Deployed Troops Battle for Child Custody

[babylonsister]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070505/parents-at-war

Deployed Troops Battle for Child Custody

PAULINE ARRILLAGA | AP | May 5, 2007 05:22 PM EST

— She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, handled the shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, made sure schoolwork was done. Hardly a day went by when the two weren't together. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with Dad.

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.

more...

[gollygee]

1. Oh wow - ouch

isn't that discrimination based on veteran/service status? I know workplaces can't discriminate against employees who are or have been in the service. This isn't employment, but still. It wasn't like she left on purpose. I mean, I see the point about a change in the child's life, but at this point this child would feel abandoned. They should at least have joint custody or something. :(

[Solo_in_MD]

4. Dept of Children Services and Family Courts are above the law

once they invoke "in the best interests of the child" there is nothing that can be done. They can't be sued or held accoutable in anyway.

[Morgana LaFey]

8. I can't speak for Maryland; you can't speak for my state

These are state agencies, run by state law. In MY state, there are some things that can be done.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. I've lived in many places over the years, most of the horror stories I have witnessed come out of CA

Most important is the doctrine of qualified immunity which makes social workers unaccountable for misdeeds whether they come from incompetence, petulance, or malice. Home schoolers have a long list of documented ones, as do GLBTs who want to adopt or even retain custody.

Family court records are sealed and structured written opionins with reference to specifics rare. That often makes them effectively unchallangeable. Seen that too.

The "best interest of the child" is a trump card that once thrown, legitimate or not, is rarely if ever overturned. Its also been used to block cross racial adoption and gay adoption, again without accountability under the guise of "Department of Social Services policy".

[Morgana LaFey]

18. I sure don't like your extremely broad brushes

and I don't live in CA either, btw.

[Solo_in_MD]

19. So where you live, Children Services is...

not covered by qualified immunity
supports home schoolers
supports GLBT as adoptive parents
supports cross racial adoptions
has easily available records
is readily challenged and reversed in court

If you are in social work, I am sure you have a different view, but to the rest of us DSS (or whatever it is called in your juridiction) is opaque and unaccountable, something I find reprehensible in a government agency.

[Morgana LaFey]

21. Okay, make than something else I don't like

broad brush statements PLUS all or nothing, either/or straw men.

Look, social services isn't perfect ANYwhere. That I'll give you. It's also probably worse some places, even within any given state, than other places. But I just think it's unfair, and myopic, AND inaccurate to categorically condemn them across the board -- all offices and people in all states. Nuh huh. Doesn't work for me.

YMMV.

[Hekate]

2. This is sick, shameful -- and predictable.

:cry: and :argh:

Hekate

[dsc]

3. This is sad for the parents

but the kids should come first. In most cases, there should be no change but in some there will be.

[IndyOp]

6. The kids should come first and there is no indication in the article that

the child's best interest will be served by her father having custody. It is rarely in a child's best interest to lose contact with a parent who wants to be responsibly involved in the child's life. She - the daughter - is losing contact with part of who she is when she loses contact with her mother. Having either parent denigrate the other hurts the child.

:(

[dsc]

7. The article claims that the child wishes to live with the father

and that is why he persued making the change permanent. Maybe he is telling the truth maybe he isn't, I haven't a clue. Barring a 50/50 split the child loses one parent.

[IndyOp]

11. I admit that I read that statement as "Father claims the child wishes to live with him"

- I immediately interpreted it as his claim, perhaps elicited from the child with some pressure.

Then again, even if a child wishes to live with one parent over another that does not always reveal what is in the best interest of the child. The child may wish to live with Daddy because Daddy doesn't enforce any rules and always gives her what she wants or because Daddy lives in a wealthy neighborhood and the child's new friends have taught her to become judgmental about kids who don't have money.

Cynical I am...

:hi:

[dsc]

12. my point is that there are two sides

and both should be considered.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. OR... perhaps the child is angry with her mother for leaving her,

even though the mother was forced to leave.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Sadly, this does not surprise me. One of my parishioners...

is having difficulty with the U.S. government because of divorce decrees and custody orders. It's horrific.

[BlooInBloo]

10. What evil bastards. Force women to have children, then take them away....

... when they're sent to fight a war for lies, in which their primary task is to kill civilians.

What evil bastards.

[electron_blue]

13. Fwiw, at the end of the article it says Crouch got her daughter back 7 months ago

The article does raise some important issues and problems in the area of child custody decisions, though.

[WillyT]

14. Jesus... K & R !!!

Their jobs, their houses, their kids... if not their limbs, their minds, and their lives.

FUCK!!!

:argh:

[treestar]

15. It's the best interests of the child, not a contest on which parent is the

better person.

Best interests of the child is based on many factors, and this could not be the only one.

But child custody is not about reward and punishment, it is about the child. Arguably being deployed to a war zone makes the parent still at home the one who can provide the home that is in the child's best interests.

[alarimer]

16. Especially since the military is into multiple deployments

what if the mother gets deployed a second or even third time? The military of course does not make it easy on parents, so it isn't entirely the woman's fault. But it seems far less disruptive for the kid to stay with the dad at least until she is out of the military.

[electron_blue]

17. Yeah, it's really sad, but one wonders if judges consider how likely the military

parent is to be redeployed under Bush's regime. More stability may be with the non-military parent - on a case by case basis of course.