Child Abuse in Deployed Families (Part 2)

You're welcome. I had been mulling this for a while. I was really getting ticked with the titles of the news reports that were coming out. Very deceptive headings. Made it sound like it was categorically true of all military families when the truth was that only 1,771 families were looked at world-wide and those families already had prior incidences with abuse. And these families studied did not include officer's families or single parent families.

What those news reports don't show is that prior to deployments starting in 2003, instances of child maltreatment in the military community were considerably less than those among their civilian counterparts per 1,000 children. This last report indicates that while incidents of maltreatment among active duty army families have increased, they're only marginally higher than those reported in the civilian sector.

Very few studies exist making a comparison of child abuse between military families and civilian families. Those that do exist are really not representative of the complete military community. For example, guard and reserve families are often not included because there's not a base anywhere near where they live. Underreporting could be happening in cases involving military families due to reports going to Child Proctive Services (CPS) instead of to the Family Advcacy Programs (FAP).

Additionally, there is no uniform definition of what maltreatment or abuse is. Each branch of service has it's own definition and it's own reporting system as do all 50 states. Some report by incident instead of by the case. Others report by the family instead of by the child. Until an across the board system and definition are put into practice, results from these kinds of studies are going to have some sort of bias to them.

What is consistent, though, is the lower the rank, the younger the parents, and the younger the child, the greater the potential for maltreatment. Also of importance is whether or not the family has experience with prior deployments in how to cope with the stressors involved.

It's also important to point out that this most recent study was a secondary analysis of data collected from September 2001 to December 2004. Since that time, MANY improvements have been made to FAPs for all branches. So, this study is really looking at specific time period of post 9/11 predeployment and comparing that to a first time deployment time frame of about 20 months.

I really don't think JAMA or RTI are the bad guys here. They published an objective report covering a specific time period. For the media to frenzy on it like they have is irresponsible. The report from FOX News just set me off. I knew it wascoming because FOX likes to report some pretty left-side stuff, but getting Stacy Bannerman to comment for the article was inappropriate. First, she belongs to an anti-war group composed of military families. Second, she has no children. Third, her marriage dissolved after her husband returned from Iraq. Who better to ask about the effects of deployments on child abuse?

Now, I'm not painting a bulls eye on Miss Bannerman. Don't go sending her nasty hate mail. I don't agree with everything she has to say, but she makes some valid points. She was a deployed spouse as so many of us have been. That kind of service is not measurable and I embrace her for enduring and suffering the months of lonliness. Miss Bannerman is right that more needs to be done in terms of VA treatment for veterans. She's especially right that more needs to be done in terms of outreach programs for national guardsmen/women and reservists who don't have ready access to base facilities and programs. I applaud her for her trips to DC to try to correct these issues that have seemingly slipped through the cracks.

I don't agree with her views about if we should even be in Iraq, but she's entitled to her opinion on that matter and I respect that. I don't agree that not funding the war is the best way to "Support Our Troops". I think she swings from both sides of the plate with that conviction while at the same time demanding better training and equipment for the guard and reserve. IBA doesn't grow on trees. Neither does night vision goggles, MREs, fuel, amunition, transportation, MRAPs, or anything else.

Miss Bannerman also contends that deployments cause more divorces. A study by Rand Corp. contests her claim by stating that wartime and peacetime divorces are pretty much equal. You'll notice a .5% gain in percentages of divorces, but that is explainable by looking at the numbers or couples getting married in the military vs. the numbers getting divorced in a given year. For example, if there are 1,000 married couples in 2001, 100 couples get married, totaling 1,100 and 75 get divorced, the divorce ratio is approx. 6.8%. This leaves 1,025 carried over to the next year. If only 50 couples marry in 2002, totaling 1,075 married couples, but the number of divorces stays constant at 75, now the divorce rate is very close to 7%.

I have searched and searched and I can not find any article, prior to the release of RTI's data review, where Miss Bannerman adressess child abuse in military families. From what I have seen of her book reviews, it also does not address child abuse. There's no doubt that Miss Bannerman is an educated woman with some alphabet soup behind her name. Her opinion is as educated as the next person; but, what is it that makes her qualified to speak on the topic of child abuse? I have no idea.

My point here is this. FOX News used Miss Bannerman, in or out of context (it doesn't matter), to support it's political stance on this war and to be able to have another bullet for it's political weapon. "Deployments cause child abuse! Bring the troops home!" Bologna. Parents/caregivers cause child abuse. Military or civilian.

Along those same lines, "Deployments cause undue stresses, lower academic performance, and higher rates of depression in children! Bring the troops home!" This one is true, but the same can be said for divorce, the death of a loved one, a hurricane, or any other traumatic life change.

I really want to encourage people to look closely at issues that popular media presents in articles and stories. Ask yourself the critical questions. Research it if you like. Just never ever take the word of the media at face value.

Got Screwed on Tuition or Credits due to Deployment? Hopefully, Not Anymore

If this passes, it will be so awesome. Certainly, military personnel should not be punished for serving their country when called. Kuddos to Sgt. Campbell for his efforts.

Vet Rewrites The Law To Help Others

Paul Rieckhoff | June 28, 2007

When Sgt. Patrick Campbell returned to law school after serving a tour in Iraq, his student lender told him that he was defaulting on his payments. Due to his deployment to Iraq, he had used up all of his permissible grace period. Unlike his non-veteran classmates, the lender was going to require Patrick to start repaying his loans the day after graduation. Finally, after writing dozens of letters and spending hours on the phone, he was told that the only way to restore his pre-deployment status would be to rewrite the laws. So he did just that. Patrick spent his final year in law school writing the Veterans Education Tuition Support Act (VETS) to help returning student-soldiers.

Today that bill was introduced by Senator Sherrod Brown (OH) and Representative Susan Davis (CA). This new legislation will fix the loopholes that were punishing young Iraq vets like Patrick. The Veterans Education Tuition Support Act, or VETS Act, will:

Require colleges to refund tuition for service members who deploy (or provide future credits)

Restore veterans to their academic status when they return

Cap student loan interest payments at 6% while the student is deployed

Extend the period of time a student-soldier has to re-enroll after returning from abroad

Patrick's story is reality for the thousands of other National Guardsmen and Reservists who are also college students. For these troops, deployment poses extra financial burdens - including thousands of dollars in lost tuition and overdue student loans.

Sgt. Todd Bowers, IAVA's Director of Government Affairs, experienced this first hand. When he was activated on his second deployment to Iraq, Todd was forced to withdraw from his university only two weeks before finals. After he returned from Iraq, the school would not allow him to take his finals or finish his classes, and they refused to refund his tuition. Only after local media picked up on his story did the university permit Todd to finish his finals and complete his classes.

We at IAVA are incredibly proud of Patrick for pushing to make this bill a reality. He has shown how one motivated young veteran can make a difference. The VETS bill will help reassure men and women in uniform that serving their country opens doors to higher education, instead of closing them. Join us now in making sure it gets passed. You can learn more now at www.iava.org. Tell your members of congress that college students shouldn't be punished for deciding to serve their country.

NLU Reduces Tuition for Service Members

Ok. Here's the skinny on this one. NLU cut it's tuition costs for Active Duty, Reserve, Guard, Spouses, and dependents. The catch is, you can't take classes on campus. Only online, on-base, or off site. And for Active Duty folks only, this tuition is covered by Tuition Assistance.


NLU Reduces Tuition for Servicemembers

Military.com | National-Louis University | July 09, 2007

Tuition Cut By 43%


NLU Reduces Price For Active Military Personnel, Veterans, Military Spouses and Dependents, National Guard and Department of Defense Employees.


Beginning Fall Semester 2007, National-Louis University (NLU) is reducing the per credit hour cost of its tuition for active military personnel, veterans, military spouses and dependents, National Guard and Department of Defense employees. Tuition is now $167 per credit hour for undergraduate degree programs and $250 per credit hour for graduate degree programs. The new rate is covered by the Tuition Assistance (TA) for active military and is only available for programs offered online, on base and off site through NLU’s Virginia campus.


The new tuition represents a 60 percent reduction from NLU’s current rate—and a 43 percent reduction of the rate previously available to the military.


NLU is a private, regionally accredited, not-for-profit university founded in 1886 with a long history of serving the military in Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. NLU faculty understand the needs of military students—and know what it means to be deployed. NLU is a member of the Virginia and Florida Advisory Council on Military Education (ACME) and Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC)—and many of the NLU faculty are retired from the service.


Military personnel can immediately begin earning a B.S. in Management and Management Information Systems and beginning next winter a B.S. in Health Care Leadership in about 16-18 months. Certain requirements must be met for these accelerated programs. Two graduate degrees—the MBA and M.S. in Management—are also available online and in face-to-face classes off site.


If certain criteria are met, transfer credits for military students can be evaluated in two hours and the entire enrollment process can be completed within ten days.


Fall classes begin in September 2007. More information is available online at www.nl.edu/military and by phone toll-free at 1-888-550-8040.


Remember: Not applying for scholarships is like turning down free money. Get started on your search for scholarships today - visit the Military.com Scholarship Finder.


Sound Off...What do you think? Join the discussion.



Copyright 2007 Military.com. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

Forclosure Protection Could Have Hidden Risk

Here's something to be careful of. I'll put in the whole article and the link is above. Basically, it just says that if you've used forclosure protection due to military activation, be careful on the backside of the deployment. All that lower payments and interest could end up getting tacked onto your next 12 payments making it harder to play catch up when things get back to normal.


Foreclosure protection could have hidden risk

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 17, 2007 22:32:58 EDT


A House committee voted Tuesday to extend mortgage interest caps and foreclosure protection for activated service members despite warnings the move could make it more likely, not less, for someone to lose a home if they have financial problems.


The bill, HR 1315, the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2007, includes a provision that would provide protection against foreclosure for 180 days after separation from the service and also would keep the 6 percent cap on mortgage interest promised under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act for the same 180 days.


The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee passed by bill by voice vote as one of five measures it considered on Tuesday.


Currently, the 6 percent interest cap, which applies only for loans that began before military service, applies only for the period on active duty. Current law also provides 90 days of foreclosure protection after separation.


Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said the 180 days of protection is a compromise from the initial proposal by Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., that asked for one year of foreclosure protection but did not extend the interest cap.


Herseth Sandlin said the 180-day period would give a service member who might have fallen behind on their mortgage while on duty time to get current on payments, to sell the home or to work out some other arrangement short of foreclosure.


However, mortgage lenders warned the committee that a six-month freeze on foreclosure could end up making things worse instead of better, because the longer a homeowner does not pay their mortgage, the harder it becomes to catch up.


Rep. John Boozman, D-Ark., called the bill a “fairly radical change,” and tried — but failed — to limit the foreclosure protection to just three months. “These things do have consequences,” Boozman said. “My concern is in trying to do something good we may be hurting them, not helping them.”


The benefits bill includes a small change in a current adaptive housing grant program that allows a disabled service member temporarily living in the home of a family member to receive a grant of up to $14,000 to modify a home to meet special needs for severe service-related disabilities. It also creates a scholarship program to encourage college students to get degrees and certificates in blind rehabilitation.