Doug Laidlaw (laidlaws{at}myaccess.com.au) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>
>> http://www.glennsacks.com/the_betrayal_of.htm
>>
>> By Glenn Sacks
>>       When Gary, a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL, was deployed in
>>       Afghanistan
>> in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, he never
>> dreamed that his service to his country would cost him his little son.
>> Gary's son was not taken from him by a terrorist or a kidnapper. This
>> 17-year Navy veteran with an unblemished military and civilian record was
>> effectively stripped of his right to be a father by a California court.
>>
>>       Gary's story, which was the subject of a two-part Fox News feature
>> called "SEAL, Sorrow" earlier this year, is not an
unusual one. Under the
>> Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, if a parent takes
>> a child to a new state, that new state becomes the child's presumptive
>> residence after six months. Because a normal military deployment is six
>> months or more, if an unhappily married military spouse moves to another
>> state while the other spouse is deployed, by the time the deployed spouse
>> returns the child's residence has already been switched. Since courts lean
>> heavily in favor of a child's primary caregiver when determining custody,
>> the spouse who moved the child is virtually certain to gain custody
>> through the divorce proceedings in that new state.
>>
>>       Because of the strict restrictions on travel by active military
>> personnel, the cost of legal representation, and the financial hardships
>> created by child support and spousal support obligations, it is very
>> difficult for returning service personnel to fight for their parental
>> rights in another state. Many struggle even to see their children, much
>> less remain a meaningful part of their lives, and the bond between the
>> children and their noncustodial parent is often broken for years, if not
>> permanently.
>>
>>       Gary has not been able to see his son, who now lives abroad, in
>>       nearly
>> nine months. When he calls he can sometimes hear the three year-old ask
>> "when daddy come?" and "where's daddy?" in the
background but he is often
>> prevented from speaking with him.
>>
>>       According to nationally-known family law attorney Jeffery Leving,
>> author of Fathers' Rights , there are three solutions to the problems
>> facing military fathers. First, the federal Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil
>> Relief Act of 1940 needs to be amended to specifically prohibit the
>> spouses of active duty military personnel from permanently moving children
>> to other states without the permission either of the active duty military
>> spouse or of a court. (The primary purpose of the Act, whose origins go
>> back as far as the Civil War, is to protect active armed forces personnel
>> by mandating that civil actions against them be delayed until after their
>> return from service).
>>
>>       Second, California laws, which currently do little to prevent a
>> custodial parent from moving children far away from the noncustodial
>> parent, need to be changed to prohibit any permanent removals done against
>> a deployed military parent's will. Third, the UCCJEA needs to be amended
>> to state that the presumption of new residence does not apply if the
>> children are taken in this wrongful fashion.
>>
>>       Gary has lost nearly $100,000 so far fighting for his son and may
>>       soon
>> be forced to declare bankruptcy, which in turn will destroy the top secret
>> security clearance he needs for his job. Worse yet is the emotional
>> devastation wrought by his separation from his son and the knowledge that
>> he may never see him again. He says:
>>
>>       "My love for my son cannot simply be brushed aside as the courts
>>       seem
>> to believe it can. I can remember holding my little son's hand like it was
>> yesterday. I can remember his cry. I hear it every time I hear another
>> child crying."
>>
>>       "Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life [in Afghanistan] for. I
>>       went
>> to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a
>> man doesn't have the right to be a father to his own child?"
>>
>> ---------
>
> Hard cases make bad law.  So many wrong decisions have been handed down when
> one party is unrepresented that in my opinion, such cases should not be
> authority for anything.  The Judges depend on the advocates to tell them
> what the law is.  If an advocate knows a point of law that doesn't help
> him, he has to  make it known, so that the Judge will come to the right
> decision, but that doesn't apply to evidence.  And it isn't the same as
> hearing argument from both sides.

In other words, as long as the law is only fucking over *thousands*
of *men*, who cares ?

Uh huh.

Since it's the same *government* sending the men out, in such time
as not to let them deal with the Family KKKourts, its the gov't's
responsibility, too.

But, who cares... they're only men...

 Misandrist. 

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/11/05 12:41:56 AM ---