Opinion: Military and Divorce

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher061105.htm

Divorce And Child Support Are Eviscerating Military Recruitment

June 11, 2005



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by David R. Usher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Military recruiting is quickly turning into a home-front disaster. ROTC
recruitment is down 16% over the past two years. Active-duty Army
recruitments were 27% below the goal for February 2005, despite a $20,000
recruitment bonus. And the Army missed its April recruitment target by a
whopping 42%.

Certainly, the prospect of extended combat duty in the war on terror may be
discouraging enlistment. This is the oft-mumbled mantra we hear
explaining-away the shortfall. The possibility of activity in either North
Korea or Iran is perhaps also discouraging enlistment.

But there are still plenty of good reasons to enlist. On the positive side,
the worst is over for us in Iraq. Iraqi freedom fighters are taking most of
the heat. Fatalities and injuries were historically low in Iraq because our
high-tech capabilities made it all but impossible for the enemy to touch us.
It is still very hip to be patriotic - even if your name happens to be "John
Kerry". The economic recovery in the job sector is well underway -- albeit
predominantly in the low-income job sector - but not enough to compete
seriously with military recruiting.

But if you are poor and need a good education and career, nothing has
changed. The military is the best way to get out of poverty and build a
better life. And if you have a James Bond complex, there is no better place
to live it out.

But men are inexplicably staying away in droves. What is the real reason why
men are not enlisting?

Men are not stupid. They have learned that when they are patriotic and join
the military, the chances are better than 50% that they will end up divorced
and come home to a huge child support debt and perhaps even a jail cell on
criminal nonsupport charges.

Divorce rates in America are still over 50%. For the military it is even
higher -- albeit nobody knows exactly what the real number is since the
Pentagon doesn't report home-front casualty rates.

It is assumed that the military divorce rate is higher than in the civilian
population because the stresses on families in the military are much higher.

This is only the "popular" part of the answer. Easy no-fault divorce, child
support (with hidden alimony) entitlements, and chronic mistreat of men
divorce are the real reasons.

Consider the advantages of marrying and divorcing a military man. If a woman
is married to a military man for merely one day, she can collect up to half
his pension if she divorces him. And there is no limitation on how many
times a woman can do this.

Secondly, the best time to divorce a man is when he cannot defend himself
because he is on the other side of the world. It is quite simple to seize
the family, get a hefty (temporary) support order, and move on. That's the
beauty of no-fault divorce. You do what you want while the husband pays the
costs and assumes the fault by default.

A man on duty overseas can be hit with a surprise divorce, lose everything
he owns, and have a "temporary" child support order levied against him.
There is nothing in any federal or state law or the SSCRA requiring that
child support orders be based on real contemporary income.

Courts are quite likely to base the child support order on imputed civilian
pay - which is commonly much higher than military pay. It is not exceptional
to see military men paying over half of their pretax income as child
support.

It is worse for reservists. A divorced male reservist can end up owing more
in child support than he earns on his military paycheck. And there isn't
much he can do to change it. Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks cover this in
their article "Laws Must Protect the Rights of Military Dads".

Blasting our military men from the rear flank

The U.S. military suggests reservists seek a support modification when
called into active duty. The Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) instructs similarly.

The ACF has plenty of information about how to get child support levied
against a military person, and gets full cooperation from the Pentagon. But
the ACF has almost nothing to help the military person get it fixed. This is
the first clue what lies ahead for the average serviceman.

Where only 4% of civilian men are able to get support modifications, we can
safely say it far more difficult to accomplish from a tent in Iraq.

Courts and DCSE tribunals are unlikely to support reservists due to perverse
incentives. State interests lie in maximizing child support orders and
collections, for this boosts federal funding entitlements.

I am told that courts and support agency tribunals normally take the
position that since the reservist "chose" to go into the reserves, he does
not qualify for a modification to match his pay. One reservist said he saw
an article indicating that only 3% of reservists get a reduction in child
support.

Caught between Iraq and a hard place

There is no federal requirement that support orders must be based military
pay, and no guarantee a modification will be granted. Many reservists have
only 72 hours to report for duty - not enough time to even get the attention
of system that generally refuses to treat men fairly in the first place.

This delivers military men directly into the clutches of criminal federal
and state child support laws. If a man becomes either $5,000 or six months
(FILO basis of accrual) in support arrears, he becomes a felon. He then
automatically loses his passport, driver's license, business license,
professional licenses, and vehicle licenses. If convicted, he loses his
right to vote in most states.

Criminal and civil support collections laws do not allow a defendant to
claim reason for not paying as a defense. The only question before the court
is: "did you pay it or did you not".

Neither the federal government or states have taken steps to plan for this
situation. This planning is primarily a federal responsibility because
military service is for the United States Military, not the individual
states.

Pro-marriage, pro-family, patriotic reform is needed

This is a federal economic abuse of our men (military and otherwise). Taxes
change automatically depending on one's income. There is no reason why child
support orders should not automatically adjust the same as taxes do.

There is no moral, ethical, or legal justification for treating divorced men
any differently than we treat married men. Child support should always be
assessed against actual monthly income, and nothing else.

Obviously, it will take Congress some time to decide how to normalize and
regulate child support orders at the federal level. This must be
accomplished from fresh pro-marriage paradigms, vigorous policy analysis,
appropriate debate and thorough hearing.

In the meantime, Congress must pass emergency legislation to provide
automated emergency support modification services to servicemen; to require
that ACF gets support orders modified on behalf of servicemen in cooperation
with the U.S. military. These orders must be based on military pay, exclude
items commonly regarded as "alimony", and capped at maximum percentages of
income.

The Bradley Amendment, which forbids retroactive correction of even the most
outrageous state child support orders and errors, must be retired.
"Forgiveness" legislation must be passed to correct the system-wide problems
of the past (which were largely caused by state-level conflicts of interest,
collusion, and mismanagement).

Legislation must be passed to stop serial looting of military men. A woman
who has been married to a military man for less than ten years should not
have rights to any portion of his pension, and she should not have rights to
even half his pension unless they are married at the time he retires.

Fourteen years of heavy military casualties on the home front

In 1991, just after we went into Iraq, I got legislation passed in Missouri
to protect reservists called into active duty for a period of more than
thirty days. It was the easiest piece of legislation I ever worked on. We
can thank former Representative Bill Skaggs(D) for being the first
legislator in the United States to do the right thing.

It took only six weeks to get the legislation through both the Missouri
House and Senate due to the universal bipartisan support. Astonishingly,
fourteen years later, Missouri is still the only state providing any
protection whatsoever for our military men - and Congress is still asleep in
the cockpit.

In 2001, I met with Senator Elizabeth Dole and Elaine Donnelly of the Center
for Military Readiness. They both strongly agreed that the problem of child
support in the military needs to be corrected, and indicated they would be
willing to help. More recently we have seen sensible articles from Phyllis
Schlafly and Wendy McElroy, who both stridently call for change.

Two states, California and Illinois have bills pending this session. The
National Organization for Women is opposing the Illinois bill (as we would
expect).

Ponder this: The situation we face today exists solely because the feminist
cohorts of Jane Fonda spent forty years enacting antisocial, vitriolic
social policies which are now destroying the military exactly as Jane
attempted to do during the Vietnam war.

Read my lips: If we want to rebuild the freedom to be patriotic, we must
first free the American family from the virtually seamless fabric of
anti-family feminist policy which presently drives nearly all aspects of
federal and state social spending.

One reservist who had enough

Gordon Dollar was a reservist for sixteen years serving in the National
Guard and the Naval Reserves, working in Military Intelligence.

Prior to activation, the Arizona DES failed to account for his child support
payments correctly, and garnished him erroneously. They took 30% of his
civilian pay, and refused to stop the garnishments despite affidavits from
his ex-wife stating that he was current on support. A senator finally got
the garnishments stopped, but the state never corrected the accounting
problem.

Then he was called into active duty . for which the Arizona DES rewarded him
by incorrectly garnishing 60% of his military pay.

