US Army arrests mother who failed to turn up for Afghanistan deployment

[clear eye]

Source: The Guardian

Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 November 2009 19.02 GMT

A 21-year-old single mother serving with the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division is facing a possible court martial because she failed to turn up for deployment to Afghanistan, saying that she could not find anyone to care for her infant son.

Alexis Hutchinson, who serves as an army cook, was meant to have joined her division for a flight to Kabul on 5 November, but failed to show up. She was arrested and temporarily placed in custody while her 10-month-old child Kamani was put into a daycare scheme on her military base in Savannah, Georgia.

...She had placed him in the care of her mother, Angelique Hughes, in Oakland, California, but after a couple of weeks Hughes found she was overburdened and unable to commit for a whole year looking after him.

"This is an infant, and they require 24-hour care," Hughes told Associated Press. "It was very, very stressful, just too much for me to deal with."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/17/us-army-arrests-mother-afghanistan

[Downwinder]

1. Demonstrating "Family Values."

[Robb]

2. Not to leap to the Army's defense

...but it sounds like she panicked. Not surprising, as a parent of an infant there's enough stress just with that.

After she found out her mom couldn't take care of the baby, she should've gone to her CO. I believe the Army has a system in place for this, which involves NOT deploying mothers of infants.

[EFerrari]

3. Their system seemed to be to put him in foster care.

Or that was the threat in the last story.

[Robb]

5. According to her attorney, who is defending her against an AWOL charge.

All I'm saying is I believe the Army doesn't do that.

We've been at war for a godawful long time now, and if the Army had a policy of sending single parents overseas and putting their kids in foster care we probably would've heard about it by now.

[EFerrari]

7. I would be really happy if that turned out to be right

and she just used bad judgment.

[clear eye]

8. From the Guardian story--

"The lawyer said that Hutchinson had been pressurised to get on the flight even though she had no satisfactory arrangement for his care.

Sussman said: 'The day before she was forced to deploy, they told her you have a choice to make, but your duty is to get on that plane. She didn't have anyone to take care of her child. She thought they'd put her on a plane and take her child away.'"

[WriteDown]

281. Well if she was pressurised she may have other problems.

Anything in the article about 11 herbs and spices?

[Robb]

282. LOL

My brain saw that and immediately chalked it up to some kind of UK thing, like extraneous u's in stuff. :D

[clear eye]

288. That's Brit for "pressured". n/t

[WriteDown]

303. I was hoping!

:)

[24601]

300. This is what I found inaccurate. The Army lacks jurisdiction to

place a chile in foster care and has no infrastructure of foster parents. That is instead a state issue - so the story has some holes. During my service days - up through 1997, the requirement of sole parents was to have a dependent care plan and failing to have a viable plan could result in discharge. Agree that she should have taken the issue up the chain.

[pipoman]

4. Hardship discharges have been in place for decades

running or going AWOL is not ever a good choice...now she faces criminal charges.

[Realityhack]

313. That is my first impression too.

It seems like there should be a way to handle this and it was handled improperly. That results in big issues.

[tabasco]

6. The Army bends over backwards to help single parents.

Not showing up is not a responsible option.

[EFerrari]

9. It doesn't sound as if they bent anything in this case.

She was supposed to get on a plane without a plan for her kid? Leaving him in his crib would be responsible?

[tabasco]

279. Sounds like you believe her lawyer is giving the full & accurate truth.

That's either stupid or naive.

[EFerrari]

280. Could be both but I'm not hearing the Army's side of the care plan.

Is it somewhere?

[JonLP24]

296. The Army rarely bends over backwards for people

This story doesn't surprise me.

[virgogal]

10. As a grandmother I'm astonished that the baby's grandmother

couldn't take him.

[EFerrari]

276. Not me. She already seems to be caring for multiple relatives.

And a ten month old baby requires a LOT of attention.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

294. Plus the fact

grandmother operates a day care.

[LeftyMom]

298. So having a baby in the house would limit the number of kids she can legally care for,

thus really cutting her income. Which may just be undoable considering she has other dependents.

At least if daycare licensing works the way it does here- there's a max ratio of kids to adult caregivers, and it's lower the younger the kids are.

[KamaAina]

311. She could always turn to California's vaunted social service network

if Ahh-nuld hadn't shredded it to the bone, that is. :grr:

[MichiganVote]

11. Jesus Christ, give her a hardship discharge. She's 21 fucking years old for crying out loud.

[villager]

12. Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby

Source: AP

Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby


By RUSS BYNUM, AP Military Writer

SAVANNAH, Ga. – An Army cook and single mom may face criminal charges after she skipped her deployment flight to Afghanistan because, she said, no one was available to care for her infant son while she was overseas.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, 21, claims she had no choice but to refuse deployment orders because the only family she had to care for her 10-month-old son — her mother — was overwhelmed by the task, already caring for three other relatives with health problems.

Her civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, said Monday that one of Hutchinson's superiors told her she would have to deploy anyway and place the child in foster care.

"For her it was like, 'I couldn't abandon my child,'" Sussman said. "She was really afraid of what would happen, that if she showed up they would send her to Afghanistan anyway and put her son with child protective services."

Hutchinson, who is from Oakland, Calif., remained confined Monday to the boundaries of Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, 10 days after military police arrested her for skipping her unit's flight. No charges have been filed, but a spokesman for the Army post said commanders were investigating.

<snip>



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_soldier_mom_deployment

[ensho]

13. I wouldn't put my baby in foster care either!

I stand with the mother and wish her well

[superconnected]

27. The army lawyer says they wouldn't deploy her if she had no child care:

"Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_soldier_mom_deployment

[EFerrari]

277. But that's what they tried to do, put her on a plane with no child care.

:shrug:

[architect359]

304. Do we know if she specifically told her CO the circumstances?

:shrug:

[imdjh]

14. "For her it was like, " A lawyer actually said, "For her it was like..."? I wonder if...

..... she snapped her gum between sentences.

[MidwestRick]

15. Time for her to leave the military

If you can't fufil your deployment requirements, it's time to get out of the service.

[pasto76]

21. a family care plan is REQUIRED for all soldiers with dependents

Her chain of command, specifically her squad leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant and company commander are also at fault here. Fault? you may ask. Yes, in the army I am personally responsible for whatever my tropps do, or do not do.

plenty of soldiers "cant fulfill their deployment obligations". medical profiles make troops undeployable, but they still collect their check. This was not a surprise to her chain of command, she really is not doing anything wrong, so they shouldnt treat her like a criminal or deserter.

SGT PASTO

[marshall]

38. She had a plan, or else she wouldn't have been allowed to enlist

It appears that her mother backed out of the plan.

[intheflow]

273. Or that her mother acquired other commitments after the fact. n/t

[Ilsa]

16. Why don't they discharge her? It would be better for everyone

to do that than to place her child in foster care so that the army can have one more cook in Hell.

[Mari333]

17. [phone]

[Kittycat]

32. Are the only jobs in the military on the front lines?

Why should she have to be discharged, and not just assigned a task stateside? Yes, i understand that many people would prefer this than going overseas - but surely there is a job for her beyond the battle field.

[dflprincess]

35. You would think - especially given how thin the military is stretched

It wouldn't even have to be stateside she could be posted to a base in Germany or somewhere else where there is family housing.

During WWII one of my friend's dad, who would never have been deemed fit for service at any other time, spent most the war stationed stateside and eventually in noncombat areas overseas. Somebody had to do the paperwork - I would think the same holds true today.

[tomm2thumbs]

18. Cheney gets a deferment but this mom has to be put through Hell - isn't that nice

Maybe Cheney can watch the baby - he ain't got nuffin' to do anyway. Strike that. Look at what happened to Liz Cheney.

[superconnected]

28. He's liable to accidentally shoot it in the face.

[Downwinder]

19. Government demonstrating Family Values. n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

20. The military probably thinks that those young ladies get pregnant to avoid deployment n/t

[Downwinder]

22. Most of them probably remember that if you got a girl pregnant

you missed the draft.

[pasto76]

23. no, they know they do that.

and there is little enforcement of policies prohibiting this. There was a female soldier in squad who began trying to get knocked up the second we got orders, even disobeying orders to remain within 50 miles of our deployment platform, and lying about circumstances at home to get emergency leave. When she finally did get impregnated, she left my squad shorthanded, and everyone worked harder because of it.
On the other hand, there was this Female MP at the police station in Bayji. She was a killer. Professional soldier, disciplined. Committed. better than alot of male soldiers I knew. I adored her;0

SGT PASTO

[Tim01]

33. Noboby wants to hear the truth, You are not sensitive enough.

It seems like some people want anybody to be able to just quit the military any time things get tough. You know, like when orders come down for deployment.

I stood in formation with tough, big grown men who were standing there just crying. Their hearts were breaking because they were leaving their family again. But they did their job and they didn't bitch about it.

[clear eye]

289. They had wives to care for their kids.

Aren't you missing the obvious?

[amandabeech]

24. This story was the subject of two threads over in GD.

There were ex-military DUers there who thought just that. Quite a few folks, many of them ex-military seemed to think that she should have been sent and that the child should have gone into foster care. They simply couldn't accept that the young soldier couldn't force her mother to care for her son, as had been planned.

Some posters were so heartless that I put them on my ignore list. I don't need to hear from folks who would put an infant at risk in foster care in order to make sure that the mother obeyed orders.

I would expect that at Free Republic, but not here.

[WriteDown]

25. Exactly right....

It would be quite easy for the Army to setup daycare on the bases in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as others. No sense forcing the mother to choose.

[marshall]

275. Give them better access to abortion

That's what they did in World War Two, according to Fonda.

[salguine]

26. Here's a perfect chance for the Commander-in-Chief to step in and do the right thing.

[pasto76]

29. not really

this is not an executive level event. At most it should be a division level thing. Many many many NCOs and officers are/will be involved.

There are probably thousands of soldiers right now, on deployment, who are facing hardships as well. Who are you or me or the President to tell them that this case is a bigger hardship than theirs?

[change_notfinetuning]

30. I agree. But for someone who thinks public school isn't good enough for his

kids, don't hold your breath waiting for him to do the right thing.

As I said on a different thread on this subject, this despicable act is being done in my name, and I OBJECT! This country talks a good "family" game, but is best at finding ways to destroy the family.

[PJPhreak]

31. has anybody on this thread ever been in Foster Care?

Or had a child who was? Then you might understand why some people wouldn't let "Protective Services" anywhere near their kids!

I was a Foster kid for nine years.

[Tempest]

34. Just look at Florida

Kids die in foster homes overseen by the state's protective services.

[EFerrari]

283. They also get "lost". nt

[intheflow]

274. No kidding!

People are equating foster care with child care. People are idiots.

[LeftyMom]

299. I worked for an agency.

I wasn't involved in placement decisions, which was just as well. Honestly, of all of our FPs, I was only ever really impressed by the parenting skills of two of them. Most of the rest struck me as being about the money first and the kids a distant second. Not that they gave bad care, far from it, but it was very clear that foster parenting was something they thought of as a job, and if it ceased to pay well enough to compensate for the trouble, we would have had a whole lot of kids and hefty bags of clothes in our lobby.

