PDA

View Full Version : Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan



FORD
11-13-2009, 11:02 PM
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.

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 [Hutchinson] 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."

Copyright © 2009 IPS-Inter Press Service

Article printed from Common Dreams | News & Views (http://www.CommonDreams.org)
URL to article: Army Sends Infant to Protective Services, Mom to Afghanistan | CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/13-7)

standin
11-13-2009, 11:12 PM
Wow! Just wow! Does the Army not have child care facilities for children?
She cannot be the only person in the army that has children and the other parent is not available or suitable.

FORD
11-13-2009, 11:49 PM
This baby needs his mother a lot more than Poppy Bush needs his heroin. :mad:

Nitro Express
11-14-2009, 12:17 AM
Mother's of young children should not be deployed period. What's this fucking country coming to? That child is her responsibility, not the state's, so let her be a mom and raise that child.

standin
11-14-2009, 12:23 AM
That is not the answer. I venture a dime to a dollar there are more than just woman with young children and the other parent is not available or unsuitable. This should be addressed in the Army. The army should have child accommodations for those that need it.

Nitro Express
11-14-2009, 12:52 AM
I think it's detestable to force a woman to put her child into state custody period. Personally I'm against deploying women into combat. Call me old fashioned but I never liked the concept and yes I dated a Israeli Defense Forces chick and know some of the best snipers in the Red Army in WWII were women. Sending mom's off to fight while the state raises the kids is a fucked up concept. I don't care if she is a nurse or a maintenance person, if you become a mom, it should release you from duty because without moms, the country is fucked. One reason it's as fucked up as it is now. The family unit has gone to shit.

standin
11-14-2009, 01:51 AM
Nitro, are you against military personnel or military children? Of course, you are not.

Nevertheless, realities are parents find themselves without an available or suitable counterpart to the child they created. In this and all situations there is one choice, the child must be tended to in a legal manor. It is not a realistic option to force all military workers never to have children. There are scores of men in the military that due to the mis-belief that the female is de facto natural caregiver, they must leave their children in what would be called at best substandard care, when in fact the male, given the proper resources as any one would need, is the suitable custodian of a child.

For whatever reason the counterpart of her child is not suitable or available for this female, even officers face these dilemmas. An un-stabilized dependent can be a huge distraction for both male and female military units. If this has not been addressed before, it should be addressed now.

There is no reason that children of military personal could not be housed and managed within a military setting, a male or female need perhaps only to be with the child for the first year. Single parents are a reality and quite honestly can happen to anyone. Even to those parents that arranged martial coverage for themselves and children.
You do know that some families both the male and female married parents are military personnel?


I just always assumed the military had rules, and standardized procedures governing the family unit and the care of military children when military personal are away from the home unit.

GO-SPURS-GO
11-14-2009, 03:49 AM
without moms, the country is fucked. One reason it's as fucked up as it is now.

Really! We need moms! Dads would be awfully lonely without them..;)



The family unit has gone to shit.

AMEN!! :(

hideyoursheep
11-14-2009, 05:29 AM
Her chain of command could have fixed this. They must not like her for some reason...maybe she pulls this kind of shit all the time?

What I'm interested in, is how long she's been in, compared to the 11 months this boy has been alive...Where's Maury Povich when you really need him? No dad? No Dad's family? All avenues have yet to be explored.

Va Beach VH Fan
11-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Oh Christ, I have a shitload of experience on this subject....

There's a saying in the Navy when it comes to children, something along the lines of "the Navy didn't issue your children to you in your seabag"....

It's a very delicate area, to be sure....

But the bottom line is this: As a member of the military, you simply CANNOT have your child(ren) affect any part of fulfilling your duties....

When you're not preparing for deployment back at the home base, obviously it's a lot easier, leaders have more leeway to accommodate family issues, such as childcare, doctor's appointments, etc....

But when it comes to deploying, it's the servicemember's RESPONSIBILITY to make the proper arrangements to ensure the child(ren) are cared for.....

Is it "inhumane" ?? That's not the word I'd use... As someone who was in a leadership position for about 15 of my 20 years in the Navy, I'd use the word "irresponsible"... She knew the deployment was coming, it's her fault, and ONLY her fault, that she didn't ensure her childcare was taken care of....

Remember, this isn't a civilian company we're talking about, this is the U.S. Military.... Completely different set of responsibilities, completely different set of rules....

Sensible Shoes
11-14-2009, 10:58 AM
VA I would buy your whole argument except for the fact they rescinded her extension.

However, it sounds like there is a whorehouse full of facts behind this one that we are not hearing.

Va Beach VH Fan
11-14-2009, 11:04 AM
There should have been no extension in the first place...

Outside of a 9/11 scenario, where deployments are very short-fused, you know at least six months when you are scheduled to deploy....

That's plenty of time to make child care arrangements....

ELVIS
11-14-2009, 11:50 AM
I agree with and I understand that, VA, having grown up in a military family. But why do you think her "special court marshall" has to be in Afghanistan ??

Other than that, I'm guessing that she may have tried to use her child as an excuse not to be deployed...


:elvis:

Va Beach VH Fan
11-14-2009, 12:15 PM
Other than that, I'm guessing that she may have tried to use her child as an excuse not to be deployed...


:elvis:

Bingo !!!

I can only speak in a Navy perspective, but you wouldn't believe the amount of female Sailors that "accidently" got pregnant just before a deployment....

Not all inclusive, of course, but the numbers don't lie....

ELVIS
11-14-2009, 12:19 PM
I hear you...

BITEYOASS
11-14-2009, 11:40 PM
Bingo !!!

I can only speak in a Navy perspective, but you wouldn't believe the amount of female Sailors that "accidently" got pregnant just before a deployment....

Not all inclusive, of course, but the numbers don't lie....

"accidently" got pregnant must be the politically correct term for: The fuckin "barracks ho" decided to go raw-doggin in order to get a good cum dumping going on before the deployment. :D

hideyoursheep
11-15-2009, 02:45 AM
<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/maury" target="_blank"><img src="http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh55/crazichica2289/GIFs/Randoms/Maury.gif" border="0" alt="Maury Dance Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>