Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas - Pennsylvania

Child-custody bill: Limit court action while soldier-parents overseas

Excerpt:

Pennsylvania soldiers sent into battle overseas would not have to worry about custody battles back home under a bill that cleared the Senate last week and moves to the state House.

Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, sponsored the bill that would prevent courts from making permanent changes to custody arrangements involving the children of any serviceman deployed for active duty.

And when a soldier returns home, the bill would prohibit courts from siding against the serviceman on the grounds that his military duties are not in the child's best interest.

Sacks, Allred Debate New CA. Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

In relation to the post below, Glenn Sacks debated attorney Gloria Allred last Friday about this case and move away cases in general. What follows are verbatim excerpts from an email. You can visit GlennSacks.com or His Side with Glenn Sacks for more information or to sign up for email updates.

Excerpts:

California Supreme Court Rules Against Dad in New Move-Away Decision

From 1996 to 2004 move-away determinations were based on the Burgess decision, in which a custodial mother was allowed to move her two children 40 miles away from their father. Burgess was disastrous for children because it was interpreted by California courts to permit moves of hundreds or thousands of miles. In some cases, courts have even allowed children to be moved out of the country, as far away as Australia, New Zealand, and Zaire.

In 2004 the California Supreme Court decided the LaMusga case in favor of the father, Gary LaMusga, who sought to prevent his ex-wife from moving his two young boys from California to Ohio. LaMusga, who is unable to follow his children because he operates a small business and is tied down by weighty child support obligations, had fought the move for eight years. In siding with the father the court explained that "the likely impact of the proposed move on the noncustodial parent's relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether the move would cause detriment to the children."

Soon afterwards a handful of extreme feminists prevailed upon former California Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) to introduce SB 730, which would have abrogated LaMusga and given custodial parents almost unlimited move-away privileges. We organized to fight the bill, and generated thousands of calls and letters in opposition, as well as a lot of media attention. To everybody's surprise, Burton withdrew SB 730, and LaMusga was preserved.

Fortunately the new decision in Brown vs. Yana will not have the impact of Burgess or LaMusga--it is more technical and limited in scope, and the father's underwhelming legal effort and behavior hurt him. To learn more about the new ruling, see Court Rules Parents With Custody Can Move (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/06).

To learn more about California move-aways and the LaMusga case, see my co-authored column Is a Pool More Important than a Dad? (San Francisco Chronicle, 5/4/04) and read my LaMusga radio commentary here. To read a feminist view of the move-away issue, see Allred's column "Moving Matters in Custody" (Los Angeles Daily Journal, 10/3/02).

I discussed how this issue would be viewed if we switched the genders in my column California NOW Takes Stand Against Working Mothers (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 2/23/04), and argued in favor of a current Wisconsin move-away bill in my co-authored piece AB 400 Will Help Wisconsin's Children of Divorce (Wisconsin State Journal, 12/3/05). I clashed with feminist law professor Carol Bruch, who authored the mother's brief in LaMusga, on PBS's Los Angeles affiliate KCET last year--to watch, click here.

Sacks, Allred Debate New California Supreme Court Move-Away Decision

For example, Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways unfairly restrict custodial moms from moving, while not restricting noncustodial fathers. I answer that in these cases both parents are free to move wherever they want--it is the children who may not be moved if a court determines that it is against their best interests.

Gloria often says that restrictions on move-aways keep custodial parents "held hostage" in their neighborhoods, and that they should be able to "move on with their lives." I respond that both parents retain responsibilities to their children after divorce which are sometimes inconvenient or limiting, and ask "Would we argue that noncustodial parents' responsibility to pay child support holds them 'hostage?' Do we condone the behavior of divorced parents who decide to drop out of their children's lives or stop paying child support because they've decided to 'move on with their lives?'"

Another Bizarre Father Screwing

According to the article Not guilty, but not off the hook (2/6/06):

"A man who spent 13 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of murder faces a debt of more than $38,000 in child-support payments that started accumulating while he was locked up...

