Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 18, 2018, 02:21:59 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
107385 Posts in 2403 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Betrayal of the Military Father
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The Betrayal of the Military Father  (Read 11303 times)
Power User
Posts: 42458

« on: May 21, 2003, 11:45:27 AM »

The Betrayal of the Military Father  
By Glenn Sacks

When Gary, a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL, was deployed in Afghanistan in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he never dreamed that his service to his country would cost him his little son. Gary's son was not taken from him by a terrorist or a kidnapper. This 17-year Navy veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record was stripped of his right to be a father by a California court.

Gary's story, which was the subject of a two-part Fox News feature called "SEAL, Sorrow" earlier this year, is not an unusual one. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, if a parent takes a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's presumptive residence after six months. Because a normal military deployment is six months or more, if an unhappily married military spouse moves to another state while the other spouse is deployed, by the time the deployed spouse returns the child's residence has already been switched. Since courts lean heavily in favor of a child's primary caregiver when determining custody, the spouse who moved the child is virtually certain to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in that new state.

Because of the strict restrictions on travel by active military personnel, the cost of legal representation, and the financial hardships created by child support and spousal support obligations, it is very difficult for returning service personnel to fight for their parental rights in another state. Many struggle even to see their children, much less remain a meaningful part of their lives, and the bond between the children and their noncustodial parent is often broken for years, if not permanently.

Gary has not been able to see his son, who now lives abroad, in nearly nine months. When he calls he can sometimes hear the three year-old ask "when daddy come?" and "where's daddy?" in the background but he is often prevented from speaking with him.

According to nationally-known family law attorney Jeffery Leving, author of Fathers' Rights , there are three solutions to the problems facing military fathers. First, the federal Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 needs to be amended to specifically prohibit the spouses of active duty military personnel from permanently moving children to other states without the permission either of the active duty military spouse or of a court. (The primary purpose of the Act, whose origins go back as far as the Civil War, is to protect active armed forces personnel by mandating that civil actions against them be delayed until after their return from service).

Second, California laws, which currently do little to prevent a custodial parent from moving children far away from the noncustodial parent, need to be changed to prohibit any permanent removals done against a deployed military parent's will. Third, the UCCJEA needs to be amended to state that the presumption of new residence does not apply if the children are taken in this wrongful fashion.

Gary has lost nearly $100,000 so far fighting for his son and may soon be forced to declare bankruptcy, which in turn will destroy the top secret security clearance he needs for his job. Worse yet is the emotional devastation wrought by his separation from his son and the knowledge that he may never see him again. He says:

"My love for my son cannot simply be brushed aside as the courts seem to believe it can. I can remember holding my little son's hand like it was yesterday. I can remember his cry. I hear it every time I hear another child crying."

"Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life [in Afghanistan] for. 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?"


Families and the War
By Dianna Thompson and Glenn Sacks
As the United States prepares for war against Iraq, tens of thousands of fathers who serve as reservists are preparing to say goodbye to their families and serve their country overseas. Yet, America's enemies abroad are not the only danger these dedicated men will face. Upon return, those with child support orders will face a threat here at home ? the war that is being waged against "deadbeat dads."

Bobby Sherrill, a divorced father of two from Parkton, N.C., was a casualty of that war. Mr. Sherrill, who worked for Lockheed in Kuwait before being captured and held hostage by Iraq for nearly five harrowing months, was arrested the night he returned from the Persian Gulf War. Why? For failing to pay $1,425 in child support while he was a captive.

If laws are not changed, thousands of today's reservists could face a similar threat. Reservists' child-support obligations are based upon their civilian pay, which is generally higher than their active-duty armed forces pay. When a child-support obligor's pay decreases, the remedy is to go to court and get a downward modification. However, since reservists are often mobilized with as little as 24-hours notice, few are able to get these modifications before they leave. As a result, many reservists fall hopelessly behind while serving, and can be subject to arrest for nonpayment of child support upon their return.

For example, a naval reservist who has three children and who takes home $4,000 a month in his civilian job could 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 $1,912 before taxes, in addition to a housing allowance.

