Nat guard Mom in custody battle

Finally, unless I missed a class in sex ed, if a woman gets pregnant on a boat or a deployment in the sand box there was a man...if not notify the VATICAN.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
My understanding is that everyone in the military with dependents must file a family plan regardless of if/when they will be deployed.
Click to expand...


This may occur for single parents, but I don't believe it occurs for married, at least Bullet never had me sign anything...Never mind, he probably did, because he would come home with a stack of papers and just say sign here and then slide it to the next page, and I had the attitude of how long will this take because the washer is on the final spin, and the noodles are burning on the stove, plus you brought me home desert uniforms that need to be washed:wink:.
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Here is a question for you:
Should the judge refuse to grant her custody of her daughter ONLY because of the POSSIBILITY she might deploy again?
Click to expand...

JAM: NO a judge should not refuse her request for custody due to the possibility of future deployment. Nor should a judge grant her full custody that is what she is asking for, due to past deployments.
 
Your first sentence answered the question.
She did have full custody prior to deploying but after she returned the baby's father refused to let her see the child much less have joint physical custody.
The law should allow for her to resume full custody and if the father chooses he can then sue for full or partial custody - which he could have done when the baby was born but failed to do so.

Just my gut feeling - the father never raised the custody issue since the child was an infant. They may never have gone to court since there was no divorce. While she was gone the father and probably the grandmother bonded with the child and decided to "keep" her.


PIMA - should have clarified, dependents under age. Maybe you are right about single parents but also when both parents are military a family plan is required from both.
 
JAM:
You have information that I couldn't find. What i did find was prior to spec mendoza's deployment they shared joint custody. I could not find with whom the infant lived with , I suspect the baby lived at grandma's house. and has all it's life. The living arrangements of this family has caught my interest. any facts would be appreciated:rolleyes:

How's the tummy ache:wink:
 
Just_A_Mom said:
Your first sentence answered the question.
She did have full custody prior to deploying but after she returned the baby's father refused to let her see the child much less have joint physical custody.
The law should allow for her to resume full custody and if the father chooses he can then sue for full or partial custody

Just my gut feeling - the father never raised
Click to expand...

ANYTHING...............

Sounds like Mr. 22 year old still living with Grandma and Grandpa.......who are probably taking care of his child and now quite attached and just a bit hesitant to give up this child.

Gunnerhas1loose :......... take your spin somewhere else.......... there is a world of difference between a (quiet possibly just recently employed) punk working at the YMCA and........ a WOMAN ......entrusting her parental rights to the system and then serving our NATION in a combat zone.

Sorry dude....Im not buying your bark.
 
gunner1zeus said:
My question still is, should SpecMendoza be retained by the military when she has stated she will not deploy with her unit if mobilized. For the sake of her daughter.

This question will not be addressed due to the fact an answer will not fit into the prestructured discussions of most.
Click to expand...

This is the double edged sword so many hate to discuss.
 
kilovictorhotel said:
........ a WOMAN ......entrusting her parental rights to the system and then serving our NATION in a combat zone.

Sorry dude....Im not buying your bark.
Click to expand...

KVH
a WOMAN? that is a sexist remark indicating that women should be treated different than their male counter parts.

Entrusting her parental rights to the system? How by filling out forms required from every deploying member.A non binding agreement when dealing with non military. why not go to a social services office and get a legally binding accord establishing what custody terms would take effect when she returned.
rather than dropping the kid off with a boy friend she had split up with. yeah real maternal instincts there.
does our weekend warrior have a job presently? where is she living. a spec4 in the national guard makes very little money. perhaps she is living with a present boyfriend she does have a past history for that. perhaps the child and her can stay with her parents? Nope they live in Latin America. as for service in defense of our country I salute Her, Job well done.

KVH: sorry the bark is not for sale, however I'm told that a recording of it when played at high volume will keep dogs and coasties off the grass.:biggrin:
 
Gunner; you can not be that dense. That is not possible. I won't even quote your entire last post, because it is total nonsense. You have totally mis-characterized Specialist Mendoza. I could start copying and pasting all your flawed comments like: "dropping the kid off with a boy friend she had split up with". When it's obvious that he is the child's father, and not just some "Boyfriend" she broke up with. Or when you wrote: "why not go to a social services office and get a legally binding accord establishing what custody terms would take effect when she returned." Despite the fact that the article said: "a written family care plan they had worked out with military officials outlining shared custody upon her return" And by the way; there is no such thing as a non-binding contract with a non-military member. Any 2 people that put in writing any type of agreement, from a bill of sale to a power of attorney, can be held binding. There is no law that says a particular lawyer or such must be utilized in order for it to be legal. Again; if a piece of paper stated certain conditions that both of them agreed to, and they both signed it, and there is a witness; then it can most definitely be binding. Go back and learn what you speak of.

