The McCain/Fathers' Rights Incident (Part II)
March 18th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesIn John McCain Testily Dismisses Fathers' Rights at Iowa Town Hall Meeting--Video Available, I discussed the incident Friday when aspiring Republican presidential candidate John McCain contemptuously dismissed fathers' concerns over family law at a mid-day town hall meeting in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Shared parenting activist Tony Taylor asked McCain if he "would be bold enough to address the issue of equal access to children for fathers that have gone through divorce," and McCain testily replied, in essence, that he wasn't going to do a damn thing. To learn more, click here.
What hasn’t been mentioned is that Taylor's question was framed in the context of the rights of military parents. As I noted in my co-authored Veterans Day 2006 column Protect Deployed Parents’ Rights:
"Divorced or separated military parents often lose custody of their children--and sometimes permanently forfeit any meaningful role in their lives--simply because they have served their country. Many married parents deploy overseas, never suspecting that their parenthood essentially ended the day they left home."
This is a major issue for deployed service personnel--I often receive letters from men in Iraq or Afghanistan who are losing their children or being put through the wringer by the child support system, and who are unable to defend themselves. There have been a few--but only a few--legislative efforts to solve this problem. To learn more, click here. It's bad enough that McCain dismissed fathers' concerns--it's even worse that he dismissed the concerns of deployed fathers (and mothers). My column detailing deployed parents' problems appears below.
Protect Deployed Parents’ Rights
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
(Tucson Citizen, Trenton Times, Macon Telegraph and others, 11/11/06)
Divorced or separated military parents often lose custody of their children--and sometimes permanently forfeit any meaningful role in their lives--simply because they have served their country. Many married parents deploy overseas, never suspecting that their parenthood essentially ended the day they left home.
The divorce rate in the Armed Forces has skyrocketed during the long deployments necessitated by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The scenario is a common one--a marriage crumbles during a long separation, and the stateside military spouse moves to another state and files for divorce, knowing that he or she is virtually certain to gain custody through the divorce proceedings in the new state. Given service personnel’s limited ability to travel, the high cost of legal representation and travel, and the financial hardships created by child support and spousal support obligations, it is extremely difficult for the deployed parent to fight for his or her parental rights in the new state.
For example, in one highly-publicized California case, Gary S., a San Diego-based US Navy SEAL, was deployed to Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and served in the Tora Bora region as US forces attacked Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds. While away, Gary's little son was permanently moved out of the country, with the complicity of a California family court. The 19-year Navy veteran with an unblemished military record has seen his son only a few times since he returned from Afghanistan, and has been pushed near bankruptcy by legal fees and stiff child and spousal support obligations.
In other cases, the children are not relocated but deployed servicemembers permanently lose custody because they “abandoned” their children by serving. In one widely-reported Michigan case, National Guardsman Joe McNeilly of Grand Ledge lost custody of his 10-year-old son after serving in Iraq for 15 months. Before deploying, McNeilly agreed to cede temporary full custody to his son’s mother. Upon his return, however, the court refused to restore the shared custody arrangement McNeilly and his son enjoyed before his deployment, citing McNeilly’s absence.
In the recent Mercer County, New Jersey case Grother v. Keenan, lieutenant Scott Keenan, an intelligence officer in the Naval Reserves, deployed overseas for three weeks around September 11 as part of the government's extra security measures. Because of his deployment, Keenan wasn't able to exercise all of his allotted parenting time with his elementary school-age boys. Ignoring Keenan's special circumstances, Superior Court Judge F. Lee Forrester permanently reduced his parenting time by 20%.
Because more women are serving in the Armed Forces, this problem is no longer limited to military fathers. For example, in the Regina Ellis case, KMBC TV in Kansas City reports that Ellis lost custody of her son to her ex-husband after she spent a year serving in Iraq, and can now only see her son every other weekend.
Five years after the United States began major foreign military commitments, only a handful of states have acted to protect the rights of military parents, and the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to protect those who serve.
The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003--the successor to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 and other legislation which dates all the way back to the Civil War--protects active military personnel by mandating that civil actions against them be delayed until after their return from service. However, partly because this type of relief began before the era of widespread divorce and out-of-wedlock births, it was not widely perceived to pertain to family law proceedings. As a result, many judges don't apply the protections the SCRA affords.