"A federal judge released Souter last April 1.

"In 1987, before his conviction, [Larry] Souter was ordered to pay $100 a week in his divorce with Christine Souter. He stopped paying when he went to prison in 1992 but didn't ask to have payments suspended until 1995.

"Court documents show that in 1997, he owed $23,000 in back support. As of last month, interest and penalties had pushed it to $38,082.25.

"Federal law prohibits judges from retroactively wiping out such debts...

"David Sarnacki, an attorney for Souter's ex-wife, wrote in a court filing that his client 'has endured the substantial burden of raising her two children without defendant's contribution of child support.'"

I love the quote from his ex-wife's attorney. Yes, he didn't pay child support because he was in prison framed on a murder charge. I guess we should be grateful the lawyer didn't refer to Souter as a "deadbeat dad." That'll probably be next. One would also think that after seeing her ex-husband rot in jail for 13 years for a crime he didn't commit, she would feel so damn sorry for the poor guy that she would back off. I guess not.

In the article Wrongly convicted man tries to move on after prison (Flint Journal, 1/7/06), Souter had discussed putting his life back together and his plans. Now he may be headed back on the road to jail.

I wrote about California legislation designed to deal with the problem of ex-offenders and child support in my co-authored column Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 9/21/05). The Bradley Amendment, under which child support arrearages cannot be retroactively forgiven, is the cause of countless bizarre injustices, and often hurts deployed military personnel. In my co-authored column Laws must protect the rights of military dads (Army Times, Marine Corps Times, 3/28/05) family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"[Child] support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support.

"For example, a California naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job would have a child support obligation of about $1,600 a month. If this father is a petty officer second class (E5) who has been in the reserves for six or seven years--a middle-ranked reservist--his active-duty pay would only be $2,205 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance. Under current California child support guidelines, the reservist's child support obligation should be $550 a month, not $1,600."

A reasonable reader unfamiliar with the wonders of the child support system would probably think 'OK, but the courts would just straighten it out when the reservist gets back--certainly they wouldn't punish him for something that happened because he was serving.' However, the federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date which an obligor has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with as little as one day's notice. If a reservist didn't have time or didn't know he had to file for a downward modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

"When the arrearage reaches $5,000--a common occurrence during long deployments--the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of driver's licenses, business licenses and passports."

This is a particularly long newsletter so I am going to cut the excerpts here. However, Glenn also discusses child abduction, the campaign against PBS "documentary" Breaking the Silence, Newsweek coverage of The Trouble With Boys, domestic violence laws, Italian custody laws, and female inmates - amongst other topics. Visit his site to read the newsletter here.

Tis the Season for Divorce

Well, divorce is all over the news lately. And for good reason - as pointed out by MIsForMalevolent January is the peak month for divorce.

I do some work with a local agency that is available to parents who would like to try and have a more amicable divorce. It is not a true "collaborative divorce" program as has been described by the media lately. The parties are not represented by their own respective lawyers - though there is always an available attorney to answer points of law. The crux of the program is learning based - understanding how divorce affects children and then the parents go into an unbinding mediation session where they try to come to a resolution on custody. While we will help them to dissolve all of their marital property if they can do so quickly and without much rancor - primarily we deal with issues involving the children.

The success rate of this program is very high but there is a pretty rigid screening process so only those who truly desire to cooperate but are impeded by hurt feelings, etc are accepted. It is almost entirely volunteer - including the advising attorneys and the court approved mediators.

The "traffic" of the agency pretty much dies in December. People become involved in the holidays and often wait to break the news to their spouse after they "get through the holidays." Often their reasoning for this is to not ruin the children's holiday.

But in January we get slammed. It seems the calls start on New Years Day and things don't get back to normal levels until mid February or so. Every year it is this way and we have to turn away even qualified couples due to lack of resources.

