[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3234-H3236]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SERVICEMEMBER FAMILY PROTECTION ACT
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4201) to amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to
provide for the protection of child custody arrangements for parents
who are members of the Armed Forces.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4201
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Servicemember Family
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF CHILD CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARENTS
WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Child Custody Protection.--Title II of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 521 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 208. CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION.
``(a) Restriction on Temporary Custody Order.--If a court
renders a temporary order for custodial responsibility for a
child based solely on a deployment or anticipated deployment
of a parent who is a servicemember, then the court shall
require that upon the return of the servicemember from
deployment, the custody order that was in effect immediately
preceding the temporary order shall be reinstated, unless the
court finds that such a reinstatement is not in the best
interest of the child, except that any such finding shall be
subject to subsection (b).
``(b) Exclusion of Military Service From Determination of
Child's Best Interest.--If a motion or a petition is filed
seeking a permanent order to modify the custody of the child
of a servicemember, no court may consider the absence of the
servicemember by reason of deployment, or the possibility of
deployment, in determining the best interest of the child.
``(c) No Federal Right of Action.--Nothing in this section
shall create a Federal right of action.
``(d) Preemption.--In any case where State law applicable
to a child custody proceeding involving a temporary order as
contemplated in this section provides a higher standard of
protection to the rights of the parent who is a deploying
servicemember than the rights provided under this section
with respect to such temporary order, the appropriate court
shall apply the higher State standard.
``(e) Deployment Defined.--In this section, the term
`deployment' means the movement or mobilization of a
servicemember for a period of longer than 60 days and not
longer than 18 months pursuant to temporary or permanent
official orders--
``(1) that are designated as unaccompanied;
``(2) for which dependent travel is not authorized; or
``(3) that otherwise do not permit the movement of family
members to that location.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items
relating to title II the following new item:
``208. Child custody protection.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include any extraneous material on H.R. 4201.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in strong support of the Servicemember Family Protection
Act, H.R. 4201, a bill introduced by my good friend from Ohio (Mr.
Turner).
[[Page H3235]]
Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's servicemembers continue to endure long
deployments overseas, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is there to
protect their interests at home. At its core, SCRA ensures that
servicemembers have certain protections in the event that military
service impedes their ability to meet certain financial and legal
obligations.
Although the current SCRA covers everything from mortgages to cell
phone contracts, it simply fails to protect one uniform framework for
protecting servicemembers' rights under child custody actions by State
courts. This bill would protect these rights by amending the SCRA to
require that if a court gives temporary custody of a servicemember's
child to someone else because of the servicemember's deployment, the
servicemember has the opportunity to have the previous custody order
reinstated upon their return. This would occur unless the court
determines that such a move would not be in the best interest of a
child. The bill would also prohibit courts from considering the absence
or potential absence of a servicemember from being considered as part
of the court's determination of the child's best interest. Finally, my
colleagues, the bill ensures that if higher protections than that
provided by the bill, H.R. 4201, exist under any State law, then the
higher standard should be applied.
Mr. Speaker, in previous Congresses, Members have received anecdotal
evidence of servicemembers having to make the difficult decision of
choosing between their military career and the legal custody of their
children because of rulings made by courts that took their military
service into account when assigning custody of the child. Mr. Speaker,
I believe that our servicemembers who stand guard in constant defense
of our liberties should never have to make this choice. That is why
this bill's revisions to SCRA are so critically important to unit
morale and our Nation as a whole.
So I want to again thank Mr. Turner from Ohio for introducing this
legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Jeff Miller and Ranking
Member Mr. Filner for their support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise
today as the House of Representatives returns from Memorial Day events
around the country to honor our Nation's servicemen and their families.
On behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to thank our servicemen and -
women for their sacrifices in defense of the freedoms we all hold so
dear. As President Obama has said, it is important to follow these
words with deeds, that we must do what we can for the veterans of past,
present, and future conflicts.
I am pleased to have been a Member of Congress in 2009 when a
Democratic President, Democratic House, and Democratic Senate passed
the largest budget in the history of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. In addition, we made sure that the VA was not subject to the
whims of government shutdown, and the subject of the health care budget
of the VA to advanced appropriations, removing the worry for our
veterans that their health care would be available.
I am looking forward to the ceremony to be held at the end of June to
honor the Montford Point Marines. It is necessary to honor all of
America's war heroes' service and sacrifice, and in particular those
who served at Montford Point, the marines who were the last group to
integrate who are about to be officially recognized as a rich legacy of
our Marine Corps. They answered our Nation's call at a time when our
society was deeply divided along racial lines.