The federal government needs to update the Act to specifically apply to family courts. This will ensure that courts stay any long range legal action until after the servicemember has returned from deployment and has had a fair opportunity to assert his or her parental rights. The SCRA update must also specifically prohibit children from being permanently relocated long distances.
Some progress is being made. Widespread sympathy for McNeilly led to a bill signed by Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm in December which prevents changes of custody while a military service member is deployed, and prohibits family courts from using servicemembers' service against them when determining custody. Outrage over Gary S.'s case led to a California military parents' bill which Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law last September.
Gary says that he and others he serves with have been shocked by how little has been done to protect military parents. He says:
“Washington’s indifference to this situation is disgraceful. No parent should ever be pushed out of his child's life because he served his country.”
"));
19 queries. 0.340 seconds.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Sickening. I know other folks in the military here in San Diego who were devastated when the same thing happened to them. McCain just lost my vote.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:37 am
It would be better to change the law to protect parental rights under any circumstances except when holding those rights can be clearly demonstrated to be a threat to the child. In any reasonable sense, non custodial parents are guilty until proven innocent, servicemen or otherwise. The problem is in the fundamental reasoning employed by the courts, not in the individual circumstances of the victim parent. What could be a more natural function of a court to protect a parent's right to be a part of their child's life and the child's right to have unfettered access to either parent? As it is, the courts practice a very unnatural logic camouflaging it with meaningless phrases like "the best interest of the child", and servicemen are only some of the victims. Cut it out at the root, make the courts start protecting children, not one parent over the other.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:37 am
It is time to reign in "our" out of control "justice" system. And it has to start with the legislative bodies. Until there are people in office who care, we're screwed. Courageous men and women must run for office.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Don't cut him out of your vote yet. Make sure the other candidates get the same questions asked. Then ask again.
Politicians change their talk all the time. And to be honest, our work is to change people's minds and to change their talk on the importance of this issue. If none of the politicians will do anything about this issue (which seems true at the moment), then don't discriminate against the only one who has been asked. At least he attended a forum where the question came up; some candidates don't even attend town-hall meetings or don't allow real questions if they do attend. The most important thing is to keep asking the question. Eventually one will say they will work on it, and they will find a hidden vein of support, and then it will gain strength. (Like the country singer who had an unexpected hit with the song about staying at the Holiday Inn to visit his daughter...) We have to change people's minds. Keep asking, and if he's the one who changes his mind first, leave the door open.
OK, I'm off the soap-box. If he was truly contemptuous, then cross him off your 'maybe' list. But all the more reason to ask him again, whenever possible.
March 19th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
It is really the children that have the trauma, can you help us.
Were the proud parents of an young 29 year old independent film producer Lance Lanfear, and are trying to promote his new film and/or get him an interview or publicity. I'm on a mission to try and get 1 million people to see the trailer on Jake's Closet. To be among the first to view the trailer go to: www.jakesclosetmovie.com. Its a true depiction of the unconsicious and insidiousness way parental alienation occurs in families distressed by divorce. The movie depicts how real a child's fears are. The independent producer is Lance Lanfear and the writer/director is Shelli Ryan. Appreciate it if you can forward this email to anyone you know. Thanks for your help for a subject that should have an audience of millions. Ray and Judy Lanfear Parents of Lance.
haveittodayray's blog
March 20th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh Glen, did you expect any thing more from McCain than a slap in the face.. you should see - or at least read about what he has done - to the families of men missing - known as - PoW/MIA families. and the men themself, despite evidence in his and kerry's hands men were left behind. ( and thats not inclusive of all he has done to harm our nation and way of life. Col. Ted Guy a personal friend opposed McCain last time he ran. Ted was McCains SRO (Senior Ranking Officer) in the PoW camps. Both Col. Guy & Col. Larson have stated they doubt McCain was ever tortured.
An outline can be found here: http://soft-vision.com/redneck/?q=node/12
We OPPOSE McCains run for president.. any one who is capable of thought, after they read about McCain at the above URL should do what they can to insure men like he and Kerry (who is NOT running any more - wonder why?) never ever get into the white house.
