Community | January 13, 2010 | 115 comments

Army charges single mom who refused deployment

source: http://signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/13/army-charges-single-mom-who-refused-deployment/

Image
rodstradamus
"SAVANNAH, Ga. — The Army filed charges Tuesday against a single-mom soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan last year, arguing she had no family able to care for her infant son.

Spc. Alexis Hutchinson, a 21-year-old Army cook, could face a prison sentence and a dishonorable discharge if she is convicted in a court-martial. But first, an officer will be appointed to decide if there's enough evidence to try a case against her.

Hutchinson of Oakland, Calif., was scheduled to deploy from Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah on Nov. 5. She skipped her unit's flight, saying the only relative she had to take care of her 10-month-old son - her mother - was overwhelmed by the task and backed out a few days before Hutchinson's departure date.

A spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah said Wednesday that Hutchinson has been charged with missing movement - for missing her overseas flight - being absent without leave, dereliction of duty and insubordinate conduct.

The stiffest charge, missing movement, carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

The decision to charge Hutchinson was far different than the Army's handling of another recent case involving a military mom."

What's next? Burn her on the stake for being a witch?
  1. groups:
    Community,   Afghanistan News,   The White Rose,   InfoWars,   3 more
  2. tags:
    War,  Children,  Afghanistan,  Family,  7 more
  3.     
    |

115 comments // Army charges single mom who refused deployment

  • mjsmith11
  • bking74
    • 0
      bking74  

    • Army SPC Alexis Hutchinson failed to deploy with her unit claiming there was no one to care for her child. Nearly all of the coverage of that event has had the same theme - the big, The Army is a fighting force. It is not designed to solve the social ills of America; nor should it be. Its purpose is to engage the enemy and defeat them. For every soldier that fails to deploy, another soldier is called up or the deployed unit must make do with one less person. Will everyone be so quick to cover the heartbreaking story of the soldier unexpectedly deployed to replace the one that failed to maintain a state of personal readiness and could not perform their assigned duty as a result?
      Nearly every time the issue of expanding the role of women in the military is broached, the issue of pregnancy and its affect on unit readiness rears its ugly head providing endless fodder for those against equality in the military. Are feminists willing to concede the point by failing to hold females accountable for their reproductive choices?
      The relentless pace of deployments necessary to fight America's wars overseas has taken a huge toll on our Armed Forces. The Army can only do so much to alleviate the burden on the personnel at its disposal. Ultimately, it is up to our elected civilian leaders and by extension, the voting public, to address the issue.
      The military provides has two different agencies to deal with health care for the men and woman in our Armed Forces….One is run by the Department of Defense (know as the Childhood Development Center and the second is know as Operation: Military Child Care (sounds a bit like a secret military training center for kids)

    • 2 years ago
  • Walks_in_Storms
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  
    • Walks_in_Storms:

      "Suffice it to say that anyone who doesn't recognize the matter of women in military combat roles.."

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but woman aren't currently allowed in combat roles (save for the airforce)? So I'm confused how what you're talking about has any application to where this woman was going to be deployed?

      Because I agree with you, women as infantry is probably not a good use of *ahem* our manpower. I don't think that policy should change.

      "Or are you just arguing for the sake of rhetorical-only argument?"

      I'm trying to figure out if you are making an honest argument, or just trying to twist this into an excuse to complain about feminism.

    • 2 years ago
  • Walks_in_Storms
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  
    • Walks_in_Storms:

      "especially the feminists who created the idiotic situation where an idiotic thing like this could happen in the first place"

      This logic only works if the reason this happened is because she is a "woman".

      If, as other people have said, it is because she is an "irresponsible parent", than her gender makes no matter.

      Allowing woman in the military allowed both responsible woman and irresponsible woman to join. Whereas before only responsible and irresponsible men were able to.

      Is your argument that, statistically, woman are more irresponsible and more likely to go AWOL?

    • 2 years ago
  • TheCopperQueen
    • 0
      TheCopperQueen  

    • Seems like the military should provide military moms with some sort of childcare service. Not foster care, but a program specifically for deployed parents who can't find other means of care for their children while overseas. I mean, these people are risking their lives it's he least the government can do! I hope the military gets its ethics straight (right) and drops the charges because this is wrong on so many levels.

    • 2 years ago
  • samthesixth
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • It seems like many of people on this post think the military should either 1) allow mommies to shirk their duty and just serve state-side, or 2) provide temporary military foster care for all those single moms who sign up, receive training, and then can't perform their duties.

      It yet again reveals how the "nanny mentality" has become so pervasive among "some people".

    • 2 years ago
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  
    • curtisreed:

      You've ignored all the posts for option #3:
      3.) Give her a week to find a different guardian.

      She wasn't trying to get out of duty, if she was trying to do that she would have taken her kid to Canada.

      The army PR person in the story basically said it is their policy *not* to deploy people who have guardian issues come up.

      At issue is that someone told her that if she showed up, she'd have to leave and her kid would be put in foster care, rather than what is their stated policy, that they can delay a deployment to work this sort of issue out.

    • 2 years ago
  • Walks_in_Storms
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  
    • Walks_in_Storms:

      I'm confused why her gender is even an issue here.

      If a single dad had planned on his family watching his child, and then family pulled out two days beforehand, this would be an identical case?

      Could you describe what, exactly, effect her gender has on this case?

      Honestly, this is like someone saying after the fort hood shootings "I told ya that men can't be trusted with guns!"

    • 2 years ago
  • bashirdr
    • 0
      bashirdr  

    • If she gets away with this, any single parent can pull the same routine ("my care plan person backed out at the last second") and avoid being deployed. I think this woman's mother should be prosecuted for breech of contract, or perjury on an affidavit, or some such charge, to set a precedent that if you agree to care for your military daughter's kid, you have to take it seriously and actually do it.

    • 2 years ago
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  

    • A frightening amount of the comments in this thread seem to be using the "she has a child out of wedlock, I am glad she is being punished" line of reasoning.

      If she was married, her husband in a coma would you all be so eager to punish?

      She was put in an impossible situation:
      1.) Show up for deployment and (so she was told) her son would be put into foster care and she would be on the other side of the world unable to set things right
      2.) Stay, and try to sort things out and risk going to jail.

      I think any sane person would choose #2 there.

      To me, it sounds like she was asking the army for help, and they gave her incorrect information that made it ethically impossible for her to show.

      Maybe her mother was afraid of her deploying and was trying to manipulate the situation, I don't know, but still, having your primary guardian in your care plan drop out two days before deployment sounds like an excellent exception to the rule.

      One soldier, one week late isn't going to lose us the war. Treating soldiers like this, however, isn't making recruitment officer's jobs any easier either.

    • 2 years ago
  • EmperorThan
    • 0
      EmperorThan  

    • Watch now they'll say "We are terribly sorry about this computing error, the lawsuit was supposed to go to another soldier this was simply a mistake.... mistake mistake mistake MISTAKE mistake blah blah blah We Support the Troops." -Dickhead Army Spokesperson

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • She signed up for active duty in 2007 and now has a 10 month old son. Does the Army provide medical/maternity benefits? Did she get maternity leave? I will bet that she had no problem accepting that Army check every month. Where is the Father and why is he not beng held reponsible for child care? Then the grandmother cares for 14 children in her business, yet cannot care for her own grandchild? The whole family sounds irresponsible to me. The Army does not tolerate failure to report for duty as it is damaging to the entire team, clearly she is not a team player. She signed a contract, accepting the money and now hopes that public opinion will allow her to squirm out of her deal. Wonderful! Another American with no sense of honor.

    • 2 years ago
  • mjsmith11
    • 0
      mjsmith11  

    • If there is nobody to watch her child while she fulfills her obligation in Afghanistan, who is going to watch her child while she is in prison? It appears that she is hiding behind her child as a means of avoiding her responsibility to the United States of America. She took an Oath and she has to honor it. I only see three things for this lady JAIL JAIL JAIL

    • 2 years ago
  • onemm24
    • 0
      onemm24  

    • As bad as I feel for this woman.. She knew her responsibilities when she signed the contract. It says her mother was "overwhelmed" and couldn't take care of the kid.. What does that mean? What kind of grandmother are you that your risking your daughter going to jail because no one will take care of your grandson?