So this is a depressingly busy time for me. And for a lot of other people as well.

Soldiers' divorce rates up

Excerpts:

Among enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army, there were 7,152 divorces in 2004, an increase of 28 percent over the previous year and 53 percent since 2000. Among Army officers, the rate of divorce jumped 78 percent between 2003 - the year the U.S. invaded Iraq - and 2004.

A total of 3,325 Army officers were divorced in 2004, more than three times the number that divorced in 2000. The increases are especially meaningful considering the overall number of enlisted military personnel has barely changed over the last five years.

Research has shown that around 20 percent of military marriages end in divorce within two years of one partner's going to war.

Divorce has lasting effects on happiness levels

Excerpts:

A study published in the December 2005 issue of Psychological Science shows that divorce leaves a lasting effect on one's satisfaction levels. A person's happiness level drops as she or he approaches divorce and gradually rebounds over time. But the level of satisfaction does not return to baseline (the level of satisfaction felt prior to the divorce).

Putting the children first

Excerpts:

For years the national divorce rate has fluctuated between 45 and 50 percent, on the source. Wyoming's divorce rate is 44 percent higher than the national average, according to a national vital statistics report.

Many of these separations involve children. In 2003 alone, nearly 2,500 Wyoming children were directly affected by their parents’ divorces.

The Wyoming Children's Access Network provides parent-education seminars for divorcing, separated and never-married parents. The one-time, 4-hour seminar is offered monthly in Cheyenne, Cody, Gillette, Jackson, Lander, Laramie, Rawlins, Rock Springs, Sheridan and Torrington.

The seminar provides information on the impact of parental conflict on children and teaches parents skills to help with the difficult transition. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other adults close to the children are welcome to attend as well.

A nominal fee is charged; based on need, the fee may be waived upon request. Pre-registration is required 24 hours in advance. Info: toll-free (866) 726-3700.

Colorado's Restriction of Protections Against Paternity Fraud

Excerpts:

On New Year's Day the children and fathers of Colorado got a present courtesy of the state legislature. Effective January 1, a man's right to challenge his paternity of alleged offspring was restricted to the duration of the proceedings of a divorce, separation or child support action.

Once a final order is entered in that proceeding, a new state law says, the putative father is barred from presenting newly discovered evidence of non-paternity -- ever.

State Senate Bill 181, enacted in Colorado's 2005 legislative session, requires that any evidence from genetic testing of parent and child be introduced before the entry of final orders. The new law applies to divorce, child support establishment and enforcement and parentage.

"Women file over two-thirds of all divorces in America," said Richar' Farr, founder of the Internet radio station KRightsRadio.com. "And with the increasing number of cases constesting paternity across the nation, this action is simply another example how our elected officials are out of touch with the real needs of the people they are elected to serve. This law benefits no one but the state's treasury," Farr added.

Insanity in Kansas

Reasons to stay out of Kansas:

Judge rules for mother in custody case where father is in Iraq

Excerpts:

LAWRENCE, Kan. - A custody battle between a Marine stationed in Iraq and his estranged wife may have implications for all Kansas service members who are overseas, according to a lawyer involved in the case.

A Franklin County judge has twice ruled that a federal law meant to protect military personnel from civil litigation does not apply in the custody case between Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley and his estranged wife, Amber Bradley.

Levi Bradley, who has lived in Pomona and Ottawa, filed for divorce in May. When he was deployed to Iraq, he asked for a delay in the custody case over their 2-year-old son.

The Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, signed in 2003, shields military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones from lawsuits and evictions until they are back in the U.S. The law required judges to postpone judgment for at least 90 days if the service member applies for more time.

Court records show that Levi Bradley and his mother, Starleen Bradley, had legal custody of the child when he was deployed in July. Amber Bradley, the Marine's estranged wife, signed the agreement.