As our servicemembers continue to deploy, we need to ensure that
we're doing everything we need to do to help the families. One item
that has often been overlooked is the care of our servicemembers'
children when they are deployed. H.R. 4201 would amend the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to help protect the child custody
rights of servicemembers being deployed overseas. This bill would
protect a servicemember's custodial rights by requiring that temporary
custody orders based solely on the servicemember's deployment will be
exactly that--temporary--and that when the servicemember returns, the
custody order in effect before deployment will be reinstated.
This bill provides important safeguards and peace of mind to our
servicemembers facing overseas deployment and puts the interests of
children first. This bill was passed by the House last Congress, and we
should do it again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
{time} 1740
Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, across this country in
family law courts, in States, our servicemembers stand before family
law court judges who take custody away from our servicemembers upon
their return from either, previously, Iraq or, now, Afghanistan based
solely on the fact that they were away from their children serving
their country.
Mr. Speaker, we should not have one arm of the government ordering
our servicemembers to deploy and another arm of our government taking
their children away from them based upon the fact that they were away
servicing their country. One servicemember, Eva Slusher, who has been a
champion of this issue, has said that she did not understand when she
got back, by law, they had to give her her job back but, by law, no one
had to return to her her child.
Servicemembers risk their lives in support of the contingency
operations that keep our Nation safe. State courts should not be
allowed to use a servicemember's previous deployments or the
possibility of future deployments when making child custody
determinations. State courts should not be allowed to use a
servicemember's previous deployments or the possibility when making
these child custody determinations.
Our bill would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect
servicemembers against this injustice by providing a uniform national
standard. The lack of uniform laws creates uncertainty that adversely
affects readiness and morale.
State laws differ on the question of whether deployment or the
potential for future deployment can be used as a criterion for these
courts, and many States have no laws at all. The difference in State
laws provides an opportunity for ex-spouses to venue shop to find a
State that will alter custody agreements. Many servicemember custody
battles involve up to three States: the State of the original custody
order, the State where the child is residing, and the State where the
servicemember is stationed.
This bill creates a protective floor to ensure that all military
parents can feel confident that their service to our country will not
be used against them in our courts.
In supporting this legislation, Secretary Gates stated: ``I am
convinced that the benefits outweigh the concerns and, thus, we should
work with Congress to pursue an acceptable legislative formulation.''
The language of this bill has passed the House on seven separate
occasions, and the bill has strong bipartisan support. I have a letter
to Leon Panetta that is signed by every member of the House Armed
Services Committee that I will enter into the Record.
Our men and women in uniform sacrifice a great deal to serve our
country. We owe it to them to provide uniform legal standards regarding
child custody. Our servicemen and -women should never be in the
position of having to choose between their country and their family; or
while they're on service, they should not have to worry what might
happen to them when they return.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 29, 2012.
Mr. Leon Panetta,
Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Panetta: We appreciate your interest stated
during the February 15, 2012 House Armed Services Committee
(HASC) hearing in protecting child custody rights for our men
and women in uniform.
As you know, legislative language addressing this issue has
already passed the House of Representatives on six separate
occasions. It has passed five times as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act, every year from 2008 through 2012.
Additionally, in 2008 this language passed the House as a
stand-alone bill (H.R. 6048) by voice vote. Sixty members
from both sides of the aisle signed
[[Page H3236]]
on to H.R. 6048 as co-sponsors. Most recently, the bill was
included in the Managers Package in the FY12 House NDAA and
was supported by the Department of Defense (DoD).
Enclosed are letters of support that both Secretary Gates
and Secretary Stanley provided for this legislation last
year. Also enclosed is the 2010 HASC letter to Secretary
Gates. As we move forward with the current legislative
session, we look forward to the same level of support from
the DoD in addressing this important issue and ensuring that
our men and women in uniform have their parental rights
protected.
Sincerely,
Michael R. Turner,
Member of Congress.
Robert Andrews,
Member of Congress.
HASC Signatures
Michael Turner, Rob Andrews, Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman, Adam Smith, Ranking Member, Mac Thornberry, Vice
Chairman, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Walter B. Jones, W. Todd Akin,
J. Randy Forbes, Jeff Miller, Joe Wilson, Frank A. LoBiondo,
John Kline, Mike Rogers, Trent Franks, Bill Shuster, K.
Michael Conaway, Doug Lamborn, Rob Wittman, Duncan Hunter,
John C. Fleming, Mike Coffman, Thomas J. Rooney, Todd Russell
Platts, Scott Rigell, Chris Gibson, Vicky Hartzler, Joe Heck,
Bobby Schilling, Jon Runyan, Austin Scott.
