UCCJEA not followed for Military Member

(Added 05/23/2009)

This is Part I of a continuing story.  Certainly, one would expect the court to know the law and to apply it consistently.  Unfortunately, for Gunnery Sergeant Jimmy Smits (not his real name), this did not happen.  Perhaps, as in life, some people make decisions based upon personal feelings towards another instead of making the right decision, for the right reason, even if it brings devastating news to the other parent.  In the Gunny's case, he was the receiver of the devastating news though the facts and law of his case were not only in his favor, but should have been obvious to the judge.  It is a lesson to be learned by all litigants in family law - the facts may show a positive light on you, the law may be completely in your corner, but the judge in the black robe who does not know you from Adam, has been given the power to decide your fate with all of their biases, mores, moral compass, and personal feelings towards you or your representative.  This is what happened to Gunny Smits.  All his attorney could imagine is that the judge does not like him (the attorney) in her courtroom and she took it out on Gunny Smits instead of applying the law.  If the attorney's feeling is mistaken, then the only other reason for her decision is that she did not know the law at all, and this is another concern yet real problem with family law and some of its judiciary.

The judge actually stated on the record when the case was called and the attorneys announced their presence that she did not review the file.  The file consisted of memorandum of points and authorities (applicable law) and declarations of the parties under penalty of perjury.  Right then, it was obvious the judge was not prepared to hear or render a decision.  Even after the 10 minute recess, the judge came back on the bench and rendered the wrong decision because it was flat-out against settled law and decisions with respect to jurisdiction over custody and visitation of children who have lived in the same state for the past three years.  Instead, she found that the state the children have resided in for three years did not have jurisdiction.  This now will force Gunny Smits to file in the original issuing state (which legally does not have subject matter jurisdiction as well because all parties have left the state and the children have not lived there for the past three years!).

So now, Gunny Smits is faced with appealing the decision of the judge because that is the only way to state a "grievance" against a judicial official - having the appellate court tell him or her they are flat out wrong.  It is embarrassing for the judge.  However, most judges know that their litigants cannot imagine the costs and attorney fees associated with an appeal, let alone the fact they cannot afford one.  Therefore, some judges rule with impunity based upon what they think is best for the case as opposed to what the law says is best because they are "financially protected" by the litigants indigence.

How does this all fit in with MyMilitaryDivorce?  Simply put, MMD has decided to pick up the tab on attorney fees for Gunny Smits based upon its promise to help those in need who have been obviously wronged and its position on financial aid for its clients.  The Gunny has accepted the offer and will pay only costs associated with the appeal which includes the filing fee, transcript fee from the argument at trial court, and other miscellaneous fees.  Attorney fees alone, according to John H. Schweitzer, Partner in the law firm of Stassinopoulos & Schweitzer, LLP, can surpass $15,000 before all is said and done.  For Gunny Smits, it's more than a deal.  He stated, "My case seemed hopeless after being turned away from other law firms in the area who wouldn't touch it.  After taking the advice of a trusted advisor, I soon sat down with Attorney John Schweitzer.  He took the time to thoroughly explain my legal rights and the law as it pertains to jurisdiction.  I felt, from that first meeting, that Attorney Schweitzer knew the exact injustice which was being dealt to me and I felt that I could trust him and his team with everything I needed.  They explained every step of the process and no steps were taken without a clear understanding of the situation.  It was an amazing feeling of security knowing that I had a team of experts fighting hard for me, even while I was deployed to the border of Iraq.  I know that whenever the need arises, I can trust the judgement of Stassinopoulos and Schweitzer, LLP to protect my rights and the rights of my children.  I now can enjoy the added time with my children without the burden of excessive child support payments and the threat of not being able to see my kids.  I can't thank [them] enough for what [they] have done for me and for my family."  Let's hope for the best in Part II of our continuing saga....