|
It is time for a major
overhaul of the Military Dads Denied
Father's Rights Thursday, March 24, 2005 By Wendy McElroy While he was deployed in The song opens: Rock a bye SS/ ROCK Rock a Bye/ you sang to me
each eve/ And you gave me rolling rock a byes of dreams I've yet to dream. Each night I'd pray that when I'd awake/ You'd
have safely ROCK'd me home to the greatest gift, the Lord hath given me/ my
little son named Sean. Sean may never hear that lullaby again, not
because his father Gary died but because Sean’s mother relocated him to "I am paying $2,100 a month not to see my
son," This is the new face of father’s rights, a
face men’s rights activists are determined you will see in coming months:
the military man who is ‘processed’ by the family courts during his
tour of duty or upon his return. A father who returns ‘home’ to
children he cannot see and, often, to support payments he cannot make. "Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life
for [in On March 13, the men’s rights syndicated
radio show "His Side" featured Gary in a program
entitled "Two Years into Iraq War, Little Has Been Done to Protect the
Rights of Military Fathers." The grassroots organization American Coalition
of Fathers and Children has just launched a vigorous ad campaign
to educate the public on how anti-father bias in the courts is destroying the
family. An ad currently being prepared by the ACFC highlights the dilemma of
military dads who are victimized by zero-tolerance and unreasonable legislation
that was passed to deal with "deadbeats." Activists are pushing the image of the military
father who is victimized by family courts not merely because it is true but
primarily because it is effective. That image breaks through the pervasive
cultural stereotype that fathers who lose custody or become
"deadbeats" are uncaring, unfit, wife beating, child-abusing losers
who deserve what they get. Do uncaring and unfit fathers exist? Absolutely.
But others fathers resemble Why? Because to a large extent, it is the
stereotype of the loser or abusive dad that permits family courts, government
agencies and the general public to turn a deaf ear to the three main complaints
of father’s rights activists. These complaints are: —Responsible fathers are commonly denied
custody or access to their children, often through the mother’s relocation —Paternity fraud goes unpunished or even
rewarded by judges who assess child support nevertheless —Child support standards are unreasonable By contrast, the family court system cannot
ignore the complaints of alienated military fathers with the same impunity. For
one thing, public opinion will not permit them to do so. An indication of how strong the public backlash
might be came in the early ‘90s with the Bobby Sherrill
case. Sherrill wasn’t a member of the military proper; he was a Lockheed
employee and divorced father working in Sherrill was held captive by
the Iraqis for five months. Upon his return to The public backlash passed,
partly because people assumed Sherrill was an aberration, a bizarre exception
under an otherwise ‘good’ law. But Sherrill was imprisoned because
of the same unreasonable legislation that returning military fathers and every
other alienated dads in Phyllis Schlafly who publicly endorses the ACFC
ad spotlighting military fathers — blasts one particular piece of legislation in her Feb. 18 column at TownHall,
entitled "Reservists deserve protection from family-court mischief." She writes, The Bradley Amendment…takes
us back to the cruel days of debtors' prisons. It requires that a child-support
debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven, and states enforce this law
no matter what the change in a father's income, no matter if he is sent to
war…and no matter if he is ever allowed to see his children." Consider one example of how the Bradley
Amendment impacts military fathers. Reservists typically assume a sizeable pay
cut when they transfer into military life. But child support is based on their
civilian salaries and the Bradley Amendment effectively blocks readjustment of
that debt. Thousands of miles away and out of
communication, such fathers are vulnerable to defaults that can lead to
financial ruin, as well as the forfeiture of passports, driver’s and professional
licenses. In some states, a default of over $5,000 is a felony that includes
imprisonment. Advocates of the Bradley Amendment maintain that
taking a rock-hard line is necessary to ensure that deadbeat dads do not use
loopholes to avoid their obligations. But these advocates are now arguing
against a very different image of divorced fatherhood: The military dad. He voices a message on behalf of every alienated
father. Repeal the zero tolerance laws that have removed compassion and
circumstance from family law. Repeal the Bradley Amendment; remove the
bureaucracy that automatically separates father and child. Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, |
