I read recently of a mother coming home from combat after a year and having to fight to see her 2 year old daughter. The military is no exception when it comes to bad marriages and exes using their children as weapons. Its hard to say though that a parent who goes off for a year or 15 months of an infant's life should automatically get physical custody of a child upon return. You'd hope that the parent staying with the child would talk of the missing parent, show pictures, etc, notice I said hope. Either way its very disruptive and confusing to automatically give the child back to a returning soldier. There should be a transition with liberal visitation until the child is comfortable. And are we assuming automatically that the soldier returning home should get custody because she's the mom? What about the father who raised this baby alone while the mother was away? What rights does he have?

A very close friend of mine is in a unit that deploys often. He has been away for 10 out of his daughter's 15 years. He also has a 12 and 10 year old. He acknowledged to me that military life made it hard to visit when his ex who also was in the military was stationed elsewhere. I love my friend and I am grateful for his service, but since home, he has driven to Florida to see parents at least 4 times and only stopped once to see his kids in Georgia. He has not seen or spoken to his kids in 3 years and demanded that he be allowed to take them for a weekend alone. His ex asked to meet with him and spend some time together to give the kids time to adjust. He refused because he felt his right as a father superceded this and chose to skip out on visitation. I sympathize with him because he did not abandon his children because he's a bad guy, but he will tell you he loves and lives for his job and its a job that takes him away from his kids frequently for long periods of time. What's in his children's best interests? And btw, he's highly decorated and in all other aspects a really good guy but I don't agree with how he handled his role as a father.

I'm just curious though Amy, because I know you feel strongly that people who have busy jobs and lives should not be parents and recall a blog item regarding parents working at the White House and journalists traveling extensively. I don't think military personnel should lose their kids for serving this country, but there should also be some consideration for the disruption to the kid's lives when it comes to custody issues.

...That's me. I had temp custody of my three children prior to deploying and left them with my mother and nanny (responsible 22 y/o) in the former marital home. Halfway through the deployment, I get a call from my dad on my cell telling me my ex had kicked my mom and nanny out of the house and taken the kids. There wasn't a damn thing I could do about it; the temp custody order had expired and in my absence...possession was 9/10 of the law. To add insult to injury, my dear ex had successfully filed a restraining order on me in another county...I called and called my kids for 2 months straight without success until one morning one of the kids happened to pick up. Didn't see my kids until nearly a month after I returned to the States and had to go to court to make that happen and get the restraining order dismissed, etc. Meanwhile, he'd enrolled them in school in the other county and started taking them to a shrink, who served as his "expert witness" in custody court 9 months later. I lost my bid for custody to my unemployed, pot-smoking ex...about a year later, with a new lawyer and more stuff stacked in my favor, I lost again--the logic being, of course, that in order to change an existing custody arrangement, there would have had to have been even more to tip the scales to my favor....yeah, some legal protection sure would have been nice in my case...deploying doesn't scare me anymore because my greatest fear has already been realized; my kids were taken from me and are being raised primarily by an unstable idiot...but, that's life I suppose.

Perhaps our Congress could update the Soldier's and Sailors Relief act to prevent legal actions like this from taking place in the absence of a serving spouse?

It wouldn't cost any money, and it would be fair to all parties. There must be some reason it will never be considered.

Despite the 2 posters here, most of the victims of this are Fathers.

Which means no one is going to get all hot + bothered by this.

Is there a more dumped on group in America than Divorced Fathers? (No, I'm not one) Maybe Divorced Fathers who smoke. Or Divorced Fathers who Smoke, drive SUV's and own guns.

Maybe you shouldn't have kids if you're going to be divorced or go into the military.

Know this: In WWII, the United States declined to draft fathers until October 1943... More than halfway through.

@Crid: "In WWII, the United States declined to draft fathers until October 1943..."

The operative word being "draft." The force today is all volunteer. In order to attract and retain the kind of talent the military needs, provisions for families and family members are necessary. I don't think there's any way around that.

That said, GIs with dependents have their obligations, too. Military members who are single parents or who are married to other military members are required to develop and document plans for the care of their children in case of deployment. The military is serious about this. GIs who fail to submit their plans can be discharged.

