MI: Family court ruling wounds National Guardsman in the heart

Family court ruling wounds National Guardsman in the heart
Phyllis Schlafly
September 5, 2005

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."

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
I submit that an individual who breaks a
law that conscience tells him is unjust,
and who willingly accepts the penalty of
imprisonment in order to arouse the
conscience of the community over its
injustice, is in reality expressing the
highest respect for the law.

- Martin Luther King Jr. -

While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody
permanent.

This violates the Solder and Sailer's Relief Act. If his civilian
attoreny does not understand this he should call the local JAG at the
base closest to him (in the same branch of the service).

"LLL" wrote in message
oups.com...
While he was gone, Erb persuaded a family court to make her full custody
permanent.

This violates the Solder and Sailer's Relief Act. If his civilian
attoreny does not understand this he should call the local JAG at the
base closest to him (in the same branch of the service).

You may be correct, but it's been a long time since I read the Act. I do
know that the SSRA deals with retaining employment, debt and several other
things, but I honestly do not recall it mentioning anything about divorce or
custody.

If you can, please post the section of SSRA you are referring to.