Tell you what; opinions are one thing; but come back when you know what you're talking about. This is not personal. I am not attacking you personally. But if you want to "Play" such a game, you better be prepared. And that means knowing the facts. You want to debate facts? Fine, we can do that. But listening to made up opinions that have no substance, is a total waste. And personally, it's not going to happen.

Now; if I somehow misunderstood your last post, and you were somehow quoting someone else, or implying information that I over looked; then present it and I will apologize for my apparent hostility. However; if your last post is your own words, then I suggest you go back and prepare a little bit better. I can respect your opinions; whether I agree with them or not. I NEVER respect comments that are flat out incorrect. There is only one person she should have left the child with while she was deployed; unless that person was incapable. That person is the child's father. And that is exactly who she left the child with. So please; tell me what she did wrong???? And the military requires arrangements be made for the care of military children should a parent need to deploy. They want to ensure that all legal requirements and powers of attorney are handled properly to ensure the well being of the child. Again; she did this. So again; tell me what she did wrong. Again; come back when you've got facts. Stop reading into the article what you WANT it to say, instead of what it says. I have a real hard time with such misunderstanding. But again; if I am misunderstanding something you wrote; then clarify it. I will be the first person to apologize.
 
That's just it Christcorps - the Military Family plan is not binding in a civilian family court. The judges don't have to consider it. The Family plan is a document that assures the military that the children are not left to fend for themselves.
Filing a Family plan and even having a Custody agreement doesn't prevent the ex from moving to another state and filing for and gaining full custody while the deployed parent is overseas. Custody and family courts are state issues that the Military and Federal gov't are not willing to get involved in.

Gunner - The article doesn't say if the parents had a formal custody agreement prior to the deployment. Perhaps they did not. Maybe they broke up a week before the deployment - these are unknowns. For the sake of argument, let's say they did not have a formal custody agreement - it wouldn't matter. They would be in the same position they are now - mediation and then back to family court.
The only way this mother can legally get her child back is through the court which takes weeks and weeks.

BTW - read the Army Times article - the mother is employed as a Nutrition teacher for the Rutger's Cooperative extension. I am not sure why you think this woman is not capable of supporting herself. She might very well be. She is probably getting her tuition paid for by the National Guard plus Federal and State financial aid and a job to boot. She is doing well.
http://www.state.nj.us/military/army/National_Guard_benefits.pdf
In exploring her "path to honor" they didn't tell her she could lose her daughter.




I would also like to point out that when people make posts that are cryptic, it can be construed as rude since some people might understand them while others are left just wondering what it's all about. YKWYA
 
JAM,

You are probably right that a judge does not need to take the military agreement into account when they make their judgment. However, if she has a good attorney, he will try to show this as evidence, and if not I bet he will call the jag office to get someone from there to testify about their family plan.

Also, I wonder if she was under the premise that it was a legal contract to protect her rights, meanwhile the father went to an attorney while she was deployed and found it was not enforceable under NJ family law.

IMHO, he is an a**, to deny her parental rights. I support him under the premise that emotionally for a young child to uproot her for the home she knows while the Mom may be deployed in the future, but the minute she separates from the service, the custodial issue should be revisited. Denying a child that has never been abused by a parent that love is a form of abuse in its own way. This child will be scarred. She will eventually lay blame at the foot of her father for denying her that relationship, and he may lose her when she is older. For what? His selfish desires and needs.
 
Hi,

I am glad to hear that this is working out for the mother. As I was once told, as long as you are not a pole dancer AND doing drugs, no judge is going to take a child away from its mother.

Maybe if daddy deareast had spoken to his child about her mother while the mother was deployed, displayed pictures in the child's room and taught the daughter to be proud of her mother, then the child would have known who her mother was when she walked in the room. It was pure selfishness on the part of the father and his family. His parents should be ashamed of themselves for supporting their son in his efforts to sever his daughter's relationship with her mother.

So happy that the court made the right decision in this case.

GoNavyMom:thumb:
 
Pima and GoNavyMom, if you think this is an isolated case read on:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,134697,00.html

excerpt:
She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, handled the shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, made sure schoolwork was done. Hardly a day went by when the two weren't together. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with Dad.

A year and a half later, her assignment up, Crouch pulled into her driveway with one thing in mind - bringing home the little girl who shared her smile and blue eyes. She dialed her ex and said she'd be there the next day to pick Sara up, but his response sent her reeling.
"Not without a court order you won't."
Within a month, a judge would decide that Sara should stay with her dad. It was, he said, in "the best interests of the child."
What happened? Crouch was the legal residential caretaker; this was only supposed to be temporary. What had changed? She wasn't a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an abusive mother.
Her only misstep, it seems, was answering the call to serve her country.
Click to expand...
More:
A federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is meant to protect them by staying civil court actions and administrative proceedings during military activation. They can't be evicted. Creditors can't seize their property. Civilian health benefits, if suspended during deployment, must be reinstated.
And yet servicemembers' children can be - and are being - taken from them after they are deployed.
Some family court judges say that determining what's best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers. And so, in many cases when a soldier deploys, the ex-spouse seeks custody, and temporary changes become lasting.
Even some supporters of the federal law say it should be changed - that soldiers should be assured that they can regain custody of children after they return.
"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.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe if daddy deareast had spoken to his child about her mother while the mother was deployed, displayed pictures in the child's room and taught the daughter to be proud of her mother, then the child would have known who her mother was when she walked in the room. It was pure selfishness on the part of the father and his family. His parents should be ashamed of themselves for supporting their son in his efforts to sever his daughter's relationship with her mother.
Click to expand...

