AWOL Mom charged
A lot of you sent us links back in November about Alexis Hutchison, the mom who went AWOL instead of deploying because her family care plan was weak. Our buddy, GI Korea, wrote a lot of good background in November. Well, the Army filed charges against her today.
The story goes like this; Specialist who joined the Army childless, was ordered to deploy with her unit. She activated her family care plan, took her one-year-old son to live with Hutchison’s mother in California, who, after a week, decided that she couldn’t handle taking care of the child along with a sickly mother, a sickly sister and a sickly daughter. And, oh, grandmother also runs a day care center for 14 children in her home. How can she be expected to care for her grandson?
It seems to me that someone might have considered the additional burden on Mom before it all fell apart. So when deployment time came, Alexis hid out in her off-base apartment, according to her, remaining in contact with her commander. I’m sure the commander was thinking of nothing else but Alexis while he was deploying to war with 100+ soldiers.
I’m sure that the first thing out of everyone’s mouth was “What about that woman who showed up at Benning with her kids?” Well, Lisa Pagan was an IRR soldier who had already served her active duty time, and Pagan didn’t miss movement. Pagan’s cause wasn’t taken up by IVAW, VFP, Courage to Resist, GI Voice – because Pagan wasn’t a resister.
Hutchinson isn’t a resister either, but she’s been made into one by the disingenuous Far Left straw-graspers. DoD says they have 70,000 single parents on active duty, why does this one think she’s so special that she can use that status to avoid going to war.
I’ve found things that connect her lawyer, Rai Sue Sussman to the National Lawyers Guild which puts her on the same level as James Branum. She also interned last summer with the Military Law Task Force, the NLG arm which Branum co-chairs. Oviously, the anti-war clowns are going to wave Hutchison as their latest bloody shirt. Despite the fact that she’s not against the war in any political way.
I guess my main question is “Where is the father?” All of this could have been avoided if she’d chosen to have a child with a more responsible man. So that’s a few bad choices she made for which she expects the Army to make allowances.
Why is it the Army’s responsibility to cave into all of these interests and Alexis Hutchison’s demands when no one else seems to be accepting their burdens here. Why doesn’t lawyer Sussman, the recent law school grad, take the child for a year if she’s so damned concerned about her client’s welfare, for Pete’s sake. All of this talk about the Army forcing her to abandon her child – she abandoned her child at the moment of conception.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Phony soldiers
Baby making takes two. Why have you not brought up the fact that she was knocked up by, at the time of conception, an E7, now a 1st Sgt? Were is his responsibility in all of this? He gets a pass because of his rank? She also had the child BEFORE she got deployment orders. Also, out of the supposed 70,000 single parents on Active Duty, how many them have ever deployed? In my two deployments they got to stay back.
Lets not brush over the fact that an NCO shares 50% of this mess because he couldn’t keep his “wee wee” from the younger ladies.
All well and good, Casey, but mommy isn’t doing herself or her child any favors by using said child as a reason not to deploy. I’ve seen/heard it before, and it wasn’t a valid excuse then either.
You would think that somewhere in her circle, whether it be close friends, a church, whatever, that SOMEONE might have offered to take care of the child until she got back?
Hell, I don’t have a whole lot, but I would be honored to help a soldier who’s a single parent by looking after their child until they returned.
But yeah, if the father is known, then he ought to be made to at least pay child support. Most states will enforce that through court orders and garnishment, if needs be.
I’m a single parent. I know what it’s like, but I also know that, if push came to shove, their are folks here that I could count on to help me out if needs be.
The soldier had a lousy family plan. Running away, though, isn’t the solution. THAT just makes more problems for everyone.
respects,
Another narrative coming out of this whole story is that this a misguided attempt on the part of the mother to keep her daughter from deploying. The daughter got caught in the middle.
Well when her daughter gets her discharge I guess mom will be happy. No word on where she is going to find a job.
Look, I saw a few single parents get discharged over this very thing during what was supposedly peacetime, so I don’t know why the rules would change or any more sympathy would be shed just because we are engaged in a war.
It of course makes a much more compelling story then it would have during the Cold War era, but the rules haven’t changed.
Jonn asked: Why is it the Army’s responsibility to cave into all of these interests
Perhaps the question should be when.
Our military expends a lot of funds to do this. You’re dancing with the devil. And this is not news.
My Gramp used to say, “You make your bed, now lie in it.” An apt expression for all libs and those who resist deployment. Or as the Marines fondly express: Embrace. the. suck.
Just A Grunt said, “It of course makes a much more compelling story then it would have during the Cold War era, but the rules haven’t changed.”
But the rules HAVE changed because it used to be that female service members were allowed to opt for a pregnancy discharge so they could take care of their own child – and there used to be such a thing as a hardship discharge as well. I don’t know whether there is still a hardship discharge anymore, but the pregnancy discharge is definitely history, thanks to the feminazis and continuing devaluation of motherhood in our society.
Unfortunately, it is the children who will always pay the heaviest price.
Common sense and the US Army: Court Martialing single moms who use their kids as a reason to avoid deployment. For those of us who’ve actually served in the military, we are made to understand the commitment BEFORE we sign on the dotted line. Even though we know what that commitment calls for, the Army has made horrific mistakes in the past when “Moms” have used their children to escape from their commitments… doing so while they keep full benefits. That practice, finally, seems to have come to an end. Army charges single mom who refused deployment The Army said Wednesday it has filed criminal charges 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. By RUSS BYNUM AP Military Writer SAVANNAH, Ga. — The Army said Wednesday it has filed criminal charges 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 by a court-martial. But first, an officer will be appointed to decide if there’s enough evidence to try a case against her. This part is kind of bizarre: But first, an officer will be appointed to decide if there’s enough evidence to try a case against her. She failed to deploy. That failure was deliberate. That’s all. With Hutchinson’s decision to blow off her duty, I warned that this pattern would get bigger. It seems that the Army has arrived at the same conclusion and now wants to end this practice, once and for all… a step they SHOULD have taken with the first case, Lisa Pagan, who used her kids as a shield like the Spartans used theirs at Thermopylae. In that case, the Army STUPIDLY caved, and that worthless waste of skin got over like a fat rat, benefits and all, an insult to all of those who answered the call, did their duty… and sometimes,… Read more »
Debra
They still do. I know of of one person that used her pregnancy to get out of the Army back in 2006. There have been a few cases after that one but nothing that would be seen in that light.
Also before I found out about this story, our First Sergeant made a announcement that all duel(Not sure about the single parents) military had to have a working child care plan before the year was out or he would put them out of the Army at a lower rank. Not sure how much of that was real but once I say this story I figured it was somewhat related.
Forget the Court Martial & jail time. Both are a waste of the Army’s time, money & resources. And she is NOT worth wasting any of that. Just grab her by the scruff (figuratively) & tell her, “You have two choices. Either deploy. Or, if you want out, we give you a discharge — a Dishonorable Discharge.” End of statement. Short, sweet & neat.
I think Casey has a point. Where is the father in all of this? Is he already deployed? Why can’t he take care of his responsibilities? I think that he should get his ass drug into this. He should have been part of the care plan.
[WARNING: Totally Un-PC response below]
Sporkmaster,
Does this differ from one branch to the next? I am surrounded by Navy right now and the retired Navy females I work with are the ones who told me that it changed and that there is no such thing as a pregnancy discharge anymore. I was shocked to hear this, actually. I know the Army had it when I was in (’76-’84); I took one myself – an Honorable Discharge – after 8 years of active duty service. I have to say it was the best decision of my life. (I was also married to an Army officer at the time, so finances were not an issue.)
The Navy women who told me about the change were talking about the Navy and know nothing about the Army, but I would think something like that would be the same from one branch to the next.