Because of this, I don't think the fact that the military members have dependents is the problem. It seems to me the real problem is ex-spouses or others engaging in legal maneuvers when the GIs are in no position to defend themselves. That's what strikes me as unfair.

By the way, Beth, please hang in there, and thanks so much for your service!

When I entered the Army (1998) if you were a single parent, you were required to sign over guardianship of all minor children to someone else before you could sign enlistment papers. The recruiters (aka, lying military salesmen) told you that you could easily get custody back once you made it through training. Luckily I didn't have kids, so I don't know how that turned out.

There were more than a few single mothers in my basic training company attempting to find a way out of the welfare trap for their kids. I've wondered at times since if they were ever able to get their kids back.

-Julie

"By the way, Beth, please hang in there, and thanks so much for your service!" Thanks, rpm daddy, and you are very welcome...

It's easy to just say only single, unattached people should join the military...but that is light years away from practical and sustainable. For example, how many young men and women are going to commit to 20+ years of service at the cost of never getting married and not having a family? A handful? Certainly not enough to come even close to the numbers we need to run our defense system. In my case, I did have the mandatory family care plan and things were going along swimmingly for a while until the order expired; my mom is stable, in good health, with not so much as a speeding ticket on her record AND another young responsible adult was in the household.

I think at a minimum, the laws should protect the servicemember's interests when they're abroad. Right now, it's wide open to people who want to take advantage of the situation. The SSRA isn't enough; in fact sometimes it works against the servicemember, as in my case.

It's too late for me; but perhaps I can help future families in similar situations so they don't have to go through this. As Amy says, it's all going to be about raising awareness and getting the right people involved; make your voices heard.

Please keep in mind that this unfairness affects even those who have no CHANCE of being deployed.

My older brother recently got a divorce from his wife; he's in the Coast Guard and isn't even close to being considered for any kind of deployment. His wife's isn't exactly stable; bi-polar and often goes off her meds. She has all the hallmarks of instability; nonsensical spending sprees, inability to hold a job, and emotional meltdowns. He asked his lawyer if they could go after custody of their two kids.

The lawyer said he had no chance of getting them. Why? Because he was military. No joke, that was her direct answer. I've never heard the details, but I imagine that even if he wasn't in danger of being shipped off, on paper it still looks like he has to move every 4 years, that he'd have overnight duty shifts, and that he's in a "perilous" career path. Never mind the realities.

His one ace-in-the-hole is that he figures she won't be able to handle the pressure of being a single mother, and may relinquish custody after a year or so.

"Its hard to say though that a parent who goes off for a year or 15 months of an infant's life should automatically get physical custody of a child upon return."

I'd say no, that if you've been gone that long, the child shouldn't be taken from a perfectly fit parent and given to someone who is a stranger.

...Which means no one is going to get all hot + bothered by this... Posted by: sean at September 15, 2009 7:24 AM

Sean,

You're response is disheartening. The fact that it happens more to fathers doesn't make it right when it happens to a mother.Wrong is wrong.

I've longed maintained that there's only one thing worse than being a noncustodial father (NCF); being a noncustodial mother (NCM).

Out of societies "castaways", they are also those with the smallest support network. Why? It's because NCMs pay for the sins of feminism in the eyes of many disenfranchised NCFs and that's wrong.

Neither "fit" parent should ever be denied shared custody of their children, regardless of their sex.

Beth, I'm truly sorry for your situation and I feel for you as it mirrors mine to some extent. So much so, that my eyes welled up as I read what you wrote here:

"I called and called my kids for 2 months straight without success until one morning one of the kids happened to pick up. Didn't see my kids until nearly a month after I returned to the States and had to go to court to make that happen and get the restraining order dismissed, etc." Posted by: Beth at September 15, 2009 5:10 AM"

I was lucky enough to speak with my daughter for literally 90 seconds last week...Just enough time for both of us to acknowledge that we'd both been crying regularly because we missed each other so much.