Levi Bradley asked in October - a month before the first child custody hearing was scheduled - to delay further proceedings. The application included a letter from his commanding officer in Iraq and his own testimony, as the law requires.

But on Nov. 8, Franklin County Judge James Smith ruled that the mother should get custody of the child, saying the federal law didn't apply because the temporary action affected the child, not Levi Bradley himself.

Apology to student suspended for speaking Spanish in school

The boy, a high school junior, was sent home from the Endeavor Alternative School in the Turner School District on Nov. 28 for talking in Spanish, his native language, at lunch and later in the day. Principal Jennifer Watts sent him home and suspended him through the following day.

District officials said Watts told the boy's father the suspension was a direct result of his speaking Spanish. Superintendent of Schools Bobby Allen reversed the suspension within hours of learning about it from the father, the district said.

"As soon as he found out, he contacted the parent and said that should not have happened," said Bart Swartz, the district's executive director of certified personnel.

New Baskerville Articles

The Fathers’ War
They serve their country and lose their children.
By Stephen Baskerville

Excerpts:

While our country focuses on the war abroad, many of our soldiers fight personal battles here at home—or more accurately, can’t fight. They are losing their families and getting little help from an administration that claims to “support the troops” while doing nothing to protect the parental rights of the fathers it sent into combat.

Muffled by feminist orthodoxy, the Army and media are not disclosing the facts behind these divorces or publicizing the threat they pose to preparedness. The important points are these: the divorces are almost all initiated by wives, the servicemen usually lose their children—which for many is their main incentive for serving their country—and finally, they often become liable to criminal prosecution for child support that is impossible for them to pay.

Even more astounding, vicariously divorced servicemen can be criminally prosecuted for child-support arrearages that are almost impossible not to accrue while they are on duty. Reservists are hit particularly hard because their child-support burdens are based on their civilian pay and do not decrease when their income decreases. Because reservists are often mobilized with little notice, few get modifications before they leave, and modifications are almost never granted anyway. They cannot get relief when they return because federal law prohibits retroactive reductions for any reason. Once arrearages reach $5,000, the soldier becomes a felon and subject to imprisonment.

Spouses have other financial incentives to divorce military personnel. A serviceman must complete 20 years of active service to qualify for retirement pay. A woman married to the man for one day may claim a portion of the pension for life, without regard to fault or need, simply by filing for divorce. As David Usher points out in Men’s News Daily, there is no limit on how many times a woman can do this. (Men have done it too.)

The flight of men from the military strikingly parallels the flight of men from marriage, with its attendant drop in birth rates, that has come to preoccupy policymakers up to the level of president. Men are staying away from both institutions for the same reasons: for many they have become a ticket to jail.

VIOLENCE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION
By Professor Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D

Excerpts:

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), currently up for renewal, is possibly the most totalitarian measure ever passed by the Congress. Every jurisdiction has criminal statutes punishing violent assault. So why do we need a law punishing assaults specifically "against women"? Why must it be a federal law, for which no constitutional authority exists? And why is $4 billion in taxpayers’ money required to outlaw something that is already against the law? The answer, as usual, is power – power for those who promise to protect us against yet another new danger.

It is politically hazardous for politicians to question any measure marketed for women and children. But no evidence indicates any problem of violence specifically against women. A virtually unanimous body of research has demonstrated that domestic violence is perpetrated by both sexes in roughly equal measures. So what is the real agenda behind this bill?

Supporters like Senator Joseph Biden hem and haw that, despite the name, VAWA applies to both sexes. Yet they adamantly oppose explicitly gender-inclusive language. This is self-refuting, like the joke about the bad restaurant where the food is inedible and the portions are too small.

VAWA circumvents the Bill of Rights. Criminal assault charges require due process of law, but labeling something "domestic violence" allows officials to ignore constitutional protections: the presumption of innocence is cast aside; hearsay evidence is admissible; no jury trial is required; the accused cannot face their accusers; even forced confessions are permissible. These are the methods being used in the burgeoning system of feminist "domestic violence courts" that are created for no reason other than to bypass civil liberties protections and railroad men into jail.

Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment' - Phyllis Schlafly

I will likely reprint most of this article but that should not stop you from visiting the source: Human Events Online - Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment' by Phyllis Schlafly.

Also, this article mentions Michigan legislation HB 5100 which I mentioned here, more information can be found on the Michigan Legislature site as well as in the Dads of Michigan Forum.

On to the article:

Court Takes Kids from Dads, Saying Service in Iraq Is 'Abandonment'
by Phyllis Schlafly

Gallant Americans are risking life and limb in Iraq to defend home and country. But they never dreamed they might lose their children, too.

When Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Mich., came home after 15 months in Iraq, he found that a family court "referee" had taken away his joint custody of his 10-year-old son and given full custody and control to the boy's mother.

For five years, McNeilly had had a 50-50 no-problem custody arrangement with his ex-girlfriend Holly Erb. When called up to go to Iraq, he gave her temporary full custody while he was overseas.

While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody permanent. When McNeilly protested, he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment and produced custody "points" against him.

"You want to make a soldier cry, you take his son away," McNeilly said. "It's devastating."

Michigan State Rep. Rick Jones became interested in this injustice. When he contacted the Judge Advocate General's office, he discovered that there are 15 to 20 similar cases in Michigan and it is a common problem all over the United States.

Jones has introduced legislation (HB 5100) providing that absences for military service cannot be used against a parent and that a permanent custody arrangement cannot be established while a parent is on active duty. He is hearing from legislators in other states who want to sponsor similar bills.

Since McNeilly's case was reported in the press, Erb's lawyer and the court's representative are trying to claim that depriving him of his father's rights wasn't because he was serving in Iraq, but because of his poor parenting skills.

The proof? McNeilly sent a couple of postcards to his son that showed soldiers training with a gun. Horrors! How un-politically correct to tell a son that soldiers in Iraq carry guns.

Erb's lawyer asserted that the postcards frightened the boy and showed that McNeilly is not a fit parent. But surely the boy had a right to know about his father's career and that soldiers who use guns are pursuing an honorable vocation.

The referee's report also justified deciding for mother custody because she was the "day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child's life" while McNeilly was deployed. But that's what mothers have always done when their men go off to war and it's no argument for taking the child away from his father upon return.

Day-to-day caretaker is feminist jargon to promote their ideology that the mother should have full custody and control because the father is not around to change diapers and do household chores. He is merely working a job, or sometimes two jobs, to support his family.

Follow the money to explain some of the motivation. When the mother was given full custody, the court ordered McNeilly to pay her $525 a month, which she would lose if they return to joint custody.

The real problem in this case is the arrogance of family courts, which claim the right to decide child custody based on their subjective personal opinions about the "best interest of the child." Family court judges, and the psychologists and referees they hire, routinely violate the fundamental right of parents to make their own decisions about the best interest of their own children.

Family courts are subjective and arbitrary, so unlucky divorced parents could get a judge or a referee who is anti-gun, or anti-military, or anti-spanking, or anti-homeschooling, or anti-religion, or a feminist who wants to transform the middle class into a matriarchal society as has already been done to the welfare class, with tragic results.

The notion that family court judges, psychologists and referees can impose personal views about what is "the best interest of the child" rather than a child's own parents is just another way of saying "it takes a village to raise a child." Thousands of good fathers have been deprived of their fundamental rights in the care and upbringing of their children by courts that treat fathers as good for nothing more than a paycheck.

The large number of fathers who have been the victims of family-court fatherphobia is no doubt the reason that one of the most popular songs on country music stations this year is Tim McGraw's "Do You Want Fries with That?" The lyrics are the cry of a father who is working a minimum-wage second job in a fast-food restaurant, living alone in a tent, after being ordered by a judge to support his children living in his house with his ex-wife and her boyfriend.

