Oh, Good Grief!

[gridlore]

Read this story:

Mom caught in custody fight also battling Army over return to Iraq Soldier declared AWOL as she seeks new child-care arrangement

OK. I have one question. If you have SEVEN children, what the fuck are you doing in the United States Army?!

What, did neither you nor your husband, a platoon sergeant in a combat unit, understand that being in the service meant that you might just be called on to head overseas for extended periods to, I don't know, FIGHT A GODDAMN WAR!? Did you think those camouflage uniforms and weapons were for show and tell? During WWII, soldiers (even the female WACs) were away from their families for years.

Then there is the sheer number of children involved. The woman involved is 30, Two of the kids are from her husband's previous relationship. That means this woman has had five children.. and she's thirty. I have to wonder how often she even made drills! Now dear old Mom is facing prison time (intentionally missing a movement to avoid duty in a combat zone is a death penalty offense in the military.) Realistically, she won't get lined up against a wall and shot. But she's screwed herself but good.

She's also screwed everyone in her unit who will now have to shoulder her load while she gets court-martialed. A 14-hour day will become a 16-hour day. A soldier won't be seen quite as quickly. Call me an old-fashioned reactionary if you like, but if there is anything that would prevent you from deploying and doing your duty for as long as it takes, you should be separated from the service. Ridiculous.

And now we'll see the usual suspects decry the "inhumanity of the military." Guess what? Nobody held a gun to this alleged adult's head and forced her to recite the Oath of Enlistment. Please read that. I don't see anything in there that says "unless it inconveniences me and my family."

Comments

[isomeme.livejournal.com]

Amen and verily! If you're going to be in the service, it means voluntarily setting aside many other potential choices. But people don't understand discipline (self- or otherwise) these days.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Wait, I missed something?

Am I the only one who can see the part where she'd already been in Iraq for six months when her husband's ex petitioned for custody? "After about six months in Iraq, the couple learned that trouble was brewing at home. Vaughn Holcomb's ex-wife was trying to gain custody of two of the children."

Am I the only one who can see the part about her Mom no longer being able to care for the kids? "They requested an emergency leave. After successfully fending off the custody challenge, an even bigger problem surfaced. Susan Bearer, Vaughn's mother, no longer could care for the children."

Am I the only one who can see her commanders being unsympathetic to issues beyond her control? "A judge said at least one parent had to stay with the children. Simone Holcomb sought reassignment, an extended emergency leave or a compassionate discharge, often done in hardship cases involving family. The military refused, ... "

Am I the only one who can see that she did make arrangements to have the kids cared for while she did her duty, and had those arrangements blow up while she was gone?

I just want to make sure you and I are reading the same article.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

She should have realized that with her husband in a combat unit, and long about the time she had her third kid, that any deployment was going to cause serious hardship and separated voluntarily.

Her commanders have a job to do, and she is supposed to be there doing her part of it. It's not that hard to leave the National Guard, especially if you have a family commitment like this.

What she seems to be ignoring is that her unit is at war. And the NG is short handed as it is. There is a stop-loss in place all over the Army now. She and her husband should have realized that both of them getting deployed would be disastrous.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Except that it wasn't disasterous when she originally left!

She had care for her children, just like those men and women in WWII that you mentioned, for the first six months of her deployment. If the ex-wife hadn't tried to seize control, and if her father(-in-law?) hadn't become even more ill, she would have been covered.

So, again, what part of "circumstances beyond her control" do you have a problem with given that she did, in fact, spend six months in Iraq before she landed between this particular rock and hard place? And, once this situation came up, why do you not have a problem with the Army not granting compassionate leave given the difficulties in her family situation?

She was in Iraq when her home life dropped in the pot. I don't see how that's her fault. Arrangements had been made for care of her kids, until she got stabbed in the back by her husband's ex.

And you appear to be saying, "I don't care that the situation changed while you were on the other side of the world, I'm not going to give you a chance to get your home life sorted out before ordering you back into the breach."

[kshandra]

Okay, let's leave the issue of whether or not she's doing the right thing now. What the FUCK was she thinking in the first place? "Sorry, kids, Daddy and I have to go to the other side of the world, now. We could be back in six weeks, or six months, or you might never see us again. Be good for your grandma, okay?" I'm sorry, but I fail to see where that comes under the heading of responsible parenting.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

And, which order would you prefer that she break?

1) The one from her Commanding Officer?

2) The one from the CO State Judge requiring that one parent stay home with the children?

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

The State judge. Mainly because She is a member of the United States Army, and cannot be ordered to do anything by a state judiciary bench.

Is she a hardship case? Probably. Should she have left the CONG when she had 5+2 kids? Absolutely. Are her actions going to end badly all around? Damn straight.

Her husband is equally at fault here. One of them should have seen this possibility coming, and left the Guard.

[aurictech.livejournal.com]

Pile some blame on the mother-in-law, too. If the event timeline in the article is correct, the mother-in-law waited until after the custody court case to spring her unwillingness to continue being the children's caretaker on the soldier-mom.

What I'm wondering is, why was the custody court case even going forward while the parents were deployed? Federal law prevents legal actions against service members while they are deployed.

[patagucci-thong.livejournal.com]

I agree. And what were they thinking only having ONE plan in place for the care of their children while they were gone? One individual on another board I'm on uses PACE (Primary, Alternative, Contingency, and Emergency plans), and they probably should have as well. Even just an alternative plan to the husband's mother watching the kids! Oh well. People aren't the smartest species ever.

[dafydd.livejournal.com]

Oh, by the way,

"The case is being investigated by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., and the Army inspector general.

"Sen. Allard has made inquiries with both the Pentagon and Fort Carson. It strikes him that this is a legitimate hardship case," said Dick Wadhams, spokesman for the senator. "What is at stake here is that this couple could lose their kids, thanks to circumstances that they have no control over." "

[bunyip.livejournal.com]

exactly. She's stupid, and deserves court-martial.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I'm with dafydd. This is a legitimate hardship case.

[hopeforyou.livejournal.com]

I'm not entirely sure what to think on this one.

Yes, seven children seems to be a lot of kids to have in general -- let alone when both parents are enlisted in the military. OTOH, if this situation came up and there were *only* 2 children involved -- the ones the ex-wife is trying to take custody of -- would that really make the situation that different?

Two kids -- or seven -- the grandma taking care of them no longer can, and the ex-wife wants the kids. Quantity doesn't change that there were alternative arrangements made and they fell through.

Is it a poor life choice to have so many children when both parents are in the military? I think that either way, having parents in the military can be incredibly hard on children. Army brats never have it easy -- I know because my cousins were and they were constantly being asked to pick up and move and lose friends; lose roots. Sometimes I wondered if anyone in the military should have children at all given some of the stories I've heard.

That said, the woman in question has served for 7 years. That's over half of her 12 year-old's lifetime. I wonder what sort of impact that alone has had on her kids... If she's served honourably and the kids are in good shape, does that change anyone's opinions on the board?

Really, the question for me comes down to what benefits the children. They are the ones who are going to end up getting screwed in the end either way, it sounds. "Lose your mother and go to foster care because she went AWOL, or go to the ex-wife." The family sounds like it could get torn up, with 2 children going to the ex-wife and the other 5 to foster care due to the mum's AWOL.

In all this, what the hell happens with the father? Doesn't he have any rights to his children's custody even if his wife goes AWOL?

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

The father is currently on active duty in Iraq. At this point, he might be able to get a legitimate case through for a hardship transfer. But until then, he is subject to orders.

Which is the important point. To a soldier, a legal order has the force of law behind it. If you have an order stating "Be at point X, at time Y, in uniform Z" failing to follow that order on every detail can get you jail time at worst, and cost you rank, pay, and leave you restricted to barracks for a few weeks (during which time you will mop a lot of floors.) Doing this in a time of armed conflict, and doing this by avoiding a flight that was supposed to take you back to the area of operations, is technically desertion.

I gotta agree

[redroach.livejournal.com]

If you sign on the dotted line, then you had better expect the devil to collect, usually at the worst possible moment.

It is not the same, but it still burns my ass like the airforce pilots in the first gulf war who didn't want to go because "I signed up to get money for college, not to go to war"

The military is a serious business and those who don't take it seriously should find work at the nearest McDonalds.

[tsjafo.livejournal.com]

I'm the oldest of nine children. There were six of us when my father was in the service and we averaged a move a year. We coped and did so without much in the way of assistance from the Air Force.

Life happens. If things get difficult, you cope the best way you can. The service member is ultimately responsible for taking care of his/her dependents, because God knows the military can't be depended upon. For every story you have of a woman (notice they never seem to think men with the same problem are newsworthy?) who has issues taking care of her dependents, however temporarily, I'll match you with a story of how the military made promises of help, then broke them. Just look at thousands returning from Iraq sick or wounded and still waiting for care in World War II vintage barracks.

Just to get the ball rolling, while stationed in the Philippines my wife had to fly home because her mother died. I was told I'd have at least eight hours notice if I had to deploy, to arrange my children to be picked up and cared for. As soon as I returned from that briefing I recieved a phone call saying I'd be leaving in 30 minutes. I managed but without the help of the Air Force.

I've seen the family services folks promising the young soldiers spouses that everything will be all right, that there is no need to leave the military because of family issues, that services are available. Until they need to use them.

I've read that oath of enlistment many times, many with my right hand held up. You are right, nothing in that oath says "unless it inconveniences me and my family" but that oath also doesn't say "you give up all rights as a human being," something at odds with the government's decision that its ok to test investigational new drugs on service members without their knowledge or consent. Thats still a crime against humanity anyplace but America, appearently. I've not yet met a single person who "knew what they were signing up for." You don't know until you get there. They keep changing the rules as they go along.

As for the remaining GIs having to work longer, harder hours; haven't you heard Ronald Dumsfeld saying over and over that we have way too many service members? This coming year he's suggesting cutting an additional 13,000 airmen, people we don't need. With our commitments increasing, our manpower decreasing and personnel policies getting as bizarre as those from the Vietnam era, I'd say we are in for some interesting times.

All of that said, I see the problem with the military is what laughingly passes for leadership. A look at the long running Air Force Academy scandal (this is where we train our leaders) will show what passes for integrity in the Air Force. The focus needs to change from doing whatever it takes to get promoted, to doing what it takes to create and maintain a professional military.

Just my two-cents worth.