thedrifter
05-06-07, 10:00 AM
HEARTBREAK FOR PARENTS IN MILITARY
Custody lost during hitch
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Pauline Arrillaga
ASSOCIATED PRESS
She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, making sure schoolwork was done. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with her father.
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 up Sara, 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 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. 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 not comparable to deciding civil-property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting service members.
Military mothers and fathers speak of birthdays missed, bonds weakened, endless hearings.
They are people like Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley, helping to fight the insurgency in Fallujah, Iraq, at the same time he battles for custody of his son in a Kansas family court.
Like Sgt. Mike Grantham of the Iowa National Guard, whose two children lived with him until he was mobilized to train troops after 9/11. After a long court battle, the state supreme court awarded his ex-wife custody, saying she was "presently the most-effective parent."
"Being deployed, you lose your armor," Grantham said.
And like Eva Crouch, who spent two years and some $25,000 pushing her case through the Kentucky courts.
"I?d have spent a million," she said. "My child was my life. ... I go serve my country, and I come back and have to go through hell and high water."
In 1943, during World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the soldiers? relief law should be "liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation."
Shielding soldiers allows them "to devote their entire energy" to the nation?s defense, the law states.
But child-custody cases are different.
"The minute these guys are getting deployed, the other parent is going, ?I can do whatever I want now,? " said Jean Ann Uvodich, a lawyer who represented Bradley.
Bradley already had joined the Marines, and his young wife, Amber, was a junior in high school when their son, Tyler, came along in 2003. When the marriage fell apart two years later, Bradley filed for divorce and Amber signed a parenting plan granting him sole custody.
In August 2005, Bradley deployed to Iraq and his mother took in Tyler. A month later, Amber sought custody.
Bradley learned of the petition in Fallujah. He worked during the day as a mechanic, then at night called his mother to hear the latest from court.
"My mind wasn?t where it was supposed to be," he said. The distraction cost him. One day he rolled a Humvee he was test-driving. Though uninjured, Bradley was reprimanded.
Uvodich sought a stay under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, arguing that Bradley had a right to be present to testify.
But the judge said he didn?t think the case was subject to the federal law because "this Court has a continuing obligation to consider what?s in the best interest of the child."
The judge awarded custody to Amber.
"The act states: Everything will be put on hold until I?m able to get back. It doesn?t happen," said Bradley, 22. "I found out the hard way."
Dale Koch, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said state judges are obligated to follow their family codes ? and "in most states there is language that says the primary interest is the best interest of the child."
"We recognize the competing interests," said Koch, an Oregon judge. "You don?t want to penalize a parent because they?ve served their country. On the other hand ... you don?t want to penalize the child."
But what does "best interest" really mean? Koch mentions factors such as stability and considering who has been the child?s main emotional provider, parameters that conflict directly with military service.
Military- and family-law experts don?t know how big the problem is, but 5.4 percent of active-duty service members ? more than 74,000 ? are single parents, the Department of Defense reports. More than 68,000 Guard and reserve members are also single parents. Divorce among service personnel is rising.
The solution, some say, lies in amending the federal law to specify that it does apply in custody cases.
Some states aren?t waiting for congressional action.
In 2005, California enacted a law saying a parent?s absence due to military activation cannot be used to justify permanent changes in custody or visitation. Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas followed suit.
When Crouch was mobilized in 2003, her ex-husband, Charles, wanted 9-year-old Sara with him. They drew up a temporary order and moved Sara?s belongings, and Crouch headed out ? to Iraq, she thought, although she wound up at Fort Knox, Ky. The fortunate assignment allowed her to visit Sara most weekends.
But when the time came for Sara to return to her mom, Charles said, his daughter expressed a desire to stay with him. She liked her school, had made new friends.
"I had no intention of trying to talk her into staying or anything," he said. "All I wanted was what was best for my daughter."
Last year, the state Supreme Court cited Kentucky?s new law in overturning the trial judge?s decision granting custody to Charles.
In September, Eva Crouch got Sara back.
Remarried now, with the possibility of being redeployed, Crouch said one thing is clear to her: Serving her country isn?t worth losing her daughter.
"I can?t leave my child again."
