Strange. I have a sis-in-law who was in the Navy, and she asked me to write a letter for her CO, basically stating that if she were deployed to sea duty, I would be unable to provide care for her children. She collected a number of these letters, and her sea deployment was canceled. Why couldn't they just do the same in this case?

MichB1: War is over, if you want it.


That's all we are saying...

NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

First of all, she got pregnant after she joined. Her circumstances changed (significantly) afterwards.

And I agree that both genders should be deployable (as they are), but obviously military personnel who have significant life-changing events (for example, their wife or husband dies, leaving the person solely responsible for their kids) should prompt some sort of military review to see if they can accommodate those changes. If the military can't, then the person is booted. If they can, then great.

If the Army can accommdate my uncle busting his knee and gaining 70 pounds in one year, they can accommodate someone having to take care of their kids.

NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

THIS. I'm totally fine with her choice to not deploy, as long as she gives back all of the pay and benefits she received under false pretenses. Otherwise have fun at Leavenworth.

Give her a General Discharge and boot her ass out.

CBR ME ASAP: NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

THIS. I'm totally fine with her choice to not deploy, as long as she gives back all of the pay and benefits she received under false pretenses. Otherwise have fun at Leavenworth.

False pretenses?

Gamer Grrrl: NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

First of all, she got pregnant after she joined. Her circumstances changed (significantly) afterwards.

And I agree that both genders should be deployable (as they are), but obviously military personnel who have significant life-changing events (for example, their wife or husband dies, leaving the person solely responsible for their kids) should prompt some sort of military review to see if they can accommodate those changes. If the military can't, then the person is booted. If they can, then great.

If the Army can accommdate my uncle busting his knee and gaining 70 pounds in one year, they can accommodate someone having to take care of their kids.

they can and will but alot depends on three people 1 the troop themselves if they are willing to start asking the questions they need 2 the supervisor who should always be looking out for the young troops under them and 3 is the first shirt who should know the situation and should be helping out

farfigneugan: jst3p: It isn't about hurting anyone. It is about the best interests of the child.

Is it best for the child when the life I'm left capable of affording after the child support isn't worth the hassle, on top of the refused access, and just put a goddamn bullet through my farking brain. Is that in his best interest?

Maybe, I don't know you well enough to know for sure.


Doesn't matter that the judge said "joint custody". If she doesn't want to answer the door, that's it. Nobody's done anything. No police, no judge, nothing.
I pay, she plays. She's not even with him most of the time, she's out drinking, which I hear about from old "mutual friends". But I don't get to keep him, either, when she does that.
I have a penis. I lose.

She's with that doctors kid. The guy that didn't work a day in his life til he was mid 20s. The one whose house gets paid for by those rich parents of his. She marries him, and I'm still paying. I'm not even sure I'd want to see him at this point. Or rather, I'm not sure I'd want him to see me. The life I've got left is either a one room apartment or living with my parents. I'm almost 30.
Do you think it will mean anything to him if I show him how much money I've sent? No, he's 4. He's gonna see mommy and new daddy's big 6 bedroom, 3 bath house with a 4 car garage. And he's gonna see where my kitchen counter is holding the little tv that gets watched from the living room couch.
And when it's all said and done, you're gonna hope you feel it was worth it on some level.
Sure, you'll know that it was just a sacrifice on your part, a vanity thing. He would have had nothing less than he did. He would never have been hungry. Not like you are after your 4th day in a row of Ramen Noodles(tm). He's not going to be wearing the same ratty old shoes for years on end.
He was fine the whole time. And perhaps one of those vacation days stretched a little bit further thanks to your child support contribution.
If I met me, I wouldn't want anything to do with me, either. What should I expect from him? He'll never know me as "daddy". She saw to that years ago, and it's too late now to change that.

/tl;dr


You have made it very tempting to be snarky, but I am going to take a break.

I am not going to pretend I have all the answers but it sounds like you have given up. If you have no advice will help.

I fully support women in the military.

Only because, after a while, the widows and orphans created by wars gets old.

Lets make some widowers and orphans for a change.

farfigneugan: jst3p: It isn't about hurting anyone. It is about the best interests of the child.

Is it best for the child when the life I'm left capable of affording after the child support isn't worth the hassle, on top of the refused access, and just put a goddamn bullet through my farking brain. Is that in his best interest?
Doesn't matter that the judge said "joint custody". If she doesn't want to answer the door, that's it. Nobody's done anything. No police, no judge, nothing.
I pay, she plays. She's not even with him most of the time, she's out drinking, which I hear about from old "mutual friends". But I don't get to keep him, either, when she does that.
I have a penis. I lose.

She's with that doctors kid. The guy that didn't work a day in his life til he was mid 20s. The one whose house gets paid for by those rich parents of his. She marries him, and I'm still paying. I'm not even sure I'd want to see him at this point. Or rather, I'm not sure I'd want him to see me. The life I've got left is either a one room apartment or living with my parents. I'm almost 30.
Do you think it will mean anything to him if I show him how much money I've sent? No, he's 4. He's gonna see mommy and new daddy's big 6 bedroom, 3 bath house with a 4 car garage. And he's gonna see where my kitchen counter is holding the little tv that gets watched from the living room couch.
And when it's all said and done, you're gonna hope you feel it was worth it on some level.
Sure, you'll know that it was just a sacrifice on your part, a vanity thing. He would have had nothing less than he did. He would never have been hungry. Not like you are after your 4th day in a row of Ramen Noodles(tm). He's not going to be wearing the same ratty old shoes for years on end.
He was fine the whole time. And perhaps one of those vacation days stretched a little bit further thanks to your child support contribution.
If I met me, I wouldn't want anything to do with me, either. What should I expect from him? He'll never know me as "daddy". She saw to that years ago, and it's too late now to change that.

/tl;dr

1) You need to get a better lawyer. If you can document interference with visitations or or failure to reach agreements regarding joint custody, you should go back to court (it is your responsibility to bring the relevant motion though).

2) You need to have more faith in your child. Connect to him as a person. You can give him something better than material crap. You can give him you. You can show him how to pick himself up and not let anything get in the way of having a good relationship with someone you love. You don't need money for that. You need a sense of humor, a good heart, time to play, and to talk with him. Be there.

/I also eat Ramen noodles
//Thank the FSM I have no kids
///I volunteer with others' children, who just want to learn to read and have help with homework (and maybe play a game).
////Most kids also like cheap mac and cheese and will play with an empty box

CBR ME ASAP: THIS. I'm totally fine with her choice to not deploy, as long as she gives back all of the pay and benefits she received under false pretenses.

They pay you for your time and, sometimes, your labor.

She's given X years of time and labor. I don't know why you think she should have to pay that money back. There's nothing in her contract stipulating that.

In fact, military contracts do stipulate what financial penalties there might be for failure to serve out your full contract.

In short, nothing you have said makes any sense.

I don't have time to read all of this, so this has probably already been said:

If you're in the military, don't have a child. If you have a child, don't VOLUNTEER for the military.

Gamer Grrrl: False pretenses?

If she can't be deployed, then she can't do her job. If she can't do her job, then she's not really working, just drawing a salary.

Say you've a doctor on-call, but it never comes up... and then you find out that every single time he was on-call, he really wasn't available. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he was busy, maybe he just didn't keep his cellphone on him.

Or your fire-station? What if, after going for weeks without a fire, you found out your fire-station was empty all this time and the guys were all out fishing for the last few weeks?

This is the same thing. All this time her job was to be in a state of readiness for deployment. This means that all this time, she wasn't doing her job. Now, I don't know whether she's being punished unjustifiably harshly for that - I have no idea how the army typically handles these things... but ultimately, you have to admit that she was getting paid and trained for a job she wasn't doing.

Gamer Grrrl: CBR ME ASAP: NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

THIS. I'm totally fine with her choice to not deploy, as long as she gives back all of the pay and benefits she received under false pretenses. Otherwise have fun at Leavenworth.

False pretenses?

I think hes implying, that her staying in the miliary where she is expected to deploy and perform her job, WHILE she was not able to deploy and perform her job, without making it known she was not able to, was false pretenses, since the tax payers (us) pay her to do this job, that she knowingly couldnt do, but choose to still collect her paycheck and just not do the job.

And, from another post, the military does have means in place to make a person undeployable if they just had a child, or if a spouse died, or other major life change. That child is 11 months, and since the mother obviously didnt file any paperwork saying she was having an issue, means she should be treated like she was having a major life event and needed assistance.

Gamer Grrrl: NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

First of all, she got pregnant after she joined. Her circumstances changed (significantly) afterwards.

And I agree that both genders should be deployable (as they are), but obviously military personnel who have significant life-changing events (for example, their wife or husband dies, leaving the person solely responsible for their kids) should prompt some sort of military review to see if they can accommodate those changes. If the military can't, then the person is booted. If they can, then great.

If the Army can accommdate my uncle busting his knee and gaining 70 pounds in one year, they can accommodate someone having to take care of their kids.

Your uncle did nnot choose to bust up his knee. Preganancy, for the most part, is voluntary and can hardly be considered service connected.

Xetal: I think zarberg needs to go back and take a biology class. It might help you to understand the double-standard between men and women sleeping around.

I'll even give you a hint: If a female chooses to sleep with the most desirable male she can and also sleeps with other partners, what are her chances of passing her genes on successfully compared to just sleeping with the most desirable male available?

If a male chooses to sleep with the most desirable female he can and also sleeps with other partners, what are his chances of passing his genes on successfully compared to just sleeping with the most desirable female available?

It's the same reason why males tend to court females, why males are more likely to be ready to hop into bed with anything that moves, and why males are more aggressive.

Fight biology all you want, but I doubt you'll win.

I'm well aware of the biology of it, but you're right - biology sets the rules we can't change. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate for the guys who think they can ignore biology in the court system.

It's a double standard. Either you're ok with men getting raped in custody/divorce court or you're ok with every last right being as equal as biology allows.

damn typos, my post was suppose to say NOT

as in, she should NOT be treated like she was having a major live event and needed assistance.

Kazan: Aidan:

I wholeheartedly agree with this idea. Jib, newsletter, etc.

just wait until you hear that I think that the entire population should be subject to that, no more than two kids per couple, and must be able to pay for them yourself requirements

/IQ.. IQ requirements would be good too
//a lot of the worlds problems are due to overpopulation
///and I don't want the idiots out breeding the smart people and causing humanity to die out.

You sound dangerous.

Sticky Hands: farfigneugan: Do you think it will mean anything to him if I show him how much money I've sent? No, he's 4. He's gonna see mommy and new daddy's big 6 bedroom, 3 bath house with a 4 car garage. And he's gonna see where my kitchen counter is holding the little tv that gets watched from the living room couch.

Well, when (if) you still get visitation, he probably won't care that much about that. At least, I (and the other broken home kids I knew) never did.

The good thing about dad's place was that dad was there.

Particularly a 4 year old. I have one and he didn't care that the place I moved to had 1/3rd the square footage, he just wanted to know that I would lie on the couch with him and watch Sponge Bob.

I am not saying this applies to this guy but I know far too many men who biatch that they never see their kid while not really making an effort to. Likewise I know too many women who biatch that dad never sees their kid while doing everything they can to prevent it.


People, in general, like to complain.

hairywoogit: What is it with people... The mother is irrelevant. The child matters. Children need loving caregivers. Separating the mother and child is severely detrimental to a child's development, unless the mother is horribly abusive, in which case the separation is the lesser of evils.

So, in the interests of a (hopefully) productive future citizen who has not been ground to hamburger by the oh so lovely CPS and foster system, the child and mother should stay together. Hardship or Dishonorable would fit the bill, anything else is stupid, expensive, and wasteful.

The "sins of the father" and all that. The mother screwed up, when a parent screws up the kid suffers. That is the way of the world, so unless you start sterilizing the stupid and preventing their breeding, the children will always suffer.

Court martial and time. She went AWOL. If she hadn't i would have no problem with hardship or dishonorable.

/Illegal alien is illegal.

Kazan: Fair for the kid? Screw the kid, kids are dime a dozen. I've seen too many men's lives destroyed by immature backstabbing biatches to believe that child support is anything other than a travesty.

Well now I know I can ignore you. I'm not one of those warm-and-fuzzy people who cries out, "Think of the children!" in a pathetic attempt to convince people I'm right. However, the child was put into foster care so this woman could be arrested. It just seems to me there's a better way to fix this situation.

Again, if the Army can give my uncle a less-demanding job because he farked up his knee playing rugby and consequently gained 70 pounds, they should be able to find a non-deployable job for this woman to do. Rather than, you know, arrest her and put her kid in foster care.

Kazan: They signed up to defend their homeland, and to help their neighbors in emergencies (like floods, etc). Not go fly half way around the world to shoot brown people.

