After filing for divorce last May, Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley wanted a say about which parent his 2-year-old son would live with.

When Bradley, who has lived in Pomona and Ottawa, was deployed for Iraq two months later, his family and legal team thought a federal law meant to protect military personnel from civil litigation would stave off proceedings until he got back.

Instead, on two different occasions, a Franklin County judge ruled that the law didn’t apply to Bradley, raising the eyebrows of attorneys and a high-ranking Kansas lawmaker.

“There’s really nothing that indicates the law shouldn’t apply,” Jean Ann Uvodich, the Marine’s attorney, said.

Bradley is in Iraq and could not be reached for comment.

The Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act was signed into law in 2003, shielding military personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones from civil lawsuits and evictions until they are back in the U.S. Judges, the law says, must postpone judgment for at least 90 days if the service member applies for the additional time.

Starleen Bradley of Pomona is helping her son, Marine Cpl. Levi Bradley, fight for the custody of his 2-year-old son, Tyler. Levi serves in Iraq.

Records show that the Marine and his mother, Starleen Bradley, had legal custody of the child when he was deployed. Amber Bradley, the Marine’s estranged wife, signed the arrangement.

Court records show that Levi Bradley asked in October to delay further proceedings, a month before the first child custody hearing was to begin. The application included a signed Marine Corps letter from his commanding officer in Iraq and his own testimony, as the law requires.

But in court Nov. 8, Judge James Smith ruled that the mother should receive custody of the child, saying that the Servicemember’s Civil Relief Act didn’t apply because the temporary action affected the child, not Bradley himself, transcripts show.

“I do not believe that temporary orders in this matter are stayed by the Servicemen’s Civil Relief Act,” Smith said after hearing testimony from both lawyers.

Smith reaffirmed his ruling last week after Uvodich filed a motion to reconsider the decision.

The attorney for Amber Bradley said a child’s fate shouldn’t be left in limbo because of a parent’s military service.

“The court,” attorney Amy Durkin said, “needs to be able to decide a child’s welfare.”

Amber Bradley could not be reached for comment, but her mother, Annette Sharp, said that she didn’t think that the case was news and hung up on a reporter.

Sharp works in the clerk’s office of the Franklin County courthouse with Smith.

Starleen Bradley attended both custody hearings, and said she left the courthouse confused.

“I couldn’t believe the judge said it,” she said, “when everything we were reading said (the law) applied.”

After the Nov. 8 hearing, she contacted U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback’s office, talking to several staffers about her son’s situation and the judge’s decision to sidestep the civil relief act, she said.

“Senator Brownback feels it’s important that members of our military – and especially those who are currently serving in the Middle East – are not discriminated against simply because they are deployed and unable to represent themselves in person,” Brian Hart, Brownback’s spokesman, said. “(He) wants to make sure that the law of the land, as stated in the Civil Relief Act, is not ignored.”

Bradley also contacted U.S. Rep. Dennis Moore’s office looking for help.

“Our job is not to be legal advocates,” Moore spokeswoman Christie Appelhanz said. “We feel very strongly that this needs to be played out in court.”

Which is where the issue remains. Levi Bradley’s attorney plans to hear from the Court of Appeals in Topeka this week regarding the Marine’s appeal application.

The problem, Uvodich said, is that there is no precedent in Kansas courts. Uvodich said the outcome of this case will carve out the rights of all Kansas service members overseas.

Durkin, the mother’s attorney, said that regardless of appeals, the federal law won’t supersede the needs of a child.

“It’s going to be appealed,” Durkin said. “We’ll see then.”