The father laments, "You took my wife, and you took my kids, and you stole the life that I used to live; my pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat."

Military Parental Rights - Michigan

I am copying this verbatim from an email I received:

MILITARY PARENTAL RIGHTS: Military personnel serving overseas could not lose custody rights of their children under a bill that won unanimous approval Thursday by the House.

Support for HB 5100 was generated when a Grand Ledge National Guard member testified he lost custody after spending a year in Iraq despite sharing custody of his son on an equal basis for five years.

The bill, passed 108-0, prohibits a court from considering a parent's separation from his or her child due to military service when making a "best interest of the child" determination and declares that an established custodial environment with a parent could not be destroyed during that military service. It also prohibits decisions being made on permanent custody of children while a parent is deployed overseas.

Army Marriages May Be Casualty Of War

Army Marriages May Be Casualty Of War
Divorce Rate Soars, Especially For Officers

WSBTV.com

Excerpts:

While U.S. casualties steadily mount in Iraq, another toll is rising rapidly on the home front: The Army's divorce rate has soared in the past three years, most notably for officers, as longer and more frequent war zone deployments place extra strain on couples.

Between 2001 and 2004, divorces among active-duty Army officers and enlisted personnel nearly doubled, from 5,658 to 10,477, even though total troop strength remained stable. In 2002, the divorce rate among married officers was 1.9 percent - 1,060 divorces out of 54,542 marriages; by 2004, the rate had tripled to 6 percent, with 3,325 divorces out of 55,550 marriages.

For those troops who do divorced, military breakups can pose unique legal and logistical challenges, especially when one spouse is deployed overseas.

Mark Sullivan, a former Army lawyer who now practices privately in Raleigh, N.C., says soldiers in often-deployed units may have trouble winning child custody and - when posted abroad - arranging visits from their children. In one recent case, Sullivan has represented a Tennessee father whose ex-wife is now seeking custody of their daughter because the man's National Guard unit was sent overseas.

Kidd said the divorce problem could get even worse, as long the campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere require frequent deployments.

Divorce And Child Support Are Eviscerating Military Recruitment

Divorce And Child Support Are Eviscerating Military Recruitment David R. Usher

Excerpts:

Men are not stupid. They have learned that when they are patriotic and join the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced and come home to a huge child support debt and perhaps even a jail cell on criminal nonsupport charges.

Divorce rates in America are still over 50%. For the military it is even higher -- albeit nobody knows exactly what the real number is since the Pentagon doesn’t report home-front casualty rates.

A man on duty overseas can be hit with a surprise divorce, lose everything he owns, and have a “temporary” child support order levied against him. There is nothing in any federal or state law or the SSCRA requiring that child support orders be based on real contemporary income.

Courts are quite likely to base the child support order on imputed civilian pay – which is commonly much higher than military pay. It is not exceptional to see military men paying over half of their pretax income as child support.

The U.S. military suggests reservists seek a support modification when called into active duty. The Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families (ACF) instructs similarly.

Where only 4% of civilian men are able to get support modifications, we can safely say it far more difficult to accomplish from a tent in Iraq.

This delivers military men directly into the clutches of criminal federal and state child support laws. If a man becomes either $5,000 or six months (FILO basis of accrual) in support arrears, he becomes a felon. He then automatically loses his passport, driver’s license, business license, professional licenses, and vehicle licenses. If convicted, he loses his right to vote in most states.

Two states, California and Illinois have bills pending this session. The National Organization for Women is opposing the Illinois bill (as we would expect).

Military Dads Denied Father's Rights

Military Dads Denied Father's Rights - Wendy McElroy

Excerpts below:

Sean may never hear that lullaby again, not because his father Gary died but because Sean's mother relocated him to Israel. She visited family there during one of Gary's re-deployments and simply stayed, seeking a divorce from abroad.

"I am paying $2,100 a month not to see my son," Gary told Fox News in 2003.

This is the new face of father's rights, a face men's rights activists are determined you will see in coming months: the military man who is 'processed' by the family courts during his tour of duty or upon his return. A father who returns 'home' to children he cannot see and, often, to support payments he cannot make.

"Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life for [in Afghanistan]," Gary told fathers' rights activist Glenn Sacks. I went to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a man doesn't have the right to be a father to his own child?"

The grassroots organization American Coalition of Fathers and Children has just launched a vigorous ad campaign to educate the public on how anti-father bias in the courts is destroying the family. An ad currently being prepared by the ACFC highlights the dilemma of military dads who are victimized by zero-tolerance and unreasonable legislation that was passed to deal with "deadbeats."

An indication of how strong the public backlash might be came in the early '90s with the Bobby Sherrill case. Sherrill wasn't a member of the military proper; he was a Lockheed employee and divorced father working in Kuwait when Iraq invaded.

Sherrill was held captive by the Iraqis for five months. Upon his return to North Carolina, he was arrested for non-payment of $1,425 in child support that accrued while he was a hostage.

No Breaks for Servicemen

Over the weekend this site received the story a of recently home from Iraq soldier. While he was deployed his wife moved out of state. You can see his post here under comments.

I don't have any good answers for this - it is truly a deplorable act to try to take advantage of the fact that your spouse is out of the country FIGHTING A WAR to get the upper hand in your divorce. As always, my first advice would be to find a good attorney and retain them. Martindale.com can be a good starting point or contact your local chapter of the ABA and ask for a lawyer referral. In my country, if you are referred from the ABA the attorney will give you a free introductory (usually around 30 mins) session. Take advantage of these referrals to find an attorney you are truly comfortable with without having to pay just to meet them.

For currently deployed members of the military, the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act provides some relief from civil proceedings. Info here and here.

Here is a *similar* story out of Pittsburgh - except in this case the father is/was still deployed.

This case isn't the same scenario - the father lost custody prior to his deployment and because of his deployment. However, as I said in the post about deployed moms, I do think this is appropriate. Obviously the deployed soldier cannot act as primary custodial parent while deployed, the proper alternative (unless there are some mitigating circumstances that prevent this from being a safe alternative for the child) should be the other parent.

The Marines offer a support website: http://www.mccsonesource.com/ for families of deployed servicemembers.

This is an opinion article: Separated dads miss so much at Christmas

Update on Deployed Moms

This an update to this post.

It looks like the judge in one case used some common sense, in the other I am inclined to say not so much. However, we do not know all the details...

Detroit News

Michigan women soldiers heading to Iraq deal with custody issues

JACKSON -- Before leaving to serve in Iraq, two Army National Guard reservists had to deal with separate custody battles on the home front.

Sgt. Wendy Fowler of Michigan Center and Spc. Julie Guenther of Jackson were among 37 members of the Jackson-based 1461st Transportation Company who were departing Thursday for training at Fort Riley, Kan., and eventually Iraq.

But before they left, a judge had to decide their unresolved custody issues.

“I have spent a few nights crying my eyes out,” Guenther, 32, a data entry and imaging clerk for the Jackson County Register of Deeds, told The Jackson Citizen Patriot. “It’s been very stressful.”

In cases of being deployed, all National Guard members are required to have family plans in place that outline care and custody issues. And with more women and mothers serving, custody matters have become more complex.

In the cases of Guenther and Fowler, their children’s biological fathers wanted full custody while the women are deployed. To further complicate matters, the children involved also are part of larger blended families.

“Blended families are an issue in the military because they are an issue in society,” said Capt. Dawn Dancer, spokeswoman for the Michigan National Guard. “We have not heard of a large number of these kinds of problems, though.”