I too lost my bid for custody based on the same "logic" and despite my ex showing her true colors to such an extent the judge literally threw her out of the courtroom while screaming at her, "get out my courtroom, I don't want to have to look at your face."

Never forget that you're still your kid's mommy and that they do and always will need you. Don't believe the lies that your ex, the attorneys, and the diabolical incarnates who are the "system" tell about you.

The last thing your children need is a mother who hardens her heart to numb that pain. In doing so, your children will lose that precious mother they so dearly miss and love.
Never lose hope. With it, you'll one day be reunited. Without it, you won't.

I'm working on something now that will enable parents who've been alienated from their children to "maintain contact" in spite of their ex's best efforts to prevent it.

And thanks so much for your service to our country Beth, I truly appreciate it, and so will your children.

Tony, Sean never said it was right when it happened to a woman.

He said that as it happens to men far more frequently most people dont care.

Check your reading comprehention capabilites before you post

And ironically the article Mr. Franklin was using as his argument on why service members(usually men) shouldnt lose custody due to absense in their childs lives was a woman who was getting her kids back after her absense while in a string of drug rehab programs

> the real problem is ex-spouses or
> others engaging in legal maneuvers
> when the GIs are in no position to
> defend themselves. That's what
> strikes me as unfair.

Well, when the person who goes to serve on a battlefield as left a young family to defend itself without him/her, "fairness" is far too delicate a matter for our concern anyway. I realize the all-volunteer army has problems, but we seemed to have signed up for a whole bunch of hideous shit without thinking about it too much.

"Tony, Sean never said it was right when it happened to a woman. He said that as it happens to men far more frequently most people dont care. Check your reading comprehention capabilites before you post Posted by: lujlp at September 15, 2009 5:17 PM

The irony of the situation in my opinion has no bearing on the problem of losing custody itself. Therefore, I'm perplexed by your statement.

On the matter of you suggesting that I "check" my reading comprehension, perhaps you should the same. And check your spelling while you're at it...

I never said that he said that it is right, so again, what's your point? The inference in my opinion is that he sees nothing wrong with it. Making an inference and making a statement that he said it was right are two very different things.

By the way, and just for the record, no where did he make the statement (as you claim) "most people dont care.". That said, "recheck" those reading comprehension skills. Nevertheless, would you like to clarify that as an inference or a statement?

Honestly? I wasn't going to waste my time in replying to you. However, I'm not in a particularly good mood, so therefore I've decided to proceed in my ignorance.

With that, perhaps you should pick your future battles a little more wisely? Consider choosing those wherein you're better equipped to fight.

In closing, I truly appreciate you correcting me. Moreover, I'll take your advice, but only after you do the same.

God your a fucking idiot Tony. Lets recap as you are apparently incapable of using tht 3lb lump of flesh inside your head.

Sean wrote
Despite the 2 posters here, most of the victims of this are Fathers.

Which means no one is going to get all hot + bothered by this.

You(the fucking moron) replied
Sean,

You're response is disheartening. The fact that it happens more to fathers doesn't make it right when it happens to a mother.Wrong is wrong.

Now you are technically correct when you say you never said Sean said it was right, but you sure as hell heavily implied it now didnt you?

And as you said wrong is wrong. Sean's comment was as it happens to men more often people dont care, not that women deserved it - so why did you imply that he did?

By the way fucktard, unless english is your second tounge, and very pootly learned at that, then you(along with any brain dead chimp that has been taught sign language) would know that 'hot and bothered' is a turn of phrase that depending on in context is a euphemism for caring or being interested in the subject at hand

FYI at hand = currently discussing

That Tulip was an incredibly intelligent reply that's most assuredly indicative of your true level of intelligence.

Thank you Tony is always nice to see a moron admit when they are worng.

It stings now I asume(having never been such a dumbfuck myself) but you'll probably get over it.

I fact I'm sure by now a man of your limited intellegence and poor coping skills has probably already convinced yourself that you are are the wronged party in this whole nasty business.