( same URL above - in comment area )
http://soft-vision.com/redneck/?q=node/12
McCain's Character -- A Disaster Waiting To Happen
by John LeBoutillier
Ronald Kessler's excellent piece in Newsmax on Senator John McCain's erratic and explosive temper is 100% dead on target. As someone who has known McCain for 32 years, I can unequivocally state that he should be no where near the Oval Office.
His behavior through the years tells us all we need to know: he is a spoiled brat-turned adult who demeans people who dare to disagree with him; he has an explosive temper that can erupt on a nanosecond's notice; he is a total liar who will tell you something one day and then totally deny it the next (more on that below); he is a political chameleon who is enabled by the so-called Main Stream Media; he is also a megalomaniac whose former POW status has allowed him to get away with things -- i.e. the Keating Five Scandal -- that others would have gone to jail for.
In sum, McCain is a disaster waiting-to-happen.
---------------------------------------snip--------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all you do,
God Bless
March 20th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
http://soft-vision.com/redneck/?q=node/12
March 20th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
truth on mccain
http://soft-vision.com/redneck/?q=node/12
March 24th, 2007 at 12:38 am
I thought Senator McCain needed a little feedback regarding his comments. I sent the following letter via his website. I'll be curious to see if there's a response. I hope others write to let him know the magnitude of the problem and the fact that he cannot alienate a large portion of the electorate and expect to win elections.
Dear Senator McCain:
As a citizen, father, and individual in the midst of a divorce, I was disheartened by your apparent lack of concern for the millions of separated and divorced fathers whose rights have been violated by the Family Court system of this country. When questioned by parenting activist Tony Taylor about the need for equal access to children by fathers following divorce, you chose to dismiss the issue with a rather contemptuous comment about not wanting to "overturn divorces" rather than to address the real issue of parental alienation and gender bias in matters of child custody. Much of this difficulty is the result of the misguided Violence Against Women Act, a Federal law, which while attempting to deal with domestic violence, overlooks the role of women in situations of domestic violence and has violated the rights of tens of thousands of men, frequently arrested, jailed, and removed from their homes, often based on hearsay and false accusations, and denied the basic right of due process which is said to be the basis of American justice. The current divorce epidemic has been fueled to a large extent by this legislation and greedy attorneys who would rather manipulate the legal system and push for divorce (and receive exorbitant legal fees as a result) rather than attempt reconciliation. I am disappointed in your actions. I have always felt you to be an individual ready to take action against injustice and inequity in our society; this snub of millions of American fathers just fighting for a fair shake in being able to see their children and be a part of their lives will not be viewed kindly by myself or others I know in the same situation. I suggest you reconsider your answer and take a leadership role in promoting fathers' rights rather than to take the course of political expediency. It is the forthright and just thing to do. Senator McCain, the disenfranchised fathers of America are watching, and we vote too.
Sincerely,
David Menchell, M.D.
March 24th, 2007 at 8:25 am
vote the bum out..........he is a lawmaker pretending that the laws cannot be amended..........LOL..........
matriarchal stooge
March 24th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Here's the note i sent to mccain (the scumbag sellout)
I was very disapointed about your thoughtless dismissal of fathers (and father's rights) in their efforts to remain active in the lives of their children (especially those of military fathers) and your refusal to look at the needs of fathers seriously.........
Enough with female chauvinism and misandry (as if you know what these things are or even care about men)........
While i am happy that we will never have the man hater named hilary as president......I am not so sure you would do much better.....at least we know that Hilary will ignore the needs of men.........you seem like a traitor to your gender, not presidential material
June 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Akhi on March 24th, 2007 at 8:32 am said: "you seem like a traitor to your gender, not presidential material"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He and john kerry sold out our LIVE PoW/MIA's who were left behind, he is selling out our nation within his
amnesty stand, and thats just the cream off the top.
Please see: http://eagles.soft-vision.com/node/161 for starters.. ( McCain Brainwashed )
then:
http://eagles.soft-vision.com/node/43 (Only a Tiny Hand Full of Men )
http://eagles.soft-vision.com/node/137 ( Flip Flop John McNut )
http://eagles.soft-vision.com/node/136 (McCain goes Nuts) need I add "again".
