A duty not a right

It has always been that way and that is the way we have always done it. A parent who can not or will not carry out his duties and responsibility as a parent can have his rights as a parent terminated. This follows common sense. A parent who abuses her children and can’t be rehabilitated is dangerous to the child. He or she should not be allowed to make decisions for the child or about the child. Also they shouldn’t be allowed to visit with the child.

There was a woman in Alabama who was married and had two children. She also had a child from a previous marriage. Her husband and the father of two of the children molested her older child. She divorced him in February 2003. The divorce judgment awarded custody of the two children to the mother and ordered the father to pay $540 per month in child support. In August 2003, the father pleaded guilty to his crime against his step child. In October 2005, a juvenile court granted the mother's petition to terminate the father's parental rights to their two minor children. When his rights to his two children were terminated he quit paying the child support.

On January 4, 2007, the mother asked the court to find that the father was in contempt of court because he had not paid his child support. The court decided that the father was $16,730 behind in his child support. The father asked the court to reconsider its ruling because his rights to his children had been terminated earlier. The court did and decided that he did not have to pay the child support. After this the case went to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals which decided that he did not have to pay the child support.

On September 30, 2009 the Alabama Supreme Court decided that even though the father’s rights to his children were terminated the responsibilities that he owed to the children had not terminated. Over the years lawyers have just always accepted as fact that if a parent’s rights were terminated so was his duty to pay child support. This is no longer the case. Parents who have lost their rights to their children now have the responsibility of paying child support unless a court releases them from that responsibility.

A parent who places a child for adoption may have to pay support until there is a final decree of adoption. This new understanding of the law will be best for many children. The parent who still has custody of the child will not have to bear the financial burden of the child alone. It does seem harsh that a custodial parent of a child has to face all the monetary needs of the child while the abusive parent does nothing. Also, there are many children “in the system” who get no support from either parent. The State of Alabama pays for their needs out of collected tax revenue.

Just Pucker Up and Blow

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoings by a government agency, a state agency, or a private company. Whistleblowers frequently experience revenge when they have been found out. The term whistleblower comes from police officers who blow their whistles when they noticed the commission of a crime. The whistle would call attention to the danger. There have been many cases where punishment for whistle blowing has occurred. A whistleblower may be fired, suspended, demoted, and treated harshly by other employees.

The Whistleblower Protection Act protects federal whistleblowers, who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if Agency authorities take or threatens to take a disciplinary action because of any disclosure of information by the employee. Whistleblowers may file complaints that she reasonably believes that there is a violation of a law, rule or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. A whistleblower can’t be legally fired for telling all about her employer.

There has been a new case that has expanded this principle. Thompson v. North American Stainless, was published on January 24, 2011. Miriam Regalado, filed a sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against her employer, respondent North American Stainless (NAS). Ms Regalado’s boyfriend Mr. Thompson worked for the same company. NAS fired Mr. Thompson after Ms Regalado filed her complaint. Thompson then filed his own charge and a law suit under the Civil Rights Act. Thompson claimed that NAS fired him to retaliate against Regalado for filing her charge. The first court dismissed Thompson’s suit on the ground that Thompson was not entitled to sue NAS for retaliation because he had not engaged in any activity protected by the statute. The second court agreed because Thompson was not the whistle blower his girlfriend was.

The United States Supreme court did not agree stating, “A reasonable worker obviously might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.”

There are many cases that deal with whistleblowers. There are also many laws on the books to protect them. So even if they are not employed by the federal government they may be protected. Whistleblowers play an important role in overseeing the business practices of companies and organizations. Under most state and federal laws, the whistleblower can be given legal protection. Sometimes they may be given monetary compensation for stepping forward and doing the right thing. Several large pharmaceutical firms have been targeted by whistleblowers for illegal activity recently. These companies have settled their cases outside of court. The companies were fined several million dollars which was paid to the federal government. The whistleblowers also received a cut of the monetary settlement.

For more information on this subject check out the web. There are many web sites that deal with this subject.