States assess interest on arrearages as well as penalties on past-due child support. Because the federal Bradley amendment prevents judges from retroactively modifying or forgiving support, obligors who fall behind for legitimate reasons cannot have these arrearages wiped out. And even those returning servicemen who avoid jail or other sanctions may still spend years trying to pay off their child support debt ? a debt created entirely by their willingness to serve their country.

Though the Family Support Act of 1988 allows noncustodial parents who have had a reduction in income to request a decrease in their child support by getting downward modifications, few state agencies honor such requests. According to Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute, even among fathers who experience income drops of 15 percent or more, less than one in 20 are able to get courts to reduce their child-support payments. Because state agencies are federally reimbursed for every child-support dollar they collect, states have a powerful incentive to grab and hold on to every dollar they can.

Another problem is that the child support money that the armed forces are supposed to take out of reservists' paychecks and send to their families sometimes does not arrive. This was an issue for many Gulf War veterans, and reservists are having similar difficulties today. For example, Diane Keary, a custodial mother from Monsey, N.Y., has not received a child-support check since Joseph Keary Sr., her ex-husband, was called to active duty five months ago. Computer glitches such as this, as well as billing errors, can leave reservists subject to government sanctions upon their return.

What is needed to solve the problem is legislation like that passed by the Missouri legislature in the days leading up to the Gulf War. The Missouri statute, which is unique in the nation, requires an automatic adjustment of support for reservists called up for active duty.

During the Gulf War, more than 250,000 reservists were called up, and today more than 75,000 reservists and National Guard troops are on active duty as a result of the events of September 11. Many are now being notified that they will be expected to serve another year, and a total of 1.3 million reservists could be called into service for indefinite periods in the event of war.

James, a 16-year veteran of the Navy and the commander of a 177-member Naval Reserve Unit on the West Coast, is concerned about the effect that the current child-support policies could have upon his sailors when they are called to active duty. He says: "My people are sacrificing a lot to serve. I want them focused on our assigned mission. I don't want them worrying that their own government might come after them.

This column first appeared in the Washington Times (11/21/02).
Bryan Lee
Posts: 27

« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2006, 10:19:06 PM »

     Crafty, This is kind of thing that burns my backside too. I dont know how many times Ive watched soldiers get screwed by the system when it comes to thier familys. First they dont get enough money, and what was supplemted in the past by having so many social programs and discounted products on the bases  is either no longer funded or non existent now. 20 years ago  you could walk into any px in the country and the prices would be cheeper for just about everything. Now the PX system  cost as much or more as about any store around, In the past I would always go shop at the PX but now I dont even bother with that. How about medical, I would guess at least half the military hospitals in the country were shut down in the last 10 years alone, The VA medical system has pretty much been barely functional from the start, I cant Imagine the burden that it is under now or how it will possibly cope in the future with so many wounded soldeirs coming home and needing to be taken care of.

  I was viseting some family and became sick myself and rather than drive for a hour to the base I went to the VA hospital for some antibiotics. While I was waiting around here comes a security guy with the American Flag all wadded up in a ball where he had just taken it down, He then just threw it on a desk like one would throw out the trash and in general had a very shitty and disrespectful way of handling the Flag, Needless to say I pretty much lost it seeing that kind of thing, I asked him what he was doing and  wondered to myself did he have a clue where he was, "Inside a VA hospital full of sick and Dieng former soldiers" His attitude was it was none of my business and to F off he didnt have to please me nor did he give a damm about some Flag this was interupting his smoke break. I ended up leaving before I lost it and slapped one of his ears off or worse. I tried to make a more formal complaint but it fell on deaf ears, Most of the staff were neveer even in the Military and just didnt get it.

    About original story, Does anyone have a update about this case? This is the kind of thing that Base Leagle or the Judge Advocate should repersent 100% but that just dont happen in todays military. A good leagle fund for soldiers would sure help guys like this. I wonder how many Soldiers will lose their children under the same circumstances. Its a damm shame. Bryan Lee
Power User
Posts: 42458

« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2007, 11:16:38 AM »

From a Glenn Sachs email:

Deployed Troops Battle for Child Custody
As I've discussed in numerous columns, deployed military parents face a variety of family law-related problems, including custody and child support. In my co-authored Veterans Day column Protect Deployed Parents' Rights (Various papers, 11/11/06) I explained:

"Divorced or separated military parents often lose custody of their children--and sometimes permanently forfeit any meaningful role in their lives--simply because they have served their country. Many married parents deploy overseas, never suspecting that their parenthood essentially ended the day they left home."

