Military deployment and child custody
Categories: Just for moms, Just for dads, Divorce & custody, Fun & activities, In the news, Childcare
Should military personnel risk losing custody when they are deployed? When single-parent soldiers get deployed, they voluntarily relinquish their rights as primary custody holder to another person. This temporary change in custody could mean that the child can be allowed to leave the state to live with a relative or the other parent. Many attorneys representing parents of active military members are concerned that these parents run the risk of losing permanent custody of their children. At the present time, there is no safeguard in the law to protect these parents from being sued for permanent custody of their children.Prior to being deployed, a motion to modify the custody order is filed and a temporary change in custody is ordered while the parent is out of the country. However, in the case of a parent attempting to get permanent custody of the child, can this temporary change in custody be a stepping stone to doing so?
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protects deployed military personnel from being evicted or losing property from creditors, but it does not protect them from losing custody of children whom they were awarded during a divorce. Upon returning home after their deployment, most military personnel hope to return to the original custody agreement that was in place prior to their deployment.
However, many are returning home, only to be faced with being sued for custody and their active military status taken into consideration by the courts when making a decision. Some states, such as California, have laws in effect that do not consider active military service as a reason for modifying custody or a failure to comply with a visitation order. The California law does protect them from being sued for custody because of their military status, but does not protect them from their military status being held against them if sued for custody based on other reasons. There is currently a bill pending in the House of Representatives that would allow a temporary change in custody arrangement be put in place at the start of the parent's deployment, but upon the parent's return, their absence may not be a considering factor in determining the best interest of the child in a custody case.
Do you think it's reasonable to hold a parent's military status against them? Shouldn't a parent in the military be able to be deployed without facing the fear of returning home and face losing permanent custody of their child?
Recent Posts
- Are your kids noisy? (7/08/2008)
- Dolls with special needs cause controversy (7/08/2008)
- UK agency gives tips for spotting racist toddlers (7/08/2008)
- McConaughey is a daddy! (7/08/2008)
- Farewell to Mylar (7/08/2008)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Sandyone 1-15-2008 @ 2:04PM
"However, that does protect them from their military status being used as a factor in deciding what's best for a child if sued for custody."
Is this a typo? Should it say, "However, that does NOT protect...."
I'll hold my thoughts until that's clear.
Reply
trish 1-15-2008 @ 2:19PM
Sandyone, I was referring only to the California law, but I changed that sentence because it IS confusing, you're right. I meant that there is a law in California that states that someone cannot sue for a change in custody just because of a military member's deployment. It is not a basis to sue for a modification to the court order, but it can be used as a consideration in deciding custody if they are sued for another reason.
Mihir 1-15-2008 @ 2:04PM
"Should military personnel risk losing custody when they are deployed? ... Do you think it's reasonable to hold a parent's military status against them?"
these have to be the 2 dumbest questions I've ever seen in my life, anytime, anywhere.
of course the answer must be a resounding NO to both.
Reply
Karen 1-15-2008 @ 2:05PM
I think an active duty military person's deployment should be taken into consideration. Yes, they are honorable people making a great sacrafice, but what is most important is the child. Some parents make multiple deployments. If one parent traveled frequently for their job then that would be taken into consideration, so why not deployment? The child needs as much stability as possible.
If you two equally good parents and one leaves for 6 months or a year at a time...the one that stays home seems like a better choice to me.
Reply
Jennifer 1-15-2008 @ 2:09PM
NO!!! NO! NO! NO! This kind of stuff is sooo wrong. This is why people are more and more unwilling to join our military (ok, this and the stupid war we are fighting.) Until we start treating our soldiers fairly we are going to see a drop in enlistment numbers. A person's military service shoiuld never be held against them (ok, almost never, there are special circumstances.) Custody orders were put in place for a reason and a temporary deployment during war time is not a valid reason for them to be challenged.
Reply
Karen 1-15-2008 @ 2:12PM
But the person that you have to consider is the child. I don't think it is punishing military people to look at deployment when considering child custody. The needs of the child come first. And parents aren't being deployed for just a couple of months, but some for as long as a year and some have multiple deployments.
We would consider the travel needs of any other parent, why not one in the military. Children need stability, and if two equally good parents want to raise the child, I'm likely to side with the one that is going to BE there. That doesn't mean I'm siding AGAINST the other parent, but that I'm more concerned about what is best for the child.
Meagan 1-15-2008 @ 2:34PM
Ok... I realize I'm gunna get slammed for saying this but...