    • 2 years ago
  • raylinmarie
    • 0
      raylinmarie  
    • onemm24:

      I agree with you 100%. This is an unfortunate situation, but SHE enlisted, so it is her responsibility to fulfill her duties. The thing with the mother seems strange - the article even says the mother runs a daycare center! I have a hard time believing taking care of the son was too "overwhelming."

      But she really doesn't have any other family? Friends??

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • LemonNinja
  • Cynic2
  • Admirable
    • 0
      Admirable  

    • Maybe the U.S. Government could take some of that huge budget and set up child care services for men and women in the armed forces. Bring them home and put them to work on improving the infrastructure of the United States.

      We could save quite a bit of money and decrease the national debt if we reduced the financial burden of paying for all of the huge standing armies we now have deployed around the world.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Admirable:

      yeah, it's not enough for government to be "like" a Nanny State. We should just go all the way and MAKE it a REAL Nanny state.

      Brilliant.

      OR, people will have to take responsibility for their decisions.

      Oh my GOD what a revolutionary and inhumane concept THAT is.

    • 2 years ago
  • Drach
    • 0
      Drach  

    • Wow.. that Idiocracy movie seems to ring true more and more each day. I read the full article, and it still reeks of utter stupidity on her part... Ladies.. before you go and start pushing out babies, why not read some books and get an education first... trust me.. Being prepared for parenthood is much preferable to this......

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • Drach:

      could be she bungled the condom on prom night and bought the religious right's line about abortion.

      There's nothing here that says the girl is smart enough to pour pee out of a boot.
      There's an entertaining film called "Idiocracy" that may apply here.

    • 2 years ago
  • esserius
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • >"What's next? Burn her on the stake for being a witch?"< That statement implies she didn't actually do anything.

      Personally I suspect what is going on is the calling of a bluff.

      It is likely The grandmother thought she could avoid getting her daughter deployed by refusing to care for her grandson late in the game. What will probably happen is the grandmother will back down and charges will be dropped.

    • 2 years ago
  • Drach
    • 0
      Drach  
    • bombastinator:

      You know.. This would not teach the 21 year old girl anything.

      I think she needs to learn her lesson about being a responsible parent.

      The way she's acting now? Not a parent at all. Having a child means you signed up for 18 years of rearing. THEN you're free to go and cook for people in the desert.

      Seems like this girl likes to sign up, then welsh on what she agreed to do.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
  • animalia_libero
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • animalia_libero:

      That's an interesting statistic. I was so shocked I was moved to look it up. I'm seeing some oddities with it.

      I googled it and the top hit is here
      http://makkah.wordpress.com/2009/11/29/rape-within-the-u-s-military-1-in-3-women... which seems to be an islamist web site. It claims to be a reprint of an OpEd piece in the New York Times, but there is no link and no google hit for the NYT.
      Next hit that actually address it is an activist blog http://mydd.com/users/itsneverover/posts/1-in-3-females-raped-in-the-military-an...

      In this one they claim the screening rate is 15% (still OMG high) but then claim that that is one in three, rather than about half that. They then claim that the one in three claim is a mere twice the national average. If this is the case then the 15% rating I am horrified to say is normal for American women.

      I don't know what the deal is here this thing seems confused. I can't tell if the 1 in 3 number is correct or not.

      It seems one of the problems is this number is appearing as a statistic in both british and american commetary. The british ones are more newsworthy than the American ones though which leads me to believe that whatever it's correctness this may be a british rather than an american number. I just can't tell.

    • 2 years ago
  • Zwiggle
    • 0
      Zwiggle  

    • Well she went in to the Army a a single Mother. Did she not think that she would be deployed? I guess the child will be in foster care now. Again her fault.

    • 2 years ago
  • goodname
  • eurekaent
  • TasteHi
    • 0
      TasteHi  

    • I thought the military offered child care services for active members.....? at least that's what I was told when the recruits tried getting people to sign up at my school...

    • 2 years ago
  • Lucretia_Gross
    • 0
      Lucretia_Gross  
    • TasteHi:

      Recruiters are notorious liars. Not all of them, but many. High school students don't know any better and they'll believe what they're told if no one is there to show them otherwise. It's sad but true how our youth are exploited by the military.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sw3rv
    • 0
      Sw3rv  

    • from a servicemembers perspective who is familiar with situations such as these...i dont think she properly utilized her family care plan...because if you have a child with no one 2 care for them..then the army will not and can not deploy you. I dont know the specialist' exact situation but it sounds like she had someone that was willing to take care of her kid and her unit was aware but she didnt want to deploy and used her kid as an excuse...im guessing her chain of command wasn't tryna hear it and said "if u miss movement we gonna nail your ass" and they did.

