GI bound for Iraq loses custody fight

[rainbow4321]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D872Q7R00.html


A North Texas soldier who will deploy to Iraq early next year is furious that he recently lost custody of his son because of his military obligations. John Wertz must comply with a court order and deliver his 9-year-old son to his ex-wife three days after Christmas.

"This is a big slap in the face," he said. "I'm defending the country, and right behind my back, they're taking things from me."
Wertz won primary custody of his son when his marriage to Lisa Roberts dissolved in 1998.

During that time, Wertz's son lived in Mineral Wells with Wertz's new wife. Last summer, the Army moved Wertz to Fort Irwin, Calif., where he has been preparing to deploy to Iraq with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.

John White Jr., Roberts' attorney, said Wertz gave her no warning that he was moving to California and she filed for a change in custody in August. A judge awarded her custody until Wertz returns from Iraq. The custody situation will be re-evaluated then.

Mike Windsor, Wertz's attorney, said he doesn't think the judge picked on his client because he is in the military. In recent years, Texas family court judges have been increasingly unwilling to allow children to be moved around the country by a custodial parent

[TahitiNut]

1. "taking things from me"???

Ahhh, yes. A child is a "thing," a possession. This guy seems to think 'parenting' is a matter of entitlement rather than actual, first-hand caring and nurturing. This is the "ownership" meme ... a meme that fails to distinguish between an owner-operator and an absentee landlord.

[rainbow4321]

2. Unless "thing" is child support???

Yeah...I noticed the wording. NOT that I don't have sympathy for the guy but:

Totally guessing/wondering here, but I wonder if the "thing" he refers to is child support since he is the custodial parent?

And, just for the record, Texas courts do have a history of removing kids from a parent's custody <when the parent is moving out of state> and giving them to the in-state parent. One lady I heard of was having to move to another state for a job and the courts had her give up custody to her ex so the kids wouldn't have to be relocated.

[haele]

4. Not necessarily - my husband would say "taking everything away"

in the same situation. Along with "They're taking my son from a stable, nurturing environment." And he'd be crying disjointedly between sentences as he was saying these things, over and over and over. "You're taking everything away from me, you're treating my kid like a thing to be passed around between people..."
Y'know, it sounds as "calling the kid a thing" is using the argument that it doesn't matter whether or not the man so loves his child because men can't truly love on a biological/emotional level, right? That sounds to be automatically falling into the traditional "patriarchal society meme", right? Sigh.

Divorces are crazy - and even though it's anecdotal, there are many times divorces happen just because one - or both - of the parties doesn't want to face reality, admit there's a problem and just wants to opt out - the "no fault". Both men and women do this - treat their marriage as "things" to throw away.
We don't know what the reason for the dissolution of this divorce was - but that the father was originally granted custody in this case does indicate that there was an issue with the legal view of the fitness of the mother. In the United States, if it's not a case where the mother was screwing around, ran out on the family (or appeared to), or isn't in prison, she tends to get custody nine times out of ten if she shows any willingness to take it.
Unlike the "no fault" cases in the pre-1970's society, where it was very true that the man was generally given custody because he was usually the one with the job and could "always remarry" easier than a divorce-tarnished woman.
Things have changed since then - though there's many people who like to use that period as a example of the evilness of society.

His main problem - besides being shipped out - is that the issue with him moving to California is something he should have resolved in the courts before he left Texas; that was a huge mistake on his part.
Just as it was a huge mistake that my husband thought that he could represent himself in family court - that he thought the lies of his ex and the proof of her unfit actions would be obvious to the judge and he could get custody.

Look, the man loved his son enough to try and provide a home for the kid, instead of just giving up fatherhood and walking away, leaving his son with his ex to raise. He wasn't a deadbeat dad.
Unless proven otherwise, how can we say he was just treating "his son like a thing" to get back at his ex-wife in a bitter divorce? Even though that is the reason "sometimes" when men get custody - it is also the reason "sometimes" - in greater numbers - when women get custody. Which women do get custody at an average rate of 3 to 1.
The safety and wellbeing of the child is paramount to the wishes of either parent - and if one - or both - parents have to move out of state, the judgment concerning custody should be weighed greater towards the needs of the child than to either of the parents. And they should enforce the %@#^* rules concerning parental alienation! Self control for the wellbeing of the child is not that hard, folks. No matter how much of a jerk the ex is, that person is still that kid's mother or father; if you have kids, you can't just throw the ex away along with that now-useless marriage certificate and wedding album.

It's a bitter thing, divorce. And every case is different. The only people who really make out are the family court members. (Nothing against them, they do an important job in such cases trying to protect the rights of the kids and the clients - but still...)

Sorry, TahitiNut, but your post just hit me the wrong way this morning, especially that we're trying to deal with a custody issue that's similar ourselves.

Haele

[TahitiNut]

5. Please don't try to tell me about divorce and custody.

I'm one of those "cases in the pre-1970's." My parents were divorced when I was 8 years old, in 1951. My mother got custody and my father disappeared. If he'd paid child support, I might not have had to try to work full time while attending the least expensive college I could find. If he'd paid child support, I might not have moved so often that I never spent more than 2 years in any school. I won't even go into some of the more gruesome anecdotes.

At the same time, I was married for 12 years until my wife's "incompatible sleeping habits" became more than I could live with. If we'd had children, I'm pretty sure she'd have gotten custody, despite her "sleeping habits" and no matter how hard I fought it. I fully appreciate the bias in custody decisions.

In the case of the guy who thinks a "career" in the military is compatible with being a custodial parent, I say bullshit. Being a custodial parent means his choices are limited. That's a fact of equity and consideration. He didn't use the word "everything"; he used the word "thing". There's a difference. He made it about him, not the child. He made it about his "liberties" and not the child's primary caregiver.

[lazarus]

7. You've been on one side of the custody battle

I've been on both sides. My parents divorced.

And I've divorced, and been through hell and back (and about to go back in) over custody of my daughter.

I wouldn't be too critical of this guy because of a poor choice of words in an emotional time.

If say I'm upset that they took my daughter from me, is it because I'm selfish, and it's all about me? Or is it an easy way to say that I'm upset someone else is raising my daughter, because I don't trust her to do a good job, and think i could do a better job?

[NashVegas]

6. We Really Can't Assume Anything

but that the father was originally granted custody in this case does indicate that there was an issue with the legal view of the fitness of the mother.

The only thing that we can say and be correct about, with our little knowledge of details, is that the father had a better lawyer.

It sucks for this guy - and his kid - that he has no choice in the matter of where he'll be living in the foreseeable future, and it's not Texas.

[noamnety]

3. He should have had a better divorce lawyer

If you are in the military and getting divorced, you ought to have a line in the divorce decree saying that because of military obligations, you'll be allowed to take the child across state lines. I had that line in my divorce. I never had to use it, but it's smart to put it in. His original lawyer screwed up.

[Deja Q]

8. Hmm. So his ex runs our country?

The country is not taking anything from him except his life. His EX-WIFE is getting all of the things, one of which happens to be the child.

This pukie-deukie is one real dumbmuthafucka.

On the plus side, now he knows what *co is like. Doi.

[Florida_Geek]

9. the guy was National Guard then turned active

I would have been really sorry for the guy IF he was still National Guard and this had happened but he went Active and now I have no pity for him.