| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Avenger" |
| Date: |
13 May 2007 05:27:18 PM |
| Object: |
This Is Really Disgusting |
Laws Must Protect the Rights of Military Dads
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of fathers
who serve in the Armed Forces expected hardship and sacrifice. However, they
never expected that their children might be taken from them while they were
deployed, or that their own government might jail them upon their return.
Military service sometimes costs men their children. The Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a parent
moves a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's presumptive
residence after six months. With the long deployments necessitated by the
war, a military spouse can move to another state while her spouse is
deployed, divorce him, and then be virtually certain to gain custody through
the divorce proceedings in the new state.
Given service personnel's limited ability to travel, the high cost of
legal representation and travel, and the financial hardships created by
child support and spousal support obligations, it is extremely difficult for
fathers to fight for their parental rights in the new state. For many, their
participation and meaningful role in their children's lives ends-often
permanently--the day they were deployed.
In one highly-publicized case, Gary S., a San Diego-based US Navy
SEAL, had his child permanently moved from California to the Middle East
against his will while he was deployed in Afghanistan after the September 11
terrorist attacks. The 18-year Navy veteran with an unblemished military
record has seen his son only three times since he returned from Afghanistan
in April, 2002. Meanwhile he is nearly bankrupt from child support, spousal
support, travel costs, and legal fees.
To solve the problem, the federal government must amend the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 (SCRA) (formerly known as the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act) to specifically prohibit the
spouses of active duty military personnel from permanently moving children
to another state without the permission of the active duty military spouse
or of a court. In addition, the UCCJEA needs to be modified to state that
the presumption of new residence does not apply if the children are taken in
this wrongful fashion.
Also, states must do more to prevent custodial parents from moving
children out of the lives of noncustodial parents, except in cases of abuse
or dire economic need. For example, last year the California Supreme Court
decided in LaMusga that courts should restrain moves that harm children by
damaging the loving bonds they share with their noncustodial parents.
While some military fathers face the loss of their children, others
face prosecution and jail for child support obligations which their service
has rendered them unable to pay.
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.
In addition, reservists who return from long-deployments often find
that their civilian earning capacity is now diminished. This is particularly
true for the 6% of reservists who are self-employed, and whose businesses
are often destroyed by their absence. Family law courts are notoriously
unforgiving of fathers who suffer wage drops. Many if not most will have
their former incomes imputed to them, meaning that their child support will
not change despite their drop in income. Saddled with mounting arrearages,
some reservists will return to fight a long battle to stay out of jail.
Some reservists have their child support deducted automatically from
their pay. Once deployed these fathers may lose 60% or 70% of their income
and incur huge debts or face home foreclosures.
To date Missouri is the only state to adequately address the issue.
During the first Gulf War it passed a law requiring that reservists' support
obligations be automatically modified when they are called up for active
duty. Other states, including California and Illinois, are currently
considering legislation that would help reservists. However, tens of
thousands of reservists were deployed before they could file for downward
modifications. Only a repeal of the Bradley amendment-already widely seen as
bad law within family law circles-can prevent them from facing years of
debt, harassment, legal woes or even incarceration upon their return from
active service.
Like many veterans, Gary says he was very naïve about the troubles
military fathers face in family law.
"The failure of our leaders in Washington to protect military fathers
is a national disgrace," he says. "Reservist fathers shouldn't be turned
into deadbeats. And no father should ever, ever lose his son or daughter
simply because he served his country."
.
|
|
| User: " krp" |
|
| Title: Re: This Is Really Disgusting |
13 May 2007 08:04:46 PM |
|
|
"Avenger" <avenger@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahM1i.5949$3B5.4771@trnddc08...
Laws Must Protect the Rights of Military Dads
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of fathers
who serve in the Armed Forces expected hardship and sacrifice. However,
they never expected that their children might be taken from them while
they were deployed, or that their own government might jail them upon
their return.
Military service sometimes costs men their children. The Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a parent
moves a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's
presumptive residence after six months. With the long deployments
necessitated by the war, a military spouse can move to another state while
her spouse is deployed, divorce him, and then be virtually certain to gain
custody through the divorce proceedings in the new state.