Tim Griffin, Steve Palazzo, Allen West, Martha Roby, Mo
Brooks, Todd Young, Silvestre Reyes, Loretta Sanchez, Mike
McIntyre, Robert A. Brady, Susan A. Davis, James R. Langevin,
Rick Larsen, Jim Cooper, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Joe Courtney,
David Loebsack, Niki Tsongas, Chellie Pingree, Larry Kissell,
Martin Heinrich, William L. Owens, John Garamendi, Mark
Critz, Tim Ryan, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Hank Johnson,
Betty Sutton, Colleen Hanabusa, Kathleen C. Hochul, Jackie
Speier.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from
Florida for yielding and for putting deeds ahead of words when it comes
serving our veterans, as I know the full committee does as well. This
is an issue on which there is no Republican, Democrat, no liberal,
conservative divide. There's unanimity we should put our deeds first
and our words second. I commend my friend from Florida for being an
exemplar of that principle.
No member of our armed services should ever be told that a custody
decision involving their children depends solely on the fact that they
have been deployed or will be deployed. Never should that happen.
Now, in the past, there's been arguments, frankly, from the other
body against this provision on the argument that we must choose between
the best interest of the child and the sovereign parental rights of our
servicemembers. This is a false and inaccurate choice.
This bill starts from the premise that the best interest of the child
is the paramount value. It in no way disrupts or subverts any State law
in that respect, but it adds to that provision a provision that must be
added by Federal law, because there must be a uniform standard since
it's the Federal Government that is deciding who will be deployed and
when. So, supplemental to the guiding principle of the best interest of
the child is a principle in this bill that says that deployment cannot
be the sole reason for a decision to deprive a man or woman of custody
of his or her child.
Now, it strikes me that this is a complex legal issue. I will confess
to that. But morally, this is a distinct, clear, and open issue. We all
support the best interest of the child. But I think that we all
support, and I think in a few minutes we're going to have a vote that
demonstrates that we all support, the principle that the sovereignty of
parenthood should not be forfeited by taking the oath of office to
serve one's country in uniform. This should never happen.
So, again, here is what this means. It means that no child would ever
be placed in a situation that's not in his or her best interest in the
decision of the decisionmaker, of the judge or the Court. None of us
wants that. But it also means that any State or any judge that says the
sole reason that we are depriving a man or woman of custody of his or
her son or daughter is because they volunteered to serve their country
and followed an order to be deployed or are about to follow an order to
be deployed.
This is morally clear. It is legally correct, and I hope it will be
unanimously supported by the ladies and gentlemen of the House.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I don't have any other speakers, so I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I'll close using such time as I may consume
to say:
This is a very important bill. Mr. Turner just touched on something
that I think I want to bring up again. This, the language in this bill,
has passed the House on seven separate occasions, six times as part of
the House National Defense Authorization Act in FY 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012, and 2013, and once, my colleagues, as a stand-alone bill by
voice vote in 2008. And all the while, this bill has had strong
bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, if I can, I urge the United States Senate that, upon
passage today, our colleagues over there simply take up this bill and
the 10 other bills that the Veterans' Committee has passed through our
committee and the House and pass those also.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4201, ``Servicemember Family Protection Act.'' This legislation
amends the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and provides protection for
servicemembers who lose temporary custodial responsibility for a child
from court due to deployment or anticipated deployment. Upon return
from deployment, the court must reinstate the custody order that was in
effect preceding the deployment provided that the reinstatement is in
the child's best interest.
H.R. 4201 would prevent previous and future deployment from being
considered in the determination of a child's best interest in a motion
seeking a permanent order to modify custody. In addition, it also
creates a uniform nationwide standard for dealing with servicemembers
and deployment.
Just as our service men and women are stationed around the world
fighting for our rights and freedom, we must protect their rights here
at home.
According to a report from USA Today, military divorces reached an
all time high in 2011. When children are involved, these divorce
proceedings face even greater complications.
It is unfair to say the least, to use a servicemember's previous
service to this country and possible future service against them in
child custody battles.
Not only does this create division in family households, it also
creates negative feelings towards military service in the minds of the
dedicated men and women who protect our freedom.
Past problems in these court cases have centered on a lack of
uniformity of the law. Many states even lack laws concerning deployment
as a criterion by courts. In previous cases this has caused
servicemembers to fight custody suits in up to three states: the state
where the suit began, the state where the child is residing and the
state where the servicemember is stationed. Dealing with child custody
battles is difficult even in civilian life. With the additional stress
many in our military face, sometimes it can become unbearable. The
Department of Defense and Service has even observed a connection
between child custody battles and military suicides.
There must be justice and uniformity when deciding child custody
disputes for our servicemembers. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H.R. 3140 ``Mass Transit Intelligence Prioritization Act.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4201.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________