That is sickening! I sure hope something can be done about that!
This is a discussion on Family court ruling wounds National Guardsman in the heart within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Family court ruling wounds National Guardsman in the heart Sep 5, 2005 by Phyllis Schlafly http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...05/155337.html Gallant Americans are risking life and limb in Iraq ...
Family court ruling wounds National Guardsman in the heart
Sep 5, 2005
by Phyllis Schlafly
Gallant Americans are risking life and limb in Iraq to defend home and country. But they never dreamed they might lose their children, too.
When Army National Guard Spc. Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge, Mich., came home after 15 months in Iraq, he found that a family court "referee" had taken away his joint custody of his 10-year-old son and given full custody and control to the boy's mother.
For five years, McNeilly had had a 50-50 no-problem custody arrangement with his ex-girlfriend Holly Erb. When called up to go to Iraq, he gave her temporary full custody while he was overseas.
While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody permanent. When McNeilly protested, he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment and produced custody "points" against him.
"You want to make a soldier cry, you take his son away," McNeilly said. "It's devastating."
Michigan State Rep. Rick Jones became interested in this injustice. When he contacted the Judge Advocate General's office, he discovered that there are 15 to 20 similar cases in Michigan and it is a common problem all over the United States.
Jones has introduced legislation (HB 5100) providing that absences for military service cannot be used against a parent and that a permanent custody arrangement cannot be established while a parent is on active duty. He is hearing from legislators in other states who want to sponsor similar bills.
Since McNeilly's case was reported in the press, Erb's lawyer and the court's representative are trying to claim that depriving him of his father's rights wasn't because he was serving in Iraq, but because of his poor parenting skills.
The proof? McNeilly sent a couple of postcards to his son that showed soldiers training with a gun. Horrors! How un-politically correct to tell a son that soldiers in Iraq carry guns.
Erb's lawyer asserted that the postcards frightened the boy and showed that McNeilly is not a fit parent. But surely the boy had a right to know about his father's career and that soldiers who use guns are pursuing an honorable vocation.
The referee's report also justified deciding for mother custody because she was the "day-to-day caretaker and decision maker in the child's life" while McNeilly was deployed. But that's what mothers have always done when their men go off to war and it's no argument for taking the child away from his father upon return.
Day-to-day caretaker is feminist jargon to promote their ideology that the mother should have full custody and control because the father is not around to change diapers and do household chores. He is merely working a job, or sometimes two jobs, to support his family.
Follow the money to explain some of the motivation. When the mother was given full custody, the court ordered McNeilly to pay her $525 a month, which she would lose if they return to joint custody.
The real problem in this case is the arrogance of family courts, which claim the right to decide child custody based on their subjective personal opinions about the "best interest of the child." Family court judges, and the psychologists and referees they hire, routinely violate the fundamental right of parents to make their own decisions about the best interest of their own children.
Family courts are subjective and arbitrary, so unlucky divorced parents could get a judge or a referee who is anti-gun, or anti-military, or anti-spanking, or anti-homeschooling, or anti-religion, or a feminist who wants to transform the middle class into a matriarchal society as has already been done to the welfare class, with tragic results.
The notion that family court judges, psychologists and referees can impose personal views about what is "the best interest of the child" rather than a child's own parents is just another way of saying "it takes a village to raise a child." Thousands of good fathers have been deprived of their fundamental rights in the care and upbringing of their children by courts that treat fathers as good for nothing more than a paycheck.
The large number of fathers who have been the victims of family-court fatherphobia is no doubt the reason that one of the most popular songs on country music stations this year is Tim McGraw's "Do You Want Fries with That?" The lyrics are the cry of a father who is working a minimum-wage second job in a fast-food restaurant, living alone in a tent, after being ordered by a judge to support his children living in his house with his ex-wife and her boyfriend.
The father laments, "You took my wife, and you took my kids, and you stole the life that I used to live; my pride, the pool, the boat, my tools, my dreams, the dog, the cat."
Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1
Si vis pacem, para bellum
That is sickening! I sure hope something can be done about that!
This makes me want to do something inappropriate to post on this website.
Whether it's in Michigan, or New York, or California, or Montana, or where-ever, the court system in this country is totally out of control. This is proof.
Whatever happened to good old common sense?
Oops, sorry, I momentarily forgot, we're dealing with judges and lawyers here.
When youíre wounded and left on Afghanistanís plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.
Once again it seems that the children are the pawns in the mean-assed games that adults play. The courts(judges)and most politicians are definately livin' in LA-LA land anyway. They have lost all touch with reality.--------
oh... the only thing i'm allowed to post on this website is GRRRRRRRRR...
and that doesn't even come close to saying what this makes me feel!!!
This is about as low as you can possibly go....somewhere right above, or maybe even blow, pondscum!
Firefighter / EMT - Always Ready. Ever Willing.
~Never do anything that you don't want to have to explain to the paramedics...~
I have a comment, but it would get me banned forever!
EOD - Initial success or total failure
What has happened here is sad, pathetic, and angering. These men are away fighting overseas risking life and limb, and meanwhile at home, the courts hover over their lawbooks and say, "well, he ain't here, so he's neglectful," like the men have loads of options when they have Uncle Sam's barcode stamped on their buttocks.
My grandmother married a career military man. Grandpa served in WWII, Korea and Viet Nam. Grandma raised four children. She knew what it meant to be a military man's wife. They stayed together until death.
When women choose to pair up with a military man, they shouldn't expect that man to be able to come home every night, because he signed up to belong to a government that calls on him to go out and fight. Women can either choose to be involved with a military man and share him with that government, and accept the fact that he may be gone for long periods of time and may never come back, or they can look elsewhere and find a civilian with a 9 to 5 job and who's off on weekends.
Separated and divorced couples with child custody issues find lowdown ways of getting back at each other, and that usually means using the kids. Shame on the courts for punishing a man's active duty status to reward the parents who use their kids as pawns.
"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa
Dont get me started ill just say the whole Fried of the court deal is in general . Also its stacked way against a man . I should know thats all ill say other than i feel for the Guy
10-4 on your post Betty. I did not get married (or have a REAL steady girlfriend)until less than a year before I retired at age 39. I was out CONUS for 16 of my 22+ years.I saw what my mom went through with my dad being gone so much(he retired with 36 years in the USN).He was very rarely home while I was growing up. Military life is hard enough without the courts/judges beating up the soldiers and sailors even more. I think that it would be fair to say that a big majority of the judges have never served in the military.------------
+ 1Originally Posted by Tangle
Fair enough...I think that it would be fair to say that a big majority of the judges have never served in the military.------------
Most of them couldnt make it past the physcological evaluation... :1saufen:
What a crock!!! This another of those things where if I spoke my mind as I feel like doing - I'd have to ban myself.he was told that his year-long absence constituted abandonment
True as was said - kids are so often pawns - and that is obscene.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
http://www.rkba-2a.com/ - a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
While I agree this is unfortunate, I don't like the language of this post.
Women who are deployed are being deprived of their rights as well. This isn't a feminist issue, or a conservative issue... it's a parenting issue.
Oh, and if you read carefully it wasn't a judge... it was a family court "referee"... which they have because there are too many cases for just judges to handle.
"I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
So-------- if this wasn't a judge could you tell the "family court referee" to STICK IT ?? !! Probably not unless you were in desperate need of jail time. Point is --was the ruling enforceable? If so, does it really matter if it was a "judge" or not ? And,I would agree that"women that are being deployed are being deprived of their rights as well". And this is BS also. -----------