Actually that is not a correct reading of the law. There are two obstacles
to that. The first is the "Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act" that bars
initiating such actions when an individual is deployed overseas. The second
is the UCCJA or the UCCJEA itself that does NOT just automatically confer
jurisdiction in 6 months. If the original state had jurisdiction under the
UCCJA, UCCJEA and several Federal statutes that state keeps jurisdiction.
All the man needs is a good lawyer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: This Is Really Disgusting |
13 May 2007 08:43:47 PM |
|
|
" krp" <web2457k@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:OAO1i.10105$cu1.4038@trnddc01...
"Avenger" <avenger@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ahM1i.5949$3B5.4771@trnddc08...
Laws Must Protect the Rights of Military Dads
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of fathers
who serve in the Armed Forces expected hardship and sacrifice. However,
they never expected that their children might be taken from them while
they were deployed, or that their own government might jail them upon
their return.
Military service sometimes costs men their children. The Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a parent
moves a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's
presumptive residence after six months. With the long deployments
necessitated by the war, a military spouse can move to another state
while her spouse is deployed, divorce him, and then be virtually certain
to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in the new state.
Actually that is not a correct reading of the law. There are two obstacles
to that. The first is the "Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act" that bars
initiating such actions when an individual is deployed overseas. The
second is the UCCJA or the UCCJEA itself that does NOT just automatically
confer jurisdiction in 6 months. If the original state had jurisdiction
under the UCCJA, UCCJEA and several Federal statutes that state keeps
jurisdiction. All the man needs is a good lawyer.
That costs $$$. A military man especially one engaged overseas should be
exempt from civil lawsuits until he returns to the jurisdiction where the
civil action is filed or leaves the service.
I just filed a default judgement against a person who failed to file an
answer to my complaint. One of the papers I had to file is an affadavit that
I have competent knowledge, and give the reason, that the person in not in
the military service. So these men would be exempt from my default judgement
but yet a wife can institute civil action against them and in matters more
important than simply monetary judgement.
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp" |
|
| Title: Re: This Is Really Disgusting |
14 May 2007 07:43:20 AM |
|
|
"Avenger" <avenger@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n9P1i.9284$3B5.4699@trnddc08...
When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of fathers
who serve in the Armed Forces expected hardship and sacrifice. However,
they never expected that their children might be taken from them while
they were deployed, or that their own government might jail them upon
their return.
Military service sometimes costs men their children. The Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a parent
moves a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's
presumptive residence after six months. With the long deployments
necessitated by the war, a military spouse can move to another state
while her spouse is deployed, divorce him, and then be virtually certain
to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in the new state.
Actually that is not a correct reading of the law. There are two
obstacles to that. The first is the "Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act"
that bars initiating such actions when an individual is deployed
overseas. The second is the UCCJA or the UCCJEA itself that does NOT just
automatically confer jurisdiction in 6 months. If the original state had
jurisdiction under the UCCJA, UCCJEA and several Federal statutes that
state keeps jurisdiction. All the man needs is a good lawyer.
That costs $$$. A military man especially one engaged overseas should be
exempt from civil lawsuits until he returns to the jurisdiction where the
civil action is filed or leaves the service.
I just filed a default judgement against a person who failed to file an
answer to my complaint. One of the papers I had to file is an affadavit
that I have competent knowledge, and give the reason, that the person in
not in the military service. So these men would be exempt from my default
judgement but yet a wife can institute civil action against them and in
matters more important than simply monetary judgement.
Can't help that it costs. You can't fashion ANY law that won't, in the
end, DEPEND on the man needing a lawyer who can find his ***** with a roadmap
and a flashlight. No matter what laws you create the NOW gang will find ways
to attack them and find ways around them for men without a lawyer to be so
much road kill. It's the way of things. Want to REALLY do something about
it? Then work your ***** off on helping create a foundation to help get these
men GOOD lawyers and what they need to keep being dads. We had one almost
set up till miscreants IN the father's movement destroyed it. They killed it
because it wasn't THEIR idea. The bane of the father's movement. We've done
more to screw each other than anything we face from the Feminazis. Look in
soc.men, look at some of the assholes who write here, we're our own worst
enemies. We don't need feminism with some of the folks we have. Look at
Turdbrain. 200% of that assholes time every day is spent trying to submarine
the efforts of ANYONE who is trying to DO anything. Look at the sheer number
of people he attacks as well as efforts to try to make things better. Seen
ANYTHING he has done that could be called a positive accomplishment for men?