[PJPhreak]

312. As a Foster Child in the 70's,

I can say that this is wholeheartey True!

I was in foster care for nine years,out of that only three placements (out of eight) did this for the right reasons....the kids.

One was a Fundie Couple in Southern Michigan...Wonderful people,never forced their religon on us kids,made us feel very welcome and part of their family.

Another was a Temp Placement in Long Island N.Y. Teachers who did this for the kids...put themselves WAY out to provide for us...Even to the point of doing without for themselves.

And a large Group Home Called Melville House in Melville L.I.N.Y. This is the one that left the Largest Impression on me...Set me on the path of true Independence and Self-Sufficiency by incorprating things like the Hurricane Island Outward Bound School,CETA Program,Inclusion in the local public school system,State University of New York Farmingdale and Stonybrook,among MANY other things....I wish it still was around....Closed somewhere in the late 70's or early 80's. Why I still have no idea.

On the other extreme...The beatings,having food withheld as punishment,being locked in a room for days on end,if the people of this country REALLY knew what went on in some (But thankfully not all) of these Foster Homes back in the 70's they would riot in the streets!

And it still continues today!

The case in Penn.that made the news just recently is only the very tip of the iceberg!

[Scout]

36. what's up with the child's father? n/t

[superconnected]

37. So everyone understands that the Army says they won't deploy ppl without child care?

"Kevin Larson, a spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, said he didn't know what Hutchinson was told by her commanders, but he said the Army would not deploy a single parent who had nobody to care for his or her child."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_soldier_mom_deployment

[Hissyspit]

39. Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan

Source: IPS

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/13-7

Published on Friday, November 13, 2009 by Inter Press Service
Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan

by Dahr Jamail

VENTURA, California - U.S. Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother, is being threatened with a military court-martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan, despite having been told she would be granted extra time to find someone to care for her 11-month-old son while she is overseas. Hutchinson, of Oakland, California, is currently being confined at Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, after being arrested. Her son was placed into a county foster care system.

Hutchinson has been threatened with a court martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, Nov. 15. She has been attempting to find someone to take care of her child, Kamani, while she is deployed overseas, but to no avail.

According to the family care plan of the U.S. Army, Hutchinson was allowed to fly to California and leave her son with her mother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland.

- snip -

"To me it sounds completely bogus," Sussman told IPS, "I think what they are actually going to do is have her spend her year deployment in Afghanistan, then court martial her back here upon her return. This would do irreparable harm to her child. I think they are doing this to punish her, because they think she is lying."

Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/13-7

[southernyankeebelle]

40. This woman knows the deal. She new a while back that she would be

deployed. It wasn't a secret. The military has a mission and she has a duty. If she wanted a baby she should have gotten out.

[Mithreal]

41. Sincerely, that is a sick post

[Mari333]

48. no shit, and its number 666

!

[BrklynLiberal]

84. No coincidence?

[Raster]

110. No coincidence. The belle is from hell.

[me b zola]

127. Hell's belles

:D

[TexasObserver]

132. AC/DC

Hell's Bells
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2aZDH_bPY0&feature=fvw

[Tempest]

308. Seems to be the case with a lot of newbies these days

That's why I ignore anyone with less than 1000 posts. Most never make it that far.

[bread_and_roses]

47. It is the CHILD's WELFARE that should take precedence here -

not whatever mistakes this woman may or may not have made. Goddess knows with the state of our economy - our ever-greater abandonment of the young, people of color, the low-income, the working class, the poor - people are driven by factors outside their control to make expedient decisions that are not always sensible just to try to support themselves and their families.

Your sanctimony reeks of indifference and callousness. And that obtains whatever the "motives" of the woman turn out to be. Goddess knows it's so UNNATURAL for the mother of an infant to want to live, eh?

[SemperEadem]

50. what a jerk response

your callousness towards that young mother attempting to find suitable arrangments for her baby is breathtaking and sad.

[JackInGreen]

54. There are

standards for speacial dispensation, however, "she shoulda known better", though honest, is really really fucking heartless.

[MonkeyKnifeFight12]

56. She 'new' did she?

Wow it's tuff to say what she new and when she new it. This hole thyme she's been such a pane inn the ass by not nowing what she was getting into. A men my brother.

Chris

[MadMaddie]

168. Okay you are two funny!!

:rofl:

Welcum to DU!!:hi:

[juajen]

262. Ok, your both sew funny! NT

[verges]

290. You left out the "k" in "k"not. nt

[gleaner]

58. Your post is ....

completely heartless. I feel sorry for you. The strongest love on earth is the love of parents or a parent for a child. Your post does not reflect any realization or acknowledgment of that at all. I hope someone takes the military to the cleaners on this one. Women have children. Men have children and the military knows this when they enlist too. Even if the child hasn't been born yet, the possibility of an enlistee having a child is still there. The military has made provisions for hardships involving family members of service men and women many times since its inception, and to take this baby and give him to the state is unthinkable.

If her mother will care for the baby, she should be given time to pick him up and take charge of him. If her mother cannot care for the baby then his mother should be excused from deployment until she can find an appropriate care giver. The foster care systems in most places are in a shambles. Society has never funded them appropriately and they are a source of potential abuse to foster children most of the time.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and if we had a Congress with a spine they would put an end to it. I don't think a solution is all that difficult. It might involve compassion and humanity, but since when were those dirty words? Children and their parents are important. They are our future and we can't allow anyone to destroy our future or throw it away.

[verges]

291. My guess is that this will be

resolved quickly and satisfactorily in a few weeks at most. But we'll never here of it. Some bozo in her chain of command will end up in trouble for giving her wrong information regarding this.

[Syntheto]

72. You're right...

[katkat]

74. southernyankeebelle, you're right

Sick of hearing excuses from people who take military pay and then try to bail out of their obligations.

Ditto with childbearing. If you can't take care of the kid, don't have the kid.

[elehhhhna]

83. lol military "pay". Ditto for "can't take care of the kid, don't have the kid"

that one only works if you have a frikkin crystal ball.

I know lots of people who could take GREAT care of their kids, when they had them...but some are divorced, some widowed, one was left when she had a severely disabled child, and a LOT of couples who made decent livings say, 10 years ago, and are making the same or LESS today, or are having major health/disablility issues etc. ad nauseum.

[Hello_Kitty]

94. That's understandable

But OTOH you have people whose lives are trainwrecks from the get-go, and they still have kids.

[Mithreal]

100. KatKat, I am shocked that you of all people would say that. Not.

I have great ideas for the wingnuts who think they have found a home because of all the "moderates" here. All women who serve in the military should be sterilized. All women who serve in the military should receive mandatory abortions. I have more but those will do for now.

[Gman]

105. What makes you think us moderates never had a home here before, newbie?

[Mithreal]

121. Gman, what a pleasure

If I didn't notice the incessant name calling I wouldn't even know you existed.

[natrat]

254. oh so thats the theme the puppetmasters are pushing, "us moderates", what a joke

FUCK YOU AGENT MIKE YOU PIECE OF SHIT

[CreekDog]

138. i guess worst person in the world is tied tonight

Who would have thunk. :think:

And I don't think she's gotten military pay for future service.

[kristopher]

229. They have been paying large recruitment bonuses.

I'd guess there is a fair chance she got one.

[CreekDog]

242. but putting a kid into foster care?

:wtf:

:grr:

[kristopher]

246. That is an extraordinary move that probably has a valid explanation. nt

[CreekDog]

248. i don't think kids should be taken away unless there's criminal activity rendering parents unfit

i doubt this situation involves that.

remember, our government has put a child into foster care so the military can punish her for not reporting.

what about that kid?

[kristopher]

255. "Not reporting" is criminal activity.

And you doubt this situation involves "that" you say? Why? Because you see the military as an evil entity? My experience is that they have a very, VERY strong bias towards helping and protecting families. They understand the importance of the family unit to the military member's ability to focus on the mission. However that bias towards the family doesn't mean that the military member can just do whatever the hell they want and use their family as an excuse.

The system, as it is designed, is as fair to the family as I think it can be while still maintaining the priority of the military's ability to project force. That is why they are there - period. It isn't primarily a jobs program, it isn't primarily a ticket to health care or education - it is an arm of the government charged with projecting force.

We would probably agree if the topic were the way the political system employs military force, but I don't think you and others who are attacking the military actually have an appreciation how fundamentally different a life it really is so we are going to disagree on this part.

One thing though - have you read the news articles and the response someone posted from the public affairs office? I think the lawyer for the service member has taken some standard boilerplate warnings and blown them out of proportion to their actual relevance. As I posted upthread, they routinely treat this type of situation with a plethora of warnings and threats of what they will do if you are faking it. In my case, I wasn't and they backed off and gave me a discharge. I suspect that is what they would have done (and may still do) in this case, but the lawyer has now put it in the public eye; a move that will change the options available to the decision-makers.

Now, they have to take into account whether the publicity encourages others to manipulate the system and use this as a way to get out or whether it discourages others from such manipulation.

What would you do if that were your primary concern and the actions of the young private were strongly suspect anyway?

[shireen]

232. single parents -- mother or father -- should not be deployed

they can continue to meet their military obligations IN this country working at military bases, and be able to go home each night to their kid(s). There is no need to traumatize the child by sending mom or dad overseas. The military needs to make more effort to help single parents.

[rocktivity]

241. DING DING DING! Shireen, you're our grand prize winner!

I cannot believe that anyone is suggesting that it's okay to toss a child into the chasm of foster care when he has a perfectly suitable legal parent. There also seems to be a lot of leaping to the conclusion that she knocked herself up to avoid deployment.

Foster care is for children who have NO ONE. The solution is quite simple--either give her a stateside job or an honorable discharge. How dare a solider be asked to leave their own children behind.


rocktivity

[kristopher]

258. That actually makes sense to you?

I'm sure you actually think it would also make sense to the husbands, wives and children of those who would have to go in place of the entitled single parent, right?

[raccoon]

270. Maybe if the US brought the draft back, they wouldn't have to be. nt

[Duckhunter935]

287. Let the other soldiers deploy more, Thanks

As a single soldier with no children I was always covering and deploying for married or single parents.

[kelly1mm]

295. Did you think this all the way ot before you posted it?

If I were a) no dependants or b) married w/children in the military how would it be fair/right/just to send me to a war zone over somebody with children who signed up for the same job? Also, where is the other parent? No mention at all of him.

[ShamelessHussy]

78. The issue is wether the military 'knows the deal'

if what has been reported is true, then the answer is, hell no.

[Th1onein]

81. YEAH!

Take that baby away from it's mother, cause she new. She new! She shoulda had an abortion, huh? Cause the military has a mission and she has a duty. That duty, of course, is to the military first! She new.

[StarryNite]

87. You're obviously not a

bleeding heart liberal. I doubt that you have a heart at all.

