Army Mom Refuses Deployment

[STEADFAST]

IMO if even one case happened in which a child was adopted without the consent of a deployed parent, it would be all over the news. It would be huge!

Plus, as I posted before, this kind of court action is forbidden to take place if a person is deployed, and there must be PROOf that a person is not deployed before this kind of action can take place. You can't even evict a family from an apartment without proving that the lessee is not deployed military, let alone adopt children. Plus, a military member has an absolute right to reopen any case against him or her upon return from deployment, even if he or she had representation.

 

[6angels]

Your right I am lieing. Listen you don't have to believe me. I know what I know. you believing me makes no diffrence in the facts of the cases. Have a good day.

BTW things happen everyday in this world that should not happen that people think would not happen.

 

[6angels]

Ok as I said before I can't post the cases I know bc of legal issues but here all you have to do is search google to see parents that loses custody bc being in the service. These may not be adoption cases but they still lost custody and that's wrong.

http://www1.divorcenet.com/bbs/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=228549

here is a dad that didn't win custody but the mom that was on drugs did. yes two sides to every story however they can't all be wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18506417/page/2/

"
Iowa Guardsman Mike Grantham thought he was serving the best interests of his children when he arranged for his son and daughter to stay with his mother before reporting for duty in 2002. He had raised Brianna and Jeremy since his 2000 divorce, when ex-wife Tammara turned physical custody over to him.
After mobilizing, Grantham was served with a custody petition from Tammara. A trial judge temporarily placed the children with her. A year later, though Grantham had returned, the judge made Tammara the primary physical custodian.
An appeals court sided with Grantham, saying: “A soldier, who answered our Nation’s call to defend, lost physical care of his children ... offending our intrinsic sense of right and wrong.”
But the Iowa Supreme Court disagreed, saying Tammara was “presently the most effective parent.”
Now, Grantham says, his visitation rights mirror those that his ex-wife once had: every other weekend, Wednesdays, and certain holidays — Father’s Day, for example.
“Being deployed, you lose your armor,” he says."



another "
Army reservist Brad Carlson lived in Phoenix with his wife, Bianca, and three kids before deploying to Kuwait in 2003.
A year later, his wife indicated she wanted to end the marriage and remain in Luxembourg, where she had moved the family and where her parents lived.
Carlson filed for divorce in Arizona, and later invoked the Servicemembers Act, but in vain. A Luxembourg court awarded custody to Bianca.
“I feel really betrayed,” Carlson says"


another

"
She had raised her daughter for six years following the divorce, shuttling to soccer practice and cheerleading, making sure schoolwork was done. Then Lt. Eva Crouch was mobilized with the Kentucky National Guard, and Sara went to stay with Dad.
A year and a half later, her assignment up, Crouch pulled into her driveway with one thing in mind — bringing home the little girl who shared her smile and blue eyes. She dialed her ex and said she’d be there the next day to pick Sara up, but his response sent her reeling.
“Not without a court order you won’t.”"


"
Within a month, a judge would decide that Sara should stay with her dad. It was, he said, in “the best interests of the child.”
What happened? Crouch was the legal residential caretaker; this was only supposed to be temporary. What had changed? She wasn’t a drug addict, or an alcoholic, or an abusive mother.
Her only misstep, it seems, was answering the call to serve her country."

"
A federal law called the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act is meant to protect them by staying civil court actions and administrative proceedings during military activation. They can’t be evicted. Creditors can’t seize their property. Civilian health benefits, if suspended during deployment, must be reinstated.
And yet service members’ children can be — and are being — taken from them after they are deployed."

Some family court judges say that determining what’s best for a child in a custody case is simply not comparable to deciding civil property disputes and the like; they have ruled that family law trumps the federal law protecting servicemembers.
Even some supporters of the federal law say it should be changed — that soldiers should be assured that they can regain custody of children.
Military mothers and fathers speak of birthdays missed, bonds weakened, endless hearings.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18506417//
"
“The act states: Everything will be put on hold until I’m able to get back. It doesn’t happen,” he says. “I found out the hard way.”"

 

[6angels]

http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=485264&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

Taking Military Parents' Child Custody Rights To Capitol Hill

For the third year in a row, I have included legislative language in the annual defense budget to strengthen child custody protections so mothers and fathers in uniform will not be forced to lose custody of their children due to their military service. And this week, Lt. Eva Slusher, a service member who lost custody of her daughter due to her military deployment, is visiting lawmakers on Capitol Hill to raise awareness about this dilemma affecting too many military parents.

For America's men and women in uniform, military service requires personal sacrifice, often including deployments for much of the year to distant lands or at sea. Many military parents don't expect to find themselves having to fight to keep custody of their children while also fighting for their country. Regrettably, in many state courts a military parent's commitment to protect the homeland is being used against them in child custody cases.

Due to different custody laws in each state, a military parent can find themselves disadvantaged as one parent seeks to alter custody agreements while the other parent is on military duty. This may result in a change in child custody rights due to the military parent's service obligation.

This issue first came to my attention after Kentucky National Guard member Lt. Eva Slusher, who was deployed to serve her country, subsequently lost custody of her daughter, Sara. After a two-year, $25,000 court battle, Lt. Slusher was ultimately successful in regaining custody of her daughter but at a great cost.

While military personnel have been previously granted protection in custody actions back home, the law does not go far enough to preserve their rights. Unfortunately, there have been cases where judges have ruled against service members because of their deployment or possibility of deployment. As Lt. Slusher put it, "Soldiers are protected under the Servicemember's Civil Relief Act, or so I thought; an employer has to give me my job back after I return from a deployment, but they don't have to give me my child back?"

 

[6angels]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2722584

"Tanya Towne says she lost everything in Iraq, starting with physical custody of her first child. Before Towne's 2004 deployment, a Montgomery County Family Court judge gave her son, Derrell Diffin, to her first husband because she was being sent to war. This month, Towne lost an appeal to get Derrell back.

The decision has devastated Towne, a specialist and radio repairer with the New York Army National Guard's Rainbow Division in Troy. It's also put her at the center of a legal battle that at least one lawyer who assists service personnel says will force future troops to choose between their families and service to the country.

"This decision marks a serious attack on our national security and the civil rights of military members," said Gregory Rinckey, who defended military personnel as a captain in the Army Judge Advocate General's Corps and now practices military and family law in Colonie. "Soldiers fighting in Iraq should not be burdened with worry that their children will be taken away because of their service."

Yet that's exactly what happened to Towne, who even the Appellate Division acknowledged in its ruling would likely have retained control of Derrell had it not been for her 18-month activation.

There's a growing national trend in which U.S. soldiers say they are losing custody of their children in family courts just because of their absences while on active military duty, according to the Poynter Institute

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

http://www.momlogic.com/2009/11/sol...soldier_mom_refuses_to_deploy_sphere_momlogic
I guess I missed this in the thread. the baby was actully taken away and put into foster care? Grandma has the child now and mom was arrested. I just think that is wrong.

Here's the text from that poster that claims to be in the unit.

"

First - the unit isn’t in Iraq. It’s in Afghanistan - please check the first sentence of this article. And the person who is complaining about Iraq - have you been there? Have you seen the good our Army is doing? Doubtful. But that’s okay. The point is learn to read - we’re in Afghanistan. Second - the public does not know all the facts. It’s easy to just take what the media tells you and make your own assumptions about what’s going on or her intentions or how the Army is being “so mean and heartless” but the truth is, the reason you’re not hearing a lot from the Army-side is because they can’t talk because the case is ongoing. If you stick with this story through the court martial you’ll see that she’s a liar. Third - I understand that when you have a child the child obviously comes first, however if you know in advance that you are going to deploy and that you will not be able to care the child properly, you need to do the mature things to not get pregnant without a way to support the child. It’s not like the Army surprised her with a deployment. Our unit (as in, I work with her) knew since she got to the unit in 2008 that we were going to deploy at the end of 2009. It wasn’t a surprise. She had time to find a family care plan (about two years). Fourth - what many people do not know is that when a woman is pregnant, the Army will give you the opportunity to get out of your contract without any reservations or hard feelings. They will pay for you to have the child and then help you find a job should you decide that, I don’t know, your family care plan isn’t going to work when you deploy (since you DO know that you’re going to be deploying). Fifth - The unit did everything right. They even tried to talk with her to get the solution solved BEFORE she went to the media the media broke out with the story, but she didn’t want a solution, she didn’t even want to meet with her leaders, all she wanted a lawyer. Now WHY wouldn’t she want a solution to the problem? So to say that the Army did her wrong is an injustice."
​

 

[4Kat]

3rd ID soldier, mom charged with missing movement

Article dated January 14, 2010
http://savannahnow.com/news/2010-01-14/3rd-id-soldier-mom-charged-missing-movement

A 3rd Infantry Division soldier who failed to deploy for a year to Afghanistan because she couldn't find someone to care for her infant son has been charged with four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, from Oakland, Calif., had charges - including missing movement, absence without leave, dereliction of duty and insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned officer - leveled against her Tuesday afternoon.

I wonder what the charge of insubordinate conduct toward a NCO is about?

 

[jjenny]

Yes, she chose to go into Army, but she was very young.
Do we really expect 18 years old to know what they want to do for the rest of their life?

 

[Jenni979]

I'm sorry but I am an Army wife with a DH that has been deployed several times... TG he has always come back to me (although he has come back wounded).

Now, I am pregnant and I have seen my DH for a total of 8 days this entire pregnancy, so I will admitt to being a little jaded on this subject... My question is why should she get some sort of special treatment and not have to deploy???

90% of the soldiers I know are parents and no-one has ever given one of us a "free pass." She knew what she was signing up for when she took her oath... She had the oppertunity to leave her military service when she became pregnant, but she chose to stay in... I'm sorry that her care plan didn't work out, but she needs to suck it up and figure something out.

...and where is the baby's father? Unless the court has proved that he is not a suitable person, shouldn't custody be granted to him while she is deployed?

What would this woman do if she were suddenly hospitalized? Who would take care of her little one then? I find it hard to believe that no-one would step up.

As for her being allowed to stay stateside and never have to deploy... No. The Army does not want soldiers who are not world-wide deployable. That is just a fact. I have known MANY soldiers who would have loved to stay in the Army but were discharged because something prevented them from being deployable. (ie, back issues that prevented the soldier from weaing his 80+ pounds of gear, full time. He could still do his MOS but you have to wear gear if deployed so they medically discharged him.)

The fact-of-the-matter is that this woman had the 9 months she was pregnant and the 10+ months after this child's birth to have a plan A, B, C, D, E & F lined up so that this would not be an issue.

I'm sorry if I am being a little hard on this subject, but it hits really close to home, and I find the idea of this woman getting special treatment sickening. Deployments suck for EVERYBODY, and if she doesn't want to have to fulfill her duties as a soldier she should be discharged, dishonorably.

 

[Jenni979]

Yes, she chose to go into Army, but she was very young.
Do we really expect 18 years old to know what they want to do for the rest of their life?

She had the option of leaving the military when she became pregnant. She chose to stay in.

 

[not_my_kids]

Yes, she chose to go into Army, but she was very young.
Do we really expect 18 years old to know what they want to do for the rest of their life?

I do. When she signed up for the military, she made a commitment to put that agency first. When she became pregnant, she should have made arrangements that would allow her to honor her prior commitment, if that meant giving guardianship or custody over, so be it. At 18, you are an adult, and when you make an adult choice as to where your loyalty and commitment will lie, you are expected to honor it as an adult. So, do I expect 18 year olds to know what they want to do with the rest of their lives? Not necessarily. Do I expect them to honor commitments made, even lifelong ones, whether it turns out to be what they want or not? Yes.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

http://www.armystudyguide.com/milit...y_information/active-duty-information-u.shtml

If anyone is interested, the link above is an easy to read brief of the rules.

 

[lonetraveler]

When I first read this thread, I could already hear what my mother would say. I'm a military brat (although my dad got out when I was young and I don't remember much of it). If you enlist, you are making a commitment. Whether during peace time or when our country is at war, you have a commitment to do your job and do what you signed up for. It's not like someone, especiallly now, doesn't know what they're getting into. When I was born, we were stationed overseas. We weren't at war, but my mom and I had to both have passports (I'm only a few days old in my picture) so if something happened and my dad was sent to war, my mom and I would both be sent home immediately. They had some friends who were parents and both in the military. Those parents purposely made friends with the non-military spouses so they would have someone to watch their kids if need be. Being overseas, no one had family there to help out, the other members of the military and their families WERE a family. If a person does not want to have to leave their child(ren), they should either not be in the military, or not have kids. There are too many preventitive measures these days for some to "accidently" get pregnant. Yes, it does happen, on occassion. However, as STEADFAST mentioned, this woman could have left the military when she realized she was pregnant. Also, knowing that you're going to be deployed, don't you think you would talk with the person who is supposed to watch your child when you leave? This woman should have known long ago that it would be too much for the grandmother to watch the child.
To me it's the same thing as any other job. If you don't complete your REQUIRED job duties, which you are already aware of, you'll be fired for being in noncompliance. Doesn't matter if your children are sick for 3 weeks, find an alternative care giver. You cannot just refuse to do your job without consequences. If she wanted a child, she shouldn't have enlisted.

I know it sounds like I'm being harsh, but these issues, along with others, are what I discussed with my parents before I graduated high school. I was contemplating going into the military. I chose not to for a number of reasons. Bottom line, this woman CHOSE to enlist and CHOSE to have a child and CHOSE to apparently not discuss the "plan" with her mother. Her CHOICES have led to this situation, there is nothing in this situation that was beyond her control.

I have known about this case since the beginning but did not come on this thread because I had such a strong opinion I did not want to get into a pi**ing contest. I feel the same as you do especially the parts I bolded. Just to add to your post, where is the father of the child?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Such is life. Always someone in the mix who bucks the system and then blames the system.

My experience was that people went out of their way to help each other if a problem came up. For instance someone's child was hospitalized, we would take turns sitting with the child so the mom could go home and rest/wash and return a little refreshed. We would find out about an enlisted guy's wife who did not speak English as her first language, lived out in a trailer park with their baby - no car, etc. Soldier/husband deployed - to be delt with later - but did we ever leave the wife/mom sit in her trailer to rot? No. We would take turns and bring her to Post to get her finances in order. The Commander might have to get involved at some level to square things. Then we would take her shopping, bring her milk, diapers, that we donated to her (in other words just paid for them ourselves). This was one example and I have dozens. I know it is not a story parallel to this thread exactly but I have seen it all and imo the Army relies heavily on the informal systems that are in place. Often they come through and help not only to identify those in need but to hook them up to the proper services, support, etc. It is draining when every time you turn around, there is someone who just doesn't know how to manage themselves and their own family, etc. You get worn out and wonder :waitasec: what were these people thinking. That said, I cannot tell you how many good deeds I witnessed during my many years as an Army spouse. People pulled together the best they could to help one another but the rules were the rules and the rules were not kept secret.

At times I would privately kick and scream and throw a fit upon some news that was going to affect me directly in a hardship sort of way. Within a day or two I had no other choice than to pick myself up by my bootstraps and carry on. I have faith but maybe there is some truth to the survival of the fittest theory. Our dutiful Soldiers don't have time for this kind of stuff.

It really pizzed me off when a reserve soldier complained to me that she may be under the gun to deploy after she had been collecting her pay for ten years. I thought what the heck do you think all that training you've been paid to do was for? Anyway, know what you're signing up for and that goes for spouses too (rude awakening people but there are pros and cons to everything).