by Tom Rhodes, 4/1/13
There is a Facebook image going around of a young woman, decrying the fact that now that she is back from military duty overseas and the courts have not returned her kid to her. You see her child is now in the legal custody of the father, who was granted custody because her mother could not take care of the child while stationed at the far corners of the earth. She is making an emotional appeal on Facebook decrying how unfair it is that she hasn’t been given her child back. This is not evidence of any wrong doing by either the government or the child’s father, just evidence that women want special privileges and rights based on their emotions, and to never suffer consequences of their life choices.
This is evidence that women don’t want equality under the law but instead want preferential treatment. There is no evidence that the father is not providing a good home for his child. The only rationale is to forget a stable environment for the child and grant the woman her way, regardless of the choices she made, regardless of the father’s rights, and regardless of what’s in the best interest of the child. The military is completely volunteer, she wasn’t drafted, thus her status in the military is completely her choice. She claims she joined to make a better life for her son but obviously she didn’t think that decision through; how can making a career choice as a single parent that in all probability will result in long term separation from your child, rationally be considered to make things better for that child. Being in the military and sent overseas will put a big crimp in one’s ability to be a single parent. You cannot join the military, either active or reserves or national guard, and not know that you will in all likelihood be deployed overseas at some point. Thus she knew her ability to be a good single parent is questionable with the other legal commitments she chose to make. Her choice clearly show that she has put herself as a priority over her child or didn’t understand the ramifications of her choice in either case the courts determined the best interest of the boy was to be with his dad. How does the fact that she’s no longer in the military negate that decision by the courts?
The question is: Why should her desire to be her son’s custodial parent take precedence over the court’s decision and fathers ability and willingness to be his son’s custodial parent? Unlike other careers, a military career has the instability of being stationed in unsafe environments to raise children. Women who have children and choose to join the military are clearly making choices that put their career ahead of being a parent. What basis do the courts have for taking a child away from a father who currently provides a stable home for his son and returning him to a mother whose previous choices have proven to create an unstable living conditions?
Why should this woman not have to suffer the consequences of her choices? Women demand equality under the law, equality in the work place, yet when they are treated the way a man would be treated in a similar circumstance they decry the fact. How is it fair to the father and son, to have their stable home torn apart, because the woman is back from overseas? This woman no longer has custodial rights and care of her child because of her choices, this father and son should not be forced to uproot and put their lives in turmoil because of this woman’s changing, poorly reasoned, career choices. There is no evidence that her emotional desire to be mommy, will provide any better life for her son than being with his father. Without any evidence other than her desperate emotional attempt to generate support, this is appears to be a case where the courts rightly dismissed the female emotional response, and rationally concluded that the boy is better off with his dad.