There is a federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The purpose of this law is to protect those who are serving active duty in the military from any civil court and administrative actions during their absence. Among other protections, they can't be evicted, creditors cannot seize their property and any health benefits they were receiving as civilians must be reinstated when they return.

What most are not protected from, however, is losing custody of their own children.

In many cases, when a single parent is deployed, the kids end up living with family members. In the case of Lt. Eva Crouch, when she was called up for active duty, her daughter Sara went to live with her dad. Lt. Crouch was Sara's legal residential caretaker, so an order was drawn up to give her ex-husband temporary custody of their daughter. A year and a half later, when Lt. Crouch returned to retrieve her daughter, dad refused to relinquish custody.

"Now, they've got a great argument when Johnny comes marching home that the child should remain where they are, even though it was a temporary order," says Lt. Col. Steve Elliott, a judge advocate with the Oklahoma National Guard, referring to non-deployed parents.

Family court judges who are siding with the non-deployed parents say that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers and that they are ruling based on what is in the best interest of the child.

A few states have addressed the issue and enacted laws to prohibit custody changes being made as a result of a parent's absence due to active military duty. Eva Crouch fought for such a law in Kentucky. As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the original judge's decision and she finally got her daughter back.

Lt. Crouch is remarried and expecting another child and knows she could be re-mobilized soon. She says "I can't leave my child again - regardless of whether or not I know when I come home, she comes home."