[C_Lawyer09]

108. Reservists can join as single parents that have custody

Unlike active duty. Something smells about this report. All the Soldiers I've ever seen that don't have current family care plans get chaptered out on a dependency discharge. A court martial or any action under the UCMJ would be illegal for something as simple as a voided family care plan. Secondly they would not deploy her and then court martial her.

[CreekDog]

134. your 666th post is pretty darned evil

You know most people would think of the child first.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

160. many women join military to escape poverty

I once lived in an apt complex, the lady was in ROTC in order to get education.
She hid the fact that she was a single parent from the ROTC, because she was absolutely
desperate.

She had her daughter stay with a relative for the summer in another state,
and the lady was so broke that we took up a collection to get her daughter flown back.
The airlines gave us a real cut rate ticket.

The lady barely kept from being thrown out of her apt, she also prostituted herself
a few times to pay the bills.

She was scrambling up from nothing, with no help, no real support except a few
neighbors who also were struggling at that time.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lorien]

176. Another good little brownshirt Authoritarian visits DU

The Oligarchy has trained you well. Never question authority. Obey all the rules. Everything is black and white. Never, ever consider what is morally correct, just obey.

[dschis]

178. The Army isn't in the business of being nice

They try. But they are in the business of defending the nation. You can't have wimps doing that. There should be ways to take care of her, but not the Army.

BTW, I'm a real liberal about other stuff. I'm just telling it the way it is

[gtar100]

209. In the business of "defending the nation"???

hahahaha :rofl:

The unfortunate truth is, that's not what our military is used for. It's only the excuse they use to shame people into supporting their draw on the national treasury.

If only they focused their sole intent on defending the nation, it probably wouldn't be bleeding us to death.

[NeoConsSuck]

228. They're in the business

of opening new revenue streams for capitalism, and keeping the current capitalist playgrounds safe.

But you did get one thing right, it is a business.

[raccoon]

271. Good post! nt

[shireen]

233. National security starts at home.

You can't expect unhappy single parents, forcibly separated from their children, to be effective soldiers. The military needs to exercise a little more compassion and understanding in dealing with single parents who are the sole supporter of their kid(s).

[juajen]

263. Man, you got that right. Dem Afghans and Taliban have already docked

in Canada and are marchin' down to the border. Don't shoot boys and girls until ya see the whites of their eyes.

[Canuckistanian]

187. Did the Army "know the deal"?

Compassionate leaves are given to both men AND women.

I think she qualified for leave just as much as any man.

[Hepburn]

204. ESAD. n/t

[Jazzgirl]

205. I am not going to say what I really think about your post

because I would probably get TS'd but your statement is really fucked up.

[bamacrat]

253. Horrible response to this.

I wonder the response had she had an abortion so as to not subject her child to a shitty foster system.

[Therellas]

257. "knowing the deal"....

spells drink the coolaid backwards

[bread_and_roses]

42. This is insanity

That poor child - no single parent should be asked to leave an infant or young child for a year - in truth, no primary caregiver, single parent or not...there's no way the child will not suffer emotional harm from such a separation. And to put an infant in FOSTER CARE for such a reason is utterly inhuman.

[Mithreal]

46. It's not just this child, there are more suicidal pre-teens now

from their parent's repeated deployments and too many others just being overmedicated.

What we do to the least and all.

[kristopher]

53. These terms were *explicitly* agreed to by the servicemember

This has been the policy of the US military for more than 30 years. When someone is a single parent (mother giving birth or result of death or divorce from spouse) they go through a counseling and legal process specifically designed to make the point very, very clear. IF you wish to be a member of the armed forces you MUST ensure ongoing, long-term (up to one year) childcare arrangements for your children.

If you do not agree you are allowed to leave the service with an honorable discharge.

If you agree in order to keep receiving pay and benefits, but reject the terms when it is time to perform the duty we pay soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines to do, then that is fraud unless there is some special mitigating factor.

I can understand how economic needs, circumstances and perhaps wishful thinking are working to make this person seem a victim, but in the larger picture she is responsible for honoring her agreement.

I do however, think that an alternative where she receives a general discharge and is then subjected to civil legal action to recoup the earnings she gained through the fraud.

IT would still suck but it would accomplish the same goals without the unnecessary stigma of criminality.

[pundaint]

57. That sounds reasonable to me

[aquart]

79. Right. Destroy job possibilities and then get the desperate to sign

what? TO SIGN AWAY THEIR CHILDREN??????????????????????????? Because that is what we are talking about here.

[kristopher]

80. No it isn't.

I resigned for parenthood (during similar employment conditions in 1982) after 8 years in the service because I became a single parent and refused to put myself in the position of leaving my children. I had intended to make a career of it yet I understood the mission is what we are there for. She KNOWS that also - she was payed for years of doing nothing expressly to make sure a trained and experienced individual would be available to go where she was needed when she was needed.

Unless there are mitigating factors (which I doubt) I believe she is trying to game the system and they aren't letting her get away with it.

The military isn't just a job.

[dschis]

92. I feel for her

But that's exactly it. If you can't leave the kids, then get out. Fact is, while you're in the Military you belong to Uncle Sam and while it sucks family comes second.

It's all about mission. One mistake the Romans used to was carry their baggage with them while they were in the field, in a rear area of coarse. It was exploited from time to time ask the Germans

[noamnety]

98. There's a lot of ignorance in your post.

I also opted to leave the service when I got pregnant.

Let me tell you how that went - you and all the other folks who don't really GET how it works.

It was an unplanned pregnancy. I got out. That cost me all my benefits, my college fund, my enlistment bonus, everything.

It left me unemployed and unable to get a job (I was in and out of hospitals during the pregnancy, and lets face it, nobody's going to hire a pregnancy woman), and without health insurance.

Alright, no problem, my decision to sacrifice all that to ensure I wouldn't be deployed while caring for a child.

But they don't discharge you when you get out for being pregnant, they transfer you to the IRR. (Might depend on how long you've served, but that was the deal for me.)

I got put in the IRR - the inactive reserves, and then got a recall letter putting me back on reserve duty for 6 more years, and I was subject to the same deployment orders as everyone else in the unit when desert storm came up.

Such a deal for the single mom - you can still get deployed, but without health care at the critical time, and only after the military revokes all your benefits.

[C_Lawyer09]

116. Key Phrase

You opted to get out of the service. How long were you in? That would determine qualification for the mentioned benefits

[noamnety]

123. That's half the story - losing the benefits.

The other half is being recalled and deployed anyway - because "getting out" isn't what people think.

People in this thread act like she could have just gotten out and guaranteed she wouldn't be deployed. That's not how it works.

[kristopher]

230. How long were you in?

It obviously wasn't long enough to earn benefits since, unless you are being punished with a less than honorable discharge, they don't strip you of them once a person qualifies.

[dschis]

155. Bottom Line ma'am

Is that you were told this from the beginning. It goes the same for men. The Army, for better or worse, is the Army. I was subject to the same thing and still as retired soldier. And yes, it depends on how long you have served. When you signed the initial enlistment contract it was for six years (with active duty and IRR duty).

I'm going to say something non PC here. They handled females and their unique issues better during the WAC days. If they are in such a bind they need more troops during war bring back the draft and make a 'war tax'.

That'll bring Congress back into their responsibility and make going to war a little harder.

I have a feeling we'll get away form these police actions that way. There is no way we should have been in Iraq in the first place and we shouldn't have been involved in an opened ended action in for his long period. That's the real problem.

I'm sorry things didn't work out right for you. I don't know your situation, but in normal peacetime I would have tried to get things a little better for you.

[noamnety]

158. Inaccuracies in your post

It's an 8 year commitment when you sign up, not a 6 year, I'm not sure how you wouldn't know that.

And I'm laughing (now, not then) because exactly what you've been saying is what we were told - that we'd be "discharged."

That's a very different thing than being transferred to the IRR and then subject to deployment again while my kid was still nursing.

The army has a special talent for omitting key information. Your other posts further down are exactly how the army phrased it - and not at all the full story. I'm glad other people in this thread can read those posts and see exactly how that "discharge" is framed.

[dschis]

167. It's been awhile

It was six years for me personally, they might have changed it. I have the paper still, but I was in at the tail end of Vietnam all the way through Desert Storm I and a bit after that. The Army wouldn't deployed you by the way. I'm guessing you were transfered to St. Louis. There were provisions made during that time frame for that sort of thing. I know that personally.

Make no mistake ma'am I've got scars to prove to prove my service and ask my poor wife and kids. But then you don't know me..

Tell you what:

The next movement I will name, explain and demonstrate to you is the position of attention.
This position is the basis for all stationary and marching movements.

Explain the meaning of Black Cycle in Fort Campbell, or Red Cycle in Ft Bragg.

What did the Baghdad Highway smell like?

The Army isn't a charitable organization. Never has been

[noamnety]

170. Good lord.

"The next movement I will name, explain and demonstrate to you is the position of attention."

WTF?

This last post reads like a scene from a bad movie. You can relax and deflate yerself. I'm done with those days of my life, whether or not you'd like to relive yours.

[dschis]

189. I got your attention

Ma'am I think we agree the government probably screwed you over. I would personally have tried to help. If I were in charge for a day, I would've made provisions if you couldn't be a soldier to serve in some other capacity.

I've got some liberal ideas about that see some my other posts

[jmowreader]

202. It used to be six

I am a "divided service" veteran, which means I joined, got out and rejoined. In 1981 when I joined the first time, I agreed to a six-year service commitment. In 1986 when I joined the second time, I agreed to an eight-year commitment. If he joined before 1984, he wouldn't know that because he was under the six-year plan.

[AnneD]

301. Thank you for your post....

I was at the end of my IRR when I found my self a new and single mom. I was in a better place than you noamnety, but I got a letter stating to report for a physical. Fearing a stop loss (involuntary addition of time in service) and an untold amount of time fighting this, being forced to give up my still nursing infant and forced to do duty, just because I reupped for another term in IRR several years before (you get no pay in IRR). Well, I just never showed up for that physical and let the contract die-but it was an anxious several months. You just think you have been screwed when you are pregnant in the Army. They add another dimension to your experience. I am not shocked by your experience and I wish her and her child well.

[nashville_brook]

112. with all the military bases in the US, you can't tell me there aren't real and meaning jobs

for single parents with hardships. give it up. yay you for being a big boy and quitting. she's a different person, and we're saying the regulation itself is bullshit. we're disagreeing with you on principle.

[jmowreader]

217. There ARE those kinds of jobs

And they're all full of single parents with hardships.

[kristopher]

227. What priniciple?

The principle of of fairness where she is exempted from the risk that all other military members face?

Or the basic principle of honesty where a person is obligated to honor their word?

Maybe you think it is principled to exploit your fellow citizens any way you can but I don't.

[C_Lawyer09]

115. There is no fraud

Her mother just voided her family care plan

[kristopher]

231. They have clawback provisions

They have clawback provisions recouping bonuses through the civil courts that they use if they think she lied; that is what I was thinking of. I expressed it poorly.