Guenther and her former husband, Charles Snitchler, have joint custody of their 2-year-old son, Jacob Snitchler. Guenther remarried last month and preferred that the arrangement continue with her new husband caring for the child during her part of the “50-50” arrangement.
But at a Probate Court hearing Wednesday, Judge Susan Vandercook gave Snitchler sole physical custody of Jacob, while Guenther serves in Iraq.

“That’s what I assumed the judge would do,” Snitchler said afterward. “I’m pleased with the outcome.”

Fowler’s dispute involved her 13-year-old son, Nicolas Gorney, who is the oldest of four children, including three from a subsequent marriage.

The teen’s father, Troy Linden, lives in the Flint area and sought full custody for Fowler’s tour of duty. But Fowler preferred that all four of her children remain with her parents, David and Ruth Gorney of Michigan Center.

“With me being gone, the younger kids are going to need him (Nicolas) as much as he’s going to need them,” said Fowler, who works as an office manager for DMG Services in Jackson.
The judge agreed and ruled Wednesday that Nicolas will stay with his grandparents during her tour of duty, which could last up to two years. Linden will continue to have supervised visits, she said.

Linden, 34, said he admires the sacrifices Fowler is making for her country but said he is devastated by the ruling.

“I’m his father,” the tool-and-die maker told The Flint Journal. “If one parent is not available, the child should go to the other parent. I wasn’t proved to be unfit.”

Custody Fights with Deployed Moms

This is an article discussing two mothers who are being deployed to Iraq, where the fathers of their children are seeking full custody because of the deployment. In truth, I think this article is pretty lame. It does not discuss the legalities around these issues, and while it attempts to look impartial, by not fully discussing the cases, it is obviously sympathetic to the moms. It includes a quote from Dads of Michigan - but either it is out of context, or this man is not such a great advocate for the cause.

There are two cases discussed - my favorite being the case of a mother of a 2 year old who remarried three weeks ago, after finalizing her divorce with the childs father a month ago. Did you get that - 1 week in between her divorce and remarriage - all occurring in the last month. She has a 50-50 custody split with her ex-husband and while she is deployed she wants her 50 - 50 situation to continue with her current husband acting for her. From the article:

"Guenther and her former husband of eight years, Charles Snitchler, have joint custody of their 2-year-old son, Jacob Snitchler. Guenther remarried last month and would prefer the arrangement continue with her new husband caring for the child during her part of the "50-50" arrangement. "

"He (Guenther's new husband) has no reason to be with him," said Snitchler, who lives in Jackson. "My arrangement is with her, not her husband of three weeks.

"I didn't agree with that. I think it would be in my son's best interests to remain with me."

"Guenther's divorce from Snitchler was finalized last month. "

Um, hello, this woman wants her new husband of THREE WEEKS to share custody with her ex-husband and THE FATHER OF THE CHILD! And no comment from the author of the article or anyone else on how simply ridiculous this request is. What happens if, god forbid, she were to not come home from Iraq - should they share custody indefinitely? Besides, there is no legal justification whatsoever for this type of arrangement. And in terms of some type of argument of past practice, the child is two and his parents have been divorced for a month - it's not as if bio dad had been missing for the past eight years and just popped up when mom is getting deployed. They share custody!!! When she gets back, they can go back to sharing, but the dad is absolutely right that his custody arrangement has nothing to do with her new husband.

How do we live in a society that consistently ignores, denigrates and completely abuses biological fathers' rights - but will stick up for the rights of the newly appointed stepdad. The more I think about this the more disgusted I get. So now we are in a society where preference for the mother transfers over to 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages while the real Dad continues to get screwed. And how fitting, this article came from the Citizen Patriot, God Bless America.

The Betrayal Of The Military Father

This is a Glenn Sacks article, possibly I have posted it previously, but considering the reach of our current military it's focus still resonates...

AmericanDaily.com

Problems for Military Fathers

This article addresses complications in custody cases for deployed military fathers. (Though the same problems could be had by deployed moms) The article addresses moving, paternity and child support. MichNews.com