u235

I admit I'm a bit astonished by this one. Apparently yet another collateral issue in this war is the status of child custody. When a divorced parent is called to service they often look to their former spouse to care for their child while they are serving half the world away. These are supposed to be temporary arrangements where things are returned to their original state when their tour of duty is over.

But that's not happening.

What is happening is that service members, men and women, who were originally granted primary custody of their child are returning to find their children are now deemed "better off" with the other parent. Why? Because that's where they've been for the last however-many months. Courts have been finalizing these "temporary" arrangements as being in the "best interest" of the child, and even when the law reminds family judges that service people are protected from lawsuits while they are serving, courts are pushing back saying that the interest of the child supercedes all.

So the net result is that service people are at risk of losing access to their children, and perhaps even any access to their children at all if they have a vindictive former spouse. What is to stop an "Ex" from claiming that the service member is now an unfit parent because of the experience of service in a war zone? What if the service member is injured?

It's nice how the hawks like to portray this war as something that America needs to "win". Every time someone says "hey we need to end this" they're called defeatist or unpatriotic. The problem is those people aren't the ones who are really making the sacrifices. If those people are so dedicated to supporting the troops, perhaps they need to ensure our service people are guaranteed a return to the children they left behind. Or maybe those people need to explain to the Mom who no longer has her child at home why this "war" was more important than her family...