    • 2 years ago
  • johnnyEXCELLENT
  • eurekaent
    • 0
      eurekaent  

    • Most people only join the military because of the economic turmoil that our own government released onto us. From 9/11, to the economic crash, to the imminent scheme that the sheep aren't expecting. If you are awake you can imagine how their plans are coming together perfectly. Or so they think.

      This women deserves more time. Period.

      She joined the military for financial support. Anyone that supports the current Rome-like genocide being committed by the United States is a gun-hoe, "dumbed-down" fool. I know plenty of people in government and also know members in the Special Forces who are sent to do America's dirty work that will never hit the propaganda infused FOX network.

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  
    • eurekaent:

      I think that you meant to say, "Gung Ho", you are either not American or totally illiterate. Even reading a comic book at 7 yrs. old would have explained "Gung Ho" , to you.

    • 2 years ago
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  

    • Alright, since not a lot of people have actually read the article, here are some key points.

      "The Army requires all single-parent soldiers to submit a care plan for dependent children before they can deploy to a combat zone.

      Hutchinson had such a plan - her mother, Angelique Hughes, had agreed to care for the boy. Hughes said she kept the boy for about two weeks in October before deciding she couldn't keep him for a full year.

      Hughes said she returned Kamani to his mother in Georgia a few days before her November deployment."

      So her mother backed out last minute on her plan.

      "Hutchinson's civilian attorney, Rae Sue Sussman, says the soldier was afraid to show up for her overseas flight because one of her superiors told her she would have to deploy and turn her child over to the state foster care system.

      A spokesman for Hunter Army Airfield, Kevin Larson, said the Army would not deploy a single parent with no one to care for her child. "

      So someone gave her misinformation that her child would be put in foster care if she showed up to explain her situation.

      "She said they told her daughter's commanders they needed more time to find another family member or close friend to help Hughes care for the boy, but Hutchinson was ordered to deploy on schedule."

      And refused to give her more time.

      Honestly, this is the army making a really dumb PR move. It looks like they are being highly unfamily friendly, unreasonable, and they've chosen a photogenic young women to do it to. Giving her a week extension was the reasonable thing to do here, and would have avoided all of it.

    • 2 years ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  
    • Image

    • Well, I'm sure free child care would be a good incentive to get more people signed up. I just on't think those are the people the army wants to hire though.

      To Sebastian9's comment, what difference does any of the excuses listed above make? The fact remains that we tax payers (assuming you pay some), have 54% of our taxes spent on some kind of military expenditure. How much goes to training people who don't end up doing anything worthwhile?

      http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

      I would prefer to stop spending money on the military altogether, but we supposedly can't do that. The last thing I want though is more money going to help people who still haven't taken responsibility for the position they put themselves in. If you want to join the military as a single mother, fine, just follow the rules and have somebody ready to watch the kid. Otherwise, enlist for a desk job and not for active duty. They are harder jobs to get and don't pay nearly as well (i.e. no huge signing bonus), but hey it is your decision and your descision alone to make. Don't compain that they are treating you unfairly when you are being treated like everyone else.

    • 2 years ago
  • oppressed1
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • this kind of kills me. women have been screaming for years that they want equal rights, "equal pay for equal work", but then they act surprised the pregnancy and motherhood is frowned upon when it interferes with their military service.

      if you can't pull your weight, it means that an unfair burden is placed on the male soldiers who have to pick up your slack.

      if you can't handle it, you don't belong there.

      I feel kinda bad for this young soldier, but seriously, folks, are you actually surprised you'regetting deployed?

      We've only been at war for about SEVEN YEARS!

    • 2 years ago
  • laserdog
  • calm_incense
    • 0
      calm_incense  
    • curtisreed:

      @ laserdog:

      That's just it. This ISN'T an issue with men. A man trying to use this excuse would be called out for pulling an obvious cop-out, no questions asked. It's not a coincidence that this issue never arose to public concern until it affected this woman.

