Many Soldiers Fighting, Losing Custody Battles for Kids

AP reports:

If the terrorists hate freedom, the US Government hates kids, parents, soldiers...



That's one they don't tell you in the glossy recruitment ads. By joining us, we'll deem you an unfit parent. Now go spread some freedom.

Get in there Congressional Dems. Lots of neglect and harm to undo from years of Family Values on the march.



[edit on 6-5-2007 by RANT]

Another misleading thread title.

There are NOT 140,000 single soldiers fighting in Iraq and losing custody of their children.

Even the article says - an UNKNOWN NUMBER of single parent soldiers are losing custody. Some may be due to deployment. Some may be due to other reasons.

COMMON SENSE tells us that you can't have custody of a child AND be in a war zone at the same time. Someone else has to be taking care of the children in a safe non-war-zone area. Either the other parent or a grandparent or another custodian.

Of course not. Though the issue here is when they return from duty abroad, they're being denied the custody which was rightfully their's in the first place. The temporary change in custody was to be just that, temporary ...

Changed to "MANY" Flyers. Misread the first line.

But the point remains, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is long overdue for expansion to custodial rights reinstatement upon return.

That doesn't mean the temporary custodial parent can't sue for being a bad parent later, but being active duty doesn't make them bad parents.

There are NOT 140,000 PLUS single parent soldiers fighting and losing custody due to having been deployed. The Title of this thread is completely misleading. The OP needs to -

1 - Give a stat showing how many single parent soldiers can't have their children back once they return from battle.

2 - Show the reasons given by the justice system that decided it was best to give custody elsewhere. Prove it was just due to the parent going to battle.

Otherwise this thread is just inflamatory and serves no honest or educational purpose.

Custodial is custodial. It doesn't matter if they eventually win their kids back from the temporary custodial, they should not be allowed to be served while on duty. Read the article.

It's a battle they shouldn't have to face due to deployment. Deployment negates custody. The Servicemember Civil Relief Act needs expansion.

okay



That's fine. But don't forget that many of the people returning from war suffer serious mental health issues. To just hand children back over before the war-detox program is done isn't smart. There is a lot of stress upon return. A lot of 'unwinding' has to be done.

I want to see exactly how many returning single parent soldiers have been denied custody and why.

I did.

Personally I don't think that single parents should serve in the active military. At the same time, we can't take away their right to decide for themselves if they want to serve their country. They run the risk of losing custody if, upon return from being called into war, they are unable to properly function as parents.

This is horrendous. It's exploitation by the temporary custodial parent/guardian. What could be worse than losing your child?
I agree with the states that passed a law specifically stating that a person can't lose their child while deployed.
We shouldn't even need such a law, this is just common sense. Our soldiers are getting shorted on armor, health care and now this. They used to be treated with respect by our govt., now they're just so much cannon fodder to the powers that be.
This is just plain wrong.

I first heard about this from a state legislator. Some states are going to do something about this given the anecdotal evidence of how it's being used.

It appears that dads are using the loophole to basically 'snatch' custody from single mom exes that happen to join the Nat. Guard for extra income. It's been discussed a while, and even lobbied, but we all know there's been some more neaderthal types up there (or down there depending on your proximity to the 9th gate of hell - DC) that hate family courts prefering mom to dad anyway. And they kinda like the irony.

I'm just saying, you can't be evicted while deployed, you shouldn't be able to be served custody papers and thrown into a another battle you can't hope to concentrate on. Serve them when they get home, but have some proof they're bad moms. She went out for a pack of cigs in the middle of the night and never came back, not she got deployed to Fallujah.

Personally, I have no problem with the courts maintaining a “status quo” until the return of the absent parent or issuing some form of "special temporary order" with some form of built in expiration/condition etc.
But...

