By Sandy , , , In 2000, in a case named Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court of the United States described the interest of parents in caring for their children to be, “. . .  perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”

And indeed, for the vast majority of Americans, the right to live with and parent our own

children is taken for granted. However, that right is subjugated for those found to have harmed their children, and for a smaller sub-set in one state, it is denied completely for those who have done nothing at all to harm their own children.

While several states have codified prohibitions and restrictions on persons with sexual offense convictions in regard to their own children, they appear to be tied to stringent requirements—narrowly tailored–and/or have built-in pathways to ending the prohibition. Apparently Alabama’s alone goes furthest. In Alabama, one conviction for any sexual offense involving a child, including people whose offense involved no contact with a child, renders many parents being barred for life from living with their own children as long as they are minors.

A man named Bruce Henry challenged that law as being unconstitutional.

In 2013, Mr. Henry had pled guilty to possession of child sexual abuse material. He served five years, relapsed in 2019 by viewing pornography while on probation, and his supervised probation was increased. He was clearly in the demographic that would place him under Ala. Code § 15-20A-11(d).

In August 2021 a child was born to Henry and his wife. Before the year was out, he had brought a 14^th amendment constitutional challenge against the sheriff and the county attorney of his county and the attorney general of the state of Alabama.

The case, Henry v. Abernathy, would go through three courts with each one finding essentially the same thing: The law was found to be unconstitutional because it is not sufficiently narrowly tailored. While lower courts found this to be the case on its face, the final decision is that it is unconstitutional as  applied to Mr. Henry.

But the prohibition is breached. Precedent is set.

Upon the last decision September 29, 2026, a journalist with the Alabama Courthouse News Service reached out to NARSOL—(National Assc. for Rational Sexual Offense Laws)–for a comment, which he published unedited: “Any law or practice that keeps parents from parenting their own children when no crime has been committed against those children is not only unconstitutional but also cruel. It causes harm not only to the children and parents involved but to society as a whole as it undermines the basic structure of society–the family.”

NARSOL first wrote about the case in May of 2025.

NARSOL is thankful for courts that are willing to speak out concerning laws and practices that are unconstitutional and sincerely hopes that this decision is but the beginning in Alabama and indeed the Eleventh Circuit.

We are grateful for journalists and media outlets that still report the news objectively, showing both sides of an issue without bias or editorializing.

We are especially thankful for Mr. Henry and his persistence and determination to gain that most basic of rights, the right to fully parent his own child.

According to U.S. Laws, “The case could have far-reaching effects on similar laws in other states. Legal experts will be watching closely to see how this decision influences future cases involving sex offenders and parental rights.”

They will be watching—and so will NARSOL.

The post “The oldest fundamental interest” first appeared on NARSOL.

By Larry . . . The case is Bruce Henry v. the Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in his official capacity, the District Attorney of Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, in his official capacity, and the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, in his official capacity. Alabama Code § 15-20A-11(d)(4) prohibits adult registrants who have been convicted of a sex offense involving a child from residing or conducting an overnight visit with a minor, including their own children. No exceptions are provided in the statute. An “overnight visit” occurs whenever an offender is in the same place as a minor for any part of the period “between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.” § 15-20A-4(14). According to the court, “Section 15-20A-11(d) prevents Henry from being present in the same home as his son (1) at any time between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (2) for more than four hours a day on three consecutive days; (3) for more than four hours a day on ten or more days during a calendar month; or (4) in any other circumstance where he is habitually and systematically present at his son’s home.” Opinion at 8.

In 2013, Bruce Henry pled guilty to one count of possessing images of minors. The decision noted that Henry has completed his term of imprisonment, married, and fathered a son. But Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) doesn’t allow him to live with his son. In 2021 he challenged Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) facially and as applied to him. He claimed that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) violates his First Amendment right of intimate association and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process of the law. Henry sought a declaratory judgment that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is overbroad and unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, and he requested that the district court enter an injunction against the defendants in order to prevent the law’s enforcement. In particular, he argued that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) interferes with perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests that the Fourteenth Amendment secures, which is the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. He cited Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), a precedent dating back more than 100 years.

According to the court, “Alabama has not narrowly tailored its law to achieve its goal. The law offers no escape hatch whatsoever. So, a person who’s been convicted of a qualifying offense has no chance to avoid the law’s prohibition by proving that they wouldn’t be dangerous to their child. Rather, in every case without fail, Alabama’s law prohibits sex offenders who’ve been convicted of a qualifying offense from residing with their child, even if the individual can prove they present no risk to their child.” Opinion at 3. The court went on to say, “As a result, it deprives some individuals convicted of qualifying offenses of their fundamental right to establish a home and bring up their own children, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And it deprives some children in Alabama of the presence of a parent who may be fit to lovingly care for and raise them.” Id.

Alabama argued that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is constitutional as applied to Henry because individuals convicted of a sex offense do not have a fundamental right to reside with their child. And the state asserted that even if Henry does have such a right, the law survives strict scrutiny because it is narrowly tailored to advance Alabama’s compelling interest in protecting children. The court stated, “We reject Alabama’s first claim and hold that Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to Henry. The Constitution guarantees parents the right to live with their children. Henry did not necessarily forfeit that right when he committed a sexual offense, yet Section 15-20A-11(d)(4) automatically deprives him of that right…” Opinion at 16-17. The 111-page opinion illuminates additional arguments that the court did not find compelling.

NARSOL is elated that the Eleventh Circuit has protected one of the most cherished rights one has. Attorney Paul Dubbeling from North Carolina handled the initial case as well as the appeal. At this time, we do not know if Alabama plans to file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

Larry  is on the NARSOL board and the Legal Committee.

The post Victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit first appeared on NARSOL.