parents leave their 2 yr old behind to serve in army - what do you think?

[MissyKLo]

I read this and was very sad for this little boy and think it is something that will have an impact on him for the rest of his life - it must have been a very very difficult decision but I can't help feel it was the wrong one (for them to go and leave him).

It's not that I judge them, I feel bad for them - I am not sure how I really feel about the whole story... just that it is a sad one

What do you think?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364369/Ohio-parents-serving-Afghanistan-Skype-toddler-goodnight-night.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

There is so much judging going on in this thread, and it's On the basis of a Daily Mail article

Since when did MNetters place so much reliance on the DM reporting the full circumstances accurately? Or is it only when it plays to prejudice? Normally something condemned on here, but this seems to be a nasty exception.

Soldiers have the same human rights as everyone else, which included founding a family. We do not know anything about their parenting, other than what DM tells us that fits their article. We do not know the full role of the GPs. We do not know the parents long term plans.

We do not know how important a factor separation is in separation disorder - there is no epidemiological info posted just an insistently posted personal view. The only link posted shows that present, but ineffective, parents are a greater risk factor. No one has shown an evidence based approach on incidence or on relevance of quality of substitute care giving.

Neither these, nor any other parents, have a crystal ball about what decisions may be necessary in their family life in future.

nooka thanks for reminding us there is a story to this beyond the prejudices of the Daily Mail - which is now shown to contain factual inaccuracies, as well.

FGS, the child is with his grandparents. They will now get to spend months together as a family rather than have one parent away for most of the time.

PS: my apologies for my part in promulgating inaccuracies. Neither parent is a member of the Army (nor a bone headed grunt).

The mother is a Petty Officer in the US Navy (health logistics specialist) and the father a Staff Sergeant in the US Marine Corps (radio chief and spectrum manager for logistics chain).

TWDA "I'm not talking about sodding OFFICERS. I am talking about the cannon fodder. Being in the services you'll know about all the jack asses in the lower ranks."
If you go out on a Friday/Saturday night you'll see people getting rat-arsed regardless of their job. To insinuate that anyone in the Forces who isn't an officer is a stupid jackass is offensive and ignorant. There are plenty of normal, intelligent blokes in the lower ranks in the Forces.

Their family, their choice.

So many judgy pants out on this on, under the shield of caring "I just coudn't do it myself".

The son is being cared for by loving grandparents and can "see"/talk to his parents each day.

Seems like a stable loving family to me and isn't that what we would wish for all children.

Soldiers have the same human rights as everyone else, which included founding a family.

2 year olds have the right to be raised by a mother and father who aren't so selfish as to put their marriage ahead of them. Also I think its a bit shit the way some people feel a child would be better off with their parents staying together than looking after them. The relationship can't be that secure at all if they can't handle the seperation that inevitably comes with the jobs they chose.

Children don't need their parents to be married or to stay together they do need their parents to be there for them though.

Also we have something called family planning, if you want children you have them when you can look after them. Not in the middle of a war if you are both soldiers. No one has to stay in the army for life you can leave at the end of your contract and then have as many kids as you like.

I think that the parents position is better described in the US accounts than in the Daily Mail.

Are there any other groups the nay-sayers think shouldn't have children because their circumstances might be difficult some years into the future?

The whole attachment issues surely would also be a problem, if the parents took turns to be deployed for a year. But then the kid would have to deal with divorced parents plus the attachment issue, that can hardly be better.

Since the child seems to be with loving carers and hasn't been put into a kennel or tied to a tree, I think, yes it's probably a difficult situation for everyone involved, but they seem to have come up with a good solution.

Just because I wouldn't choose to do it myself (as in I couldn;t imagine joining the army), it doesn't mean that it's not a valid choice for other people.

Also I find the notion that a serving mother is worse than a serving father rather backwards and misogynist.

because their circumstances might be difficult some years

SLightly different than having children knowing you won't be there. Don't you think?

Also who said they shouldn't have children? Just that people need to consider their future childrens lives before excercising their right to breed. They can have kids after one or both leaves the army. It is fucked up voluntarily leaving a child parentless. And that is what they did. They chose their career, then chose to have a child, then chose their marriage over their child.

If the article was about how families cope with barely seeing eachother because one person has to always be on tour while the other stays home I suspect there would be loads of smypathy on the thread.

There is nothing to show they did know their forward posting arrangements 2+ years in advance.

US reports show how unusual these circumstances are, even with over 350,000 troops in theatre.

Wouldn't it be nice to know in the military even 6 months in advance of a posting where one would be going next?

I think these parents have done the best they could in the circumstances. It's hard enough waving your dh off and dealing with everything, knowing they'll be back whenever, rather than knowing when they're back, you'll have to go. They are ensuring their marriage survives (and long term separation puts a strain on a marriage) and that they will be able to provide a stable home for their child when they're back.

As to Colditz, well, neither my brother or I have autism, neither does my dh or his brother. Neither my nephews nor my son have autism either. None of us have attachment disorder.

'2 year olds have the right to be raised by a mother and father who aren't so selfish as to put their marriage ahead of them. Also I think its a bit shit the way some people feel a child would be better off with their parents staying together than looking after them. The relationship can't be that secure at all if they can't handle the seperation that inevitably comes with the jobs they chose.'

I have a real issue with this comment. Whilst I adore my ds, I was with my husband before ds, and I will be after ds has left home. I put ds's stability before being with my dh over about 6 years - it was bloody difficult, and we knew what we were letting ourselves in for and had thought it through. Our marriage was and remains extremely stable, but it was very, very hard. Those that think divorced parents would be better for this child than parents together and staying with Granny for 7 months, need their heads examining as they are several sandwiches short of a picnic. Since when has divorce been good for kids?

Good grief. They left him with his grandparents for 7 months

Surely at his age it would be less disruptive for him to be with his grandparents for 7 months and then with both parents for however long, than with his dad for 7 months (spending a fair amount of time in daycare) and then his mum for up to a year?

I know a mum who had to serve for 6 months and missed her dd's 2nd birthday. I couldn't do it, but I understood her reasons - if she did it, once she returned she would have 18 months living at home before "retiring" from the Navy on a very good pension, so in the long run she'll spend lots of time with dd as by the age of 4 she will not be working and will take dd to school and collect etc, and be there every day in the hols.

Must have been hard to do though - I struggle when dd stays with the grandparents for a couple of nights!

'very brave people who risk their lives for us all'
REALLY?? How is kicking the hell out of one of the poorest countries in the world to maintain US's cheap oil supply,'for me'

what princess said.

Please could you explain how Afghanistan is relevant to oil questions?

Would you have preferred Al Qaeda's training camps to have continued to run unfettered there? And do you want to see the Taliban in charge?

OK - each to their own, I suppose.

Weighing in on the idea that all soldiers are uneducated grunts...

...not in my husband's cap badge. There are several soldiers in his employ that have degrees and postgraduate qualifications. My husband was educated to Masters level before he signed up.

Also, to the person who said that we should wait until the end of a "contract" before having shildren - utter nonsense! My husband is serving on a Reg C and has completed 13 years service with another 18 years left to run. Should we have waited until he was 55 until we had kids?

He currently works in London while I stay in our own home in Scotland. We see him (on average) for six days every month - two long weekends - plus six weeks leave spread throughout the year. Since we married he's been away more than we've been together and he's due to head out to pastures dusty at the end of the year for nine months.

Does all that make him a bad father? Hardly. It's simply our life and we have three adorable, happy, well-balanced children.

Come on jcscot - you know that those of us who are Forces families by MN definitions are uneducated (despite all the postgrad and professional qualifications), unstable and have mental health issues.

Don't feed the trolls....

TWDA - people like you are scummier than pond life.

I find it amusing that everyone assumes they actively chose to have a child. Accidental pregnancies happen y'know.

I think one of them going at a time is fine but both is selfish.
'Chat and Jeff Rice could have arranged matters so that one parent was deployed while the other stayed home with their young son.'
I think the child should come first at that age. Poor little boy.

Rats, scary, I forgot about that - consequence of being a dim Army wife, don't you know!

I think it's none of my business.

Well, we can't all be Navy wives jcscot!!!