Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
McElroy Speaks Out on Bradley Amendment's Impact on Military Reservists
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
  March 31, 2005  
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Wendy McElroy, editor of ifeminists.com, and a regular contributor to LewRockwell.com has recently published an important article entitled "Military Dads Denied Father's Rights." She has been an ardent supporter of fathers' rights, speaking out on the myth of deadbeat dads, the myth of the female wage gap, and the problems with domestic violence laws, among other issues.
In her essay below, she makes clear the devastation that the Bradley Amendment can cause - not only to military reservists, but to all fathers who experience a sudden drop in income. The Bradley Amendment [42, U.S.C. 666(a)(9)(c)] forbids any state from allowing a retroactive reduction in child support, no matter what the reason - incapacitation, disease, loss of job, or being activated by the National Guard to Iraq. The courts may only consider a modification from the time it was filed in court, so if a person forgets, is unaware, or simply does not file, he (or occasionally she) is out of luck.
One of the most egregious examples of the application of the Bradley Amendment was a Texas case in which a black janitor, Clarence Brandley, was falsely convicted of the rape and murder of a white girl. After nearly 10 years in prison, he was proven innocent and released, only to be hit with a nearly $50,000 bill for failure to pay child support. A spokesperson for the Texas AG's Child Support Division commented that the office was only enforcing the law and that the obligation had not gone away!
Here is what McElroy has to say about the issue and its impact on reservists:
While he was deployed in Afghanistan, a U.S. Navy Seal wrote a lullaby for his son Sean, whom he calls "SS."
The song opens:
Rock a bye SS/ ROCK Rock a Bye/ you sang to me each eve/ And you gave me rolling rock a byes of dreams I've yet to dream.
Each night I'd pray that when I'd awake/ You'd have safely ROCK'd me home to the greatest gift, the Lord hath given me/ my little son named Sean.
Sean may never hear that lullaby again, not because his father Gary died but because Sean's mother relocated him to Israel. She visited family there during one of Gary's re-deployments and simply stayed, seeking a divorce from abroad.
Gary has unsuccessfully battled the family court system in California, which has jurisdiction over the divorce, for almost two years in order to gain some access to SS. After all, that same court demands he pay hefty child support.
"I am paying $2,100 a month not to see my son," Gary told Fox News in 2003.
This is the new face of father's rights, a face men's rights activists are determined you will see in coming months: the military man who is "processed" by the family courts during his tour of duty or upon his return. A father who returns "home" to children he cannot see and, often, to support payments he cannot make.
"Sometimes I wonder what I risked my life for [in Afghanistan]," Gary told fathers' rights activist Glenn Sacks. "I went to fight for freedom but what freedom and what rights mean anything if a man doesn't have the right to be a father to his own child?"
On March 13, the men's rights syndicated radio show "His Side" featured Gary in a program entitled "Two Years into Iraq War, Little Has Been Done to Protect the Rights of Military Fathers." Gary is not alone.
The grassroots organization American Coalition of Fathers and Children has just launched a vigorous ad campaign to educate the public on how anti-father bias in the courts is destroying the family. An ad currently being prepared by the ACFC highlights the dilemma of military dads who are victimized by zero- tolerance and unreasonable legislation that was passed to deal with "deadbeats."
Activists are pushing the image of the military father who is victimized by family courts not merely because it is true but primarily because it is effective. That image breaks through the pervasive cultural stereotype that fathers who lose custody or become "deadbeats" are uncaring, unfit, wife beating, child-abusing losers who deserve what they get.
Do uncaring and unfit fathers exist? Absolutely. But others fathers resemble Gary - a Navy veteran with a perfect military and civilian record. It is his image that father's rights activists want you to see.
Why? Because to a large extent, it is the stereotype of the loser or abusive dad that permits family courts, government agencies and the general public to turn a deaf ear to the three main complaints of father's rights activists. These complaints are:
Responsible fathers are commonly denied custody or access to their children, often through the mother's relocation Paternity fraud goes unpunished or even rewarded by judges who assess child support nevertheless Child support standards are unreasonable By contrast, the family court system cannot ignore the complaints of alienated military fathers with the same impunity. For one thing, public opinion will not permit them to do so.
An indication of how strong the public backlash might be came in the early '90s with the Bobby Sherrill case. Sherrill wasn't a member of the military proper; he was a Lockheed employee and divorced father working in Kuwait when Iraq invaded.
Sherrill was held captive by the Iraqis for five months. Upon his return to North Carolina, he was arrested for non-payment of $1,425 in child support that accrued while he was a hostage.
The public backlash passed, partly because people assumed Sherrill was an aberration, a bizarre exception under an otherwise "good" law. But Sherrill was imprisoned because of the same unreasonable legislation that returning military fathers and every other alienated dad in America must face.
Phyllis Schlafly, who publicly endorses the ACFC ad spotlighting military fathers - blasts one particular piece of legislation in her Feb. 18 column at TownHall, entitled "Reservists deserve protection from family- court mischief."
She writes, "The Bradley Amendment...takes us back to the cruel days of debtors' prisons. It requires that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven, and states enforce this law no matter what the change in a father's income, no matter if he is sent to war...and no matter if he is ever allowed to see his children."
Consider one example of how the Bradley Amendment impacts military fathers. Reservists typically assume a sizeable pay cut when they transfer into military life. But child support is based on their civilian salaries and the Bradley Amendment effectively blocks readjustment of that debt.
Thousands of miles away and out of communication, such fathers are vulnerable to defaults that can lead to financial ruin, as well as the forfeiture of passports, driver's and professional licenses. In some states, a default of over $5,000 is a felony that includes imprisonment.
Advocates of the Bradley Amendment maintain that taking a rock-hard line is necessary to ensure that deadbeat dads do not use loopholes to avoid their obligations. But these advocates are now arguing against a very different image of divorced fatherhood: the military dad.
He voices a message on behalf of every alienated father. Repeal the zero tolerance laws that have removed compassion and circumstance from family law. Repeal the Bradley Amendment; remove the bureaucracy that automatically separates father and child.
BTW, one of the most important things that you can do as a member of this e-list is get other people to join. If you think of anyone who would enjoy or benefit from receiving our e-mails, please click on the link below that says "forward email."

Best Regards,

Dan Hogan, J.D., Ph.D., Managing Director
Fathers & Families

phone: (617) 542-9300
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.