    • 2 years ago
  • smizzle1
    • 0
      smizzle1  
    • curtisreed:

      well, if it weren't for women, there wouldn't be any children...so there wouldn't be you, curtisreed...cut the bullshit...motherhood/parenthood is an inherent variable in life which is essential to the survival of the human race...the army could give two shits about any one individual...equal pay for equal work....you'll never know what that means if you are a male b/c you cannot give birth...that department will never be equal...and so shouldn't that mean women should get paid more, even in nonmonetary ways...such as her getting time to find an appropriate guardian? the army is forcing that child into foster care. that is how we repay someone who has voluntarily signed up to fight for you, curtisreed and all the wonderful things you enjoy in this country?

    • 2 years ago
  • brittsebastian
    • 0
      brittsebastian  
    • curtisreed:

      At the risk of sounding like an asshole, I think the woman may have had the kid on purpose so that she wouldn't get deployed. I'm not big on military affairs, but I do happen to know a battalion commander that told me that many women in his troop coincidentally get pregnant within a year of the battalions scheduled deployment time.

      I can't definitively say that this person's motive behind having a child was to avoid deployment, but the child is only 10 months old so it is definitely possible.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • curtisreed:

      it's hilarious to hear the wymyn whining about how unfair it is.

      Fact is, wymyn fought for years to be able to serve "with the men", but they are putting an unequal burden on the men. I've got family members who were in the Navy and Army and told me MANY stories about the CHICKS who want to be treated like equals, but they can't carry as much as men so when it's time to load the gear into the transport planes, they just stand around and watch the men do it.

      There was a recent "scandal" about a commander who ordered his women NOT to get pregnant because they had received their orders to deploy and he was berated by the liberals for daring to tell them NOT to get pregnant!

      What do the brainless tramps think is going to happen to the readiness of a team when they are counting on those resources and they go and get pregnant and then claim they can't deploy?

      If birth control is too complicated for you girls then I doubt you should be trusted with an automatic weapon.

    • 2 years ago
  • thea_inthecity
  • mgreener
    • 0
      mgreener  
    • curtisreed:

      This really has nothing to do with "women." The issue is that they are trying to deploy a single parent. You don't hear of this happening to men much because there a relatively small amount of single dads out there. Sure she may have had the kid to avoid deployment, which would be deplorable, but we don't know that and it's irrelevant to this conversation.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sebastian9
    • 0
      Sebastian9  

    • to comment on goodstuff's comment about not having babies if you can't afford one: i've met many single mothers. Some, yes, do have their babies without the father but who says this is that situation. We don't know her history, and for all we know the kid's father was killed in Iraq or the kid's abandoned them, you can't make a statement like that if you don't know the whole story.

      And second, doesn't the army have enough man power or at least a secretary at a desk somewhere that can check the status of single parents and somehow take that into consideration when they deploy. it's hard enough for a single parent to find a babysitter for a weekend, what makes them think they'll be able to find one for an indeterminate amount of months.

      Finally, they would rather spend time, money and resources on charging one of their own with a ridiculous "crime" than help their own. Why not provide basic child care or assistant to single parents. They claim that the army really does help you succeed. If there are high schools over populated with prego mothers and single parents with nurseries to care for their children, just so they can finish high school, why can't the army provide the same kind of service?

    • 2 years ago
  • mgreener
    • 0
      mgreener  
    • Sebastian9:

      I agree with all your points, however, your comment about Good_Stuff's comment is a little off base (no pun intended). The statement "DONT HAVE BABIES UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD ONE!" has nothing to do with whether or not she's a single mom or not. Single or married you shouldn't take on responsibilities you can't afford.

    • 2 years ago
  • angelaguayo
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • angelaguayo:

      great, lots of my family did, but just think real hard about the dedication.

      I don't think some women really think this through, you know it's kind of expected that you can get deployed, so don't be like this woman act surprised "oops, you mean I have to go to war?"