The ONLY thing he does is tear down what ANYONE ELSE is doing! And there are
too damn many Turdbrain Turams out there. Get the free lunch and those
assholes will screw it up. We had a half million dollar annual grant
approved till Turdbrain types killed it by threatening lawsuits against the
foundation that approved the grant. Even though THEY did NONE of the work to
qualify for the grant they DEMANDED that THEY get it for their projects,
even though they could NOT specify a project to use it for. We don't need to
worry about Feminazis when we have men like that on "OUR" side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tip" |
|
| Title: Re: This Is Really Disgusting |
15 May 2007 08:59:49 AM |
|
|
On May 14, 5:43 am, " krp" <web24...@verizon.net> wrote:
"Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n9P1i.9284$3B5.4699@trnddc08...
When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of fathers
who serve in the Armed Forces expected hardship and sacrifice. However,
they never expected that their children might be taken from them while
they were deployed, or that their own government might jail them upon
their return.
Military service sometimes costs men their children. The Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a parent
moves a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's
presumptive residence after six months. With the long deployments
necessitated by the war, a military spouse can move to another state
while her spouse is deployed, divorce him, and then be virtually certain
to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in the new state.
Actually that is not a correct reading of the law. There are two
obstacles to that. The first is the "Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act"
that bars initiating such actions when an individual is deployed
overseas. The second is the UCCJA or the UCCJEA itself that does NOT just
automatically confer jurisdiction in 6 months. If the original state had
jurisdiction under the UCCJA, UCCJEA and several Federal statutes that
state keeps jurisdiction. All the man needs is a good lawyer.
That costs $$$. A military man especially one engaged overseas should be
exempt from civil lawsuits until he returns to the jurisdiction where the
civil action is filed or leaves the service.
I just filed a default judgement against a person who failed to file an
answer to my complaint. One of the papers I had to file is an affadavit
that I have competent knowledge, and give the reason, that the person in
not in the military service. So these men would be exempt from my default
judgement but yet a wife can institute civil action against them and in
matters more important than simply monetary judgement.
Can't help that it costs. You can't fashion ANY law that won't, in the
end, DEPEND on the man needing a lawyer who can find his ***** with a roadmap
and a flashlight. No matter what laws you create the NOW gang will find ways
to attack them and find ways around them for men without a lawyer to be so
much road kill. It's the way of things. Want to REALLY do something about
it? Then work your ***** off on helping create a foundation to help get these
men GOOD lawyers and what they need to keep being dads. We had one almost
set up till miscreants IN the father's movement destroyed it. They killed it
because it wasn't THEIR idea. The bane of the father's movement. We've done
more to screw each other than anything we face from the Feminazis. Look in
soc.men, look at some of the assholes who write here, we're our own worst
enemies. We don't need feminism with some of the folks we have. Look at
Turdbrain. 200% of that assholes time every day is spent trying to submarine
the efforts of ANYONE who is trying to DO anything. Look at the sheer number
of people he attacks as well as efforts to try to make things better. Seen
ANYTHING he has done that could be called a positive accomplishment for men?
The ONLY thing he does is tear down what ANYONE ELSE is doing! And there are
too damn many Turdbrain Turams out there. Get the free lunch and those
assholes will screw it up. We had a half million dollar annual grant
approved till Turdbrain types killed it by threatening lawsuits against the
foundation that approved the grant. Even though THEY did NONE of the work to
qualify for the grant they DEMANDED that THEY get it for their projects,
even though they could NOT specify a project to use it for. We don't need to
worry about Feminazis when we have men like that on "OUR" side.
Caution: Ken Pangborn is a self-proclaimed member of NOW. He also
uses a fake college degree to pass himself off as "educated".
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
.
|
|
|
| User: " krp" |
|
| Title: Re: This Is Really Disgusting |
15 May 2007 09:35:55 AM |
|
|
TURDBRAIN TURAM alias Teddy Meyer
"Tip" <tip@cotse.net> wrote in message
news:1179237589.416949.157310@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of
fathers
who serve in the Armed Forces expected hardship and sacrifice.