But your not and you still owe Sean an apology for insinuating h thinks women deserve to be screwed over by the same laws that regulary bitchslap men, like I bitchslaped your pathetic arguments

That was a metaphor by the way(I figure if your englsih improves you might make a reasonable argument, futile effort probably but its worth it)

SO apologize already

asshole

...Sigh...isn't it nice when a legitimate issue turns into a vitriolic game of verbal tennis? :-)

At any rate, Tony, thank you for your kind words of encouragement; I appreciate them wholeheartedly. I try to just take it one day at a time and take advantage of quality time with my children since the quantity isn't nearly enough.

Crid, at the risk of starting another match of "verbal tennis" with you, your statements are both ignorant and insensitive. My family, as well as many others in the same situations are/were not "left behind" nor are/were they defenseless, except in matters of the court where, yes, the laws are NOT in our favor (the point of this entire discussion, in case you missed it). You make it sound like they are left to fend for themselves huddled under a bridge begging for scraps to survive.

The whole purpose of the family care plan is to cover every possible aspect of your family's care while you're deployed...from living situation, education, medical, financial, etc. My family care plan had two responsible, trustworthy adult caregivers full time in the home, no interruption in school & activities, more than ample financial provisions, and did I mention the visitation that my ex had was not interrupted or denied in any way?

And your earlier statement that people shouldn't have kids who are going to be divorced or go into the military...yeah, I guess my crystal ball was all fogged up that year....it happens, ya know!

This is a no-brainer. Service people are treated this way because non-service people are treated this way.

For 40 years, everyone has treated Father's Rights Activists like murderers and fools. So, the system has been well established that when there is a custody issue or divorce, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose, though no-fault divorce was originally falsely touted as a way to stop that.

Yeah, it has been at least 85% men who have had the Black and Decker with the corn cob affixed to it, rammed up their posterior. Maybe more, since many of the 15% of kids going to dads are voluntary on the women's part. But, due to apathy and hatred for divorced men, er, I mean dead-beat dads, no one cared.

So, now the winds change, and non-custodial woman get the Black and Decker corn cob because that is the way those who lose have been treated for 40 years.

Day-am! What a total surprise! Not!

Ever has it been when you let a class of people be treated horribly, because you consider you are not and will not be affected, that the winds change and you get your turn in the barrel. I always remember the famous quote of the man in Nazi Germany who paid no attention when other groups were gassed, until it was his turn to go.

How Sad Too Bad. There were plenty of activists like me in past decades who warned you it was not a good idea to treat divorced men like this. Betcha' heard the warnings; everyone did, now you want us to feel sorry for those who essentially get the same rubber stamp men have always got.

And, yes, it is strange that a service person would automatically regain custody after a year or two away, just because she has female sex organs.

"This is a no-brainer. Service people are treated this way because non-service people are treated this way."

Perhaps, but how many non-service people find themselves thousands of miles from home as part of their employment for a minimum of 3-6 months at a time? The point is that servicemen and women are sticking their necks out, literally, on behalf of their country and it is a slap in the face that their country doesn't have the appropriate laws in place to protect them. Do I believe that "service people" deserve extra protection in this matter? Absolutely I do. It's the whole reason the SSRA, now the SCRA (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) was created. However, it doesn't go far enough.

I emphatically disagree that any of this is some sort of backlash against the unfair treatment that men have gotten, and still very often get, in the courts when it comes to custody. I have male friends, also active duty, dealing with the same issues that I am. This isn't an issue of gender at all, rather it's about both sexes getting screwed over when it comes to custody simply because they chose to serve their country.

...and I did not fight for custody of my children because I thought I deserved it due to my "female sex organs". I am their MOTHER and I am a damn good one, thank you very much. Custody shouldn't be awarded on sex; rather, who is the better person to raise the kids full time?

Beth,

You're welcome, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's a matter of service members being treated horrendously as you have been.

The fact that it's part of the nastiness that plays out in family court is irrelevant.

I disagree that a parent can't choose the military as their career because they're a parent. None should be penalized for a legitimate career choice.

Flower,

"It's better to remain silent and appear as a fool, rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelling+contest

> The whole purpose of the family
> care plan is to cover every
> possible aspect of your family's
> care while you're deployed...

Right. If such a plan exists, who needs mothers, fathers or spouses?