Gordon was shocked: "I was being called up for service in Iraq. I called
the Arizona Attorney General's Office to ask what I could do. My nation
wanted to me to go defend the country, and then put me in jail when I
returned, because the pay in the Army isn't even a livable income. AAG
Office said it would take a year at the earliest to adjust my support if
they agreed it would be adjusted. There was no guarantee that support would
be reduced to reflect the reduction in income due to no fault of my own."

The garnishment information tainted his military record and was causing him
problems. As Gordon puts it, "I forgot to mention that Governor Janet
Napolitano called when I was denied access to the court for the sixth time
to resolve this matter, to tell me 'I know you pay your child support, but I
cannot give you a letter to put in your military file to counter the
negative information now in their due to Arizona Department Of Economic
Security/Child Support Department. When the background check is performed,
you (Gordon) can have the investigators call me'. She then gave me her
direct number."

Gordon has spent five years and written over two hundred letters trying to
clear this matter up. And it still isn't cleared up.

Gordon identified another serious problem -- soldiers being charged for
their own equipment: "I will give you an example of one of the problems. If
one should lose any gear the soldier will be charged for the gear. I hear
this is true even while in combat. The public doesn't hear about these
types of policies. I know first hand this is true, because I was charged
for gear that was supposedly lost, or in my possession. I tried to dispute
it, but the time frame to dispute had elapsed because it took them a year to
find me. So they deducted $500 from my pitiful National Guard money. My
checks were so small, I just stopped cashing them."

Here is a question for everyone (regardless of your political affiliation):
Who is going to volunteer to serve in a military that makes you choose
between survival and running back into the line of fire to retrieve
something so you don't get charged for it? When are the proponents of the
"culture of life" going to weigh in on this meaty issue?

I asked Gordon if child support was a big problem in the military. He
responded, "I asked an officer about the child support and back charges for
equipment. He told me these are big problems in the Army. I don't know the
definition of "big", but it is significant enough . I have friends that are
very motivated and dedicated people, Frogmen/SEALS, Green Berets, and
Rangers, and they were getting out too. In short, I think people who served
this country are feeling betrayed by it, and see no point in serving it.

Gordon's solution: "I told my unit that I'm getting out, and they can go
recruit some judge's son/daughter to go die for the ridiculous laws they
enforce. I already had two honorable discharges, and had done my time. I
regret that I ever served this nation."

Backing our military men - a critical issue of national security

This has risen to become an issue of national security. Our failure to
address the dual problems of irresponsible (feminist) divorce, and the
usurious child support (nee welfare) system, has left us with too many men
unwilling to risk being demolished and criminalized at home while being shot
at overseas.

Congress should not delay taking up corrective legislation. Both parties
will certainly agree that enlistment is crucial- and any preventing it is an
issue of national security. The "draft" is a well-known political land mine
which neither party dares to step on.

There is only one way out of this problem. If we want men to be patriotic,
we must mean it when we say that we "back" our men in the military.

We have heard all the words. We are still waiting for decisive action from
President Bush and Congress to finally bring these pro-marriage values into
play for the benefit of all men, women, and children.


--
----------------------------------------------------
The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmond Burke

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher061105.htm

There is only one way out of this problem. If we want men to be patriotic,
we must mean it when we say that we "back" our men in the military.

We have heard all the words. We are still waiting for decisive action from
President Bush and Congress to finally bring these pro-marriage values
into
play for the benefit of all men, women, and children.

I'm not sure why people feel it is the responsibility of the president or
congress to bring pro-marriage values into "play". What is not pro-marriage
about the military? The problems that exist that ends a marriage in divorce
for those in the military has nothing to do with the military directly, but
the spouses of those who are in the military. No president, nor anyone in
congress, can change a spouse who is NOT supportive of their military
spouse.

