Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Veterans Return Home To Custody Battles
The Indy Channel ^ | March 17, 2006 | AP

Posted on 03/17/2006 9:54:54 AM PST by Abathar

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Two Kansas City-area women are fighting to get their children back after serving their country overseas.

When Dena Stephenson went off to war, her 6-year-old daughter, Kristina, went to stay with her father. Stephenson followed the military's Family Care Plan, which gave temporary power of attorney and guardianship of her child to the father.

"Once I came back from deployment, naturally, my child wanted to be with me nonstop," Stephenson said.

Stephenson said she was supposed to get Kristina back when she returned home, but now the girl's father is asking for 50-50 custody.

"I don't agree with that as a parenting plan. I don't think it's healthy for the child and I've already missed a year of her life," Stephenson said. "It hurts me that he's trying to do this, and in the long run, I think it's going to hurt her, too."

Regina Ellis is going through a similar experience. She was deployed overseas for a year, and she also followed the Family Care Plan. Now that she's back, Ellis has lost custody of her son, Trevor.

This month, her ex-husband gained full-time custody, and Ellis said she sees Trevor only every other weekend.

"It's not just us and it's not just the Army and it's not just females -- this is military-wide, and it hurts," Ellis said.

Both Ellis and Stephenson are fighting their cases in court this spring.

KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Mo., reported that a law passed in 2003 is supposed to protect soldiers in war zones from civil lawsuits until they return. But now that law is being challenged in Kansas courts.

There is also a case pending before the Kansas Supreme Court about a Marine who lost custody of his son while he was in Iraq.

"If I'd never been deployed to Iraq, I don't think we'd be going through this," Stephenson said.

A spokeswoman at Fort Riley said returning soldiers are offered re-entry counseling, but no legal assistance in civil matters.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anamericansoldier; custody; militarymoms; militarywomen; oifveterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: packrat35

How about when the tables are turned and fathers lose their rights because they serve?? It's happened and it's not funny either way.


21 posted on 03/17/2006 10:43:16 AM PST by StarCMC (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...thank you Sarge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PreviouslyA-Lurker

compare how many guys got drafted and killed to the number of women.
compare ratios of male/females killed now in Iraq/Afghanistan.
compare the number of men who get custoday to women.
compare PT test score requirements.
then we'll have a good place to start the "fairness" baseline.


22 posted on 03/17/2006 10:46:55 AM PST by Rakkasan1 (Muslims pray to Allah, Allah prays to Chuck Norris.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: StarCMC
How about when the tables are turned and fathers lose their rights because they serve?? It's happened and it's not funny either way.

What about the children? Should they be taken out of school midyear and from where they have been living for sometimes more than a year. Keep in mind the children aren't living with strangers: we are talking about the other parent here. The interests of the children should come first, they are not property.

23 posted on 03/17/2006 10:56:04 AM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LWalk18
The interests of the children should come first, they are not property.

That's right. Funny you should put it that way.

24 posted on 03/17/2006 11:01:30 AM PST by StarCMC (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...thank you Sarge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PreviouslyA-Lurker
what kind of men are these guys?

The kind who don't run out on their kids. The kind who have as much right to custody as the mothers - who volunteered for jobs which they knew might take them away from their children for months at a time.

25 posted on 03/17/2006 11:06:44 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trebb
My point is that the roles have changed men used to go to war to protect the family, now women are going to war to protect the family.
26 posted on 03/17/2006 11:07:29 AM PST by PreviouslyA-Lurker (...where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:16-18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: StarCMC
How about when the tables are turned and fathers lose their rights because they serve?

I have sympathy for every guy who was drafted who has had that happen in the last 10 years.

As to the volunteers, everyone has to choose between career and family.

27 posted on 03/17/2006 11:10:06 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

I listen to Dr. Laura almost every day during lunch. I'm not sure what kind of society we're in now, I hear both good and bad, but the bad seems to be really bad.


28 posted on 03/17/2006 11:13:27 AM PST by PreviouslyA-Lurker (...where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:16-18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

IMO that's a cop out. Sorry. Try again.


29 posted on 03/17/2006 11:17:41 AM PST by StarCMC (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...thank you Sarge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The Family Care Plan isn't a federal law. It is a DOD regulation. It requires that single parents file a plan for the care of their child(ren), if they are deployed. I find the reference to the Family Care Plan as pretty weak legal argument.

Now that being said. The service member's election to place a child in the custody of the other parent during deployment should not be looked upon by the courts as a voluntary surrender of custody. I also think they will probably find legal protections from having custody decisions made in their absence.

30 posted on 03/17/2006 11:21:34 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
I had a buddy of mine who had troubles getting primary custody of his children, even after his ex-wife showed up drunk to a 10 a.m. hearing. She only blew a .078 so the magistrate let her keep custody.
31 posted on 03/17/2006 11:25:18 AM PST by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: StarCMC
It all comes down to the best interests of the child.

Is the child best served by being with a parent who is there for them, and can give a stable environment, or by the parent who wants an on call babysitter in another city where they can dump the child when their job takes them out of the country for a few months?

32 posted on 03/17/2006 11:30:43 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

So the only people serving in our military should be single?


33 posted on 03/17/2006 11:36:23 AM PST by StarCMC (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...thank you Sarge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
The service member's election to place a child in the custody of the other parent during deployment should not be looked upon by the courts as a voluntary surrender of custody.

Agreed. But on the other hand, a stable environment for the child should be part of the 'best interests' inquiry.

I also think they will probably find legal protections from having custody decisions made in their absence.

I also agree that that is the current law, and a good one, but it appears that that law is being challenged. "KMBC-TV in Kansas City, Mo., reported that a law passed in 2003 is supposed to protect soldiers in war zones from civil lawsuits until they return. But now that law is being challenged in Kansas courts."

34 posted on 03/17/2006 11:36:57 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

If you don't want to share custody, DON'T GET DIVORCED.


35 posted on 03/17/2006 11:40:50 AM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: StarCMC
So the only people serving in our military should be single?

I didn't say that. Long overseas deployments, however, may not be in the best interests of the child.

A similar issue is beginning to appear on the civilian side as well. Yuppie parents get divorced; one takes a job across the country. Courts are starting to give custody to the parent who stays in town as being less disruptive to the child.

36 posted on 03/17/2006 11:45:18 AM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

You didn't have to say it: it's inherent in your argument that military service, if it involves deployment - which in today's world we must assume it does - is incongruent with having a family.


37 posted on 03/17/2006 11:49:10 AM PST by StarCMC (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing...thank you Sarge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

One more reason why women don't belong in the military.


38 posted on 03/17/2006 11:49:34 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StarCMC

It's not incongruent if one parent is deployed while the other remains at home with kids--that is a reasonable sacrifice people have made for ages. But if parents are divorced, and one leaves for an extended period, it should be expected that the other one will gain (and continue to have, in the interest of stability) a larger role in the children's lives.


39 posted on 03/17/2006 11:55:39 AM PST by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PreviouslyA-Lurker
The women are fighting in war

Fighting? I doubt it. Besides, I don't see you on the front lines, what's your excuse?

40 posted on 03/17/2006 11:57:06 AM PST by Centurion2000 (Islam's true face: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J169127BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson