• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army Mom skips flight to Afghanistan

I think she has cause even though she went about it the wrong way.
 
Orius said:
I think she has cause even though she went about it the wrong way.
Click to expand...


I think so too, Orius. This is a tough story to read. No good answers, really.
 
I can already tell this is going to turn into an OMG OUTRAGE!!!11 thread, so hopefully that can be preempted to some degree by forcing people to read the details:

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.

"I don't know what transpired and the investigation will get to the bottom of it," Larson said. "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

...

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 Monday 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 scheduled deployment Nov. 5.

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.

Larson, the Army post spokesman, said officials planned to keep Hutchinson in Georgia as investigators gathered facts about the case.

"Spc. Hutchinson's deployment is halted," Larson said. "There will be no deployment while this situation is ongoing."
Click to expand...

It sounds like the Army has policies in place to prevent this from happening to single parents, but there was some confusion because the woman changed her plans last minute. I'm sure it will get resolved shortly.
 
RightinNYC said:
I can already tell this is going to turn into an OMG OUTRAGE!!!11 thread, so hopefully that can be preempted to some degree by forcing people to read the details:



It sounds like the Army has policies in place to prevent this from happening to single parents, but there was some confusion because the woman changed her plans last minute. I'm sure it will get resolved shortly.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but as soon as I got to "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

I got caught up in popping my eyeballs because of the frustration double negatives give me.
 
I think all of the branches have the program that sets up a child-care plan in case of deployments. I know the Air Force does. Hell, they remind the folks with kids usually once a month or so to log in and double check/update our plans with the Family Support Center here on base to to be sure everything is as updated and acurate as it can be. And the grandmother runs a daycare with 14 children, not to mention the ones that are special needs....apologize to the parents, drop 2-3 kids off of your daycare services, bump up your fees a couple bucks and take care of the kid.
 
Last edited:
Arch Enemy said:
I'm sorry, but as soon as I got to "If she would have come to the deployment terminal with her child, there's no question she would not have been deployed."

I got caught up in popping my eyeballs because of the frustration double negatives give me.
Click to expand...

:prof That's not a double negative.
 
Orius said:
I think she has cause even though she went about it the wrong way.
Click to expand...

No, she doesn't. Not only is she in a bind, but her commander is in a bind to, because it's her commander's reponsibility to insure that arrangements have been made to care for the children of single parents. First, the parent, then, the unit commander. There's no excuse for this.
 
:ranton: You see - this ridiculous situation is exactly why women weren't allowed in the armed forces for so long! (and it tees me off!).
Tradition for CENTURIES had it that the men went to war - the women took care of the home and children. If we (women) really want the military to be more accepting and accomodating then this type of "ditching deployment 'cause of my babies" has to STOP.

If you are a single parent (male or female - but there are far more single females than males) then you shouldn't even BE joining the army for this exact REASON. You should take care of your kids, the army often prevents that from happening - case and point!
Sorry - but you just shouldn't. :shrug:

Aside that fact, since she was already in it and set to deploy she SHOULD have addressed her command about it and they would have been able to oblidge without ANY drama - some paperwork, reassignment, tada...done.

STUPID women make us NORMAL women look bad!

"equal pay for equal work..." until that equal work isn't being done but then they still want equal pay for nothing.

Her **** is inexcusable - she was officially awol and that a dire offense. I feel they shouldn't give her any slack at all. She should have dealt with it the RIGHT Way - and just *ladeda* isn't it!
:rantoff:
 
Last edited:
I think this will become much ado about nothing because it's not a positive story for the Army and they need good publicity. I just hope they don't see fit to discharge her because that would most likely result in her falling prey to the trap that is the welfare system.
It would have been nice to hear she was trained in something with a better future than cook. Although she could attend school to be a chef. and not end up like that freak from Mc Donalds that went nuts over Obama.

I'm only posting it for my Conservative pals who no doubt love a good laugh. Enjoy.
Obama Townhall meeting in fort myers florida Julio Osegueda - Google Videos
 
Councilman said:
I think this will become much ado about nothing because it's not a positive story for the Army and they need good publicity. I just hope they don't see fit to discharge her because that would most likely result in her falling prey to the trap that is the welfare system.
It would have been nice to hear she was trained in something with a better future than cook. Although she could attend school to be a chef. and not end up like that freak from Mc Donalds that went nuts over Obama.

I'm only posting it for my Conservative pals who no doubt love a good laugh. Enjoy.
Obama Townhall meeting in fort myers florida Julio Osegueda - Google Videos
Click to expand...