This is one of the things I was warned of when I elected to get out. There was one briefing at the legal office and there were two administrative briefings that all focused on all the ways the military would come after me if my claims were fraudulent. At the end of the day I had to pay back about $1200 in bonus money, but I received an honorable and was given full mustering out pay and entitled to all veterans benefits.

[C_Lawyer09]

114. There is something wrong with this story

It is a dependency chapter, simple as that. If the state took the child there is more to this story than is apparent on the surface. Twenty plus years of military service and I've never witnessed or heard of anything like this. That is why it is an option afforded to any expectant mother to seperate from the service.

[Hello_Kitty]

119. IMO it gives some plausibility to the mother's account.

It seems to demonstrate that she really can't take care of her grandson.

[dschis]

133. That's what I'm saying

Used to be AR 635-100? But trainees are counseled on this in boot and AIT. I've done this a "couple" of times

[C_Lawyer09]

139. 635-200

Not bad, not bad at all. All those modulations must have kept your memory sharp.

[dschis]

157. Someone had to say modulations

Now I'll be dreaming that crap again

[mnhtnbb]

43. Single parenting is difficult with any job, but how a single parent

can expect to fulfill a military obligation requiring deployment is beyond me. The child is the innocent
victim in this scenario of supermom meets unyielding military might.

[qazplm]

71. oh come on really?

so was she the poor supermom when the army was paying her extra for having a dependent? Or when the Army was paying all of her child's health expenses for free (not to mention her own) as a dependent?

Assuming she had the baby on active duty, was the army the big bad bully when it gave her paid maternity leave? Was it the bully when it covered the complete cost of prenatal care and birth?

There is no draft. She had and has an obligation. Her not deploying either means someone else has to go in her place, or they go a person short. Neither are fair to all the other folks who lived up to the rules. There are a whole lot of single parents in the military who deploy and who do leave their kids for a year.

How sympathetic do you think they would be to her situation right about now?

[mitchum]

73. +1

Everything you said

[raccoon]

272. Ditto. nt

[axollot]

44. This is pretty sick any way you slice it. n/t

[jmowreader]

45. I'd court-martial her AND her entire chain of command

The Common Dreams article quotes her as saying it's outrageous the Army would deploy a single mother without a complete and current family care plan. I think it's outrageous that (1) a soldier in an Army at war would NOT have a complete and current family care plan and (2) the chain of command in a unit of an Army at war would have not made sure her FCP was squared away.

So...everyone involved here fucked up and they need to be held accountable for it.

[pundaint]

55. I don't know enough about this specific case, but I do know that

it should never come down to this choice, because once abandoning a child is the alternative, the good options are gone. But part of being in the military is being available for service when called, and the military should not be put in this situation either. So I'll leave this case to others.

For the future, however, this needs to be avoided. How should it be done?

1. no women capable of child bearing allowed in military.

2. a woman must sign a pledge to not get pregnant during time of enlistment or face general discharge with loss of benefits.

These don't seem like enough options, but I can't think of anything else respecting both the Military needs and a woman's right to make the choices she must live with.


Got any other suggestions?

[sarge43]

66. Yup, got one.

If a servicewoman wants to have a family, she marries a civilian and he takes care of Junior or Sissy while she's out in the tall grass or sand box.

Servicemen have done something similar since there's been armies.

[dschis]

106. That's good, I've seen that

[Luciferous]

236. Yeah, but what happens if the civilian spouse decides to take off

and won't help take care of the child? My mother in-law was in the Navy and she was a single mother. Her ex-husband moved and didn't have anything to do with my husband for like 20 years. If she would have been deployed, she could have sent her son off to live with her parents, but not everyone is lucky enough to have that option.

While I can see both sides of the argument, I don't think that the military should take her child away just so she can be deployed.

[noamnety]

239. That happened to me after I was recalled.

Any family contingency plan always depends upon a third party to carry out those plans - and we don't have control over third parties. Nor do they know when they agree to it what their circumstances will be in a year or two down the road when you need them to follow through on their commitment.

That was the deal with the woman in the article - she had a plan, and then the third party (her mother) realized she couldn't reasonably meet that prior verbal commitment.

[Chemisse]

91. You are right - there needs to be a better plan for this

Young women will have babies that they did not expect to have when they sign up. And the children should not be the ones to suffer.

[C_Lawyer09]

118. Hello! Rocket Scientists!!

There are already regs on the books that do a good job of taking care of these situations. There is a heck of a lot of misunderstanding and over dramatization about this relatively simple and common place occurence.

[dschis]

95. As an old retired soldier. I've kicked a couple out

due to FCP and NEO isssues

[Mari333]

49. assholes. they dont care who they fuck over.

[enlightenment]

68. Why?

Mari, there are rules. They're not new rules and she obviously was familiar with them. Is it appropriate to say that all employers should allow employees to bend and/or break the rules with complete impunity? Or just the military?

There is an alternative, I suppose. Approximately 8% of active duty military personnel are single parents. The military could just kick them all out. Then, if a female military member gets pregnant and decides to keep the kid - out she goes. If a male military member's civilian wife dies and he's left with the kids - out he goes.

That would take care of it and that's pretty much the way it was, 50 years ago.

What has happened to this woman is harsh, but she failed to meet her end of her obligation - an obligation she understood (or her attorney would be talking about the fact that she didn't understand; instead, she admits that the woman did not have a complete FCP). The option of extending extra time to service members is contingent on extenuating circumstances; apparently, her commanders did not feel that the argument she was making was valid - or maybe between the time that she told them she needed the extension and the time they revoked it, she said or did something (or, alternately, did nothing to rectify the issue) that convinced them that her situation didn't warrant the extra time. There's really not enough there to tell.



edited for spelling and clarity

[Mari333]

111. you know , fuck the rules

and fuck all the chest thumping tough guy macho bullshit semper fi stormtrooping jackbooted penis waving flag draped hardass rules and everything that the military does to make it hard on the families

yeah, fuck the rules. bend them and behave like humane people, even the goddamned military.

bend the motherfucking rules and show some goddamned compassion.


Im sick of the macho bullshit.

[bread_and_roses]

128. I'm with you. And that child's welfare should be the ONLY consideration

in this matter. Fuck the rules. Most people in the services are only there anyway because there are no options in civilian life for them. But admitting that would jeapordize the sick, military worshiping culture we've become, with the very corporations in the service of which these people are sent off to die putting up commercials telling us what heros each and every one is and how we should be so grateful to them. I pity them, but I won't worship either them or the death-machine they have become fodder for.

That child is not at fault. His welfare should be the only concern here. Fuck that sick system and its sick rules.

[qazplm]

195. wow

"Most people in the services are only there anyway because there are no options in civilian life for them."

That isn't even close to true. Some are. Some use the military because it pays well or because it makes it easier to pay for college. Some serve because they feel a need or because it is a family tradition. I personally came in and have stayed in because as an attorney I get more experience quicker than I would have in the civilian world.

Your pity for military members smells a lot more like patronization and disdain to me.

[C_Lawyer09]

206. Your last line speaks volumes

Many would do well to reflect on your statement for a moment. There are indeed many reasons. Over the years I've worked with some extremely educated and high quality people. Some whom had left extremely lucrative careers. Regardless of the trite generalities and pigeon holing going on here, the military is really just a microcosm of society. The Marine Corps and Army has taught me so much. I've watched men and women make sacrifices on a day to day basis, some that defy description. It is short sighted, narrow minded and simplistic to assume that the only reasons people join any branch of service are to get personal benefits or a job they couldn't get elsewhere. I very much appreciate the clarity of your post sir.

[clear eye]

293. Every coworker's kid that signed up that I knew about did it b/c

they found academics difficult so they didn't want to go even to community college, and they had no job prospects. There was also an overlay of imagining themselves heroes, but that was after the fact. First they realized that they were in a bind and their parents were saying either go to school or get a job. Not exactly a scientific survey, but my guess is it's probably true that over 50% go in for that reason.

[amandabeech]

247. Yes. The child's welfare comes first. Period.

It sounds to me like this soldier's mother backed out of her commitment. The soldier had no control over that. Kids do not control their parents.

Putting that child in foster care puts that child in psychological and physical danger. And for what? Because there can be no hardship exceptions to the rules? Because nothing ever goes wrong at exactly the wrong time in life, and those who assert that they do are liars?

I respect the the folks who serve, and I always have no matter what dumb stuff the commander and chief has asked you to do, but the comments on this thread from men and women who have served frankly make me sick.

[martymar64]

141. I'm with you on this

It's not like there aren't any stateside assignments she could have.

Making here abandon her child is inhuman in the extreme.

[Hello_Kitty]

165. Sure, set a precedent so people who are parents can use it to get out of deployments.

Let the people without kids be the cannon fodder.

It was in the military that I formed my intense disdain for the entitlement attitudes of parents.

[kiva]

194. Yes, only people without children should be deployed out

of country :sarcasm: Or maybe only parents who are not single parents should risk their lives and spend months away from their children - that way all single parents could stay here with their children and be safe.

[dschis]

173. I have done that when I can

But when you're deploying and that's a lot of work. You don't have the time to do that.

BTW it's not the Army's business never has been. They will bend over backwards to take of families and they do, but I have to agree with the Lawyer something ain't right with this story. It happens all of the time. In my 20+ years of being a 'stormtrooper' never seen a situation quite like this.
You have a different mindset to put with that bullshit and that goes for your dependents too. You take a weapon point at someone or have them point at you takes a special kind of idiot.

If you can't do it then you don't belong

[enlightenment]

193. Okay.

So it is just the military. ;)

I won't argue the point (and I don't have a penis, anyway).

edited for spelling

[Violet_Crumble]

199. +1 from me....

I'm a single mother who had a lot of family support raising my daughter and the position this woman was put in is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. So here's a hearty fuck off to any of the 'she deserves it and that's what you get when there's rules' contingent here. Try thinking about that child and the horrible position his mother is in, you self-righteous wankers!

[juajen]

266. God, that was wonderful, Mari. I wish I'd said that. NT

[dschis]

97. She was told or should have been

The Army is the Army is the Army.

[C_Lawyer09]

124. Drill Sergeant

As you've made mention, this is open and shut, no FCP... dependency chapter paperwork. If the state took the kid there is something afould afoot as pretains to this story. The reservist had all this broken down for her shotgun style at the recruiting office, I'm sure before the intricacies were re-explained by her chain of command. Mind boggling, the attempt by many others to complexify the situation and make generalizations demonizing (whom?) they don't know as the evil military co-conspirators. The Recruiter

[dschis]

131. A little more eloquent than I would have put it.

TRADOC req used to require that everyone be counseled during the training cycle on this very subject. It was a response to female gaming the system. She also had to sign. Unless she was raped, there would other factors but that's outside my expertise. If she went to boot camp and AIT she got counseled on that at least once more than likely about three times

[mitchum]

51. She exercised her...choice...to have a child...

and now that choice conflicts with her legal commitment to the military

[sarge43]

59. Thank you. Unless she was raped and is firmly opposed to

abortion, she made a choice and every choice has consequences. She is the one who should have thought of the welfare of her child. As pointed out in another thread, this policy is no deep dark secret that military applies arbitrarily only to single mothers. It's been around ever since immediate discharge of pregnant servicewomen was eliminated.

Either all single parents, male and female, are automatically discharged (also if a married couple with children are both in service because they can both be deployed at the same time) or service personnel without children pick up the load, only they are deployed. In either case it won't work out well.

[mitchum]

61. I feel sorry for a child who has a mother with such a poor sense of judgment

That does not bode well for the child's future

[C_Lawyer09]

126. No her choice to not have a valid family care plan

is the conflict.

[dschis]

146. Thank you

It's the same for men. It's all about being deployable.

My guess is that you're military

[WriteDown]

52. Simple solution. No more women in the military OR.....

Make it a truly volunteer force where people can come and go as they please.

[sarge43]

62. Does that include female members of the Nurse Corps?

Have fun running the Med Corps with that policy in effect. Discharge single fathers and there are some? I can assure you there will be more if that becomes an automatic discharge.

Truly volunteer armies have been tried. Shortly after the revolution, the Soviets tried it, lasted for about a nanosecond after the first shot was fired by the other side.

[WriteDown]

64. :)

I was speaking in jest. Another great idea would be to have daycare facilities on base in Afghanistan.

[sarge43]

70. Sorry for the over reaction.

Bit of a hot button item with me. I was in service back in the bad old days when women, single or married, were booted out for pregnancy or support of minor children. Single fathers, divorced or widowed, weren't. It was this bad: A career servicewoman married a serviceman with sole support of his children. She had to get a waiver from discharge from the SecAF and, no, she wasn't adopting them or taking on any legal obligation. And I didn't hear this third hand; I was stationed with her, helped her with the whole forests destroyed paperwork.

[dschis]

102. The Army don't

If there is an issue, man or women, if you're a single parent or some sort of other issue with child care. You have to have a valid FCP in place period

[dschis]

99. Ahh yes the same rules apply

[Hello_Kitty]

117. Please. Men were just as quick to pull the "but I'm a single Dad!" card to get out of stuff.

In fact, from what I recall in my time in the military, they were more likely to do it. Not only did it usually work, but it allowed them to preen about like heroes because they took an interest in their kids.

[dschis]

137. Then that was the Chain of commands fault

The reg is clear on that

[change_notfinetuning]

60. This is being done in my name? The hell it is. If it's in my name, then I

want to see the people taking that baby away charged with kidnapping. And, furthermore, I don't want that mother being sent to fight a war with my tax dollars. That's a moral decision, too, just like the Stupik supporters claim with regards to abortion.

[mitchum]

65. Uh...that child was also delivered with and received prenatal care...

with your tax dollars.
And the mother was well aware of that fact
Just as the mother CHOSE to bring that infant to term, she also CHOSE to join the military.

[BrklynLiberal]

88. How do you know she CHOSE to bring the baby to full term?.

If she had wanted to have an abortion, it would not have been paid for...Hyde Amendment.

[mitchum]

104. Well, apparently she did CHOOSE to do so...

since there is a baby.
Or she could have CHOSEN to save up a few hundred dollars for the procedure. They were paying her in the military before she got knocked up, ya know. What was she spending her money on? Rent? Food? Utilities? Medical Care? Not likely...

[BrklynLiberal]

109. so long

[mitchum]

113. The truth must really hurt you, doesn't it?

[verdalaven]

154. Are you for real?

"However, after a week of caring for the child, Hughes realised she was unable to care for Kamani along with her other duties of caring for a daughter with special needs, her ailing mother, and an ailing sister." From the article.

Do you know how hard it is to take care of a person with special needs, or the infirm? Have you been in that position? I have, and it is not for the feint of heart, buddy, not at all. Talk about an overwhelming load. As long as we are writhing in speculation on why this soldier is doing ANYTHING, let's consider that maybe her Mother thought adding one more responsibility wouldn't be a problem, until after she had the baby for a while and realized it was going to pose a HUGE problem. So this soldier did what she was expected to do, found a place for her baby, and the caretaker backed out at the last minute. How does this make the mother a bad person? She wouldn't abandon her child. The Army forced her to do that. The Foster Care system is so much better for the child, right?

But no, this is all about the woman getting pregnant to get out of her responsibilities to the United States Army.

You know, I don't care that my tax dollars paid for her to have a healthy child. That is much better than the tax dollars our government is spending to kill people in wars without end. Maybe we shouldn't break up this family just so we don't feel cheated because she got health care she deserved as a pregnant woman.

[mitchum]

264. "Do you know how hard it is to take care of a person with special needs"

Yes, it is what I do eight hours a day for five days a week...buddy (and it is more than one individual)


The soldier in question is a welsher who is seemingly unable or unwilling to honor her prior legal commitments.

[qazplm]

63. what this boils down to

is the Army, or more accurately her chain of command, thinks she's manufacturing this issue to get out of deploying.

That her mother could take care of her grand-daughter but now says she can't to keep her from deploying.

So the real issue is something none of us have enough information on. Is she lying or is she being truthful.

It could be that she is being truthful, that she thought her mom would take care of her child, and then when it came time to actually do it, mom said no. Not anything she can do about that and it's tough to say too bad, so sad.

On the other hand, we don't know all the facts. Were the same facts known before present now? That is, what has changed between putting together her long-term family care plan then and now? Has she had other issues with credibility or lying that make the chain of command not believe her now? Is her story inconsistent?

We don't know. So before EITHER defending or attacking the Army or her, shouldn't we know a wee bit more information?

[Downwinder]

67. Why not follow the leadership of our past Commander in Chief and just go AWOL. n/t

[qazplm]

69. that's great snark

but the reality is, there are a lot of single parents in the military. Do we simply say single parents dont deploy?

Ok, so if I dont want to deploy I simply need to become a single parent.

Or I simply can disavow any other caretaker for my current children. Heck in extreme cases we can even get a brief divorce to keep me from deploying.

What about Soldiers without kids? Married Soldiers? They should get the extra burden because single parents dont want to deploy? Dont sign up. Dont take the college money. There isn't a draft. There is no surprise that folks are going to go to war anymore.

It's a tough situation and there are legitimate emergencies where things fall through and this may even turn out to be one of those emergencies and if it truly is then the command handled it beyond poorly. There is a specific part of the regulation that allows for a discharge based on a lack of a family care plan.

If it isn't, then I have zero sympathy as a current active-duty Soldier. The fact is we don't know which version of events is true.

[Downwinder]

76. George and I came from a generation of draft dodgers.

My experience with the military was that they always kept a handful of gotchas in their pocket. I have not seen that the military has changed.

[amandabeech]

307. Great post! n/t

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

77. Word. Welcome to DU.n/t

[Chemisse]

93. And this relates to the abandonment of a baby . . . how? nt

[Quantess]

120. I agree with a lot of what you said.

Welcome to DU :hi:

[C_Lawyer09]

143. Obviously there are many that disagree with you

You make an extremely simplistic argument. While I'm sure that you'd be very comfortable just slinging out platitudes and generalities, the reality is much more complex than you state. While the no bid contracts, privatization of Iraqi oil, and other events have rightly led to indignation, the basis of our preemptive strike on Iraq internationally illegal or not was an extension of the containment doctrine that former President Carter and his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski came up with. Now, in regards to Afghanistan my peanut gallery/knuckle dragger opinion is we should lighten our footprint and focus more resources on Pakistan. Our national security strategy is online if you ever want to read it. You might ponder what would happen if Taliban and/or al qaeda operatives got their hands on Pakistani nukes. Having said that I salute all American service members that sacrifice all they have and do, regardless of their personal feelings about foreign policy.

[Quantess]

196. HEY! Don't pick on the newbie, newbie!

Why bother with the peanut gallery... Save your erudite arguments for the well seasoned crowd.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Edit to add: post #1 is the one that so many people here found objectionable.

[demigoddess]

82. one in seven women in the military are raped by their fellow soldiers and

you just new that the baby was planned and she 'shoulda new' what she was getting into. And now she wants to care for the baby and they are not going to let her. I grew up in the military and I 'new' many years ago, that if a family lost the mother the father was immediately sent back to care for his children. I guess the male chauvinist pigs have taken over.

[elehhhhna]

85. Excellent post..

it's "knew", btw.

[Th1onein]

86. Agreed.

We got some mean ass trolls here tonight, looks like. These courageous keyboard warriors probably couldn't get a date tonight. Mom said they had to clean their basement up and they're really pissed now.

[gmoney]

96. ass trolls are the worst

especially when they're mean...

[Th1onein]

107. LMAO!

Wonderful comeback!

[BrklynLiberal]

89. ..and if she found herself pregnant and did not want to have the baby..would the

military have paid for her abortion? I don't think so....Therefore she had no choice.

[dschis]

144. In the case of rape, yes they would

[noamnety]

240. And what is the standard in the military for determining rape?

Is it verbal statement from the woman? Or conviction?

[Mithreal]

101. My cousin. Fellow soldiers too.

[Psephos]

130. that's an incredible stat if true...do you have evidence to share? n/t

[dschis]

135. And the same rules would apply

If he can't have a Family Care Plan in place and can't deploy. He gets discharged

[C_Lawyer09]

145. Tell me where you got the statistic 1 in 7 please

There is no way that's correct

[mbperrin]

215. Would you accept the ArmyTimes as a source?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/05/gns_female_soldiers_052209/

<down into the article a bit>

Physical wounds aren’t the only ones female troops bring home.As many as one in seven women (15 percent) seek treatment for military sexual trauma, which includes everything from harassment to rape. Up to 70 percent of women being treated for PTSD are there because of sexual trauma.

<much more at link>

[C_Lawyer09]

219. I sure will

But your original post said 1 in 7 women are raped. Harassment is not rape. I tried to use the link you provided but I got a message that the story is AWOL. If possible help me out, I'd like to read the story. I do realize that many women put up with a lot of crap in the Army and that rapes unfortunately occur. Last I knew, which was a long time ago (2000)There were less reported rapes within DOD than in the civilian sector. Wondering if you realize recruiters conduct sex offender checks on all applicants as well as criminal background checks at the municipal, county, and state level.

[noamnety]

243. recruiters. statistics.

"There were less reported rapes within DOD than in the civilian sector."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6903014

[mbperrin]

250. I didn't do the original post, just provided this link. The original link is

AWOL. It began:

For female soldiers, last battle is within
By Mark Curnutte - Cincinnati Enquirer
Posted : Monday May 25, 2009 11:20:29 EDT
They are just a fistful of the 200,000 female troops thrust into battle — intentionally or not — in Iraq and Afghanistan.

so I Googled Mark Curnutte and female soldiers, and got:

For female soldiers, last battle is within
BY MARK CURNUTTE • [e-mail] • MAY 22, 2009

They are just a fistful of the 200,000 female troops thrust into battle – intentionally or not – in Iraq and Afghanistan.




This is the story the ArmyTimes picked up: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090522/EDIT03/305220004/For-female-soldiers--last-battle-is-within

[mbperrin]

251. And here's the report referenced in the article:

http://www.sapr.mil/

Welcome to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) website.
SAPRO is the organization responsible for all Department of Defense (DoD) sexual assault policy. The Department of Defense does not tolerate sexual assault. The Department has implemented a comprehensive policy to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of all members of the Armed Forces. Our men and women serving throughout the world deserve nothing less, and their leaders — both military and civilian — are committed to maintaining a workplace environment that rejects sexual assault and reinforces a culture of prevention, response and accountability.

Myriad of resources available there, including the info that the most common grade of those assaulted is E1-E4, and the most common service is the Army, followed by the Air Force.

[Missy Vixen]

310. Oh, really?

When I was in high school (and babysat for a naval officer and his wife,) he told me to ask the next recruiter that buttonholed me on campus what the current percentage of females raped on a Navy base was per year. I might also add that the recruiter left me alone after that. Permanently.

It's a different branch of the military, but the stats are still unbelievably high.

[Chemisse]

90. Children need to be raised by their parents

Many months of deployment of a parent is very hard on a child. If there is just one parent raising the child, it is inhumane.

That baby can never get back the months (or years?) it was deprived of its mother.

[undeterred]

103. Like going to Afghanistan isn't stressful enough.

It seems like leaving her child with her mother was the plan, and the needs of other family members made that unworkable. Everyone does not have a large extended family who would be able to care for a young child for a year. I don't think she should be punished.

[babydollhead]

122. as per Dahr Jamail

U.S.: Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan
Inter Press Service
By Dahr Jamail

To read story with photo click here.

VENTURA, California, Nov 13 (IPS) - U.S. Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother, is being threatened with a military court-martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan, despite having been told she would be granted extra time to find someone to care for her 11-month-old son while she is overseas.

Hutchinson, of Oakland, California, is currently being confined at Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah, Georgia, after being arrested. Her son was placed into a county foster care system.

Hutchinson has been threatened with a court martial if she does not agree to deploy to Afghanistan on Sunday, Nov. 15. She has been attempting to find someone to take care of her child, Kamani, while she is deployed overseas, but to no avail.

According to the family care plan of the U.S. Army, Hutchinson was allowed to fly to California and leave her son with her mother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland.

However, after a week of caring for the child, Hughes realised she was unable to care for Kamani along with her other duties of caring for a daughter with special needs, her ailing mother, and an ailing sister.

In late October, Angelique Hughes told Hutchinson and her commander that she would be unable to care for Kamani after all. The Army then gave Hutchinson an extension of time to allow her to find someone else to care for Kamani. Meanwhile, Hughes brought Kamani back to Georgia to be with his mother.

However, only a few days before Hutchinson's original deployment date, she was told by the Army she would not get the time extension after all, and would have to deploy, despite not having found anyone to care for her child.

Faced with this choice, Hutchinson chose not to show up for her plane to Afghanistan. The military arrested her and placed her child in the county foster care system.

Currently, Hutchinson is scheduled to fly to Afghanistan on Sunday for a special court martial, where she then faces up to one year in jail.

Hutchinson's civilian lawyer, Rai Sue Sussman, told IPS, "The core issue is that they are asking her to make an inhumane choice. She did not have a complete family care plan, meaning she did not find someone to provide long-term care for her child. She's required to have a complete family care plan, and was told she'd have an extension, but then they changed it on her."

Asked why she believes the military revoked Hutchinson's extension, Sussman responded, "I think they didn't believe her that she was unable to find someone to care for her infant. They think she's just trying to get out of her deployment. But she's just trying to find someone she can trust to take care of her baby."

Hutchinson's mother has flown to Georgia to retrieve the baby, but is overwhelmed and does not feel able to provide long-term care for the child.

According to Sussman, the soldier needs more time to find someone to care for her infant, but does not as yet have friends or family able to do so.

Sussman says Hutchinson told her, "It is outrageous that they would deploy a single mother without a complete and current family care plan. I would like to find someone I trust who can take care of my son, but I cannot force my family to do this. They are dealing with their own health issues."

Sussman told IPS that the Army's JAG attorney, Captain Ed Whitford, "told me they thought her chain of command thought she was trying to get out of her deployment by using her child as an excuse." '

Major Gallagher, of Hutchinson's unit, also told Sussman that he did not believe it was a real family crisis, and that Hutchinson's "mother should have been able to take care of the baby".

In addition, according to Sussman, a First Sergeant Gephart "told me he thought she was pulling her family care plan stuff to get out of her deployment".

"To me it sounds completely bogus," Sussman told IPS, "I think what they are actually going to do is have her spend her year deployment in Afghanistan, then court martial her back here upon her return. This would do irreparable harm to her child. I think they are doing this to punish her, because they think she is lying."

Sussman explained that she believes the best possible outcome is for the Army to either give Hutchinson the extension they had said she would receive so that she can find someone to care for her infant, or barring this, to simply discharge her so she can take care of her child.

Nevertheless, Hutchinson is simply asking for the time extension to complete her family care plan, and not to be discharged.

"I'm outraged by this," Sussman told IPS, "I've never gone to the media with a military client, but this situation is just completely over the top."


** Dahr Jamail's MidEast Dispatches **
** Visit Dahr Jamail's website http://dahrjamailiraq.com **

Dahr Jamail's new book, The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, is now available.

Order the book here http://tinyurl.com/cnlgyu

As one of the first and few unembedded Western journalists to report the truth about how the United States has destroyed, not liberated, Iraqi society in his book Beyond the Green Zone, Jamail now investigates the under-reported but growing antiwar resistance of American GIs. Gathering the stories of these courageous men and women, Jamail shows us that far from "supporting our troops," politicians have betrayed them at every turn. Finally, Jamail shows us that the true heroes of the criminal tragedy of the Iraq War are those brave enough to say no.

Order Beyond the Green Zone
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/bookpage

"International journalism at its best." --Stephen Kinzer, former bureau chief, New York Times; author All the Shah's Men

Winner of the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism

[Hello_Kitty]

125. Where is the child's father? It's curious that there's no mention of him. eom

[TexasObserver]

129. This is what is supposed to be the world's greatest military?

We're reduced to snatching suckling babies from their mother's breast?

If ever we needed a symbolic moment to show what a disaster our war policy has made of our military, this is it.

They're recruiting drop outs, foreigners, and criminals now. And they can't even keep enough soldiers doing that AND paying huge bonuses for re-upping.

We need a sane DOD, run by someone who respects American values and imposes them. That wouldn't include sending mothers of babies to war zones. If they don't want to do that, then discharge the mother and be done with it.

When you fight two really bad wars for no good reason with a handful of troops, they'll get sick of it eventually, and the ones who don't get sick of it will be trouble when they come home.

[dschis]

140. That stuff has been place for a long time

Ever since the Cold War days. You think that being in military is just another job? Ahh no, ask a few of my trainees I introduced to the Army. Its' a different calling and that is BTW why we are the best

[TexasObserver]

162. I'm a veteran, so dispense with your patronizing attitude.

You can't beat two countries that don't have an army, navy or air force, and you think that's a military that can't be stopped?

It's already stopped.

[dschis]

174. I agree

We shouldn't be in the situation that we're in. I'd bring back the draft and war taxes that would dispense with the warmongering shit

[TexasObserver]

179. Good. So we disagree about mothers being sent off?

I don't give a damn what the Army regs say. They're regs - self imposed rules - which the army changes when it fits the army's needs. If the president says "change the regs, Mr. Sec of the Army," the regs get changed like that.

This isn't about whether the Army can find a reg based rationale, but whether it should be told to get with the program that we, the civilians, find acceptable. When the army forgets that they are employees, not policy makers, they go awry.

[dschis]

185. That's why we elect Presidents and they appoint

the service secretaries. I never liked women in forward areas because of this. The ding dongs that set that policy in effect didn't see stuff like this.

Hell no, don't send Mom off to war and Dad if he's the only one around. If they can't deploy and/or fix the situation, put them out into say the Forestry service or make a civilian corps and get rid of some blood sucking contractors

[C_Lawyer09]

207. What's with the chip on your shoulder

You obviously have no real idea how things get done when it comes to changing regulations. It's a bureaucracy, and the harbinger of change is not the president, nor is the Secretar of the Army. Do you realize how long it takes to change a meaningless regulaton? For example, positioning of an appurtenance on the class A service dress uniform. A couple three years. Why don't you read the specific AR that covers dependency, the AR 635-200 and you may be able to digest what the gentleman has tried so hard to explain to so many on this board. If you want to villianize the Army as an organization go ahead, buy you lack the intellectual honesty to apply some critical thinking to your argument, and you disrespect a good Soldier whom has respectfully tried to inform the board without lashing out. It's called military bearing and professionalism.

[noamnety]

245. You seem to have a limited understanding

based on particular things you've seen, you seem to believe that's how everything works. I've seen that in a few posts here.

I remember when the Secretary of the Army decided to suspend a particular part of one reg back in the 90's. He didn't go through the motions of actually revising the reg formally, he simply wrote a memo saying for now, we aren't going to follow that portion of the reg.

[C_Lawyer09]

147. What is the regulation that covers Army recruitment?

I thought so. How about bringing something to the discussion you actually possess first hand knowledge/experience of.

[dschis]

151. I don't know how recruiters handle it but as a

former Drill Sergeant. Trainees, especially females, told this in writing and verbally at least once but supposed to be 3 times during boot camp and AIT. If they don't sign the statements they don't graduate and are discharged. The reg, in the case of enlisted is AR 635-200 Chapter 6

[TexasObserver]

163. That's typical of the thinking lifers bring.

Our army is a shadow of its former self. It's worn out, worn down, and the recruiting is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Yeah, there are some really good troops, but on the whole, the services have gone badly downhill the past nine years.

Soldiers still behaved honorably in the first gulf war and in the missions Clinton sent them on. But since Bush came into office, the military has been untethered, and misconduct in war by soldiers is at an all time high.

[dschis]

177. Ahh I see

As a lifer, I think Bush was an idiot and Rumsfeld was a bigger one. There are probably a lot of good troops that are being driven crazy from the deployments more so than Nam. That crap is no fun. We should NEVER have tried to nation build. When Colin Powell said 'If you break it, you own it' he's the real reason why we didn't fully invade the first time BTW. That's why I have some hope in this mess because he's talking to the President.

We still haven't learned shit from Vietnam.

I would bring back the draft and make a war tax. That would knock this chickenhawk crap off.

[TexasObserver]

180. I'm glad to see you're on the right side of that matter.

We should not have tried to nation build.

Will you agree that our troops made us proud under Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton?

And will you agree that the standard of troop conduct went to hell immediately under Bush II?

We have lost the sense that the military is the servant of the country. All this "troops, troops, troops," is ass backwards. We don't send troops to war to support them. We send them to war because we need some country's ass kicked. They're great at taking down enemies, and lousy at occupying countries.

[dschis]

186. Hell yes

From my vantage, the military will never be the same. It's broken alright

[TexasObserver]

188. There are many career soldiers who are decent men and women.

Sounds like you're one of them.

[dschis]

190. I tried sometimes

I put my career on the line. I was a Sergeant Morales and believed in it.

[Psephos]

197. Thank you for your service. You were not wrong to believe in it.

A belief is not worth much unless it is tested.

[C_Lawyer09]

211. I agree with some of what you said

But sadly and actually, DOD has become better nation builders than DOS. Look at Jay Garner vs. L. Paul Bremer in Iraq, and the awful awful idea of debaathification. If you do some reading behind the scenes, you'll see that again (and sadly) the military is going to become more invoved with nation building. Ironically when Cheney was Sec Def he was vehemently opposed to what he later championed. He'd correctly noted at the time that Iraqi's would resent us as occupiers, which later changed to we'd be greeted as liberators. Very strange turn of events.

[C_Lawyer09]

210. I like your ideas

Especially the draft. All the contractors and privatization hide much of the true cost. Should tax dollars be paying Blackwater, KBR Dynacorps? I think not. It is a shame that Project for the New American Century and Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, so successfully were allowed to hijack our National Security Stategy. Upon Bush taking office, the top priority was re-addressing the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, which for what it's worth underlies much of what is transpiring now. So many flag officers objected on moral and tactical grounds regarding Iraq. It wasn't well publicized of course. General Anthony Zinni, USMC and of course Eric Shinseki whom now heads up the V.A. Another big problem is jobs are now so tied in with weapons manufacturing. I understand, you're not pro-war, you're pro Soldier. At the risk of being mocked, HOOAH!!

[pitohui]

136. holy cow

you cannot force your adult sister or the baby's grandmother to take on your infant

it is a big life decision to take on raising an 11 month old baby, you can't just dump that on your sister and smile and say, sorry sis i'm in the army now YOU GET STUCK WITH THE SCREAMING BABY

this is really shitty, they are more or less forcing the family to take a baby they don't want and can't afford at threat of court martial/prison for the mom

seems like extortion to me

obv. if Big Govt came and said, take this brat or your sister/daughter goes to jail, i'm pretty fucked, i can't raise a baby but i can't say no either

this is really shitty

they need to give the lady more time, not just assume that because she has other females in her family they are all idlers who should be happy to raise somebody else's child because they have fuck-all to do and no life of their own!!!

[dschis]

142. Please see my earlier postings

When you go through boot camp, at least while I was still doing it. They are told and they have to sign a statement that reflects that. To wit, if you get pregnant and don't have a formal current family care plan in effect than you're discharged (honorably). All of this court martial stuff, it's pretty cut and dry is not necessary.

It applies to men too. If they find themselves in single parent situation

I would go into the why, but there are good reasons.

[C_Lawyer09]

150. Good to virtually meet you

I have no more patience for this topic. Your attempts to square everybody away on this topic were admirable. I'm on terminal leave right now, about to retire. See you around on the board.

[dschis]

152. Welcome to the retired ranks

These guys have no clue

[C_Lawyer09]

208. I appreciate your bearing and patience

Seems many are more determined to not understand the situation and conveniently pull out the blame thrower, versus realize that things that aren't pretty or perfect happen in large bureaucratic organizations. I have a feeling if they read some of your other posts they wouldn't be so apt to criticize. I applaud your efforts to increase understanding of some of the underlying realities. Hell, we both know the system is far from perfect, who'd know better than a D.S.? Fact is though, there are a lot of great people making huge sacrifices daily, regardless of individual feelings regarding our foreign policy. Thanks for the welcome! Look forward to reading some of your other posts.

[dschis]

153. Obviously they haven't been briefed on the bus

or been to the sandbox

[noamnety]

156. HAHAHA big difference between what we're "told" and what really happens.

(And this, folks, is why you shouldn't listen to recruiters - because they WILL tell you "no problem, you can just be discharged.")

[dschis]

161. The Army isn't in the business of taking care of kids

It's up to you as an individual soldier to have plans in place to take care of your dependents. It's made for war fighting.

Your chain of command should have directed you to applicable agencies to help out.

Bottom line as I hollered a few times. Everyone's MOS is 11B (infantryman) no matter what other job you have. The Army is a calling not a job

If you can't furfil the obligation. Then we can't use you. I've personally discharged a few because of that

on a non PC note when we went away from the WACs I knew stuff like this was going to happen. Hell, we should having a draft and a war tax. That would stop a lot of extended policing actions and get the Army back into the real defense of the nation

[noamnety]

169. lol

They can't use you ... until you sign those benefits away. And then they magically find that not only can they use you, they absolutely NEED you.

[dschis]

181. There should be ways to help her

But not the Army, maybe the VA and Civilian Corps or even the Women's Army Corps. I'm a chauvinist, I never liked women in a combat zone for just this reason. They should be back in the rear taking care of the other stuff

[noamnety]

184. I'm a chauvinist, too.

I never liked men in a combat zone. :P

[dschis]

192. LOL Well you're right there too

Come to think of it I never did either

[C_Lawyer09]

212. Don't pigeon hole recruiters

I didn't bullshit anybody. FYI when you work in a small community and lie or fail to keep your honor clean, it gets around, and you won't be recruiting anybody. That said, if you want to project on me because I somehow represent what you don't like, I'm alright with it.

[noamnety]

222. I tell you what

You reiterate here straight out that when pregnant women opt for a discharge, they are still subject to recalls and deployment after their kids are born, even though they may have to forfeit their benefits, and I will agree not to pigeonhole you.

I've never seen a recruiter yet (save former ones) who is willing to state inconvenient facts like that directly.

[C_Lawyer09]

234. How many days of active federal service did you have before you got out

What was your three letter re-entry code and re code on your DD214, if I'm going to answer a question that you're framing the premises on I need the information. I'm going to do the research and post the specific regulation for you so there won't be a gray area or insinuation that I'm talking out of my fourth point of contact. That is if it's important to you, if not let me know now so I don't waste my time. I'm talking from memory now, but if you did 180 days of active federal service then you shouldn't have had your benefits stripped.

[noamnety]

237. I did way more than 180 days

before getting my "discharge" (more accurately called a transfer to the IRR - "discharge" is misleading) then got called back in.

But I'm not asking you for MY personal circumstances - I already know those.

I'm asking if you can bring yourself to admit that "a woman who gets pregnant in the military and opts for the discharge may end up forfeiting her benefits, and STILL getting deployed."

You don't need details off my discharge papers to verify that's a true statement.

[C_Lawyer09]

249. Well then, I can only speak from what I know currently

But if you are a single mother without a family care plan you cannot be deployed, that goes for every branch of service. In response to your above comment about my supposed Polyanna viewpoint of the Army, and/or the Marines in which I also served five years, you are definitely misinterpreting my posts. As I said once, myself and another poster bent over (virtually) of course backwards to explain some of the regs and other happenstance that affect an these issues, we even made the regulation known (AR 635-200). There is a comment above from somebody whom says she appreciates those who serve, but frankly "our" comments make him/her sick. A troop leader at any level is supposed to be a troop advocate above all else. In my own opinion I was a mediocre-good Soldier or Marine, but I don't think I ever let anybody under my charge down. In closing I think most on this board would rather be left alone to come to their own conclusions based on assumptions versus facts. I also think they are much more comfortable just assuming that in this instance and others like it, it is the big Army machine, and those within its ranks are bad, and this particular woman is good. All I said, is that most probably there is other information we don't know at this time. As I also stated before, in 20 plus years of service I've never seen anybody jailed or their child taken for any issues regarding dependency. Having said that, I've no more argument, explanation, etc.

[pitohui]

218. but they're not discharging her honorably, they're going to put her in military prison

i've read several of your postings and i'm not clear what you're trying to say (other than the one post where you revealed you don't believe in women in combat situations, not sure of the relevance of THAT but whatever...)

to this civilian it SOUNDS like the woman's family is being blackmailed, her sister is basically going to be forced to raise a baby she doesn't want (when she already has a disabled child of her own) or else let her own sister be court martialed -- i could not afford to take in a baby, even to save my own sister from prison, believe me, this is gonna start a family war and destroy this family, either the sister is fucked financially and put in over her head or she lets the soldier sister go to jail and the baby go to child services -- either way the family is being fucked with here

whatever the soldier may have done, her family is basically being blackmailed/extorted from what i can see

if they were willing to honorably discharge the soldier there wouldn't an issue -- YOU SAY YOU HAVE DISCHARGED MANY AND I BELIEVE YOU BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE

your postings seem to reflect your experience on other cases, but for some reason, based on this article, this soldier doesn't seem to be getting the same chances as the soldiers you've dealt with

seems like she would take the honorable discharge in a minute if it were available but they're telling her she'll get a court martial instead -- what is being reported in this news article does not agree w. your experiences -- maybe it's bad reporting????

you see my problem here?

it's rare that a man would carry a baby to term so that's maybe why you haven't seen this come up so often with your male soldiers :-)

[C_Lawyer09]

220. If it is a simple case of a voided family care plan

She will quickly get an honorable discharge. As I've stated many times, there is something we're not being told here. In a little bit, it will come clear. What's wrong with getting the facts before you start assuming she's going to be court martialed. Just to give you a little analogy as to nuance. Sometimes Soldier get punished for fraudulent(contract)marriages that are enacted solely to collect Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence. I'm not saying you are wrong, but more than likely there is something/s that aren't clear right now. By the way lots of single guys are discharged for family care plan/dependency issues.

[pitohui]

244. ok thanks for the clarification (and for your patience in your many replies to me and others)

you must be correct that "there is something we're not being told here" because otherwise it just does not compute

i am sometimes a blunt instrument when it comes to posting and speaking, so let me say explicitly it is not my wish to be rude or to jump down your throat -- i truly appreciate your patience in this thread (and the patience of the other officer in this thread) -- my manner of speaking is not the most gracious (my mom tried but i still struggle with this)

IF we had the whole story, this would just be too freaky BUT i've seen too many cases where at the end of the day a reporter not in possession of all the facts boldly wrote the story anyway...

[C_Lawyer09]

148. Even though the Drill Sergeant and myself

Have done monkey flips and cheetah somersaults to explain this relatively simple procedure, it obviously isn't working. There is an Army Regulation that covers this, stem to stern. This policy/policies have been in place for an extremely long time. To reiterate or further clarify the child doesn't get dumped on anybody. A raft of paperwork is completed prior to her first reserve drill or appearance at Basic Training. If the I's are not dotted and the T's are not crossed she does not join.

[noamnety]

159. How is that relevant?

If her baby is 11 months old, sounds like she got pregnant after she was already in the service, no?

