Elizabeth Morgan Act

The Elizabeth Morgan Act is an act of the 104th United States Congress that was declared unconstitutional in 2003 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as being a bill of attainder, because it was written to deny rights to a specific father based on his child's own assertion.[1][2] It was originally introduced as H.R. 1855, by Rep. Thomas M. Davis. It was passed as a rider of the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (H.R. 3675, Pub. L. 104–205 (text) (PDF)).

Background

In 1989, Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia introduced the bill that became the District of Columbia Civil Contempt Imprisonment Limitation Act (H.R. 2136, Pub. L. 101–97). That legislation changed a feature of District of Columbia law that permitted indefinite detention for civil contempt, such as in the case of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, who was in contempt for refusing to allow her daughter unsupervised visitation with the child's father.[3] Morgan had stayed jailed for two years rather than allowing access to the father. After the change in law caused her release, Morgan moved to New Zealand, where her parents and her daughter were already living.[4]

Wolf again involved himself in the case when he co-sponsored the 1996 rider bill that became the Elizabeth Morgan Act.[4] The new law was narrowly worded to apply to the circumstances of Morgan's daughter, allowing the child in those circumstances to refuse consent to custody or visitation by her father, and preventing the District of Columbia courts from issuing custody or visitation orders or sanctions against Morgan. Having the protection of the 1996 Congressional act, Morgan and her daughter then returned to the United States.[2]

The father, Dr. Eric Foretich, sued against the effect of the act in 1997. On December 16, 2003, the act was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, who ruled that the law was so narrowly written that it targeted Foretich and treated him as a danger to his child without formal charges, illegally punishing him.[2][5] The law was moot and had no practical effect on the daughter, who was by then 21 and could choose for herself whether or not to see her father.[4][5][6][7]

See also

References
  1. Doris R. Foretich, et al. v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198 (D.C.App. 2003)
  2. Leonning, Carol D. (December 17, 2003). "Appeals Court Rules Against Morgan Law". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2022-12-20.
  3. H. Rpt. 101-98, Report to Accompany H.R. 2136, p.3
  4. "Court strikes down law passed for mother who hid daughter". CNN. Associated Press. December 16, 2003. Archived from the original on December 3, 2007. Retrieved June 4, 2004.
  5. Henry, Emily (February 4, 2009), "Morgan vs. Foretich Twenty Years Later", LA Weekly, Los Angeles, archived from the original on 2016-06-11, retrieved 2022-12-20
  6. Carbone, June (June 1, 2007). "Family Law Armageddon: The Story of Morgan v. Foretich". Social Science Research Network. SSRN 983770. Retrieved June 10, 2010
  7. Sanger, Carol (2007). Family Law Stories. Foundation Press. ISBN 978-1599410203.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.