This is the oath they take:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Xetal: I think zarberg needs to go back and take a biology class. It might help you to understand the double-standard between men and women sleeping around.

I'll even give you a hint: If a female chooses to sleep with the most desirable male she can and also sleeps with other partners, what are her chances of passing her genes on successfully compared to just sleeping with the most desirable male available?

If a male chooses to sleep with the most desirable female he can and also sleeps with other partners, what are his chances of passing his genes on successfully compared to just sleeping with the most desirable female available?

It's the same reason why males tend to court females, why males are more likely to be ready to hop into bed with anything that moves, and why males are more aggressive.

Fight biology all you want, but I doubt you'll win.

I think all women need to take a class on equality. Equality does not mean different standards for men and women. It does not mean special treatment. If you want equality that's fine, but stop biatching when you get it.

Ender's: borg: Thank god, Obama and the Democrats are in charge!

I am curious as to what, exactly, you mean by this statement. Also, there is a comma in there that doesn't need to be.


He means that Obama is a horrible President and can't wait for him (Obama) to either be ousted or beaten by a landslide in the next election.

He means that this is still America and America is no place for our 'Leader' to be brown-shirting its citizens into a Democrate version of some Nazi paradise where all though and actions are controlled by the state.

He means that the people of this nation are tired of Chicago-style corruption and ineptitude.

He means that people who live in hope will die in despair, always.

That's what he means!

Don't worry about any errant commas. They won't hurt you.

this is farked up.

: (

Gamer Grrrl: I said that the point at which a woman has a baby it's no longer about what's fair for the parents, and becomes about what's fair for the child.

It's easy to say that when it's oh so "fair" for the mother, too. Maybe you'd feel differently if it were you that you knew your child would never even think of when they thought "mommy"?
All because you weren't born with a dick? Assuming role-reversal, obviously.

Gamer Grrrl: If the Army can accommdate my uncle busting his knee and gaining 70 pounds in one year, they can accommodate someone having to take care of their kids.

THE CAMOUFLAGE BABY BOOM (new window)

"Chief, I can't sail. I'm pregnant."

"Colonel, I can't fly. Gotta breast feed Wendy."

"Sarge, I can't deploy. My baby sitter's sick."

IT'S SUCH A DEAL, I'LL TAKE TWO CORPS FULL (new window)

"Col. James T. Conway's total annual budget for putting almost 3,000 officers through basic school is a lean $967,031 per year. The Army's "kiddieland" at Fort Bragg, built to baby-sit serving soldiers' offspring (71% of the family-oriented U.S. Army is married), costs five times as much"

Gamer Grrrl: CBR ME ASAP: NewGrace: Gamer Grrrl:
Here's how I see it: The woman can be replaced as a soldier. She cannot be replaced as a mother.

Then she shouldnt of joined in the first place.

Not saying your wrong. But the job hasnt changed since shes been in. Your either able to do it or your not.

Oh, and fathers cant be replaced either. I dont think we should say its acceptable to send fathers, but not mothers.

THIS. I'm totally fine with her choice to not deploy, as long as she gives back all of the pay and benefits she received under false pretenses. Otherwise have fun at Leavenworth.

False pretenses?

Yeah, you know like signing a paper that says you will deploy if needed and then failing to take the steps necessary to deploy.

hasty ambush: Your uncle did nnot choose to bust up his knee. Preganancy, for the most part, is voluntary and can hardly be considered service connected.

Pregnancy is not voluntary. Women take actions that MAY LEAD to pregnancy, but that doesn't mean it's voluntary. Someone might drive 80mph in the rain, but that doesn't mean they're volunteering to die in a car fire.

And my uncle farked up his knee playing rugby. It was so not service related. Why should he keep his job when he's now a big fatass, and this woman can't keep hers?

And I said this way upthread, so I'll say it again: Kick the woman out of the military. She can't do the job anymore, so she really shouldn't be in the military (or at least in a deployable MOS). But don't arrest her and put her kid in foster care. That does no one any good.

zarberg

I'm well aware of the biology of it, but you're right - biology sets the rules we can't change. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate for the guys who think they can ignore biology in the court system.

It's a double standard. Either you're ok with men getting raped in custody/divorce court or you're ok with every last right being as equal as biology allows.

I don't think that it's a valid double standard. When talking about promiscuity then you are dealing with the way that we view each other. When talking about child custody then you're talking about the legal actions as a society.

We can have laws for equality and still have our own personal opinions detailing how we feel about different people. It would be a double standard if we jailed women for cheating and did not jail men, but this is not the case.

FreudulentSplit: Why the hell are they flying her to Afghanistan to stand for court-martial with the possibility of a 1 year prison term?

Can't she stand for court-martial now, here rather than the round trip in event of incarceration, or would they put her in the Bagram brig, and why?

It's my understanding , and this may be wrong, that she will have to go to where her unit is deployed since that is where her CURRENT chain of command resides and where the people will be assigned to set on that court will come from. She will CERTAINLY be held in either a brig or confined to quarters, most likely Brig since she isn't at officer level.

SchlingFocker: CBR ME ASAP: THIS. I'm totally fine with her choice to not deploy, as long as she gives back all of the pay and benefits she received under false pretenses.

They pay you for your time and, sometimes, your labor.

She's given X years of time and labor. I don't know why you think she should have to pay that money back. There's nothing in her contract stipulating that.

In fact, military contracts do stipulate what financial penalties there might be for failure to serve out your full contract.

In short, nothing you have said makes any sense.

What makes no sense is agreeing to deploy and then failing to be ready to actually do so.

I don't really give a damn about the woman or her motivations. It just sucks that a kid was put into the foster care system when its mother who presumably loves the kid more than anything wants only to be a mother to it. That's what is so sad.

/subby

Gamer Grrrl: Pregnancy is not voluntary.

Really?

/P.S. Just in case the subtext isn't clear: You're an idiot.

Xetal: I don't think that it's a valid double standard. When talking about promiscuity then you are dealing with the way that we view each other. When talking about child custody then you're talking about the legal actions as a society.

We can have laws for equality and still have our own personal opinions detailing how we feel about different people. It would be a double standard if we jailed women for cheating and did not jail men, but this is not the case.

So you're saying people's views on the two genders in regards to modern sexuality never, ever impact any other part of life apart from social issues?

Sounds like a scam being pulled by her and her mom to keep her from going to Afghanistan. fark it though, slap her with a dishonorable discharge and get rid of her useless ass. Oh and then give me her phone #.

MaddyUnderstood: this is farked up.

: (

I know, I mean who would use their 11 month old child as a human shield?

MIguy: Sounds like a scam being pulled by her and her mom to keep her from going to Afghanistan. fark it though, slap her with a dishonorable discharge and get rid of her useless ass. Oh and then give me her phone #.


She's going through hell right now, she isn't going to Michigan right after.

K9fark: You don't seem smart enough tell the difference between goldfish and children, so an explaination won't help you here. Just exit the thread.

-1 Internets

For all intents and purposes NO DIFFERENCE.

She enlisted. She signed up that she will be able to ship out for the duration of her enlistment. She agreed to that!


Why do people keep making excuses for this type of behavior? It's an obvious breach, not to mention a moral and ethical breach.

It's not even debatable if she was in the wrong. It's a slam dunk. She agreed to do one thing, and did the other, while collecting.

Mykeru: Gamer Grrrl: Pregnancy is not voluntary.

Really?

/P.S. Just in case the subtext isn't clear: You're an idiot.

Lol, really. Some women, believe it or not, are against abortion. Some even think it's murder.

/OMG some anonymous guy on the other side of the internet called me an idiot! I'm going to go cry now!

zarberg
So you're saying people's views on the two genders in regards to modern sexuality never, ever impact any other part of life apart from social issues?

I thought it was pretty clear what I was saying, but let me put it simpler:

Each person has their own internal feelings about what they approve of, what they don't approve of, what they believe and disbelieve in, what they are attracted to, etc...

This is unstoppable and driven by both biology and upbringing.

We, as a society, can make the decision to treat men and women equally through the laws we pass and the ways that we enforce these laws.

Both of these concepts can exist. They are not mutually exclusive.

DIGITALgimpus: K9fark: You don't seem smart enough tell the difference between goldfish and children, so an explaination won't help you here. Just exit the thread.

-1 Internets

For all intents and purposes NO DIFFERENCE.

She enlisted. She signed up that she will be able to ship out for the duration of her enlistment. She agreed to that!


Why do people keep making excuses for this type of behavior? It's an obvious breach, not to mention a moral and ethical breach.

It's not even debatable if she was in the wrong. It's a slam dunk. She agreed to do one thing, and did the other, while collecting.

Most people who become single parents while in the military don't get court martialed. I agree she could have made some better choices (pooper, for one), but to throw the book at her is pretty ridiculous.

/It's the military-we already know it's ridiculous!

hasty ambush: This all goes back to GHWB and Bill Clinton when they started using the military as a job corps for single parents/unwed mothers instead of a military organization. It got particularly bad in the US Army when they changed basic training to a coed summer cap experience for their combat service support personnel. The ambush of the 507th Maint. Co. in Iraq is directly attributable to the low training standards that were the result of those policies pushed by those who view the military as some sort of 9-5 job like IBM. The Navy and the Air Force both have coed summer camp but the problems do not manifest themselves on the battlefield as readily. The Marine Corps, thus far, has been able to resist the push for coed basic training as it still understands its role is as military force not a social engineering lab.

So if public policy is encourging single parenthood in the military, then the military needs to step up and face the natural consequences of this policy. We already provide housing for wives and children of military men. Why not child care for single parents?


This c*nt should be discharged with a loss of a benefits and be forced to pay back any bonuses she may have received.

Yes, that will surely get those recruitment rates up. Keep this kind of hard line policy and pretty soon we'll have nothing but gays in the military since at least they won't have any kids.


First term enlisted personnel should not be permitted to enlist with dependents, they should not be allowed to marry until they have reached a the pay grade of E-4 with 4 years service. In the case of both spouses being in the military and they have kids one spouse will have to leave the Service. It is only fair to the kids that one parent not be shipped of to a war zone and the ultimate test for service member to remain in the service is deployability.

This isn't 1850, or even 1950. Our military employs not only fighters, but thinkers. One of the biggest trend in more and more military operations is to remote as much as possible. Send the hardware to the front, keep the guys controlling the hardware back - where "back" can even be stateside.


If a female service member gets pregnant , and it is not by rape, she should be discharged with a loss of all benefits. Pregnancy being by a large voluntary she has knowingly made herself unavailable to fulfill her oath of enlistment. While she off going to her doctor appointments, on light duty, maternity leave and non-deployable others end up carrying her share of the load and unlike the civilian world the military cannot simply hirer a temp.

If she wants to be a mommy let her get out of the service.


How about a male servicemean who knocks up some girl? Should he given the boot too? If I'm to follow your logic, this presumably made him "unavailable to fulfill his oath of enlistment". And all 100% voluntary on his part. Or does this not apply because caring for kids all women's work?

Now how about a little reality. Our military seeks out and actively recruits young men and women. Being young men and women, they are going to do what young men and women have been doing for millions of years: fark. Make all the rules against it you wish, but you are fighting mother nature here and you're going to lose. The Army markets itself not only as a way to pay for college but also as a career - and not a career where you must live as a celibate monk.

CBR ME ASAP: MaddyUnderstood: this is farked up.

: (

I know, I mean who would use their 11 month old child as a human shield?

i was thinking what subby was thinking:

Polonius_In_Drag: I don't really give a damn about the woman or her motivations. It just sucks that a kid was put into the foster care system when its mother who presumably loves the kid more than anything wants only to be a mother to it. That's what is so sad.

/subby

so, THIS.

Polonius_In_Drag: I don't really give a damn about the woman or her motivations. It just sucks that a kid was put into the foster care system when its mother who presumably loves the kid more than anything wants only to be a mother to it. That's what is so sad.

/subby

I'm in the same boat. I don't care what her motivations are. But the Army is turning her kid into an orphan, and that's just wrong.

/yeah, I went there.

Persnickety: How about a male servicemean who knocks up some girl? Should he given the boot too? I

Does it prevent him from deploying? If not it is not a valid comparison.

CBR ME ASAP: What makes no sense is agreeing to deploy and then failing to be ready to actually do so.

Unfortunately, none of us know exactly what went wrong.

We don't know if she falsified her family care plan in order to get it approved or if the command just pencil-whipped a shiatty plan through in order to keep their numbers up.

Or, if both she and the command created a care plan in good faith only to have the relatives back out at the last second.

Again, all reasons why single parents shouldn't be in the military.

But, the contract that she signed (that you place importance on) doesn't call for forfeiture of all her previous pay if she's unable to deploy. For whatever reason.