Deployed Troops Battle for Child Custody

Lt. Eva Crouch holds a 2004 photo of her daughter, Sara, at her home in Lawrenceburg, Ky., in this June 29, 2005, file photo. A member of the Kentucky National Guard, Crouch was deployed in 2003. Soon after her return, a judge would decide that Sara should stay with her dad. (AP Photo/Ed Reinke) (Ed Reinke - AP)

The Arizona court dismissed the custody case after Bianca's lawyer argued that jurisdiction belonged in Luxembourg because the children had resided there for at least six months.

Again citing the Servicemembers Act, Carlson's attorney argued that the time the kids spent in Luxembourg shouldn't count toward residency because it came during Carlson's deployment.

A Luxembourg court awarded custody to Bianca, and the kids remain there to this day.

They call him "Bradley" now, he says, instead of "Daddy." They converse in German in stilted long-distance phone calls that provide few precious minutes for a father to absorb missed moments _ soccer games, kindergarten, birthdays. On Dirk's 9th, Carlson stood beneath a rainbow-colored birthday banner and had a friend take a digital photo of him holding a sign: "Happy 9th Birthday Dirk!"

Tears fill his eyes when it hits him: "That's how I celebrate."

"I feel really betrayed," Carlson says. "To be able to send me into harm's way ... and my own country can't protect my child custody rights. Why aren't they looking out for me, when I'm looking out for the country?"

The solution, some say, lies in amending the federal law to specify that it does apply in custody cases, and to spell out that jurisdiction should rest with the state where the child resided before a soldier deployed.

Some states aren't waiting for congressional action.

In 2005, California enacted a law saying a parent's absence due to military activation cannot be used to justify permanent changes in custody or visitation. Michigan and Kentucky followed suit, requiring that temporary changes made because of deployment revert back to the original agreement once deployment ends.

Similar legislation has been proposed in Arizona, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and North Carolina.

"These men and women need to know that when we deploy them, they don't have to worry about being ambushed in our family law court system," says Michael Robinson, a lobbyist who helped write the California and Michigan laws. "The insurgents are doing enough ambushing over there. The only difference between what's occurring there and here is ... it's an emotional bomb."

Crouch knows that all too well.

When she was mobilized back in 2003, Crouch considered having her mother come live in her Frankfort, Ky., home to care for 9-year-old Sara. But her ex-husband, Charles, wanted Sara with him, and Crouch agreed.

"You have to promise me you won't try anything funny," Crouch told him.

He promised.

They drew up a temporary order, moved Sara's belongings 2 1/2 hours east to her dad's place near Ashland, and Crouch headed out _ to Iraq, she thought, although she wound up stateside at Fort Knox, providing personnel support to units shipping out.

The fortunate assignment allowed her to visit Sara most weekends, but no one ever brought up the idea of making the temporary situation permanent until Crouch returned.

"Right up until the day I came home there was every indication that I was picking her up," she says.

Charles Crouch says that's true, and acknowledges their agreement was supposed to be temporary. But when the time came for Sara to return to her mom, Charles says his daughter expressed a desire to stay with him. She liked her school, had made new friends.

"I had no intention of trying to talk her into staying or anything," he says. "All I wanted was what was best for my daughter."

Eva Crouch helped fight for the new Kentucky law. Last year, the state Supreme Court cited it in overturning the trial judge's decision granting custody to Charles.

Last September, she got Sara back.

Crouch knows she's one of the lucky few whose cases have happy endings. She's remarried now, and expecting another baby this August. But with 18 years in the military, she knows she could be mobilized again after she gives birth. One thing is clear to her now: Serving her country isn't worth losing her daughter.

"I can't leave my child again _ regardless of whether or not I know when I come home, she comes home.

"Still," she says, "I can't."