Associated Press reporter Pauline Arrillaga wrote an excellent piece on this issue this week--Deployed Troops Battle for Child Custody (5/5/07). Arrillaga narrates the stories of several deployed service personnel who lost their children as a result of family law machinations done in their absence:

"Army reservist Brad Carlson lived in Phoenix with his wife, Bianca, and three kids when he volunteered to deploy to Kuwait in 2003. His wife and children were spending that summer with her parents in Luxembourg and expected to remain there until he returned from duty.

"A year later, after his wife indicated she wanted to end the marriage and remain in Luxembourg, Carlson filed for divorce in an Arizona court, seeking custody of Dirk, Sven and Phoebe, all American citizens.

"The Arizona court dismissed the custody case after Bianca's lawyer argued that jurisdiction belonged in Luxembourg because the children had resided there for at least six months.

"Again citing the Servicemembers Act, Carlson's attorney argued that the time the kids spent in Luxembourg shouldn't count toward residency because it came during Carlson's deployment.

"A Luxembourg court awarded custody to Bianca, and the kids remain there to this day.

"They call him 'Bradley' now, he says, instead of 'Daddy.' They converse in German in stilted long-distance phone calls that provide few precious minutes for a father to absorb missed moments - soccer games, kindergarten, birthdays. On Dirk's 9th, Carlson stood beneath a rainbow-colored birthday banner and had a friend take a digital photo of him holding a sign: 'Happy 9th Birthday Dirk!'

"Tears fill his eyes when it hits him: 'That's how I celebrate.'

"'I feel really betrayed,' Carlson says. 'To be able to send me into harm's way... and my own country can't protect my child custody rights. Why aren't they looking out for me, when I'm looking out for the country?'"

Carlson's story is similar to that of Gary S., the subject of my column The Betrayal of the Military Father (Los Angeles Daily News, 5/4/03). Former California Senator Bill Morrow saw that column, and, with the enormous assistance of Sacramento lobbyist Michael Robinson, it led to AB 1082, a military parents' bill signed into law in California in 2005. Some of you participated in our campaign in support of that bill--to learn more, click here.

In the column I wrote:

"When Gary, a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL, was deployed in Afghanistan in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he never dreamed that his service to his country would cost him his little son. Gary's son was not taken from him by a terrorist or a kidnapper. This 17-year Navy veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record was effectively stripped of his right to be a father by a California court."

Arrillaga also discusses the case of Lt. Eva Crouch of the Kentucky National Guard. When she was mobilized, her daughter Sara (pictured above) went to stay with her father. Arrillaga writes:

"A year and a half later, her assignment up, Crouch pulled into her driveway with one thing in mind - bringing home the little girl who shared her smile and blue eyes. She dialed her ex and said she'd be there the next day to pick Sara up, but his response sent her reeling. 'Not without a court order you won't.' Within a month, a judge would decide that Sara should stay with her dad. It was, he said, in 'the best interests of the child.'

"What happened? Crouch was the legal residential caretaker; this was only supposed to be temporary. What had changed? She wasn't a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an abusive mother.

"Her only misstep, it seems, was answering the call to serve her country.

"Crouch and an unknown number of others among the 140,000-plus single parents in uniform fight a war on two fronts: For the nation they are sworn to defend, and for the children they are losing because of that duty.

"A federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is meant to protect them by staying civil court actions and administrative proceedings during military activation. They can't be evicted. Creditors can't seize their property. Civilian health benefits, if suspended during deployment, must be reinstated.

"And yet service members' children can be - and are being - taken from them after they are deployed.

"Some family court judges say that determining what's best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers. And so, in many cases when a soldier deploys, the ex-spouse seeks custody, and temporary changes become lasting."

Crouch did eventually get her daughter back--after all, she is a woman in family court--and now the father is only allowed a few days a month with the girl. The better solution would have been shared parenting and a rough 50-50 time split, with one or more parent(s) moving to accommodate the other one. Eva Crouch was treated unfairly, but her case pales in comparison to many others.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!