    • 2 years ago
  • oppressed1
  • bking74
    • 0
      bking74  
    • Image
    • angelaguayo:

      Oppressd is right the military is amazing. I joined directly from High Scool and now ten years later, I love it more then anything. PT is extremely important. A wonderful web site to check out is Military.com . It is not attached to the Military and has all the answer you might have about any branch. It will teach what to bring too boot camp, help you figure out your MOS and tell you want to bring. It also has a nice break down of the weekly training you will receive...Good Luck,

    • 2 years ago
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • Yeah, just dishonorably discharge her and put her in debt to the army for her training costs. I don't think prision would help anything, but then again she probably joined the army out of monetary desperation, so suing her for training costs isn't much of a punishment if she doesn't have any money.

      What is the real moral of the story? DONT HAVE BABIES UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD ONE!

    • 2 years ago
  • laserdog
  • Daimyo
    • 0
      Daimyo  
    • good_stuff:

      Yea cause they all had the same opportunity you and me had.. Riiiight... Some people make mistakes (dont tell me you havent fucked without a condom and thought birth control should be safe), they try and fix them with things like: Join the military, Prostitution, Drugs, or working 50 jobs if their small town even has enough to support them and their child and bills.

      Open your minds.. Im sure the mother knows that if she didnt do everything she could, and maybe she probably guilts over things she couldve done differently. She would... Everyone fails in life multiple times. Its the most stressful and growing parts of life. Wake up ignorance!

    • 2 years ago
  • futuregen
    • futuregen  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • Guyatthebusstation
  • UWAZell
  • phillyphil
    • 0
      phillyphil  
    • futuregen:

      this comment has everything to do with the case about the mother. she is having to make a false choice. if we were not in wars and stopped illegally invading countries, there would be no case to make. the root of the problem is the MILITARY. not her parenting. if we want to stop putting band-aids on festering wounds we should do s futuregen in suggesting.

      broaden up!

    • 2 years ago
  • Marbled_Godwit
    • 0
      Marbled_Godwit  

    • If I were her, I would never talk to my mother again. It sounds like she was guaranteed to have a guardian for her son. She had no right to back out and leave her daughter with no choice but to face imprisonment or abandon her kid.

    • 2 years ago
  • KCKate
    • 0
      KCKate  

    • What does the law say? Why didn't she contact the Army before missing movement? What happened in the case with the other military mom??

    • 2 years ago
  • artemis6
  • diabolical44
  • corndog67
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • artemis6:

      Oh no! GO to Canada! Please! Watching you get kicked out should be hilarious and haven't had a really good laugh in a while.

      Going to Canada WON'T WORK! Canada has troops in Afghanistan too. It's a UN action. That Canada garbage only worked in Viet Nam. So much for living in the 60's

    • 2 years ago
  • DEM46
    • 0
      DEM46  

    • This is sad although, if someone is in the military with kids they are REQUIRED to maintain a custody plan. So, if she had no one to take care of her son - she defaulted on the requirement. She should have been discharged. No other action should be taken.

    • 2 years ago
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  
    • DEM46:

      It sounded like her mother was set to take her son, and then backed out 2 days before.

      I don't know if the custody plan involves having to name a second string guardian or not, but I know it would take me more than two days to find a non-relative to care for my son?

    • 2 years ago
  • Brick_Swine
    • 0
      Brick_Swine  

    • I think there are circumstances here the army needs to take into consideration. if she left her kid could have been left alone and she could easy get back and be arrested for negligence or her kid could have been seriously hurt. they should just let her find a place for her kid to stay and then ship her off to do some army cooking....what a world we live in...

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • goodname
  • calm_incense
  • goodname
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Brick_Swine:

      If it had been a single father, it would be the same situation.

      Hypothetical:
      Dad soldier and Mom have a baby, and Mom dies or goes to jail or whatever. Dad has to take care of the baby and can't deploy. Has no family to care for the child, etc.

      OK. He needs to be discharged.

      Reverse the scenario, same deal.

      But from what we are hearing lately about female soldiers getting pregnant and being unable to deploy, it sounds as if this is FAR more common for the females than the males.

      And since wymyn have been screaming that it's THEIR body and THEIR choice, then golly but you have to live with the responsibility as well as the rights that go with it.

      The choices seem clear;
      1) don't get pregnant
      2) if you do get pregnant, and have no one (SPOUSE) to care for the child, then you
      2.a) get an abortion
      2.b) get a discharge.