They won't discharge her - they'll reassign her to accomodate her situation.
They would have done so if she had just dealt with it *before* she missed her flight - she created drama for nothing.

However, this isn't bad publicity for the Army - this is bad publicity for an ignorant fool who ran and hid instead of making a phone call. If she couldn't deal with this issue then I don't think she could have dealt with deployment and it's best she stay behind.

Having a background as cook in the military is nothing to scoff at - do away with the notion that being cannon fodder earns you a solid career for the rest of your life and that being a military mid-rank advances your non-military career - often employers are advert to hiring former soldiers due to the presumed "trained" thought processes and "robotic" reactions and need to "stick to the rules" and so on.
All these things are often undesired in the military and the most militant face unemployment even with missions, honors and years of heated duty.

However, a cook - yep - jobs galore.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If you are a single parent (male or female - but there are far more single females than males) then you shouldn't even BE joining the army for this exact REASON. You should take care of your kids, the army often prevents that from happening - case and point!
Sorry - but you just shouldn't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Hutchinson, who's assigned to the 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, joined the Army in 2007
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

............
 
RightinNYC said:
............
Click to expand...

To which I wrote:
since she was already in it [in regards to her joining before her son was born] and set to deploy she SHOULD have addressed her command about it and they would have been able to oblidge without ANY drama - some paperwork, reassignment, tada...done.
Click to expand...
 
Aunt Spiker said:
To which I wrote:
Click to expand...

Ah, my apologies. :3oops:

I will note that she did contact her command about it and there were plans to take care of everything. The reason why there was a problem was because her family's plans changed last minute and she couldn't get things worked out at the base. It sounds like it's just bad planning on her part and inflexibility on their part, so I'm a bit leery of drawing any conclusions about what people should or should not be allowed to serve in the military.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
To which I wrote:
Click to expand...

Aunt Spiker said:
Aside that fact, since she was already in it and set to deploy she SHOULD have addressed her command about it and they would have been able to oblidge without ANY drama - some paperwork, reassignment, tada...done.
Click to expand...

From the article...

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.
Click to expand...


.......
 
The thing that pisses me off the most about this is that her unit will now be short handed for the deployment or someone will have to go in her stead. As far as I am concerened she should be court marshalled for missing movement just like I would be if I missed one of my deployments. Unfortunalty since she is a woman and it is in the media she will most likely be treated with kid gloves. Just like the woman who refused to deploy because her husband had a job where he traveled and him quiting his job would have put them in financial trouble. I am sorry but tough sh*t she signed the contract.
 
Kal'Stang said:
From the article...




.......
Click to expand...

They arrested her for being awol - obvious she made no effort to communicate and tell them anything.

Hughes said she returned Kamani to his mother in Georgia a few days before her scheduled deployment Nov. 5.
Click to expand...

A few days is more than enough time to at least call and report. She didn't do so out of unfounded paranoia - no one ever in the history of the us has taken someone's child and put them in foster care because of deployment.

This is heresay - both of these statements are from *her* not the military.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

My husband deals with awol soldiers all the time - they get nervous, scared and try to hide from command and that just doesn't work out, ever.

Phonecalls, paperwork - own up to your issues and all is well.
Hide from them and you, obviously, get your ass in the slammer.
 
I cannot believe that is she did as she should and kept her command informed of what was going on, this would never have been at issue. As best I can tell, she is 100 % in the wrong There have been single parents in the military for a long time, and cases where both parents of kids are in the military, so there is absolutely procedures for the situations.
 
Redress said:
I cannot believe that is she did as she should and kept her command informed of what was going on, this would never have been at issue. As best I can tell, she is 100 % in the wrong There have been single parents in the military for a long time, and cases where both parents of kids are in the military, so there is absolutely procedures for the situations.
Click to expand...
Maybe she should be put in front of a fire squad and shot for treason, huh?
 
American said:
Maybe she should be put in front of a fire squad and shot for treason, huh?
Click to expand...

What an incredibly stupid comment. No, we do not do that. She should probably be discharged on an "Other than", she is clearly not able to handle military life.
 
Redress said:
What an incredibly stupid comment. No, we do not do that. She should probably be discharged on an "Other than", she is clearly not able to handle military life.
Click to expand...

I think he was joking.
 
braindrain said:
As far as I am concerened she should be court marshalled for missing movement just like I would be if I missed one of my deployments.
Click to expand...

No, just like HER, if YOU missed one of your deployments because you are a single parent and had no one to take care of your kid you'd likely be in this situation, not court marshalled.

There's an army policy about this regardless of sex. Single parent, not single female parent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom