http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8482917?source=email

Judge denies foster kid the right to join Marines.

Anyone still believe Justice is blind?

If the kid wants to go and serve his country how in the hell can this idiot judge use her power to say no cause of her personal beliefs?

What if the kid did not want to go and the judge was for the war and did the same thing? I think many of you would see it different.

This judge is doing this kid a favor. Plus, since he's still 17 and in foster care, he's technically a ward of the state, right? When he's 18, he can do whatever he wants. Hopefully he'll mature enough to understand that war is not like it is in the movies or video games.

Ill give you the 17 factor but saying the judge is doing the kid a favor is wrong. I hope when he turns 18 he joins up and gives that liberal judge a huge middle finger.

Just like he would a parent, BTW.

That's what being a ward of the state means exactly. The State of Oregon is the parent. The judge, acting as "the state" then gets to "parent".

Rough deal, but that's how it is for foster kids.

BTW: The State of Oregon does provide each of it's kids (wards of the state) an attorney that can and will litigate on their behalf.

I don't know if I would let my own kids sign up at 17 either. And I would have my personal reasons for it.

As the parents, we get to do that.

At 18, up goes the finger, of course. And with that finger comes greater rights and responsibilities too. All fair play.

After watching a recent episode of "Intervention" where an Iraqi vet, age 24, was battling one of the most severe drinking problems I've ever seen after returning from his second tour, this judge is doing the kid a favor. His life will be ruined if he serves in Iraq.

Vitalogy, if you really are a liberal, you would support an individual's freedom to make his own choices. Government should not be able to tell us how to make decisions. I guess you had better register as a Republican and join the other neocons who believe they have a right to control our lives.

I seriously agree.

If kid, I'm responsible for as a parent, wants to do that, it's gonna have to be fully and completely their call.

I'll support his choice AND criticize it when he's 18. Until then, he can go to his room and wait.

The bigger issue is that the judge is imposing her PERSONAL beliefs on the kid and it said as much in the article.

ANY judge that lets their personal beliefs get in the way of the law should be disbarred.

How can you support the judge doing this, but let a judge impose anything that you consider a “right wing” or conservative policy the $hit would hit the fan. Typical liberal double standard.

Vitalogy, I guess we had better leave all the soldiers over there since according to your statement "His life will be ruined if he serves in Iraq. All those "ruined" soldiers coming back will be a huge drain on society.

I suspect if you talk to our soldiers that they would beg to differ with your opinion.

Sure, there are some that come back with issues, but that has happened with every war ever fought. What’s to say that if they hadn’t joined the military and stayed here, worked at a job for X years and got laid off that they wouldn’t have developed a drinking (Or some other) problem as a result of that?

Your distain for this administration and our military is obvious. (And tiring)

Are you practicing speaking Arabic, Farsi, Chinese or Russian?

The issue is not wether or not the kid should go to the military, clearly he will in less then a year when he turns 18, the issue is the judge and personal beliefs getting in the way of the law.

Dont want the kid to go? Come to the table with something more credible then saying "I am against the war and therfore you will not serve"

The judge has to work in the best interests of the child. If that judge thinks going to the Marines at 17 is not in his best interests, just like a parent might think, then that judge gets to do that. Go look it up. That is how the law currently works for foster kids.

Being a foster kid does not change the reality of being a kid.

He can sit and wait, just like his parent might choose to have him wait.

Ward of the state means the representatives of the State of Oregon are the parents.

Again, the child has an attorney to help them. The attorney can represent the child in court. That's why every foster kid gets one. Truth is, the kid can seek emancipation, and his attorney will go to bat for that. Then, having proven he's capable to decide these things before age 18, he then can. --just like any other kid.

This is about the personal beliefs of the judge, just as it would be about the personal belief of parents.

Want to have a greater say?

Adopt him, just like I did my four kids.

Sure, and I bet that if the judge thought it would be in his best interest for him to go then you would support the judge as well?

Pretty easy to make the call when it just so happens to be the same way you think.

My point is, that judge gets to make the call.

If you don't like it, then parent the kid, it's that simple.

--->and no, I would not support the judge, but I wouldn't have a say either. IMHO, if he really wants to go at 17, he can really want to go at 18. That's my view as a parent. Others can and will differ.

The judge is doing nothing wrong.

Actually, having read that, I guess I would support the judge. It's their call.

The point is that the judge is making the call on his or her own political beliefs. Is that really the kind of justice system you want?

This isn't the same as a criminal or civil trial.

The kid is a ward of the state. In that scenario, the mandate is to act in the best interests of the child.

There are no true-false answers to what that best interest actually is! These are judgement calls to be made after considering the information at hand.

Also, we don't have enough information to even weigh the judges decision. Lots of stuff could be going on with that kid. All we really know is that he wants to sign up right now.

Every parent in this state does exactly this every day. That's what parents do, and they do it the same way this judge is doing it. They consider the information they have, and then do WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.

In this case, the judge is acting in that role because the kid is a ward of the state.

That's not emancipated, it's just not having parents. The two are different. As I wrote already, if the kid wants he can go for emancipation. There are some burdens to over come with that, namely being able to self-support, not out of control mentally, etc...

I think you guys really upset over this are mixing some things together. You are seeing 'judge' and personal beliefs and are all up in arms over that.

You are forgetting why the judge is in that role, and that why; namely, the kid being a ward of the state, clearly differentiates this from other legal matters, where the role of the judge is different.

In this country a 17 year old can be tried as an adult but can not serve his country in military service?

Bullshit. This comes down to the fact its an liberal judge taking a stand against the military.

You all would be yelling and screaming if the judge had ordered him to serve cause she thought it was in his best interest.

Yeah, that 17 year old can't buy tobacco or drink either.

If a kids parents don't want to approve that, then they don't have to approve that. The kid can go sit and wait.

Know what? I would be upset at the decision going the other way. No problem admitting that.

I think it's damn tough to prove that is in any kids best interest right now.

However, it's not my call, nor is it yours, and that's my greater point on this thread. It's the parents call, until the kid is 18, and since this kid is a ward of the state, it's then the judges call, like it or not.

This isn't some horrible anti-military stand. It's a judge, responsible for making a best interests of the child decision, BECAUSE THAT KIDS PARENTS DUMPED HIM IN THE SYSTEM, who made that decision, period, end of story.

Ok I get it, its ok to try a 17 year old kid as an adult and send him to prison but not ok for him to serve his country.

In the end this kid will be laughing at this liberal judge, he will end up in the military protecting the freedoms of such people.

No, that's not it at all.

It's totally ok for him to serve his country, so long as his parents approve of it.

That's the law on under 18 year olds. We don't consider 17 old enough to make those kinds of life changing decisions.

Since this kid does not have a parent, and is a ward of the state, somebody working for the state gets to do it.

There are kids every day, whose parents won't sign them up. That's all this is.

That kid will also end up laughing at the parents doing the same thing.

Had he had parents of his own, he could end up laughing at them too, but not until he's 18 and has signed up himself.

I think you said it best when you said that you would not be ok with the decision if it was the other way around.

That pretty much speaks for itself.

"His foster parents, as well as his social worker, supported his decision to enlist early. Despite being denied, he still shows up for USMC physical training."

So depsite his foster parents and a social worker agreement, the only persons who opinion matters here is a liberal judge?

And I wouldn't be, but it wouldn't be my call either.

The foster parents are not like regular parents. They are guardians only. There is a limited set of things they get to make the call on. Trust me, I did that for a while. At times it is a PITA.

After an adoption takes place, then there is absolutely no difference. They could sign him up as if he were one of their own.

...but he isn't.

I don't think it does (my statement earlier). I wouldn't be ok with it, largely because I think the kid can wait. But I would not be posting it up here as some "conservative judge makes ass of himself" bit either.

Why?

Because I know it's the judges call.

Even though I wouldn't agree with the call, I don't have a problem with how things are structured. The foster parent scene is not a perfect one. There are issues and that requires supervision. That's how the judge gets involved in the first place.

Say those foster parents were not really thinking of the kid, or talked him into it, etc? Maybe he consumes a lot of resources and two younger and more profitable kids could take his place?

Not saying that's the case, but it's on the table and that's why there is judicial supervision on these things. Not everybody is cool.

It works like this:

The social worker is in charge of handling that kids case. They get to place, arrange for resources (including an attorney --though the kid can just ask for one too, if they think the social worker is not doing a good job), evaluate the parents, living arrangements and investigate abuse.

The tough decisions end up in courts, where the kid is represented by counsel and involved parties are optionally represented, and a judge decides things.

So, the case worker thinking it's a good idea, and the foster parents thinking it's a good idea gets things in front of a judge. Don't know if the kids attorney was there, or was not requested or what, but let's say they think so too.

All that goes before the judge, who makes the call.

Generally speaking it's a good, solid system that prevents bad things from happening to the kids. They could get exploited, abused, all manner of things.

Now, let's take the judge out of it. Kid is living with their father, mother is dead for the sake of discussion.

Kid thinks it's a good idea, relatives think it's a good idea, interested others, maybe the school councillor or military recruiter think it's all a good idea.

The father doesn't.

Guess what?

The kid is gonna wait.

...or could get emancipated, or prove the father incompetent to make that call.

Those options are on the table right now for this kid, if he wants to go there. His attorney is paid for by the State and can litigate on his behalf.

The other question on the table is essentially, "is there a better system?" maybe!

I think that's a stuff burden all things considered, but that's an option for discussion. If the system really is a poor one, and that means doing harm, then I'm up for reform on that.

Gotta hash that out on it's merits though, taking the whole picture into account; otherwise, all we've really got here is a judge that pissed you off.

Could have just as easily pissed me off, see?

One last thing!

It's been my experience that most judges, having to do these things are actually pretty damn conservative in their approach.

I've been in front of a few of them during my time as a foster parent. Disagreed with them too! (annoying as all get out) On the disagreements, it was time to go and get the kids attorney, let them talk it out, then we talk it out, then go deal with it again, hoping for a better decision.

Sometimes we got it. Most times we didn't.

Since this is having to do with kids, the default is to limit very serious decisions! Really, if it can wait, it's gonna, largely because nobody wants to be the one that did the kid harm, even when they didn't mean to.

This decision really is one of those.

Honestly, the kid can wait! Isn't gonna hurt him one bit. Actually might do him some good as he has time to continue to seek the better quality recruitment, maybe strike a deal, get a good MO, etc...

It goes that way for a lot of serious things. Looking at the potential for harm, motivations of everybody involved, and such is all a part of determining if urgency is warranted.

In this decision, that's a pretty heavy burden.

Heck, one final, final thing.

My Nephew wanted to jump in and join the Marines. We made him wait. He was pissed too.

At that time, he was having trouble holding a job, didn't know how to live well, slept in cars at times, PITA.

He turned 18, and still waited a bit.

Had we let him sign up, "for his own good", or "to serve the country", both of which were good reasons! I'm not anti military. ...he would have ended up a grunt somewhere shooting somebody.

Now, having waited and done his homework, he's got a sweet deal with great training and won't be cannon fodder. All in all, a great decision on his part. We are proud of him, and think he will do very well.

It's not anti-military to hold them off a bit, that's all.

***Sorry Mc!*** I'll be quiet now.

I guess I don't really have an issue with the judge not letting him join up per se.

The issue I have is how she did it.

Had she simply stated; "I don't feel it's in your best interest to join right now. Finish high school then if you still want to join, go ahead” I’d be fine with that.

Instead she had to run her mouth about how she disagrees with the war and since she doesn't like it, the kid can't join. That's what I take issue with.

My guess is she didn't even take into consideration what may or may not be in the kids’ best interest. She simply imposed her personal will on the kid.

Thats what I am saying. Its hard to say the judge had the kids best interest in mind when its so obvious that she has a biased opinion against the war in the first place.

Thats not how the law should be handled.

You know, I don't disagree with that sentiment.

Within the judges rights though. A parent could do the exact same thing. You guys would probably feel the same way too.

To be clear, I've no problem with how you guys feel about it. Same as any of us would feel about a parent we think is making a bad call, or self-serving call.

In this case, the kid could challenge that. Damn tough to nail a judge for not considering the kids best interests. Futile.

I don't like that either, because it's a flagrant use of power to make a point.

I'm thinking maybe we ought to bump up the age we send kids to the front . . . many of them are having difficulty coping when they get home.

Age 20 for training and 21 for deployment. Hmm?

Skep, I don't disagree with that.

Let them join up at 18, use the years between 18 and 21 for training, advanced training and skill building.

I think it might make for a better deployable force.

Nwokie, being ex-military, what do you think?

The average age in WWII, was around 20, Vietnam 19. Soldiers need to be young and in good physical shape. There are times you want level headed, soldiers that can think for themselves, and there are times you want someone that is is young, and eager to get into battle (someone that doesnt really understand that they can
die), There were an awfully lot of 18 year olds in WWII and Korea, and I havent seen any statistics that showed they had more problems than any one else.

"ANY judge that lets their personal beliefs get in the way of the law should be disbarred."

So, I assume you'd have the same opinion of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court if they overturned Roe v Wade? Anyone who thinks that judges don't let their personal beliefs get in the way is seriously deluded! Otherwise, the President wouldn't have to worry about what judge they appoint. Judges are chosen based on their beliefs and how they will apply that to the law.

And, anyone that says this judge is not looking out for the best interest of a MINOR child that is a ward of the state by not allowing them to enlist before their 18th birthday is kidding themselves. Whether you like the judges opinion or not, the judge is doing what he/she is supposed to do in situations like this: PROTECT THE CHILD. Lord knows the military won't do that when they ship them off to war.

"Your disdain for this administration and our military is obvious."

Well, for the record, I like the military. It's the policies that control the military that I don't like. And you're damn straight I have disdain for this administration. They've got blood on their hands.

Funny how that all works, isn't it?

A liberal judge is one that somebody does not agree with. Activist too.

I don't like how the judge did things. It made an issue where there was one, in that it politicized something that didn't need to be.

Not that I disagree, I just think that could have been avoided.

"PROTECT THE CHILD. Lord knows the military won't do that when they ship them off to war."

Thank you! About goddammed time.

Like I wrote farther up. Don't like it? Adopt a few kids so you can have your say; otherwise, let those stuck with them deal the way they feel they need to.

Which is exactly what that Judge did, political statement or not.

This judge was clearly using her power over a ward of the state to advance her ideology. SHE doesn't approve of the reasons we went to Iraq, and clearly hates military recruiters, so the kid can't join. It is in the best interest of our country to have as many people as possible be interested in military service, so the military can select the best candidates among a greater pool of applicants. It's the same thing as when private employers cast a wide recruiting net, so they can end up with diversity in the workplace when they select the best candidates from a diverse pool of applicants. This judge is doing a disservice to our country by denying it the service of a willing, and presumably able, young man.

I do think that a responsible decision could have yielded the same outcome, if she'd focused her reasoning on the kid's development, and the potential effect military service could have on it. Although we don't have the transcripts, the eyewitness accounts mention the judge's anti-military ideology as reasoning for the decision, which is sad and shameful. The military wasn't on trial here, but she declared it guilty.

"It is in the best interest of our country to have as many people as possible be interested in military service, so the military can select the best candidates among a greater pool of applicants."

Having him wait until he's 18 does not change that. Age is constant. There are always 17 year olds, 18 year olds, etc... The pool of 18 year olds is always there, always fair game. No harm to the military at all.

And what is in the best interest of the nation is not the same thing as the best interest of the kid, and that is the primary consideration here, not the nation.

It may be that the Judge didn't think enlistment was the best option, then chose to make a statement with it. Some of us are gonna consider that bad form.

Others... might see it as a responsible statement to make! Personally, I think it's vital to make these kinds of statements so that others, who may be inclined to realize how hosed up the engagement is, actually feel they can come to that conclusion without fear.

None of that is a statement against the military, BTW. In fact, it's a statement for it! If we actually care about our military, then we really need to speak up when it's being abused. (which is is)

As a parent, which is the same role the Judge is taking, I can tell you I don't approve of the Iraq mess. Right now, it's an occupation, not a war and that does change things for me.

I would absolutely deny my kids enlistment, further I would tell them why, and others bitching about it why. Happy to do so, repeatedly, if needed.

Does not make the Judge right, but maybe does put some perspective on that judge having to act like a parent, doesn't it?

This is a personal decision, given the role being played. Personally, that judge thinks the whole thing is a bad idea and said as much. That's within her rights, just as it is within any parents rights.

The primary burden here being the decision is in the best interests of the child. Not approving enlistment is a very defensible decision in this regard, no matter what any of us thinks about Iraq.

We have a recruitment problem because our President hasn't led us well, and troops returning home are getting treated like crap more than they should be.

To make the numbers, recruiters are pulling out all the stops. Those two dynamics don't play well with a lot of people. They don't play well with me.

As for Iraq, it was a LIE and isn't WINNABLE. No brainer there. I know the ends do not justify the means. Contributing to that doesn't do anybody any good.

I think you can stop pretending the judge cares about the childs best interest as much as she cares about the anti war interest.

Its just too obvious.

Really?

Prove it then.

