AFJP Litigation
The AFJP litigates in state 
and federal courts to protect and defend fit parents and their children from unwarranted interference by government through the family law system. The AFJP uses the United States Constitution as a both a defensive shield and an offensive sword to protect family relationships.
The primary goal is to prevent the needless destruction of the relationship between a fit parent and their child, for the immediate well-being of the parent and child, and the long-term benefits to our society and nation.
During the 25 years Thorne has been an attorney, he has been lead or co-counsel in numerous trials in Texas courts and quasi-judicial administrative tribunals, argued numerous substantive motions for which briefs or memoranda of law were submitted, and prosecuted extraordinary writs and substantive appeals in various state and federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.
In addition to the state and federal appellate court cases in which Thorne has been directly involved, Thorne has observed the argument of more than three dozen appeals in various state and federal appellate courts, including the Texas Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Texas, the U.S. Court(s) of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
The vast majority of Thorne’s work over the past six years has been pro bono. Thorne has served as lead counsel, co-counsel, consulting counsel, expert witness, or amicus in cases in Texas, Ohio, New York, Illinois, California, Florida, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Tennessee.
Thorne’s interest has shifted toward serving in an amicus role, as it has become apparent that alignment with either parent is counter-productive to illumination of the deeper issues in most cases. Consequently, Thorne now strongly prefers to serve as a “friend of the court”, an amicus curiae, or as a “friend of the child”, an amicus infans (to give the voiceless minor child a voice). A few examples of the types of cases in which Thorne participates are as follows.