Ellie
Custody lost during hitch
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Pauline Arrillaga
ASSOCIATED PRESS
She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, making sure schoolwork was done. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with her father.
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 up Sara, 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 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. 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 not comparable to deciding civil-property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting service members.
Military mothers and fathers speak of birthdays missed, bonds weakened, endless hearings.
They are people like Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley, helping to fight the insurgency in Fallujah, Iraq, at the same time he battles for custody of his son in a Kansas family court.
Like Sgt. Mike Grantham of the Iowa National Guard, whose two children lived with him until he was mobilized to train troops after 9/11. After a long court battle, the state supreme court awarded his ex-wife custody, saying she was "presently the most-effective parent."
"Being deployed, you lose your armor," Grantham said.
And like Eva Crouch, who spent two years and some $25,000 pushing her case through the Kentucky courts.
"I?d have spent a million," she said. "My child was my life. ... I go serve my country, and I come back and have to go through hell and high water."
In 1943, during World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the soldiers? relief law should be "liberally construed to protect those who have been obliged to drop their own affairs to take up the burdens of the nation."
Shielding soldiers allows them "to devote their entire energy" to the nation?s defense, the law states.
But child-custody cases are different.
"The minute these guys are getting deployed, the other parent is going, ?I can do whatever I want now,? " said Jean Ann Uvodich, a lawyer who represented Bradley.
Bradley already had joined the Marines, and his young wife, Amber, was a junior in high school when their son, Tyler, came along in 2003. When the marriage fell apart two years later, Bradley filed for divorce and Amber signed a parenting plan granting him sole custody.
In August 2005, Bradley deployed to Iraq and his mother took in Tyler. A month later, Amber sought custody.
Bradley learned of the petition in Fallujah. He worked during the day as a mechanic, then at night called his mother to hear the latest from court.
"My mind wasn?t where it was supposed to be," he said. The distraction cost him. One day he rolled a Humvee he was test-driving. Though uninjured, Bradley was reprimanded.
Uvodich sought a stay under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, arguing that Bradley had a right to be present to testify.
But the judge said he didn?t think the case was subject to the federal law because "this Court has a continuing obligation to consider what?s in the best interest of the child."
The judge awarded custody to Amber.
"The act states: Everything will be put on hold until I?m able to get back. It doesn?t happen," said Bradley, 22. "I found out the hard way."
Dale Koch, president of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, said state judges are obligated to follow their family codes ? and "in most states there is language that says the primary interest is the best interest of the child."
"We recognize the competing interests," said Koch, an Oregon judge. "You don?t want to penalize a parent because they?ve served their country. On the other hand ... you don?t want to penalize the child."
But what does "best interest" really mean? Koch mentions factors such as stability and considering who has been the child?s main emotional provider, parameters that conflict directly with military service.
Military- and family-law experts don?t know how big the problem is, but 5.4 percent of active-duty service members ? more than 74,000 ? are single parents, the Department of Defense reports. More than 68,000 Guard and reserve members are also single parents. Divorce among service personnel is rising.
The solution, some say, lies in amending the federal law to specify that it does apply in custody cases.
Some states aren?t waiting for congressional action.
In 2005, California enacted a law saying a parent?s absence due to military activation cannot be used to justify permanent changes in custody or visitation. Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas followed suit.
When Crouch was mobilized in 2003, her ex-husband, Charles, wanted 9-year-old Sara with him. They drew up a temporary order and moved Sara?s belongings, and Crouch headed out ? to Iraq, she thought, although she wound up at Fort Knox, Ky. The fortunate assignment allowed her to visit Sara most weekends.
But when the time came for Sara to return to her mom, Charles said, his daughter expressed a desire to stay with him. She liked her school, had made new friends.
"I had no intention of trying to talk her into staying or anything," he said. "All I wanted was what was best for my daughter."
Last year, the state Supreme Court cited Kentucky?s new law in overturning the trial judge?s decision granting custody to Charles.
In September, Eva Crouch got Sara back.
Remarried now, with the possibility of being redeployed, Crouch said one thing is clear to her: Serving her country isn?t worth losing her daughter.
"I can?t leave my child again."
Ellie