[TexasObserver]

171. It's an Army reg. Not a law. It can be easily changed.

In your slavish devotion to the army, you lack any realistic perspective. That's true of most lifers. If they could think outside the military, they'be BE outside the military.

POLICY is made by civilians. WE decide what we want the military to do, and our civilian elected officials try to make it happen. We tell YOU what we want done. Your job is to take orders from us, not tell us the Army should be free to do whatever it wants.

All it would take to change your reg is the president telling the Sec of the Army to make it happen, and that would be that. Then your reg would say something different, wouldn't it?

The discussion is not whether the army can find a reg that justifies its action, but whether the army needs to be slapped into line by civilians - yet again - for chronically having its head up its ass.

[smokey nj]

172. I wish I could rec this post.

[dschis]

191. If you're using Firefox get the "read later addon'

[dschis]

183. Yes, that's right

I was telling you how things are. The Pentagon (military and civilian) set the regs. and you are right that's why we have civilians running the DOD. A civilian has to sign every DOD req that goes into effect. Generals have only so much latitude. Soldiers are just the cannon fodder

[C_Lawyer09]

213. You're not understanding

Even though the President is the Commander in Chief, he does nothing regarding regulation (He does weigh in on foreign policy). For example, congress and the Undersec of the Army for manpower would be the prime movers when it came to recruiting regs and policy, the AR 601-210. There's no reason to talk down to me. I realize civilians run the Army, that is what sets us apart from many of the Lesser developed countries (LDC'S).

[WriteDown]

260. You are too right!

Make our military truly volunteer. Let people join and if they feel like things are not working out, let them leave with no questions asked. The least they could do is setup some sort of daycare facilities in on the bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[dschis]

149. I stand corrected

The appropriate reg is AR 635-200 Chapter 6

[proteus_lives]

164. That sucks but she signed on the dotted line.

If what I have read on this thread about regulations is true then Army has a case against her.

[Hissyspit]

175. 3rd ID Public Affairs Office Responded in my other thread and Dahr Jamail's orginal thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7009606&mesg_id=7011720

"Specialist Alexis Hutchinson is a Soldier stationed at Hunter Army Airfield. She is not under any confinement but has been ordered to remain on the installation while the command addresses her alleged misconduct. Just days prior to her scheduled deployment, Specialist Hutchinson's commander received information that indicated that Specialist Hutchinson had engaged in misconduct. Due to the fact that Specialist Hutchinson has a small child, her deployment was delayed so that the command could ensure Specialist Hutchinson's child was cared-for and so that she could meet with legal counsel. In the meantime, Specialist Hutchinson's command had been assured that her mother is caring for her young son.

Currently, thousands of Soldiers at Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield are deploying overseas. However, because of her circumstances, Specialist Hutchinson's commander is reexamining whether or not she will be able to deploy. Because her case could present a hardship to not only her child but also her extended family, Specialist Hutchinson's command has delayed her departure and will continue to work with her legal counsel.

Kevin Larson
Chief, Public Communications
Fort Stewart/3rd Infantry Division Public Affairs Office"

[dschis]

182. There you go

I thought it was BS. But I still think we need to withdraw from there

[Hissyspit]

200. So you automatically believe the Propaganda Affairs Office?

It is a carefully worded press release.

[Imagevision]

198. Fuck em, let em court martial her, like this is really going to effect her being able to get a job..

[chrisa]

201. We should court martial the army.

[go west young man]

203. No matter who signed what or what policy the army has in place

it's absolutely stupid for an infant to be away from it's mother for an extended period of time. Ridiculous on it's face. Crazy that many DU'ers here defend this BS because the mother signed a contract. Like this trivial UCMJ BS matters after all the crimes Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld committed and got away with. Instead let's hold this mother and her Innocent baby to account. Ridiculous. The rest of the world laughs at how absurd we are. Contract or not. Change the stupid policy.

[C_Lawyer09]

216. In the real world contracts matter

You'd be surprised at the amount of paperwork a recruiter and an applicant conduct prior to the enlistment process in the attempt to avoid the cluster#### that is unraveling now. Honestly, none of us on this board are truly in the know right now as to the underlying circumstances. I will tell you that as a Squad Leader, Section Sergeant, Platoon Sergeant I've worked to chapter many of my Soldiers out whom didn't update family care plans or whom wanted out because of dependency issues. It's really not a big deal, and they got honorable discharges.

[go west young man]

226. I'm not arguing law, contracts, or commitments.

I'm arguing the point that it is utterly ridiculous for a baby to be away from it's mother for a long period of time. The baby needs it's mother. Something has to change whether it be the right of women with children to serve or the military policy in regards to that. The baby is the victim. Not the mother or the military.

[C_Lawyer09]

235. I won't argue that

[EFerrari]

284. In the real world contracts are renegotiated all the time. n/t

[Name removed]

214. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

221. I can't bring myself to read even

one comment....the misogynists will be out in force.

I wish her and her son the best. And may the military become an institution of obsolescence.

[Joe Chi Minh]

223. I don't believe that is a decision that most of the service people would make - still

less, those at the sharp end.

Rather it would likely have been an eminent administrator with ice in his veins, and a penchant for paying lip-service to "family values". Pity his wife and children, if he has any. They'll have their own "Afghanistan" kind of hell to deal with, but without the protective armour.

Not that I think women should be employed in war zones, other than as medical staff, and possibly pilots.

[Desertrose]

224. This is really incomprehensible.

They can't allow her time to find anyone to care for her child? Really????? To separate a child from his/her mother is just inexcusable, military contract or no, this is simply not right.


Are we so desperate for bodies to fight these corporate wars? What kind of country is this?


Bring home ALL the solders from Afghanistan and Iraq. Now.

[cbgb2112]

225. I was going to enlist

to be able to afford college during the Clinton admin. The recruiter said I had to sign custody of my two sons due to my being a single parent. At that time, I had no concept of war. He kept saying 'it is just a piece of paper, no big deal'. I told him no deal. I finished University without that option and I am SOOOO glad! Rough stuff.

[mstinamotorcity]

238. The Military

has always had record of doing some tough things when it comes down to family issues. Hopefully they will resolve this and put in measures that will protect the family unity. Finding someone to care for your child is an important decision one that shouldn't be taken lightly. And lets remember she has to get back from Afghanistan. And i am quite sure that if she gets back she probably wont care what happens. Most of our armed forces are the best.They imho need more access to better services that help them in and out of war. Will hope for the best.Peace and Love

[Vidar]

252. So much for motherhood, apple pie must be next: it's the American way.

[WriteDown]

261. Exactly!

See post 226.

[Therellas]

256. the machine claims more......

nice and tidy.
i wonder what it'll be like to have paperwork for parents.

[Bragi]

259. Why let people with kids sign up for these war jobs?

Why do we accept people with young children for combat service, since it is a matter of fact that obvious that their children suffer terribly when they have a parent away at war.

Why do we allow this kind of child abuse to take place, let alone encourage it by marketing military service to young people with kids who have no business leaving their families and adventuring off to war?

[robo50]

265. Isn't it important to you which came first, the job or the kid?

And do you favor sterilizing all women who enter the military so that they cannot have a child while in the service?

How about people going into the service acting like adults who know their responsibilities to find care for their kids if they are called to serve in a war? The vast majority can find kid care when called, why make exceptions for someone who cannot? I can see giving her a 30, 60, or even 90 day extension to find proper care in rare circumstances, but that's about it as far as exceptions should go. They joined up, they had kids, they know the rules.

[Bragi]

267. My concern is for the children, not the parent, or the state

Read some of the studies about how children fare when dad, or mom, go away to war. They have major mental health issues, higher suicide rates, drug problems, etc. They feel abandoned, and they are worried sick about their parent, constantly, as they see the dead or mutilated bodies arrive of parents of other kids they they know at the base.

Anyone who chooses a "career" that has them going to war, where they face danger each and every day, should do the responsible thing and not have children. If they do have children, then for the sake of their children, they should be refused combat duty. And as a society, we should not tolerate, let alone encourage, this form of child abuse.

[robo50]

268. Well, I agree with you on one part, war is not health for children and

other living things.

That's the bottom line. And you may be right that more children suffer than children in families where parents are not called to war.
I don't see this all or nothing policy as catching on, even within the military, however, as the vast majority of parents who choose the military as a career raise perfectly healthy children in every way, even if called to war. Many of our parents and some of us older folks were raised in a family where a parent went to war in WW II or Korea, and, although it would have been NICE for both parents to have stayed at home, I am glad my first language is English now, not German or Japanese.

Edit to add: I don't think these wars are the same as WW II, or even Korea, but Bush got us here, blame the "child abuse" on him, not the dedicated parents, most of whom try to do the right things for their kids.

[Bragi]

269. I agree in part anyway

(This is a new set of thoughts for me, so forgive me if I rant and ramble a bit. And I also reserve the right to change my mind in this discussion.)

Yes, the current warfare is quite different than the WW2-type warfare.

First of all, the troops are self-selected, not conscripted. So if a parent goes to war, it is by choice, not by necessity. Kids know this.

Second, the current wars are more like Vietnam-style warfare, where troops are sent to engage in combat on one side of a civil war, where they don't know their friends from their enemies, and where the support for their mission back home is divided, even doubtful.

For some, this is a desirable lifestyle, otherwise they wouldn't volunteer for it. But it all impacts on the kids of troops, who live every day scared that their parent may be one of the ones that returns in a body bag, and know full well that their parent chose to put them into this nightmare willingly.

For me, that's a horrible burden to put on a child. If it were left to me, I would refuse combat duty to any parent of a minor who was so irresponsible that they didn't even care about the impact of their "career choice" on their kids. And let the chips fall where they may.

If we can't assemble a volunteer army on the field, and we actually have to fight a war (unlike today's wars of choice), then I'd go for conscription. That would be a healthier system for everyone -- including children, who would at least know that their parent did not willingly choose to send them into the daily nightmare that kids of troops have to live.



- B

[tazkcmo]

292. Whose jobe would you pick next?

Fire fighters? Police? Very dangerous jobs those are. Parents should not be allowed to have these jobs either. Airline pilots? High tension powerline workers? Where do you draw the line?

[EFerrari]

278. You'd think in an organization so big, there would be a job she could do here. n/t

[chrisa]

285. Reminds me why I hate our current military structure.

Signing your life away to people on the sidelines who tell you to kill perceived enemies du jour. Hmm... No thanks.

[Ian David]

286. Oh, for god's sake, just tell them you're gay and be done with it.

Until DADT is repealed, people should just take advantage of it for everything.

Call-in gay to the army.

[democracy1st]

297. Sorry but she's wrong on this one!

[beyond cynical]

302. Wow! The Army expected this woman to do what she was contractually bound to do...?

Unbelievably unbelievable.
:shrug:

[Romulox]

305. We can't judge this woman--the military preys on the poor and disadvantaged. nt

[Echo In Light]

306. Boo

[Craftsman]

309. Where is the father?

I read somewhere else she down not want anything to do with him, but is he unfit?