If a parent is deployed for ten months, or even six months at a time, isn't that sort of an unstable situation for the child? I've listened to stories of mothers and fathers who return from Iraq to have small children not recognize them. If you have two parents with all parenting abilities otherwise equal, but one of the parents is unable to PARENT the child for half the year because he or she is in the military it doesn't seem strange to me that this would be taken into consideration when determining custody.
I'm certainly no expert, but I assume that if a parent were traveling frequently, and long term, in a non-military job this would be considered when looking at custody.
Is this unfair to the parents who are serving our country? Absolutely. But every other time custody is discussed we talk first about the best interest of the child. Fair or not, I don't see how it's in the best interest of the child NOT to consider this.
Reply
trish 1-15-2008 @ 2:42PM
What if the parent leaves the child with another family member instead of the other parent? Should that other family member be given stronger consideration for custody because the parent is active in the military? These situations don't just apply to two parents, but a lot of military members are leaving their children with other family members, i.e. the grandparents.
Meagan 1-15-2008 @ 2:50PM
I don't know Trish. It's a good question and an unfortunate situation.
trish 1-15-2008 @ 2:55PM
That's the dilemma I'm having, because it does seem to make sense that one parent who is state side should have custody over one who is overseas for long periods of time. I am just doubtful that a custody dispute should take place when the child is left with another family member besides either parent. And yes, it's an unfortunate situation, I agree.
Sandyone 1-15-2008 @ 9:46PM
Yup...that's where it gets tricky...when the child is left with someone other than the other parent and that person wants to keep the child. This can happen to *married* parents in the military. Frankly, my parents would be in some serious trouble if they tried this one (not that they would...I do have five kids and they're no spring chickens!!).
Some folks get out of the military because it's not good for their children. We seriously considered it when we realized that one of our kids didn't deal very well with the moves. Turns out it was his age and he's done very well with the last few.
I don't like the question "is this fair to military parents?" Who the hell cares about the parents? Not me. Let's ask, "Is this fair to the KIDS?" There is no one answer. Some kids will fare just fine with a deployed parent. Others will suffer grave harm from it. Each case needs to be examined and the decision made individually.
You can't join the military if you're a single parent. If you become a single parent while in the military, you can get out. Parents have these choices...the trick is seriously considering them and realizing that the sacrifices aren't "maybes", they're "pretty definites".
If it comes down to losing your kids or your career, pick one. Your kid will be better off, whichever you choose.
mark 1-22-2008 @ 4:55AM
I have been to Iraq for seven months and I left a three month old boy. He was ten months when I returned and he didn't know who I was. It hurt my heart dearly and I've been home now for three months and he's finally comfortable with me. But when a person goes to war they sweat and bleed for not only their country but mainly to get back to their family. Yes the child's needs are important but to lose custody of your own blood after you have seen what I've seen is worse than the end of the world. I've been there and am still there and let me tell you a service member should always be able to maintain custody if they can present a solid plan on how thing are going to go when they return and if they dont' return home. We should at least be given a chance before any judgement is made. And if the children are old enough to articulate they should have a say as well.
Michelle 1-15-2008 @ 3:10PM
Alrighty, here goes nothin'. My son's father and I have (over the last 3 years) shared custody 50/50, prior to that I had primary physical custody. Last June his father joined the Marines (our son is 12). I really don't understand why he made this choice due to the fact that there is NO Marine base in our state and that this would automatically take him away from our son for months at a time when he had worked on me for years to get up to 50/50 custody. However, I fully support my child's relationship with his father. Currently the situation is odd; I have had our son from June through December of this year while his father is in another state, as a consideration for my son and his father I agreed to allow my son to go to the other state to stay with his father for 5 1/2 months (This 1 time only!). But serious paperwork had to be done before I would even let my son leave the state to ensure that I would have my son returned to me when the time comes. Unfortunately the big deal is that his father has pretty much refused to believe that we cannot still share custody 50/50. For the continued stability of my child he will be staying with me most of the time (especially during school), but his father is still in denial that our son can't just teleport from one end of the country to the other and doesn't even want to touch the idea of deployment. I did not make and had no part in the process of him making this decision yet he believes I should accommodate him (i.e., move my family closer to him, let son live with him {ignoring entire deployment senario}, etc.). I don't believe I have to do any such thing, especially since I originally had full custody of our son and his father made the choice to leave him (for a noble cause or not).
Reply
Mihir 1-15-2008 @ 3:26PM
the more i think about this article, the more it annoys me. to even consider holding military service for one's country against them is downright shameful.