Example: I know someone who has a daughter that I personally dislike. This
young woman married a man who went into the military. They had a child out
of wedlock together and later married one month before he entered BCT. Last
year she found out she was pregnant and her mother paid for a plane ticket
for her daughter to go see her husband. The "mission" - to have sex so her
husband would believe the child was his. The good news is his parents had
hired a PI which took pictures of this young woman dating other men. So the
husband knew before his wife showed up that she may be pregnant with someone
else's child! Since then he has filed for divorce and full custody of their
son. Last time I spoke to anyone on the situation he was heading down the
road of getting custody and the court has ordered a paternity test on the
unborn child (to be born shortly). Therefore the court is not viewing the
child as the husband's. BTW - this young husband is in Iraq and the wife's
attitude was she wished him to be killed while there so she can obtain money
and benefits as a widow! How many would like to be married to someone like
that?

Now, can any president or person in congress change the situation which is
causing the divorce above? Heck no! They have no means in changing her
sick attitude towards her marriage or anyone else. She is a selfish little
slut who does not have a lot of money but behaves as if she is filthy rich!

The real problem is we are not bringing up our children to respect marriage
or other individuals. No president or person in congress can change that
problem.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

Although I have some sympathy for the views that Tracy expresses below,
I think it's not merely a matter of changing public attitudes towards
marriage and divorce. There ARE things that could be done by government to
reduce divorce in the U.S. military. The question is whether, in the face
of entrenched feminist pressures, any of these things WILL be done.

For one thing, there is the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection
Act. If the wife of someone in the U.S. military wants to divorce her
husband, this statute places her in a very favorable situation. Under the
terms of this law, any man who is in the U.S. military, and who has been
married for any length of time, is completely at the mercy of his wife.
It's astounding to me that any man in the military would get married at all
if he knows about the terms of this Act. The military husbands must have
made the decision to marry when they were young and foolish, I suppose -- or
perhaps before the law was enacted.

But is there any likelihood that this Act would be repealed, or
substantially changed? Of course not! As soon as anyone mentioned the
possibility of change, the usual crowd of screaming feminist harpies would
set up an outcry that would be audible in outer space.

There ARE many legal changes that could be made to discourage divorce in
the U.S. However, in my view they are most unlikely to be made, because
they would mostly benefit husbands and remove from wives unjustified
advantages that never should have been granted in the first place.

The best thing to do would be to remove government entirely from the
business of regulating families. Marriage should be privatized, and its
terms spelled out in individual, comprehensive prenuptial contracts. The
only role for government should be the enforcement of the terms of these
individual prenuptial contracts.


"Tracy" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher061105.htm

There is only one way out of this problem. If we want men to be
patriotic,
we must mean it when we say that we "back" our men in the military.

We have heard all the words. We are still waiting for decisive action
from
President Bush and Congress to finally bring these pro-marriage values
into
play for the benefit of all men, women, and children.

I'm not sure why people feel it is the responsibility of the president or
congress to bring pro-marriage values into "play". What is not
pro-marriage
about the military? The problems that exist that ends a marriage in
divorce
for those in the military has nothing to do with the military directly,
but
the spouses of those who are in the military. No president, nor anyone in
congress, can change a spouse who is NOT supportive of their military
spouse.

Example: I know someone who has a daughter that I personally dislike.
This
young woman married a man who went into the military. They had a child
out
of wedlock together and later married one month before he entered BCT.
Last
year she found out she was pregnant and her mother paid for a plane ticket
for her daughter to go see her husband. The "mission" - to have sex so
her
husband would believe the child was his. The good news is his parents had
hired a PI which took pictures of this young woman dating other men. So
the
husband knew before his wife showed up that she may be pregnant with
someone
else's child! Since then he has filed for divorce and full custody of
their
son. Last time I spoke to anyone on the situation he was heading down the
road of getting custody and the court has ordered a paternity test on the
unborn child (to be born shortly). Therefore the court is not viewing the
child as the husband's. BTW - this young husband is in Iraq and the
wife's
attitude was she wished him to be killed while there so she can obtain
money
and benefits as a widow! How many would like to be married to someone
like
that?

Now, can any president or person in congress change the situation which is
causing the divorce above? Heck no! They have no means in changing her
sick attitude towards her marriage or anyone else. She is a selfish
little
slut who does not have a lot of money but behaves as if she is filthy
rich!