      That's just how I see it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
  • Nephwrack
  • Guyatthebusstation
    • 0
      Guyatthebusstation  
    • Guyatthebusstation:

      Me the douche? I'm not the one dumb enough to put an infant in a situation of being abandoned or having to visit me in jail for its next birthday. If you're in the military you know the rules. At the very least your CO's have instilled in you that you are responsible to follow the rules whether or not your smart enough to look them up yourself.

      With the info given in the AP article, i would say she's guilty of missing movement. LET HER BUTT SIT IN JAIL.

    • 2 years ago
  • UWAZell
    • 0
      UWAZell  
    • Guyatthebusstation:

      Yea, I agree he/she is a 'douche'... even in the second comment it appears that they missed the point of her being a 'single mother' with 'no' family members able to take care of the infant while she was away.

      Yes, you could assert that she shouldn't have placed her self in this situation by having a child. However, mute point because the kid is here now so screw the US Army and it's rules while it continues to fight bs wars in countries it has no business in.

      To use a very old phrase, 'Yankee go home.'

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • keithponder
  • spacemikey
  • Daimyo
  • calm_incense
    • 0
      calm_incense  
    • Guyatthebusstation:

      Daimyo:

      YOU are a douche.

      As is anyone else who thinks it's right for someone who VOLUNTARILY ENLISTED to neglect the agreement that she VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO. I can understand defending her in the circumstance that there was a *draft*, but hell, she ON HER OWN WILL *CHOSE* to join the army. WHY the fuck would you do something like that *unless* you're ready to be held ACCOUNTABLE for your actions?

      You can't just say, "Oh, I change my mind. I had a kid. Sorry lolz."

      The excuse that she couldn't get anyone to watch her kid ignores the fundamental head-scratcher that she chose to have a kid knowing that she's in the ARMY of a country at WAR. I mean, SRSLY.

      So all of y'all are douches. Especially the guy who handed out comment recommendations like STD's at a Hollywood afterparty.

    • 2 years ago
  • Guyatthebusstation
  • goodname
  • calm_incense
  • Sebastian9
  • EtVoila
  • Guyatthebusstation
  • coughsyup
  • jjhalp
  • Drach
    • 0
      Drach  
    • Guyatthebusstation:

      I suppose it's all timing.
      When you join the military you go to war. We are at war right now. Expect to be shipped off.

      If you are choosing to have a child (by this I mean having unprotected sex), why don't you chose someone who actually shows interest in you and the possible outcome? Quit having sex with the guy who never calls you, never writes you, rarely shows interest in you. those guys usually disappear once you become pregnant.

      It seems to me that the Soldier is not intelligent enough to read between the lines, or realize the future complications her lifestyle might cause.

      Sex = Baby. Baby = Responsibility. Baby without it's Father=you doing most of the raising, Baby + Single Military Parent = Possible orphan.

      This person has apparently had no introduction to responsibility. I suppose this is a harsh and cold lesson that she is now learning.

      Think before you act, consider all outcomes.

      Moms aren't supposed to be soldiers. This reeks of the soldier being completely oblivious to anyone but herself, therefore she will not get sympathy from me.

      You knew if you were in the military that you might have to go to war. Why did you have unprotected sex? Why did you proceed with sex/pregnancy/childbirth after knowing that your CO might tell you to pack up and ship off? Are you REALLY that STUPID?! enough crying about how you don't want to go to Military Prison. Time to actually take responsibility for what you got yourself into, Soldier.

      I guess her mom also thought it was time for her to learn about responsibility and making bad choices.

    • 2 years ago
  • CreditFigaro
  • coughsyup
    • 0
      coughsyup  
    • Guyatthebusstation:

      We're not at war right now that's just the loose-lipped congress and media talking but officially we are in a military engagement, Congress-authorized. Wars have always have preset goals in mind unless you count the hole in the globe that we are digging to China... though that thought might seem tempting eventually soon.

      Back to the subject however, this young mother made one grandiose error in that nobody in their judgment thought to route some sort of leeway or protocol for opting out of deployment for such reason as it were likely available... ya know, legally, rather instead of failing to show up. I mean, most of things in government are subject to make condition. She just didn't think it important enough in her ultra self worth to report in to her superiors and is why I believe it that she's getting steamrolled.

    • 2 years ago
12
1 - 100 of 115
more from Community:
from the community

top videos