However,
they never expected that their children might be taken from them
while
they were deployed, or that their own government might jail them upon
their return.
Military service sometimes costs men their children. The
Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a
parent
moves a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's
presumptive residence after six months. With the long deployments
necessitated by the war, a military spouse can move to another state
while her spouse is deployed, divorce him, and then be virtually
certain
to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in the new state.
Actually that is not a correct reading of the law. There are two
obstacles to that. The first is the "Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act"
that bars initiating such actions when an individual is deployed
overseas. The second is the UCCJA or the UCCJEA itself that does NOT
just
automatically confer jurisdiction in 6 months. If the original state
had
jurisdiction under the UCCJA, UCCJEA and several Federal statutes that
state keeps jurisdiction. All the man needs is a good lawyer.
That costs $$$. A military man especially one engaged overseas should
be
exempt from civil lawsuits until he returns to the jurisdiction where
the
civil action is filed or leaves the service.
I just filed a default judgement against a person who failed to file an
answer to my complaint. One of the papers I had to file is an affadavit
that I have competent knowledge, and give the reason, that the person
in
not in the military service. So these men would be exempt from my
default
judgement but yet a wife can institute civil action against them and in
matters more important than simply monetary judgement.
Can't help that it costs. You can't fashion ANY law that won't, in
the
end, DEPEND on the man needing a lawyer who can find his ***** with a
roadmap
and a flashlight. No matter what laws you create the NOW gang will find
ways
to attack them and find ways around them for men without a lawyer to be
so
much road kill. It's the way of things. Want to REALLY do something about
it? Then work your ***** off on helping create a foundation to help get
these
men GOOD lawyers and what they need to keep being dads. We had one almost
set up till miscreants IN the father's movement destroyed it. They killed
it
because it wasn't THEIR idea. The bane of the father's movement. We've
done
more to screw each other than anything we face from the Feminazis. Look
in
soc.men, look at some of the assholes who write here, we're our own worst
enemies. We don't need feminism with some of the folks we have. Look at
Turdbrain. 200% of that assholes time every day is spent trying to
submarine
the efforts of ANYONE who is trying to DO anything. Look at the sheer
number
of people he attacks as well as efforts to try to make things better.
Seen
ANYTHING he has done that could be called a positive accomplishment for
men?
The ONLY thing he does is tear down what ANYONE ELSE is doing! And there
are
too damn many Turdbrain Turams out there. Get the free lunch and those
assholes will screw it up. We had a half million dollar annual grant
approved till Turdbrain types killed it by threatening lawsuits against
the
foundation that approved the grant. Even though THEY did NONE of the work
to
qualify for the grant they DEMANDED that THEY get it for their projects,
even though they could NOT specify a project to use it for. We don't need
to
worry about Feminazis when we have men like that on "OUR" side.
Caution: Ken Pangborn is a self-proclaimed member of NOW.
Golly Turdbrain you really GOT me with that one, didn't ya? You and your
demented pal (now very absent) continue to pound away at a 20+ year old
newspaper article quoting me on that membership dating to the late mid 70's.
It also said that I quit my NOW membership when the organization turned to
man-hating, but you and HONEST DAVE never seem to tell that part, do ya
Turdbrain? You NEVER tell the WHOLE story just the part that serves your
destructive ends at the time. Like I said YOU have done nothing but ATTACK
everyone in the men's movement trying to do anything, I don't feel special
at all since you attack over a hundred others. Yet in all your years of
YAPPING on the internet you nasty little CREEP, you have never documented
ANYTHING that YOU have done that is positive for the cause of the men's
movement or your fellow man. You have been repeatedly challenged by me and
others to just document ONE positive thing you have EVER done, and you
change the subject and attack every time. Why? Because your efforts on
behalf of men (your vapid woman hating aside) has been 100% NEGATIVE! The
ONLY thing you can do is to try to sabotage the REAL work of others. The
list of people you constantly attack is too long to fully document, but
included Dr. Warren Farrel, ***** Doyle, Dan Amneus and so MANY more. So you
attacks on me, Turdbrain are nothing special you do it to everyone but your
LONE sycophant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