But I don't think is does. Service is a sacrifice. Volunteer recruitment doesn't make that any less the case.

Snooty-snoot to you, too.

"Right. If such a plan exists, who needs mothers, fathers or spouses?"

Um, think short term, contingency, temporary. It's not meant to be a replacement by any means; rather a structure in place to minimize upheaval for the family members at home and maximize their stability during such time as the primary caregiver is called away; it's simply planning ahead and in no way eliminates the need for parents. Often it does include the other parent quite extensively, in more amicable divorce situations.

Yes, I am well aware that service is a sacrifice and one that I am proud to make (along with many, many others). But that sacrifice ought not to include punishment by way of lack of certain legal protections.

Well, I'll let you have the last word now, if you so desire. I've tried to express my point many times over and I'm convinced that anything more from me would have no effect other than to inflame/annoy and would venture into "dead horse beating" territory. At any rate, have a great day!

@ Tony:

Thanks for your post(s)...although I didn't tell my story looking for sympathy, as one poster implied above, I do appreciate the kind sentiments that you and another poster expressed. As I said earlier, there won't be any resolution in my case; it simply is what it is. But perhaps the more awareness that is raised on the issue can protect future servicemembers faced with similar circumstances. I have a couple of guy friends right now going through the same nonsense with their ex-wives....

Sidebar: Ironically enough, I was ready to leave the USMC after my initial 4 year commitment so that I could stay home and raise my kids full time, but the ex wouldn't hear of it and refused to even look for work b/c I made more $ than he could have, or so he said. Being the survivalist that I am, I caved and agreed to stay in so that I could continue to provide for our family....six years later I still kick myself sometimes over that decision.

I'm sorry that your custody situation ended up poorly, too. You sound like you're a great dad and it's obvious you love your daughter a great deal. I firmly believe that once kids get to a certain age they start realizing the games and manipulation...and lose respect for the parent that's doing it. In the meantime all you can do is your very best...that's how I (try) to deal with my situation, making the most of the time we do share and letting them know, (perhaps ad nauseum) how much I love them and care...

So, thanks for listening, and all the best to you and yours!

"I firmly believe that once kids get to a certain age they start realizing the games and manipulation...and lose respect for the parent that's doing it. In the meantime all you can do is your very best..."Posted by: Beth at September 17, 2009 5:56 AM

So true, and clearly indicative of a good and loving parent Beth. It's amazing; if the black hats would only look, they'd handily find the best parent when sadly, such a decision must be made.

You're welcome, and thanks to you for the kind words. I too realized that you weren't seeking sympathy or empathy.

What you said simply moved me given the parallels to my own horrific nightmare. Therefore, I wanted to speak as one who truly understood what you said.

> Um, think short term,
> contingency, temporary.

Thanks, no. A family with one member killed in service is bad for America. I think this deserves to be observed as one of those many moments in mid-century America where people said –without thinking about it very much– that family structure could routinely, administratively, withstand and burden we chose to place upon it.

I have little patience with parents who divorce anyway. When people pair so badly as to do so, and then have one party put their lives at risk in a military career as well, I think that's lunacy. How much incompetence should our social policies make room for as a matter of routine?

Maybe warmaking soldiers shouldn't be permitted to have children. Maybe we'd then have to offer footsoldiers a lot more money to fill the platoons. Maybe we should pay it.

BETH WROTE:

It's not meant to be a replacement by any means; rather a structure in place to minimize upheaval for the family members at home and maximize their stability during such time as the primary caregiver is called away; it's simply planning ahead and in no way eliminates the need for parents. Often it does include the other parent quite extensively, in more amicable divorce situations.

Yes, I am well aware that service is a sacrifice and one that I am proud to make (along with many, many others). But that sacrifice ought not to include punishment by way of lack of certain legal protections.

Well, I'll let you have the last word now, if you so desire. I've tried to express my point many times over and I'm convinced that anything more from me would have no effect other than to inflame/annoy and would venture into "dead horse beating" territory. At any rate, have a great day!

[PS- Those last three graphs were Beth's... My bad edit]