JUDGE LOYD H. LITTLE, JR’s RULINGS WILL HAVE OR HAS HAD THE FOLLOWING IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND FAMILIES THAT COME BEFORE HIM  

1. YOU COULD BE SENTENCED TO JAIL IF YOU ALLOW YOUR CHILDREN TO SPEND TIME WITH YOUR PARENTS (THEIR GRANDPARENTS).

By finding the father/defendant in contempt of court and imposing a 2 day jail sentence on the father for allowing his son to spend time with his grandmother, Judge Little ruled that grandparents are the same as hiring the services of a babysitter. The legal system operates on precedents or prior rulings. In the future, lawyers or judges can use this ruling to sentence a parent to jail for allowing their child to spend time with their parents/grandparents. At the trial, Judge Little ignored testimony from the ex-wife/plaintiff that proved that in summer of 2005 the mother violated the father’s custody by leaving the child with her in-laws in Delaware for 5 days, during a period of the father’s custody, while she and her husband went on their own trip. Bias against or for whom?  

2. PARENTS CANNOT CHOOSE THEIR OWN FORMS OF DISCIPLINE & GUIDELINES FOR THEIR CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES NOR TO HOLD THEIR CHILD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MISBEHAVIOR AT SCHOOL.

Judge Little’s discipline paragraph ruled that corporal punishment, removal from extracurricular activities, accountability at school for misbehavior are all unacceptable forms of discipline. Any future use of the above methods would subject the father to sanctions, modifications of custody or complete loss of custody. Again, this ruling can be used in future lawsuits to take custody from a parent.  

3. JUDGE LITTLE AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES TO THE LOSING SIDE (EX-WIFE), EVEN THOUGH THE EX-WIFE INITIATED THE LAWSUIT AND NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO WARRANT A CHANGE IN THE CHILD’S CUSTODY OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

Judge Little ruled 2 times in favor of the father/defendant yet did not award the father any attorney fees. Instead, Judge Little ordered father to pay attorney fees to the ex-wife. How can the ex-wife/plaintiff lose and still be awarded attorney fees? The message this sends to the ex-wife is that she can sue the father and win or lose, the father will have to pay for her attorney fees. It’s called a “blank check”.  

4. JUDGE LITTLE KNOWINGLY ORDERED A CUSTODY SCHEDULE THAT IS WORSE FOR THE CHILD & NOT FOLLOWABLE DUE TO FATHER’S JOB AS A FIREFIGHTER.

Judge Little had evidence presented to him that proved the custody schedule (standard visitation) the ex-wife was asking for was worse for the child and increased the number of times the child would be swapped from home to home up to 60% more than the schedule that the child had been on for 8 years. The schedule is not followable due to father’s job as a firefighter and decreases the child’s time with the father by up to 50%.  

5. JUDGE LITTLE TOOK CUSTODY AWAY FROM THE FATHER BECAUSE OF HIS JOB AS A FIREFIGHTER.

Judge Little’s ruling states that if you do shift-work, it could be used against you and your children could be taken away from you. At trial, the mother stated the primary reason she filed lawsuit was because of the father’s job at fire department.  

6. JUDGE LITTLE REVERSED HIMSELF 3 TIMES ON HIS OWN RULINGS.

No new evidence was presented to warrant such drastic flip-flop rulings by Judge Little. By reversing his own decisions, this in itself indicates that the Judge is saying he erred on the previous rulings. Which previous ruling did he err on? It is impossible to tell by the 4 rulings and the 3 reversals that Judge Little made. Only Judge Little can explain this but he is not required to explain anything to anyone. How can it be moral or ethical to toss a child’s life back and forth from the only schedule the child has known for 8 years? 

7. JUDGE LITTLE MISCOUNTED DAYS AND HIS ERROR HAS RIPPED APART A FAMILY AND CHILD.

The current ruling, custody and visitation schedule that is in place right now is only valid through a mistake Judge Little made in counting the number of days he had to rule in October 2006. Judge Little refused to correct his mistake and make the child’s life be put back to normal. Through a technicality, the child’s life, the fathers, and our family are being ripped apart and precious time is being lost. Only Judge Little can explain why he did this to my son, yet, he doesn’t have to explain anything to anyone. 

8.   JUDGE LITTLE’S RULINGS HAVE PLACED ADDITIONAL BURDENS ON THE CASELOAD IN THE MADISON COUNTY COURT SYSTEM AND UPON THE TAXPAYERS.
The contradictory and reverse rulings by Judge Little have caused either the plaintiff or defendant to come before Judge Little on 4 different occasions. Combined with the several motions filed due to this lawsuit brought by Dora Boston Heisey, supported by her attorney Bill Burgess, this has added to the workload for the court system. The trial lasted 2 whole days. The other 3 hearings took numerous hours to process. Recent articles by The Huntsville Times stated the case load for the Madison County Court system has increased significantly over the past years. A primary contributor to this may very well be the actions of the judges and attorneys such as witnessed in this lawsuit. In addition, the appeals filed to Montgomery have cost the taxpayer as well. Can anyone truly calculate the overall cost that is being placed on the taxpayers due to Judge Little’s rulings? 

THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!  

                              THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR FAMILY!  

                                                      THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOUR CHILD!  

IT IS HAPPENING TO MINE RIGHT NOW – CHRIS HOBBS