[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7954-7956]
[From the U.S. 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).
  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 service men and 
women for their sacrifices in defense of the freedoms we all hold so 
dear. As President Obama has said, it is important to

[[Page 7955]]

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 service men 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 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. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from 
Florida for yielding and for putting deeds ahead of words when it comes 
to 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

[[Page 7956]]

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.

                          ____________________