, and any infringement must be as narrow as possible.  In this case parents not living together are in petty conflict, and their solution is to uphold the indefinite suspension of all contact between a father and son.

There never was an assertion the child was in substantial harm, and very little is said about the child at all.  While the facts of this case may have required some judicial intervention, an indefinite suspension of parent-child contact was definitely not called for.  Why not have the parents drop the child off at a neutral site such as a police station or church?  How about communicating via e-mail, so everything is recorded? 

Holly's ruling says that father must have psychological counseling, and contact with his child won't begin until he "demonstrates that visitation is in Alexander's best interests."  Is a judicial office again being abused to route business to a Shelby County psychologist, as was done in Kreth? 

This is simply a matter of judges applying their personal beliefs in an unconstitutionally permissible manner.  They appear to be incompetent, but only until their underlying motivations of transferring as much wealth as possible to legal practitioners and creating as many single-parent mother-headed households as possible is recognized.  These judges are exacerbating rather than solving family law problems in the Western Section of Tennessee.   

Judicial Guide

CBI Homepage