This type of 'custody game vs deployment' has been going on for a longtime now…there a quite a few states that have addressed this issue, including that of child support arrearages due to deployment and loss of civilian income. There were a number men coming back from tours facing felony charges and jail time after deployment…the custodial parents were also using laws (e.g. Bradley Amendment, the SCRA) to prevent reductions in support while the conservator was deployed…it goes both ways.

The problem here for the courts and legislators is while the deployed parent may have certain rights, the other parent has rights as well and more importantly the children also have rights; the rights of these other individuals can not be put on hold or taken away. Also, most states are directed by “best interests” statutes…the states can make the modifications temporary, but the court ordered ‘temporary orders’ will still need to be contested/modified once the absent parent returns.



Odd…the OP article contains mostly all men (Cpl. Levi Bradley, Sgt. Mike Grantham, Capt. Brad Carlson) having this happen to them…is it only a loophole when it concerns women?

Here are some other earlier reports similar to the OP article:

Gary S., a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL,… ”The Betrayal of the Military Father”…2003.
Michigan case, National Guardsman Joe McNeilly,… ”Service Members Parental Right’s Protection Overdue”…2006


mg

That is so much BS FlyersFan.

..and what do you think stresses them out most ?

Possibly they come back all stressed out because they come back being stripped of parenthood. You would doubly punish them for being stressed out by loss of custody.

You lack the basic human insight to see that your argument is a chicken and egg argument. Give them their kids back and their anxiety will reduce. Get a life you excuse artist for child abducters.

The Dems are anti-military proven by their track record to date.
Their ambiguous rallying cry of 'Support the Troops' is a facade about as much so as thier continued disingenuous spew of "family values."

"Family values" to Dems is nothing more than more government oversight and more government interference and control via more governmental policies. Yes, of course, YOU may like or want the government telling you what and how you can raise your kids, etc, but I will be damned if I will tolerate more of those Dems "family values" policies and controls that attempt to place how I raise my kids under governmental controls and guidelines. The traditional family unit has been nearly raped by the Dems and "family values," if their meddling continues, will have to be redefined, completely.

Dems have not done squat since they took over the House and the Senate. How quaint.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Seekerof]

I am with missed gear on this..this is not a new phenomonon. This has been going on longer than this Iraq/Afganistan buisness.

Often men have deployed overseas before this war either in permanent unacompanied tours or Temporary Duty and are served such papers while overseas. I was a military dependent and knew of this often.

Or men in the Navy serving on ships out to sea. The Navy has a very high rate of this happening. How many come home to find that thier house is empty and all moved out to somewhere else.

I cant imagine what the OP is thinking. This has been going on a very long time to men. It is only a travesty if it is happening to women.

In the local paper here the storys were primarily of women losing their children in such custody battles as a result of this current war. It was obvious to me that it was about the women..not the men.

The men were expendable and disposable...thier feelings and emotions dont count. It is only a travesty if it happens to a woman in the service. That was the clear message to me.

It has been happening to men in the military as long and as far back as I can remember.

But the OP is about a democratic party stance and the Democrats depend on the womens votes. NO wonder the stance. They cannot risk losing some of their voting base by a reality check or anything like the truth.

The men in this country have been subject to this type of thing for to long. Its time for the women ante up and take on some of the burden of duty, honor, and dont forget equality.
Just like the men have done for so long, they must soldier on and serve their country. No matter what.

I noticed this tack immediately when I saw the article in the newspaper and how obviously sexist and biased it was.

OH ..and I also agree with Seekerof in that the Dems have always been anti family and anti military. This was clearly obvious to the public in the 2000 Florida election when the Dems wanted to discount the Military absentee ballots.
What a cheap shot.
Now they want to act in the name of the family because it affects women...ie ..womens votes. What a cheap shot again.

By the way..I dont believe this so called war has actually started...but it will. What you see happening world wide is only a prelude to the real war.
What is going to happen to the family unit then?? Think this through carefully. By then this will become all a moot point.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 26-8-2007 by orangetom1999]