I can't agree more. My youngest brother was a year old when my dad left for a year. My mom had picutures everywhere including beside my brother's crib. Every night he "kissed Daddy goodnight" by kissing his picture. When my Dad came home, Pete was about 2 and simply walked up to him and said "Hi Daddy!". No tears, no trauma.
 
I agree this is an isolated case, but it will set precedent and that is what I am more concerned about because this case will be used in the future. Plus, I think this is not the end of it, there will be appeals from the side that loses.

You all made me feel like crap, because I never did that with my kids. (kissing pics). I do like what we did as a family. We did 2 things that gave the kids away to grasp that Daddy was gone, but always a part of the family. I would go out and buy a bag of M & M's the night before he left. Everyone chose a color and they all had their own "special" jar, they could eat theirs, but not Daddys. Every week, I would buy a new bag and they would sort the colors and put Daddy's away for when he came home. It was neat to see they always sorted out Daddy's first and were so proud of finding his color...green of course! WHen he came home the night before we would fill up old plastic easter eggs as a family, which they knew that they were getting them the next day. As soon as he came home he would hide them outside.

Our second thing we always did was tie a yellow ribbon on the tree outside everyday he was gone. The kids would wake up anxious on their day to tie the ribbon, because they were showing the world that Daddy was serving the country. Bullet hated it, because it would take us days to get all of the ribbons off!

For us it was something that made them get that Dad was gone, but still a part of our family.
 
Hi,

Pima your family had a beautiful way of keeping dad involved - don't feel like crap.:smile:

"Some family court judges say that determining what's best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers."

I think this is flawed. Family law is state law and federal law more than not pre-empts state law.

It would be interesting if someone took this question to the US Supreme Court. It would be nice if the Service Member Civil Relief Act were amended to clarify that parental rights are protected while in active service. It would also be great if the family care plan had some legal weight in civilian court.

While I am enjoying the debate, this working mom has to get back to work now.

GoNavyMom
 
I wonder how close the guard is watching this. I ask this because when Bullet was a LT we had POAs and as spouses we could go to even A & F to change direct deposits. After Gulf 1 came about and members found that their spouses emptied the checking account, you had to have a "special" POA.

I am betting that they are also watching this to protect the military member, especially if the judge goes against her, using the chance of future military deployments as a reason.
 
Shows you how much things have changed in just my lifetime.

Waaay back when...

When my father received his FIRST deployment to a combat zone that I remember (he had gone before that) we all talked about it, our neighbors knew about it, and come deployment day, we were all on the ramp with him at the plane, then had a big hug and we stood there as the plane taxied away and then took off.

And I stood there with my "fatigues and Johnny Eagle Lieutenant Rifle over my shoulder" and saluted goodbye, sorta like JFK Jr. I knew he'd be back; he was indestructable. (I had just turned 6)

And for the next 12 months we lived in terror of a "white top" driving into the family housing area and sometimes they did and then the entire community descended upon that house and family and cried with them and did all we could for them. (I should explain: a white top car was the vehicle of a senior commander and they accompanied the casualty notification teams on base)

And then one day we went to the airfield and the plane returned and there was dad and all was good again.

We never had "counselors" or things like you see now: lawsuits, concerns about development, etc. My sister was not even 2 when that deployment occurred...we had a big picture of dad in each room and we wrote letters, and occasionally got this tape reel in the mail and played it and listened to dad tell a bedtime story, or what he'd been doing, etc.

My sister is now 46, I'm "older than that" and I think we turned out just fine. And we have a wonderfully close relationship with dad, who's now 75.

I just don't understand things like this lawsuit, the "reasoning" behind the lawyers and plaintiffs...It makes no sense to this "third generation military brat."

Just my 64 cents worth; I'll climb off the soapbox now. :rant2:

I have to go write an AF Form 4060! :thumb:

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
occasionally got this tape reel in the mail and played it and listened to dad tell a bedtime story
Click to expand...
I had forgotten. My dad had a tape recorder too. We used to make tapes and send them back and forth. Wow, this is stirrin' the memory bank.

Flieger - sure times have changed.
This stuff has always happened but men were the affected parents. Sadly, their voice as a parent was ignored too long. Back in the day, men rarely sued for custody, unless of course Mom was a stripper AND on drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top