Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/15/2005 6:54:12 PM EDT
dupe?

No way to treat our soldiers
By Phyllis Schlafly

September 15, 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, Michigan, 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 Representative Rick Jones became interested in this outrageous 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 country.

Representative Jones has introduced legislation (H.B.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 local press, Erb's lawyer and the court's spokesmen 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-P.C. to tell a son that our 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-religious, 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 their 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 the father as good for nothing, except 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."

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:05:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:09:17 PM EDT
So there is one more straw on the camals back.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:14:18 PM EDT
It's not just the fault of "the system" but the b*tches who use the opportunity to take away the children. And they deserve whatever happens to them.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:16:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:18:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 7:21:27 PM EDT by lippo]


It's not just the fault of "the system" but the b*tches who use the opportunity to take away the children.


It's both their fault. The courts shouldn't put up with that crap. In our county here, the one Joe lives in, they are pretty dad friendly. I don't know what's going on here, but if the dad wants shared custody, they most likely get it. Looks like Joe is either getting screwed over or he did something to cause this.


And Holy CRAP!

I know Joe and Rick Jones. I worked with Joes dad for about 6 years and I stole Jim's (Joe's brother) girlfriend away from him. One date and she was mine. She's been my wife for 22 years.

What a small world.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:18:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:18:44 PM EDT
BULLSHIT!

Both the bitch and those who helped in this travesty should be beaten and thrown in prison!
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:23:31 PM EDT
I'd like to know which member of the "Honorable Bar" of the state of Michigan was the son of a bitch who made the argument for the mother.

I maybe a family lawyer, but at least I have scruples.

It is attorneys like this one that causes me to think that most lawyers have earned the reputation they (regrettably we) have.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:28:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
It's not just the fault of "the system" but the b*tches who use the opportunity to take away the children. And they deserve whatever happens to them.


WRONG

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.


Any system that would hold combat service against any parent is flawed. My father served two tours in VN. During that time, my mother was the sole caretaker etc... That did not, in any way, diminish his role in my upbringing. The system is flawed. And the bit**** take advantage of that.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 7:28:52 PM EDT
I bet she still expects the check thou LOL
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 11:32:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 11:35:58 PM EDT by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By Aimless:
"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. "

Legal proceedings against McNeilly should have been temporarily halted by the Sailors and Soldiers Civil Relief Act until he returned from Iraq.




BINGO. Some lawyer with a drop of American blood in his veins needs to step up to the plate and start ripping new assholes all over that county. I'd got straight to the Governor or the Judicial Qualifications Commission after getting that overturned - then I'd probably find a way to compress that judge's unAmericanism into a sound bite and run myself or a buddy against his pinko ass, if he wasn;t sacked by higher authorities. That's outrageous.

ETA: if you're a gun person, and the judge is on record as being antigun, that'd be a basis for recusal. I only ever had it come up in one case. The wife had a pic of the husband out with the kids with "evil" guns, walking along a dirt road. She was gloating (along with her lawyer) about the anticipated effect of the photo. The judge looked at the pic. He looked at the wife. He looked at the Husband. He then ripped the Husband a new asshole. "Mr. X, IS THAT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER OF THAT WEAPON? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?" The judge was a gun guy. He ordered the guy to take the (free) state hunter safety course, and never mentioned the guns again.
Top Top