Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby

[caseagainstfaith]

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.

source - news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_soldier_mom_deployment

I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue. Part of me totally agrees with the mom and her having this time a VALID reason for not going unlike the other skippers in the past, blaming Obama. Even part of me believes if I was in her shoes I would of done the same thing. I mean as you can see the alternative is putting the kid in foster care and what parent REALLY wants to do that.
I mean sure she signed the contract in the beginning and became the soldier and is suppose to follow said contract but it almost seems like each "skipping deployment" charge needs to be looked at on a case by case situation with the full picture in view.

Just my thoughts what are yours?

[The_L]

On what fucking planet is the foster care system better than a child's own mother? We can do with one less soldier overseas--why can't they just deploy someone else instead?

[skyfire]

Nov 17, 2009 10:48:18 GMT -5 The_L said:

On what fucking planet is the foster care system better than a child's own mother? We can do with one less soldier overseas--why can't they just deploy someone else instead?

Did she initially notify the military of her situation before she faced deployment?

If she did, then it becomes a question of why accommodations weren't made.

[dasfuchs]

I'm kinda split on this aswell. Part of me says you joined the army, you should expect a situation where you'll be deployed to fight a war somewhere.
the other side says ya know, who cares, let her stay and care for her child.

[erictheblue]

Nov 17, 2009 12:07:11 GMT -5 skyfire said:

Did she initially notify the military of her situation before she faced deployment?

If she did, then it becomes a question of why accommodations weren't made.

I agree, in part. If she notified the military, then she has a basis to argue against deployment. On the other hand, she did sign a contract and that contract does include the possibility of deployment.

[captainhooker]

Didn't read this article, but read another on this yesterday. IMO, she signed up with the military and understood the possibility of deployment.

My only problem with this is the fact that the military promised her an extension to find proper care and then withdrew the offer of extension. I can't understand why they'd do that.

Other than that, she bought the ticket and should be prepared to take the ride.

[meshakhad]

My thought is that the military should help her find care somehow. Foster care really isn't the best, but maybe they could pay for a full-time nanny to assist her mother?

[wmdkitty]

Shut up, Skyfire, you're an idiot.

That said, the mother is totally in the right, here. The military should SUPPORT parents, and it's a perfectly reasonable, er, reason to refuse to deploy -- Your KID is more important than honoring a contract, especially when honoring said contract would require you to ABANDON YOUR CHILD.

[lumberjackninja]

Nov 17, 2009 14:07:55 GMT -5 wmdkitty said:

Shut up, Skyfire, you're an idiot.

Pot, meet Kettle. The validity of his point is not reduced merely by the fact that he said it.

That said, the mother is totally in the right, here.

Ummm, no she isn't. She signed up knowing she could get deployed, and failed to provide for the care of her child. This speaks of a certain level of irresponsibility on her part.

The military should SUPPORT parents, and it's a perfectly reasonable, er, reason to refuse to deploy -- Your KID is more important than honoring a contract, especially when honoring said contract would require you to ABANDON YOUR CHILD.

Then maybe she shouldn't have signed up. Or maybe they shouldn't of let her in. Hey, here's a good solution: drop the charges and give her a dishonorable discharge. Everybody wins, except for the person who fucked up- her.

Raising children has never been a valid reason to refuse deployment- if it had, how many fathers who wanted to be around to raise their children over the centuries would have done so? Sorry, but just because she's a woman and not a dude, she gets no extra privileges.

[wmdkitty]

Then the Army needs to PROVIDE CARE FOR THE CHILD.

[Bezron]

They offered to...unfortunately, that means foster care. Although, I wonder if this is an Army based foster care (i.e. other military families that take care of her kids during deployment) or a DCS foster care.

[booley]

Ok they must have changed the rules because I recall that when there were no other care takers available, then a soldier got to skip deployment.

Hell, I had a family member arrested once and even the cops waited until there was someone else to care for her daughter before they did so.

In any event, I am not torn at all. Choosing between your child's welfare and a legal contract is a horrible choice to put anyone in, for whatever reason.

I mean really, forcing someone to follow a contract even when the result is ruinous and immoral?

I think the movies have a name for something like that.
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DealWithTheDevil

[peanutfan]

I have ten bucks on conservative heads exploding from the dichotomy of "OMG, SHE REFUSES TO SERVE, TRAITOR, ARGHBLSDLHKLJG!" vs. "THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!"

[wmdkitty]

Children automatically trump military service. I don't have kids, don't want kids, and don't particularly like kids, but I WILL protect the cubs as if they were my own.

The military needs to either provide care (NOT A FOSTER FAMILY!), or let the woman be. They are, in essence, PUNISHING HER for being a single mother. And that just ain't right.

[Bezron]

Nov 17, 2009 15:58:24 GMT -5 wmdkitty said:

The military needs to either provide care (NOT A FOSTER FAMILY!), or let the woman be. They are, in essence, PUNISHING HER for being a single mother. And that just ain't right.

What would you suggest as far as child care, if not foster care? Foster care is a generic term for a long term care-giver when the parent is unavailable.

I think people are getting all up in arms and going OMGWTFBBQ without really thinking it through. The military has provided a number of things for this woman, and expects her to fulfill her end of the contract. Thee are mechanisms in place to handle this, but it sounds like she wants special treatment or an excuse to not be deployed. As has been pointed out, deployment is the (very serious) downside to job training, housing, food, foldin' money, GI Bill, and other perks that come with enlistment.

I'll need to reread the article again, but does it mention if she had the child before or after she signed on the dotted line?