Not allowing the kid to enlist is easily the best case decision for the childs best interest, period, end of story.

Tell you what, why don't all of you "let him sign up" people post up why that's the best course of action for him then?

Let's hear it.

"so the military can select the best candidates among a greater pool of applicants."

The best way to increase this "pool" would be to raise the pay of our soldiers. This way the Army can select from older kids with their heads on straight.

Unfortunately we blew all that extra cash on "shock and awe".

The military is pretty well paid, especially when you consider in addition to pay you get housing, food and clothing. Plus a retirement system that is about the best there is, plus free medical. And a significant part of their pay is exempt from all taxes, fed and state.
And you have discounted shopping on base.

"And what is in the best interest of the nation is not the same thing as the best interest of the kid, and that is the primary consideration here, not the nation."

Then, as I pointed out, she should write her decision with that logic, not a decision that trashes military recruiters, and oozes with ideological speech.

"This judge was clearly using her power over a ward of the state to advance her ideology. SHE doesn't approve of the reasons we went to Iraq, and clearly hates military recruiters, so the kid can't join. It is in the best interest of our country to have as many people as possible be interested in military service, so the military can select the best candidates among a greater pool of applicants."

The judge does not have an obligation to the military or for the best thing for our country. The judge has an obligation to the child AND THAT'S IT!! Is the child safer by enlisting or by not enlisting? Pretty easy answer if you ask me.

Besides, what kind of uproar would we be hearing about if this judge allowed the kid to enlist and then he was killed or injured? Then we'd all be hearing about how the foster kid program is failing and that this judge is responsible for his death.

Again, if her logic invloved the best interest of the kid, it should have been her reasoning for the judgement. A personal, ideoligical disagreement with military/current policy is a deviation from her obligation to the child.

Is the child safer by enlisting or by not enlisting?

Maybe, maybe not. There are more people killed in automobile accidents than in the military.

Should the judge not allow the kid to drive?

Everything in life has its inherent risks. When you choose to do an "activity" you need to be aware of those risks and make your decision accordingly.

If you are going to base this only on what is safer for the kid, then the kid needs to be kept at home, and fed only healthy foods and must exercise regularly to stay healthy. When he goes outside, he’ll have to wear long sleeve shirts and long pants and a hat to prevent exposure to the sun too.

See how silly that sounds.

Besides, what kind of uproar would we be hearing about if this judge allowed the kid to enlist and then he was killed or injured? Then we'd all be hearing about how the foster kid program is failing and that this judge is responsible for his death.

This is what's wrong these days. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions. It's always blame someone else.

It WOULD NOT be the judge's fault or the foster children’s program failing.

By the time you are 17 you should have a fair (though not completely mature) outlook on things. The kid, I'm sure, is aware of the risks and most likely took that into account before making his decision.

There is not enough information given in the article for ANY of us to be making a call on whether the judge's decision is in the kid’s best interest or not. Plain and simple, we don't know all the details.

As I mentioned in a previous post, my issue isn't that she denied the kid's request; it's HOW she did it.

I totally agree.

The oldest living WW1 U.S. vet, 107, joined when he was 16.
I had a couple of 17-year-olds in my basic training unit during Vietnam.
This judge should recuse herself because of her anti-military bias.

Recuse herself?

Did she fart?

Oh, wait. That's excuse herself. Sorry for the confusion!

"A personal, ideological disagreement with military/current policy is a deviation from her obligation to the child."

This is exactly why she thinks it's in the kids best interest to wait. It's not a deviation at all. If she thinks the war is a bad scene, well then allowing the kid to enlist would then not be in his best interests, in her opinion.

Guess what?

She gets to do that.

That's how it works when there are no parents involved. The judge acts like a parent. It's perfectly reasonable for a parent to make that kind of decision. It's reasonable for the judge to make a similar call.

Perhaps if it were not such a mess, her decision would be different. Perhaps not.

At the very least, if our military efforts were not so totally mis-directed, statements like these would be more difficult to deal with. Sometimes the truth stings!

Skybill, keeping the kid in a bubble is not what is being done here. That's an extreme case and not really a basis for any rational reason for having him sign up right now.

The core failure here is to understand the role of the judge. IT IS PERSONAL. Somebody has got to be personal with that kid because, HE'S GOT NO PARENTS.

So, she's doing that, just as any parent would, end of story. The fact that she happens to be a judge has very little impact on this whole thing.

If a parent did the same thing, we all would hold our opinions right? This is no different, but for her statements being heard by more people.

Hey, that could happen with a popular or substantial parent. Somebody wealthy, media figure, status, etc...

Don't agree?

Adopt him, then sign him up, otherwise, the personal decision she made is done and over with.

I'm ok with the bad feelings about the statements. Some of us don't agree.

However, I'm not ok with the idea that she did anything wrong, because she didn't. The statement was inflammatory, probably bad form, but that's it.

Skybill, if a kid is under 18, yet legally able to drive, the parent can NOT allow the child to drive if they feel it's a safety issue. See, when you are a minor, your decisions are not your own, they are what your parent, guardian, or in this case a judge, decide for you. End of story!

skybill, recuse is a legal term meaning to step aside.

I'm not letting my kids drive for a whole lot of reasons. They can get permits, but have to do it on their own time.

Funny thing that is. As soon as I put the burden on them to go and get their permit, it's kind of on the back burner right now.

If they have one, then I'm completely happy to have them drive when it makes sense.

Not gonna push it though. They will be driving soon enough. Until then, they can focus on their grades and stay out of trouble.

Skybill, keeping the kid in a bubble is not what is being done here. That's an extreme case and not really a basis for any rational reason for having him sign up right now.

Missing, I understand that. I was referring to Vitalogy's statement about it only being about the kid’s safety; The judge has an obligation to the child AND THAT'S IT!! Is the child safer by enlisting or by not enlisting? Pretty easy answer if you ask me.

skybill, recuse is a legal term meaning to step aside.

Yep, I know that!! I was making a funny!

Considering how foster kids are treated when they turn 18, your out of the system, don't let the door hit your rear on the way out.

The young man had a chance to receive some training, and earn educational benefits. If he has to wait until hes 18, there may not be a traing slot in his chosen field, and he may be on the streets for a while.

See, when you are a minor, your decisions are not your own, they are what your parent, guardian, or in this case a judge, decide for you. End of story!

I understand and respect that.

As I mentioned before, my issue isn't that she didn't let the kid join up or even that she doesn't like the war, that's her choice.

It's HOW she didn't let the kid join. She should have just simply said "I don't feel that it's in your best interest to allow you to join at this time"

Period, as you say, end of story.

But no, she has to run her mouth and make it a political issue.

The kid not being allowed to join the military WOULD NOT have even made the 6 O'clock news had she not run her mouth.

She’s probably up for re-election and thought she needed to make a statement or something.

I'm not letting my kids drive for a whole lot of reasons.

Missing, a word from the wise; Never buy a 16 year old a fast car!

Ask me how I know!

I was 16 too

I don't know how many times I'll have to point out that it isn't the final judgment, but the logic by which it was reached, that's suspect in this case. I haven't heard anyone here suggest that it isn't the judge's job to look out for the best interests of this ward of the state. Those of us who take issue with this ruling are saying that the judge's personal opinion of current military activities and recruiting efforts is a separate issue from the question of whether serving our country would be a positive endeavor for this young man.

Does the judge think that military service would interfere with the remaining few months of this kid's development? If "yes", then she should show the logic for this decision in her judgment. Simply citing the broader-reaching issues of United States involvement overseas is at the least irrelevant, at the most irresponsible.

you will not get anywhere with this. There are people here that probably know that the judge is an idiot but because she is taking a anti war stand they are forced to stand by her.

Same would be said if it was the other way around.

I only see it as an abuse of power.

The logic makes perfect sense to me and the judge is correct in her opinion about the recruiters and their tactics to enlist people. The recruiters don't give a damn about this kid, they just want to close a sale. The judge's job is to look out for the best interest of the child as long as he's under the state's watch. Allowing a minor to enter into a contract to enlist in the military because he's seen the movie "Full Metal Jacket" and has been swayed by some slick recruiter making promises they know won't be kept is not in his best interest. Any sane person should be able to understand this. He can wait until he's 18 and join then when he's legally able to agree contractually.

But thats just the thing, its an opinion. Should the judge really make the law based on an personal opinion?

Hell if thats the case then whats the point of going to law school?

The judge can have any opinion they want. However, that doesn't change the fact that the kid is a minor and should not be allowed to enter into a contract without parental consent. The judge upheld the law as it should be, you just don't like the reason for it.

I don't believe any foster child should be able to enlist before age 18 whether the judge likes or hates the military.

So then ALL 17 year old kids can sign up early, without having to get consent from their parents?

It's all or nothing on this.

Foster kids are still kids. Not having parents means they can be taken advantage of, which is why the contract restrictions are in place, and is exactly why this kind of thing goes before a judge in the first place.

Frankly, this REEKS of a kid being enamored with the military way too early. "saw the movie", "fell in love with the military at an early age", etc... Has anyone considered the mental impact of actually being a foster kid and the impact that's gonna have on both the need for authority and or stability in their lives?

It's not exactly a minor point to be ignored.

I was a 17 year old early enlistment. Guess what? The verbal promises are one thing, the contract actuals are another. The recruiter could give two shits after we made full enlistment as well. Guy had numbers to meet.

There is serious merit to those comments made by that judge. Given the very strong pressure to get those numbers, I'll bet it's a lot closer to the truth more often these days than at other times.

Just re-read the entire article. It's a anti-liberal wet dream hit piece! "just signed up the last one!", "potential $10K bonus", "he begged", etc...

Good grief.

"Here is one impressive young man who somehow made it through the challenge of the foster system, had a clear sense of a career path and was denied that opportunity by a judge basically because of her personal bias"

So, his career path is unclear now having to wait?

If so, doesn't that bring in to question just how clear that vision really is? Sure seems that way to me.

"denied that opportunity"

Denied what?

He can still enlist, can still qualify for his MO of choice, can still get his bonus.

And this, in the context of the article is pretty questionable: "The Delayed Entry Program supports everything a parent would try to do"

Sorry but signing up to be government issue does not make the military a parent. Nicely done by the author of the piece.

The most interesting part of the thing happens to be this kid charging up with his own law to permit all foster kids to sign up at 17.

Hey, that's new recruiting fodder for the military! Just the kind of crap the judge was talking about. In fact, it may well be the whole effort that triggered the comments in the first place.

Would you agree to a law that let your kids sign up at 17, on somebody else's consent? Maybe close friends or grand parents, uncles?

That's what this boils down to. Bet it pissed the judge off huge. It would me. Reeks of a hit piece, probably is one. Such a grand effort to get this one kid in?

No way.

He got their support because if he somehow got the "let the foster kids in" law through, they stood to significantly increase their pool of available recruits.

Most of those 17 year olds have been through a lot of crap, are more likely than other 17 year olds to be mentally stressed and because of the frequent moves, abuse and other things that happen, might be more susceptible to recruitment than they would otherwise.

Cry a river guys.

Nothing was denied this kid period. It's all there for him in less than a year. He can train with them, get skills, work through his tests and all sorts of things.

Pull stunts in the courts, and sometimes get slapped down. Seen it before, will see it again. All judges do this kind of thing, which is why antics like this are generally a bad idea.

This was grandstanding more than it was some judge with an axe to grind.

Eh, I am done with it. You all should just hope that this does not happen the other way around, you will get no sympathy from me.

It does!!

You just don't like this one, that's all.

Hell, go back through the Supreme Court opinions in favor of the late term abortion ban.

You will find goofy opinion in the highest court in the land.

(not saying anything about that actual law, just how they got there --sound familiar?)

I have been following this thread. There have been some really good points raised, and though I do support the military on many issues, the judge did the right thing.

Romantic as the "I snuck into Canada at 16 and joined the RAF to beat the Krauts" yarns are in storybooks, the reality of youth in war is far less glorious. For every boastful youthful pilot with grandkids and memoirs, there were many thousands who perished along with their dreams.

I look at it this way. We invaded Iraq in 1991. This kid was probably born in 1991. The death of the war and the life of this boy have occupied the same time span.

No baby in the United States should be born destined to fight our wars because he or she is an orphan or a displaced child.

Remember, it was orphaned children who fought the Iran-Iraq war after most of the men were injured or died. Kids also served, suffered and were slaughtered in our own Civil War.

Joining the Armed Forces, like marriage and parenthood, must be a solid decision made by an adult. If that adult is 18, and has what it takes to commit to our military, then the nation will offer full support and deep gratitude.

Until that moment, this young man should be fully supported in the pursuit of being a teenager. He should be playing catch, doing homework, hiking, biking, kissing girls and enjoying being alive. He was born an American kid, not an inevitable toy soldier.

Enjoying his freedom will only make him fight harder for it when he puts on a uniform.