The real problem is we are not bringing up our children to respect
marriage
or other individuals. No president or person in congress can change that
problem.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Although I have some sympathy for the views that Tracy expresses below,
I think it's not merely a matter of changing public attitudes towards
marriage and divorce. There ARE things that could be done by government
to reduce divorce in the U.S. military. The question is whether, in the
face of entrenched feminist pressures, any of these things WILL be done.

For one thing, there is the Uniformed Services Former Spouses
Protection Act. If the wife of someone in the U.S. military wants to
divorce her husband, this statute places her in a very favorable
situation. Under the terms of this law, any man who is in the U.S.
military, and who has been married for any length of time, is completely
at the mercy of his wife. It's astounding to me that any man in the
military would get married at all if he knows about the terms of this Act.
The military husbands must have made the decision to marry when they were
young and foolish, I suppose -- or perhaps before the law was enacted.

Why not post a link to the information, rather than your usual alarmist
posts?

http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETI...e?OpenDocument

"It allows state courts to divide disposable military retired pay as marital
property upon divorce under certain circumstances. Disposable military
retired pay is a soldier's monthly retired pay minus qualified deductions."

"The USFSPA, does not establish a right to any specific amount of retirement
pay that a former spouse may be awarded in a divorce settlement. The
decision whether to award retirement pay is solely in the discretion of the
state court and the amount awarded will vary."



But is there any likelihood that this Act would be repealed, or
substantially changed? Of course not! As soon as anyone mentioned the
possibility of change, the usual crowd of screaming feminist harpies would
set up an outcry that would be audible in outer space.

There ARE many legal changes that could be made to discourage divorce
in the U.S. However, in my view they are most unlikely to be made,
because they would mostly benefit husbands and remove from wives
unjustified advantages that never should have been granted in the first
place.

The best thing to do would be to remove government entirely from the
business of regulating families. Marriage should be privatized, and its
terms spelled out in individual, comprehensive prenuptial contracts. The
only role for government should be the enforcement of the terms of these
individual prenuptial contracts.


"Tracy" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...sher061105.htm

There is only one way out of this problem. If we want men to be
patriotic,
we must mean it when we say that we "back" our men in the military.

We have heard all the words. We are still waiting for decisive action
from
President Bush and Congress to finally bring these pro-marriage values
into
play for the benefit of all men, women, and children.

I'm not sure why people feel it is the responsibility of the president or
congress to bring pro-marriage values into "play". What is not
pro-marriage
about the military? The problems that exist that ends a marriage in
divorce
for those in the military has nothing to do with the military directly,
but
the spouses of those who are in the military. No president, nor anyone
in
congress, can change a spouse who is NOT supportive of their military
spouse.

Example: I know someone who has a daughter that I personally dislike.
This
young woman married a man who went into the military. They had a child
out
of wedlock together and later married one month before he entered BCT.
Last
year she found out she was pregnant and her mother paid for a plane
ticket
for her daughter to go see her husband. The "mission" - to have sex so
her
husband would believe the child was his. The good news is his parents
had
hired a PI which took pictures of this young woman dating other men. So
the
husband knew before his wife showed up that she may be pregnant with
someone
else's child! Since then he has filed for divorce and full custody of
their
son. Last time I spoke to anyone on the situation he was heading down
the
road of getting custody and the court has ordered a paternity test on the
unborn child (to be born shortly). Therefore the court is not viewing
the
child as the husband's. BTW - this young husband is in Iraq and the
wife's
attitude was she wished him to be killed while there so she can obtain
money
and benefits as a widow! How many would like to be married to someone
like
that?

Now, can any president or person in congress change the situation which
is
causing the divorce above? Heck no! They have no means in changing her
sick attitude towards her marriage or anyone else. She is a selfish
little
slut who does not have a lot of money but behaves as if she is filthy
rich!

The real problem is we are not bringing up our children to respect
marriage
or other individuals. No president or person in congress can change that
problem.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/