UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

Come now the Defendants State of Alabama, et al., Circuit Judge Richard Dorrough, Frank Gregory, and Bob Maddox, by and through the Office of the Attorney General and answer the allegations of the Plaintiffs complaint as follows:

1. This paragraph is a jurisdictional statement and the burden of proof pertaining to jurisdiction rests with the Plaintiffs. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 1 until specifically proven by the Plaintiffs.

2. The Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs action is brought pursuant to the Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 2 and demand strict proof thereof.

3. The Defendants admit that the Plaintiff is a party to the Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division and serves on the Alabama Supreme Court Advisory committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 3 and demand strict proof thereof.

4. The Defendants admit that the Plaintiff is a party to the Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 and demand strict proof thereof.

5. The Defendants admit that the State of Alabama is a part of the United States and has authority over its citizens who are subject to the U.S. Constitution and state law. The Defendants deny that for purposes of this 1983 action that they have waived any and all immunities under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution, entering into a Consent Decree between said plaintiffs and defendants and demands strict proof thereof.

6. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 6.

7. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 7. ⁽¹⁾

8. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 8.

9. The Defendants admit that they are citizens and residents of Alabama. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 9 and demand strict proof thereof.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1. The Defendants admit that the Alabama Supreme Court established an Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement and that representatives from the Department of Human Resources serve on this committee. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 1 and demand strict proof thereof.

2. The Defendants admit that there are judges, attorneys and representatives from the Department of Human Resources who serve on the Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement as well as other members.

3. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 3.

4. The Defendants admit that there is a Child Support Enforcement Amendment of 1984 (P. L. 98-378). The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.

5. The Defendants admit that there are adopted child support guidelines under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration.

6. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 6.

7. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 7.

8. The Defendants admit that there are adopted child support guidelines under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration but deny the remaining allegations and demand strict proof thereof.

9. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 9.

10. The Defendants admit that there is a Family Support Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-485). The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 10.

11. The Defendants admit that the Alabama Supreme Court amended the state child support guidelines in Rule 32 of the Rules of Judicial Administration on August 29, 1989 but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 11 and demand strict proof thereof.

12. The Defendants admit that the Administrative Director of Courts is mandated to review the states child support guidelines once every four years in accordance with Rule 32 of the Rules of Judicial Administration. The Defendants further admit that in 1998, they began the process of examining the child support guidelines but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 12 and demand strict proof thereof.

13. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 13.

14. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 14 and demand strict proof thereof.

15. The Defendants admit that there is a Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division but deny the remaining allegations and demand strict proof thereof.

16. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 16 and demand strict proof thereof.

17. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 17 and demand strict proof thereof.

18. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 18 and demand strict proof thereof.

19. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 19 and demand strict proof thereof.

20. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 20 and demand strict proof thereof.

21. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 21 and demand strict proof thereof.

22. The Defendants admit that Plaintiff James Blackston, is a representative of the National Congress for Men and Children, who serves as a member of the Advisory committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 22 and demand strict proof thereof.

23. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 23 and demand strict proof thereof.

CLAIM ONE - VIOLATION OF CONSENT DECREE AND CONTEMPT OF
ALABAMA SUPREME COURTS ORDER

24. The Defendants admit that Plaintiff, Richard Dorrough serves as Chairman of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement and was party to a Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

25. The Defendants admit that paragraph 6 of the Consent Decree provides; "As part of this Release and Settlement Agreement, the parties agree that the Plaintiff James R. Blackston will be approved and assigned as the representative of the National Congress for Men and Children on the Alabama Supreme Courts Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement effective on the date of the execution of this Release and Settlement Agreement."

26. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 26 as stated in the Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

27. The Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 27 as stated in the Consent dated December 15, 1995, in the case of B!ackston, Barber v. State of Alabama, et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

28. The Defendants admit that the good faith provision of the Consent Decree "specifically includes use of all reasonable efforts to achieve the goals of this Release and Settlement Agreement which is to end the litigation."

29. The Defendants admit that on February 17, 1999, Defendant Richard Dorrough, Chairman of the Alabama Supreme Courts Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement, sent a memorandum to members of said committee regarding Proposed Changes to the Schedule of Basic Child Support Guidelines. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 29 and demand strict proof thereof.

30. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 30 and demand strict proof thereof.

31. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 31 and demand strict proof thereof.

32. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 32 and demand strict proof thereof.

33. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 33 and demand strict proof thereof.

34. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 34 and demand strict proof thereof.

35. The Defendants admit that in the memorandum dated February 17, 1999, Defendant Dorrough states that "[because of the budgetary problems facing the Unified Judicial System, and as only the issue of updating the schedule of basic obligations is being addressed, I am proposing that the committee complete its review and formulate its recommendations by mail." The Defendants deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 35.

36. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 36 and demand strict proof thereof.

37. The Defendants admit that there is an Alabama Supreme Courts Advisory Committee on Child Support Guidelines and Enforcement but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 and demands strict proof thereof.

38. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 38 and demand strict proof thereof.

39. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 39 and demand strict proof thereof.

40. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 40 and demand strict proof thereof.

41. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 41 and demand strict proof thereof.

42. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 42.

43. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 43.

44. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 44 and demand strict proof thereof.

45. The Defendants admit that a conference was held for state judges on January 21, 1999 at the Montgomery Embassy Suites Hotel and Conference Center but deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 45.

46. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 46.

47. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 47 and demand strict proof thereof.

48. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 48 and demand strict proof thereof.

49. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 49 and demand strict proof thereof.

50. The Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph 50.

51. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 51 and demand strict proof thereof.

52. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 52 and demand strict proof thereof.

53. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 53 and demand strict proof thereof.

54. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 54 and demand strict proof thereof.

55. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 55 and demand strict proof thereof.

56. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 56 and demand strict proof thereof.

57. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 57 and demand strict proof thereof.

CLAIM TWO - OBSTRUCTING THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTS
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ART.1, § 10
AND ALABAMA CONSTITUTION, 1901 §§ 22 AND 95

58. The Defendants reassert and incorporate its responses to paragraphs 1-57 herein as if fully rewritten.

59. The Defendants admit that there is a Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al, CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

60. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 60 and demand strict proof thereof.

61. The Defendants admit that there is Ala. Code § 30-3-155 (1975) but deny the remaining allegations and demand strict proof thereof.

62. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 62 and demand strict proof thereof.

CLAIM THREE - MISAPPROPRIATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS
THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS OF 1984 (P.L. 98-378) AND
THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 1998 (P.L. 100-485)

63. The Defendants reassert and incorporate its responses to paragraphs 1-62 herein as if fully rewritten.

64. No response is necessary for paragraphs 64-69 due to the Courts order dated February 16, 2000 in the above-styled case.

CLAIM FOUR- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 ET. SEQ. (RICO)

70. The Defendants reassert and incorporate its responses to paragraphs 1-64 herein as if fully rewritten.

71. No response is necessary for paragraphs 71-76 due to the Courts order dated January 10,2001 in the above-styled case.

1. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any order to show cause in the above-styled case and the remaining allegations of paragraph 1.

2. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 2.

3. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any injunctive relief and restitution.

4. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages.

5. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to general or any other relief.

6. The Defendants deny all allegations, stated or implied, and not expressly admitted in this answer and demand strict proof thereof.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

The complaint fails to state a claim for a violation of the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Further, the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs in support of the First Amendment claim are insufficient to rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

SECOND DEFENSE

The complaint fails to state a claim for violation of breach of contract based on the Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. al., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

THIRD DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that in their official capacities while acting under color of state law, usage or custom, they have sought and unjustly denied the Plaintiffs from exercising their rights to free speech under the First Amendment on the Alabama Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Child Support and Enforcement.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The Defendants reassert that they are entitled to absolute and qualified immunity in regards to the Plaintiffs constitutional claims.

FIFTH DEFENSE

The Defendants assert that they acted in good faith and in compliance with the Consent Decree dated December 15, 1995, in the case of Blackston, Barber v. State of Alabama et. a!., CV-93-H-623-N, in the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division.

SIXTH DEFENSE

The Defendants are absolutely immune from suit from monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendants are immune from suit for monetary damages under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The Defendants in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity.

NINTH DEFENSE

The Defendants deny that the Plaintiffs are entitled to any injunctive or any other reliet requested.

TENTH DEFENSE

The Defendants adopt and reassert herein, all previously filed defenses asserted in response to the Plaintiffs complaint and amendments to the complaint.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

The Defendants reserve the right to add by amendment any and all defenses that may be applicable but which are unidentifiable at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

BILL PRYOR

BY

LAVETTE LYAS-BROWN (LYA 001)

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS

ADDRESS OF COUNSEL:

Office of the Attorney General

11 South Union Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36130

334-242-7300

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of January 2001, I have served a copy of the foregoing, U.S. Mail, first class and postage prepaid and addressed to:

James R. Blackston

6185 Highway 195 North

Jasper, Alabama 35503-3409

Bradley Barber

4732 Hand Lane

Gardendale, Alabama 35071-4732

1. As of January 16, 2001, Frank Gregory retired as Director of the Administrative Office of Courts.

Back to Federal Child Support Lawsuit page

[ Home]---[Search]---[Email]---[Access Page]---[Child Support]