"However, many are returning home, only to be faced with being sued for custody and their active military status taken into consideration by the courts when making a decision."
I seriously hope the people (judges, other parent, other family members) that would put a returning soldier through this are inundated with a thousand of paper cuts.
Reply
Sandyone 1-15-2008 @ 9:46PM
Now, see, I would hope that the people involved in these decisions would be inundated with intelligent and compassionate thoughts about what is best for the CHILD. I don't really care about the parents, as they are not the issue.
Sabrina 1-15-2008 @ 4:18PM
This actually happened to someone I know. My Dh is active duty air force and when one of his co-workers came home, her PARENTS sued her for custody of the child. She had left him with them for 6 months, and they live in the same school district, so it was perfect, not too much change for him at one time. Luckily California doesn't allow people to sue for custody based solely on military duty, or she would have lost her son to her own parents who were just angry because they never wanted her to join to begin with. I was apalled by the entire ordeal. The military requires single parents to have a responsible, and legally signed, plan in place for children who will be left behind. These single parents aren't just running of with some guy they met at the bar! The military is a secure job with benefits and it's not a bad place at all for a child to be raised. I cannot even imagine that some people would conbsider service to one's country and a stable job with benefits a reason to remove a child from a parent. Even if that parent has to go away for certain times during the year. Ridiculous!
Reply
Judy 1-15-2008 @ 4:22PM
I think I'm confused.
Of course it should be taken into consideration, at some level. Some people face frequent deployments, and I don't always know exactly what it is like, but I know sometimes my ex-husband would only get word that he was going to have to go "into the field" with very short notice - like 48 hours or less. How are these people supposed to locate reliable long-term childcare in that short a time? And yes, the other parent should (as long as that parent is suitable) get first option to care for the child while the other parent is serving his/her duty.
I see how it could be unfortunate that someone could find him/herself a single parent with a military obligation as well, but the military, after all, is a choice in this country, one that everyone who chooses should go into willingly and informed of all the potential ramifications.
In any other career choice, a parent who had to be away from a child for an extended period - several months or more - would certainly have to explain that choice as part of custody hearings. Why should it be any different with the military?
The only part I can see is that someone may have ended up divorced with time left to serve on their commitment, whereas in another job you could (more or less, I realize it's not quite so simple) choose to take on a different job that didn't require extended absences.
Why do so many people think those who choose military service should be given preferential treatment? It was a choice that they made, and they could have chosen otherwise. They need to live with all of the consequences of that choice.
Reply
Jennifer 1-15-2008 @ 5:10PM
Many members of today's military forces never thought they would be deployed when they joined the military. Service men and women who joined years ago during peace time and to do simple jobs as supply clerks are now being sent overseas on war time missions that do not resemble their original jobs due to a lack of eligable troops. Should they now be penalized for a situation which is out of ther control?
Judy 1-15-2008 @ 6:33PM
Jennifer said: "Service men and women who joined years ago during peace time and to do simple jobs as supply clerks are now being sent overseas on war time missions that do not resemble their original jobs due to a lack of eligable troops. Should they now be penalized for a situation which is out of ther control?"
Doesn't everyone who signs up for service know there is a possibility that they might have to serve? If not, then I think they didn't think it through very well, and that's their problem once again.
And I don't buy the "they joined in peace time" argument, at all. Yes, you join during peace time, but it's the MILITARY and you can't predict the future. I don't care when you join, or what kind of job you do, if you join the military, as far as I can tell, you sign on to do whatever job they ask of you. It's a volunteer force - if you don't like it, don't join.
Yes, they should be penalized for things out of their control, if that's what you believe is happening, because it WASN"T out of their control whether or not to join or re-enlist, peace time, wartime, or anytime.
Sandyone 1-15-2008 @ 9:45PM
Jennifer, there is not a single person in the military today who has not had at least one opportunity to get out. Not a single one. Of course, that doesn't really matter...just because someone was stupid enough to join the MILITARY and think they'd never have to pick up a weapon, that person shouldn't be exempt from fulfilling their duty. (And, those folks actually *hoped* they'd never have to do anything. They always knew it was a possibility, but they were enjoying the benefits of military life too much to be honest with themselves.)
The ORIGINAL JOB of every single member of the Army is that of Soldier. The supply clerk, general's driver and flute player came AFTER the soldier. Do you really think any of these people shouldn't go to war???
This "they never thought they'd have to go" crap has annoyed me since I was a fresh-faced cadet. Never thought you'd have to go? Too darn bad.
Grrrrrr.