Soldier’s custody battle sparks legislation
Joe McNeilly, of Michigan, believes he lost custody of his 10-year-old son, because of his service in Iraq. The child’s mother and her lawyer say McNeilly’s parenting skills lost him custody not his active duty. Michigan state Representative Rick Jones introduced legislation Wednesday to protect soldier’s custody rights, in response to this case. State Senator Patty Birkholz said she will introduce the bill to the Senate next week to move the legislation quickly. The case has also sparked similar legislation in Ohio and Wisconsin. Specifically the bill would bar courts from:
- Making a “best interest determination” based on the parent’s separation from his or her child due to military service.
- Using military service as proper cuase to alter a previous custody order or judgement.
- Allowing a permanent custodial environment to be established while a parent is on active duty.
You can read the proposed bill at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
*Update: Comments on this entry are now closed. The mudslinging of a divorce case was never the intent of this post about a bill intended to protect soldier’s rights in child custody cases.
Yea, this is a good start.
They need to also address when a parent
files for divorce, and runs off with the kids while the other parent is
deployed.
Quote From the article:
"Erb's lawyer, Theresa Sheets
of Lansing, has said Erb is concerned that McNeilly is not a fit father.
Sheets pointed to some postcards that McNeilly sent his son from Iraq
depicting soldiers in training. She said they frightened the
boy."
This type of nonsense is used every day in the family courts
to separate good parents(mostly fathers) from their
kids.
Thanks for your support....There is currently a smear campaign by the
mother as well as my soon to be ex-wife. The $38K wife as I call her. When
I returned from Iraq, she has a new boyfriend, spent $38K on her own bills
while mine went to collections, and told me I couldn't come home. I need
all the support I can get as these two female are trying to drag my name
through the mud.
Our website will be live in a few more days.
Please visit us to find out what's going on. http://www.joeysbill.com/
Oh yes..and about the postcard issue addressed above...
How many
parents let their kids play on WAR EQUIPMENT and post the pictures to
proove it?
Nice, Joe. Nice. Talk about encouraging
violence.
Is Mr. McNeilly perfect? No.
Am I? No.
Are you?
No.
Not a one of us is perfect in any way. What is
perfection? For those who wish to focus on Catholicism, perfection can be
defined in one three-letter word: God. None of us will ever attain that
level of perfection, and while some can come closer than others, each
person reaches his or her own level of perfection in his or her own way -
this is the way God ordained it.
Notwithstanding the Catholic
slams against Mr. McNeilly, is it not true that each parent has his or her
own parenting styles. Each child deserves to be raised with at least two
styles, preferably complementary in most ways, but a bit contradictoriness
is healthy for a child to grow up understanding that there are, perhaps,
more than two ways to skin a cat.
Mr. McNeilly lost custody due
his active duty absence. A quote from a report on the case from May proves
this - something about Ms. Erb providing day to day care and decision
making and a stable environment - something along those lines. Well, of
course she did, and so she should - she IS the boy's mother after all. I
do not see Mr. McNeilly making any attacks on her, though I do her attacks
on him as being hurtful to herself as well. Her accusations, at least the
reported instances her lawyer presents, do not prove that Mr. McNeilly is
a bad father, just a father whose style is different from hers.
She is getting child support now. I get the impression from the
news articles that she did not receive these payments prior to gaining
full custody. It was the active duty which allowed Ms. Erb to obtain
TEMPORARY full custody - not Mr. McNeilly's parenting skills. There is no
excuse for now using that against him. Why didn't she use it against him
before?
Again, none of these people are perfect, but her
accusations thus far do not help her case when one looks at the full
picture intelligently. It sounds like Mr. McNeilly could shape up a bit,
but couldn't we all?
Maria,
Thanks so much for your support. You have pointed out
some very important issues. I never claimed to be perfect. I make mistakes
every day. I also have bad judgement when it comes to the women I choose
to date -- that's my fault and extremely obvious. Everyone warned me about
being with my son's mother as everyone warned me about the $38K wife. I
should have listened.
The mother and the $38K wife have no moral
justification for their actions. Therefore, they are attacking me and
attempting to drag my name through the mud. These negative comments that
are posted are OBVIOUSLY from the mother or the $38K wife. Who else would
would make such accusations towards me? Who else would have something to
gain by making such comments? I will not respond to anything other than
what the real issue is here. These tactics and deception are repulsive to
me.
The very idea that i got married to avoid being deployed to
Iraq is ridiculous! I VOLUNTEERED to goto Iraq. That means I had a choice
to make. I knew these vindictive and shallow people would eventually try
to attack me. All I can say to you -- I feel
sorry for you. I'll be
praying for you.
Is it just me -- or does it seem like someone is
hiding behind their anonymous postings.
Joseph W. McNeilly,
Sr.
For all of those people interested, the photos in question can be
viewed at http://photos.yahoo.com/mcjoeman
THEN click on the Military Photos folder to view.
Notice there is a
hispanic kid in some of the pics. Please note that this is Joey's mother's
eldest son. She doesn't pay support for him nor does she have custody of
him. Interesting how the mother is upset about the military weapons --
yet, the mother was there at the Christmas party with us and allowed BOTH
of her son's to investigate the various weapons as well as playing inside
the UH-60 Blackhawks. Interesting huh?
Isn't it nice of them to
bash me and then turn around and thank me? It's quite obvious that when
people can't put their real names - it really shows how much they believe
in the words they speak. We'll continue to pray for their
conversion.
Great pictures - beautiful children.
Thank you for your
response. I am sure that I do not know all the information, so I am
choosing not to necessarily take sides. I am simply calling it as I see
it.
As an extension of my earlier post, I am sure you have made
more than your fair share of mistakes, hence various people feel they have
ground on which to attack you from.
Unless the accusations of poor
parenting can be validated however, the other attacks are neither here nor
there. The fact that you had 50/50 before and now you can't get it back
and it does not seem that she tried using your poor parenting skills
against you BEFORE she was able to obtain temporary custody, implies
enough evidence for me to believe that your skills can't be THAT bad.
However, I could be completely wrong as I do not really know you.
Are there any other women in your life you have ticked off? Or do
you have the support of at least one? LOL.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PARENT, a short list......
The
rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of
such character that it cannot be denied without violating those
fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all
our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental
right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe
v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247: U.S.D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
Even when
blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in
preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything,
persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more
critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state
intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct
1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
Parents have a fundamental
constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their
children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980).
The
liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining
custody of one’s children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a
parent’s custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v.
Maloney, 527 F Supp 538. D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent’s right to
custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this
amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting
public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without
reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect.
Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NF. 2d 858; 68Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed
98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
Parent’s interest in custody
of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable
constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or
her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such
loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper,
621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
The Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the
parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous
protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of
Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205: US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
Father
enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by
this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is
embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI
(1973).
The United States Supreme Court noted that a parent’s right
to “the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her
children” is an interest “far more precious” than any property right. May
v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
A
parent’s right to care and companionship of his or her children are so
fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and
C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
The Court stressed,
“the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably
warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest,
protection. “A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and
management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured
right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal
meaning and reasonability. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct
1208, (1972).
Parent’s rights have been recognized as being
“essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man.” Meyer v.
Nebraska, 262 or 426 US 390 ; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
The U.S. Supreme
Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced
from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not
constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father
living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549: 434 US 246,
255-56, (1978).
No bond is more precious and none should be more
zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child.
Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
A parent’s
right to the custody of his or her children is an element of “liberty”
guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United
States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div
(1983).
Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and
burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing
stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special
protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and
ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be
carefully tailored, the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis
of sex. Orrv. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 4340 US 268 (1979)
The United
States Supreme Court held that the “old notion” that “generally it is the
man’s primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials” can no
longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No
longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the
family and only male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton
v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
This is
what Joe is helping to protect, and then the mother is going to turn it
around and use it against him?
She should be ashamed of her
self.
Robert: Thank you for your list of cases in this matter - I have a
family member going through something similar of having his children taken
away from him though he is not in the army.
We pray every day, but
noone can truly know God's plan, and so we do all we can and wait
patiently. I would like to share these specific cases/laws/etc with his
social worker though.
I wonder what the latest news is on the case. I have not seen anything
in the news but have not been able to see the latest television items
either.
Any more news from Anti-Joe? I would be very interested in
continuing discussions with her/him/them.
Hi Maria,
You are welcome, here is some more information that
may be helpful.
Does joint custody help to reduce conflict between
parents or is it simply that more cooperative parents are more likely to
agree to joint custody arrangements in the first place? Many studies have
demonstrated that joint custody arrangements lead to much better
compliance in financial child support and greater parental involvement.
But opponents of joint custody have claimed that these benefits occur only
because the more cooperative parents were the ones that chose joint
custody. A new study by Judith Seltzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
provides strong evidence to refute this claim.
Seltzer used data
from the National Survey of Families and Households, a survey of over
13,000 families that collected data in two waves, 1987-1988 and 1992-1994.
Because the NSFH included data on the quality of family relationships, it
was possible to study the effects of joint legal custody while controlling
for pre-separation family relationships. Seltzer identified data on
families that had separated or divorced between the first and second
survey periods. The results clearly indicated positive effects for joint
legal custody: "Controlling for the quality of family relationships before
separation and socioeconomic status, fathers with joint legal custody see
their children more frequently, have more overnight visits, and pay more
child support than fathers in families in which the mothers have sole
legal custody."
Remarkably, Seltzer found that the level of
conflict before separation had no impact on the prospects of parents
obtaining joint legal custody at divorce. She says, "My findings show that
neither conflict nor marital happiness before separation affect the
likelihood that parents will acquire joint legal custody at
divorce."
The fact that children benefited from joint legal custody
even after taking account of the quality of family relationships and
economic resources before separation provides further evidence that these
positive effects are not simply the result of more cooperative parents
choosing joint custody. Seltzer proposes a "role oriented" explanation for
the benefits of joint legal custody. She says that "By clarifying that
divorced fathers are 'by law' still fathers, parents' negotiations about
fathers' participation in child rearing after divorce may shift from
trying to resolve whether fathers will be involved in child rearing to the
matter of how fathers will be involved." [emphasis in
original]
Seltzer concludes that children's advocates appear to be
right: "At least on the dimensions of increased contact between
nonresident fathers and children, joint legal custody may, as advocates
claim, make the lives of children after divorce more similar to their
lives before divorce or to the lives of their peers in two-parent
households." Seltzer's report is entitled "Father by Law: Effects of Joint
Legal Custody on Nonresident Fathers' Involvement with
Children."
The report can be obtained through the internet at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/nsfhwp/home.htm
or from the Center for Demography and Ecology, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison,
4412 Social Science Bldg., 1180 Observatory Drive, Madison WI,
53706-1393.
What is really sad here is not the so-called "38-k" wife.. or the ex-girlfriend. The saddest part of this whole situation is the fact that Mr. McNeilly signed up for the Nat'l Guard and VOLUNTEERED to leave his son here with his mother (whom he obviously trusted). Joey needed him and where was he? Mr. McNeilly should have volunteered to leave the country long before he had children. When you choose to have a child, the child comes first.. unless of course you were enlisted prior to having children. Joey did not come first. Joey came after Iraq and after his wife. Furthermore, what is being mentioned of Mr. McNeilly's child that he "fathered" before going to Iraq? Not only did he have Joey to take care of, but another one on the way and this is not being mentioned. Mr. McNeilly was not punished for serving our country, his parental rights got taken because he did not put his child first. Who would VOLUNTEER to leave their children and then complain that they lost their children. Joey needs counseling and a stable environment. I pray for Mr. McNeilly and especially for Joey. His son needs a father, not someone who would leave him to be called a "war hero". There are plenty of people who volunteered for this sad position prior to being fathers.
Lynette,
You must be kidding........
Joining the National
Guard, means you don't love your child?
Mr McNeilly is teaching his son
to stand up for something he believes in, too give to his community, and
his country. He is risking his life, for you and me, and you have the gall
to suggest that this is the reason he should lose his parental rights?
I'll tell you, it must be nice to stay at home collect child
support and alimony and watch Opera all day, and than claim that you care
about the children more than the father who is out working his butt off,
and or risking his life, to pay for it all.
You and your ilk, are a
bunch of spoiled, selfish, ungrateful twats, go crawl back under the rock
that you live under.
What a joke to have Mr. McNeilly as the posterchild for such a serious issue. While the military may need their rights protected, so dont the children of this country, and while this is a serious issue regarding child custody and soldier's rights, Mr. McNeilly is NOT the proper posterboy for this campaign. How many threats on peoples lives and intenional acts of cruelty does Mr. McNeilly have to do to people to get that through the legislation's head. And what about his son, Joshua, Im sure he is NOT fighting for him, as he doesnt even acknowledge him. As for the women against Mr. McNeilly, what goes around DOES come around and hopefully GOD will forgive you.
Oops..Obviously need to clarifiy that last sentence. As for the women Mr. McNeilly claims are against him, it sure does appear that they are more than willing to be done with you, but that you have kept that string - just in case. What goes around comes around and the forgiving GOD comments are for Joe and his actions.
Robert,
Thanks for the kind words. I have not nor will I
respond to anything that is not associated with my custody issue. There
are 3 women, the "mother", the 38K wife, and an angry former-wanna
be-girlfriend that I chose not to date. They have nothing positive to say
or do. They are obviously vengeful, spiteful, and full of
hate.
While several of them continue to post messages on here
anonymously -- they hid behind the anonimity of it becuase they obviously
don't believe the rherotic they spew.
THE MOM
- walked out on
Joey the week of his 2nd birthday
- doesn't have custody of her older
son
- expects be to pay her child support when she herself doesn't pay
support for her other son
THE 38K Wife - aka Angie Babbitt
-
lived a life of drugs and alcohol
- continued to put herself around
people that choose to engage in that behavior
- married a man that was
using her and sexually molested her children for years (how can this
happen right under her nose for years? How could she NOT have know about
it?)
- continues to do an occasional line of cocaine.
- continue to
be the local bar wench 3-4 nights a week
- spent $22-55 at a sitting
for her lunch while I was in Iraq (just an example of her alcoholism)
-
has continued to bring home every tom, dick, and harry from the bar and
engages in sexual exploits while her kids are home
- she spends $38K of
my money AND ends up buying a brand new car -- how is that fair?
- lets
her 14 year old daughter's boyfriends literally LIVE at her house and
engage in sexual activities
- claims she's a Christian but won't
practice anything at all.
- when something doesn't go her way -- she's
quick to bring the name of God into it (as she stated in the prior
comment)
THE REJECTED EX-WANNA-BE-GIRLFRIEND
- she was upset
when I chose not to date her
- she told me how dysfunctional I was all
the time but then she wanted to date me?
- obviously she is still
embarassed and upset and tries to use her former position in the radio DJ
field to influence others
All three of these women are hateful
and spiteful. Do they NOT have anything better to do than attack a soldier
that served his Country Proudly and wants to continue to be a positive
role model and influence in his son's life? I know everyone reading this
feels as I do. What's the point of addressing these vengeful people? Now
that you have a little bit more info on these females -- their
hot-headeded comments all make sense. The issue is: I went to Iraq to
serve OUR country. Upon returning, they say I can have my job back, but
refuse to allow me to continue being a parent. That's what the issue is
and none of these females can detract from it.
These females will
not take away from the fact that remains stated above. They are twisting
for their own personal gain. One wants the child support and control of
Joey. The other woman is just mad becuase she's being sued for
$38,000.
Joseph W. McNeilly, Sr.
http://www.joeysbill.com/
Anti-Joe #2 and Lynette:
I wonder if the mother of this "hidden"
child is aware information about her son is being posted on the internet.
I wonder if she would appreciate this. As a mother myself, I know I prefer
to restrict the publicity of my children's names. Perhaps there is more to
the McNeilly custody story than meets the eye, but is it moral and right
to bring another child into this case when the circumstances concerning
the second child might have little or nothing to do with the case at hand?
Perhaps the mother would appreciate being asked permission before
posting any further information about her son for the world to see.
Perhaps she has her reasons for protecting her child.
Perhaps the mother wishes to protect her child from the type of people who would use said child's name and information on the internet to hurt someone else. We have enough identity theft and child safety issues occuring in this internet-connected world, let's at least protect our children for the longest time we can.
sarah,
This "hidden" childs first name was mentioned it isn't like
his full name or where he lives was mentioned nobody even knows who his
mother is or where they live. There shoudn't be any problem
here.
Maria
Maria (#2 since I personally know the other one who has posted here),
it is still a matter of the mother perhaps not wanting her son involved in
a case which has nothing to do with him. The facts of the situation
involving him and anything related to Joe are irrelevant to the case
concerning Joey. There are mitigating circumstances of which NOONE is
aware except those directly involved.
In the future, please
refrain from using such low-class and unintelligent methods of undermining
a case such as this one. The fact is, that by others proving the
invalidity and callousness of your claims, you are only forcing any valid
claims you make to be seen as equally invalid.
Well, this case seems to have developed into quite a scandal. Too bad
we couldn't all get into a room together and work through all these little
issues.
I do agree that children's names outside of the case at
hand have no place in this discussion (sorry Anti-Joe/maria/Lynette - I'd
love to side with you on something - really I would). I get the impression
that this child has nothing to do with the custody case of Joey, and until
this can be proven, I agree that prudence is wise in using another woman's
child's name whether partial or full.
ROBERT: You put it
better than I ever could. Your posting was straight to the point: going to
Iraq is no excuse for coming home to the loss of the life you had before
you went to Iraq, when all other soldiers expect to return to their
wives/husbands and children, assuming they do not die (which they also
fully expect to do).
Which leads into my main point for this
posting:
Why is it such a terrible thing for any soldier whether
married or unmarried, with or without children, if he survives his tour,
to come home to what he left behind.
In this case, to sum up what
I've read here and in news sources, Mr. McNeilly left for Iraq holding
50/50 custody of his son. While home on R&R he was taken into court to
sign a TEMPORARY custody agreement. Now that the birthmother has full
custody, she also gets child support, something that never occured before
the change.
Now she can use her full physical possession of her
son to maintain child support payments and accuse Mr. McNeilly of being a
bad father.
Perhaps he is a bad father. I don't know. I do
question why this was not used against him BEFORE he went to Iraq. Those
postcards mentioned several times were sent while in training I believe I
read somewhere. He was a bad father then... why did she not do anything
about it?
I am not saying she does not have a case. I do not know
the rest of the details. I just question the timing of events. It simply
does not make sense.
Please enlighten me.
Hey, I have an idea Anti Joe.
Lets round up your ex. boyfriends,
and or husbands and ask them what they think of you. We can put it in the
newspaper, and out on the internet for everyone to debate. And just to
make it interesting, we can use what they say about you to determine if
you are a good mother, or would make a good mother.
Looks like Joe is using this sight and his "sons" sight to minipulate the truth himself. Anyone who knows him will see the real truth. Maybe he forgot to mention all of his faults??? He sure didn't have any problem mentioning everyone elses faults(true or exaggerated), maybe someone should post all of his. But then they might get back to his kids. He is not perfect. Joe--set a good example for you kids and grow up.
I am going through something similar where my ex-wife was given
temporary custody while I went on a mission trip for several months. We
thought this would be the best option just in case. Now that I am back, I
am told that because I was not around, I cannot have joint custody of my
three younger children because their mother established a custodial
environment in my absence. I called at least three times a week, wrote
letters every day, sent pictures whenever I could, left more than plenty
of money for them to be well taken care of. I took our teenage son with
me, who the courts now also want to give to his mother full-time. How does
this make any sense? The child who SHE did not have at all because he was
gone with ME, I am not even supposed to have anymore because I was absent
from the other children's lives???
When we signed our temporary
custody order, it contained the dates of my absence as well as a later
date just in case I didn't make it back at the expected time. Indeed, my
son and I were delayed just under 6 weeks, but we still returned before
the second date listed. That date has now come and gone, I have been
ordered to pay a lot more child support than I can afford right now while
getting set back up at work (ostensibly to make up for not paying it while
I was gone, though I left more than enough money to provide for all of
their needs), I can only see my other children every other weekend and one
afternoon/evening a week, and my ex-wife is accusing me of exposing the
child to inappropriate learning for their ages, the same inappropriate
learning SHE wanted our oldest children to learn about when they were the
ages of our youngest children (topics like poverty in all of its forms,
realities of abortion, etc).
My oldest son, as a teenager, is
supposed to have more free say about where he goes, but the courts are not
listening to him at all. Instead, he has taken it upon himself, with no
instigation from me but plenty of guilt-tripping and resistance from his
mother, to move himself between our homes every other week, per our
original custody agreement. On the weeks he is with me, he still visits at
his mother's house to spend time with his younger siblings and he drives
them to their friends' houses and various activities when his mother and I
are busier. He's a good kid and just wants things to be the way that his
parents originally worked them out ON THEIR OWN, without the courts'
interference.
Of course, I think HER new fiance is behind most of
this.
Domestic violence, child abuse, military service, these are all TOOLS
used in the family courts to gain custody of the children.
The
courts act as the parent, and treat the parents as 3 year old children.
The child that points the finger at the other first is believed, and is
given the spoils, and the other is put in time out.
Of course the
sweet little girl who is playing house with dolls is given the benefit of
doubt over the boy who is playing in the mud with guns, and sling
shots.
Joe,
From what I have heard about you i think you a good father.
Forget about the Anti-Joe B/S they dont know you and they are just going
by what they here! Why make false aquisations about someone when you dont
know who they are??? it is stupid it really is. So you just be the Soldier
you are and continue serving our country. It is a bunch of crock for you
to lose your son do to you serving in Iraq. and for all I care ms. babbitt
seems to be a two timing back stabber.
I mean are soldiers getting penalized for serving there country???? Because it sure does look seem it is. And I do not have any respect for someone to make aquisations about someone they do not know. I mean you would not like it if the aquisations were made about you robert? would you??? or maria, or Sarah??? i dont think you would!!! so do not make comments or assume anything unless you actually know who they are personally. anyone who makes false aquisations about someone should be hung by the feet upside down to dry.