Then his side kick.. The teacher of The Flip/Flop extraordinaries, the one, the only (thank God) Hanoi John Kerry
http://eagles.soft-vision.com/node/44 (When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A)
Glenn Sacks got his number on betrayal of Fathers (Dads) and thats a fact..
God Bless
June 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
PS: Don't miss reading: An Enormous Crime
About the Author Former U.S. Rep. BILL HENDON (R-NC) served two terms on the U.S. House POW/MIA Task Force (1981-1982 and 1985-1986); as consultant on POW/MIA Affairs with an office in the Pentagon (1983); and as a full-time intelligence investigator assigned to the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1991-1992). He has traveled to South and Southeast Asia thirty-three times on behalf of America’s POWs and MIAs. Hendon is considered the nation’s foremost authority on intelligence relating to American POWs held after Operation Homecoming and an expert on the Vietnamese and Laotian prison systems. He lives in Washington, D.C.
ELIZABETH STEWART's father, Col. Peter J. Stewart (USAF), is missing in action in North Vietnam. His name appears on Panel 6E, Line 12, of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. Elizabeth Stewart has spent more than two decades researching intelligence relating to American POWs and MIAs. Her efforts have taken her from Capitol Hill to Cambodia, from the South China Sea to the presidential palace in Hanoi, and to the most remote regions of northern Vietnam. An attorney, she lives in central Florida.
STEWART, PETER JOSEPH
Name: Peter Joseph Stewart
Rank/Branch: O5/US Air Force
Unit: 8 TFW Headquarters
Date of Birth: 12 August 1918
Home City of Record: Winter Haven FL
Date of Loss: 15 March 1966
Country of Loss: North Vietnam
Loss Coordinates: 212300N 1030000E (TJ928640)
Status (in 1973):Missing In Action Category: 2 Acft/Vehicle/Ground: F4C Refno: 0274
Other Personnel In Incident: Martin J. Scott (missing)
Source: Compiled by Homecoming II Project 15 October 1990 from one or more of the following: raw data from U.S. Government agency sources, correspondence with POW/MIA families, published sources, interviews.
Updated by the P.O.W. NETWORK 1998.
REMARKS: POSS DEAD IR 1516032672
SYNOPSIS: On March 15, 1966, Capt. Martin R. Scott was the pilot of an F4C Phantom fighter/bomber assigned a mission over North Vietnam. His bombardier/navigator on the flight was veteran pilot LtCol. Peter J. Stewart. The flight departed Ubon Airfield, Thailand, in the late afternoon for the armed reconnaissance flight that would take them over the city of Dien Binh Phu in North Vietnam. Scott and Stewart were number 2 in a two-plane flight. About one mile south of the Dien Bien Phu airport, the flight leader spotted two trucks on the main highway and directed the number two crew to make a low bombing pass. Moments later, the leader observed what he described as an dense explosion resembling a napalm drop in the target area. Repeated attempts to raise the number 2 plane failed. Scott and Stewart were declared missing. Because the plane went down in a heavily populated area deep in enemy territory, an organized search for Scott and Stewart was not possible. There was no evidence of survival. In 1972, the Defense Department received a report from a refugee who stated he was shown the crash site and the graves of the two pilots. He stated that Stewart's plane was the only plane shot down in that area, but could not specify the date or year. The DOD added, "POSS DEAD IR1516032672" to Scott's records. This report was disproven in 1986 on the basis that Scott's plane was not the only plane shot down in the area (in fact there were several), but the data remark remained, and the Air Force cannot verify why the "only plane"statement was made. In 1985, a returned POW recalled that Peter Stewart's name was one of those passed around in POW camps before Americans were released in 1973. In 1975, the Stewart family identified a photo of a prisoner of war as Peter Stewart. Whether Scott's name was ever mentioned as a possible POW is not known. Whether Scott and Stewart survived the crash of their plane on March 15, 1966 will not be known with certainty until either they themselves or their remains are returned. Although over 10,000 reports concerning Americans alive in Southeast Asia have been received by the U.S. Government, we have yet to discover the formula that would secure the freedom of these men. Martin Scott and Peter Stewart could be among them. Isn't it time we brought these men home? Peter J. Stewart and Martin J. Scott were both promoted to the rank of Colonel during the period they were maintained Missing in Action. credit: PoW Network http://www.pownetwork.org/bios/s/s069.htm