In my opinion, young women considering entry into the military should be fully educated regarding the needs of babies, optimal childrearing practices (such as breastfeeding and attachment parenting), and the sacrifices that a child would have to make if he or she has a mother serving in the military. It is all very fine and good to talk about duty and upholding one’s oath and all, but again, it’s the children who have to pay the greatest price. If children are sacrificed at the alter of militarism, then what is it that we’re fighting to defend? (I’ve been asking this question for years and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.)
Well, I could go on, but I’ll stop now…
AR 635-200, Chapter 8 (Dec 2009) covers chapter proceedings for pregnant female Soldiers. Outlines mandatory counseling to be given to ANY soldier who becomes pregnant while in the service.
AR 635-200, Chap 5, Sec III, Other Convenience of the Government Separation Policies, 5–8. Involuntary separation due to parenthood
a. Soldiers will be considered for involuntary separation when parental obligations interfere with fulfillment of
military responsibilities. (See AR 600–20, chapter 5, concerning Soldiers’ responsibilities for care of family members
as related to military responsibilities.) Specific reasons for separation because of parenthood include—
(1) Inability to perform prescribed duties satisfactorily.
(2) Repeated absenteeism.
(3) Repeated tardiness.
(4) Inability to participate in field training exercises or perform special duties such as CQ and staff duty noncommissioned
officer (NCO).
(5) Non-availability for worldwide assignment or deployment according to the needs of the Army.
b. Separation processing may not be initiated under this paragraph until the Soldier has been adequately counseled
concerning deficiencies and has been afforded the opportunity to overcome them. (See para 1–16 and AR 600–20.)
c. The notification procedure (see chap 2, sec I) will be used for separation under this paragraph.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Well I am the exact opposite were I have little knowledge into how the Navy works. But as far as I know you could request a chapter if you where single and got pregnant.
Well not show how many people know but the Army gives out Depo shots (Birth control) overseas.
But as far as a answer, don’t really have one for you. It is kinda like all the different safety briefings we get at the end of the week. It can be said over and over about the dangers of drinking drugs and unsafe sex. Some people will just ignore these until a simple problem become very complex. Hence the story above.
I like how the anti-war press outlets are not dragging the Father into this, but neither is anyone here. I guess I can bare-back a chick, and she get’s knocked up by it, and I can get a free pass. Sweet!
But what do I do about these warts?
Sorry, the above post was me. Must have goofed. The other Anonymous post was not me.
At the time I was in the Army, the female soldier’s marital status had nothing to do with eligibility for a pregnancy discharge. And there was nothing punitive about it; at least that was not my experience. Of course, I served with a very high caliber unit with a commanding officer whose wife always stayed at home with the children, so I was treated very respectfully. On the other hand, it’s not like I went in and immediately got pregnant before I was even finished with my training. Unfortunately, that seems to be a very common M.O., at least what I see in the Navy. It seems to me there is something lacking in the education there somewhere. I don’t know why the military doesn’t take a more pro-active approach about these kinds of things.
Casey, I didn’t mean to ignore your comments about the father, and you are very right. But I have never known the Army to ever do anything except sweep things under the rug and keep on going, so I would guess that’s your answer.
As bad as it may sound it is easier to tell who is the mother vs who is the father.
Oldcavlt says “This part is kind of bizarre:
But first, an officer will be appointed to decide if there’s enough evidence to try a case against her.
She failed to deploy. That failure was deliberate. That’s all.”
This is not a mystery. This is required under Article 32 of the UCMJ. If the Army wants to nail her in a general court-martial (the worst kind), they are required to conduct an article 32 pre-trial hearing to make a recommendation on whether a general court-martial is justified or not.
[…] can read more about this story from This Ain’t Hell as well. Tags: Alexis Hutchinson, US Military SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Army Decides to File […]
Casey,
I’m not trying to be a dick but the father isn’t standing there and saying “She’s pregnant and I ain’t going nowhere”, she is and that makes her TRP 1 right now. Now if you want to start a seperate debate about fratrinization (sp?) or unwed pregnancies then I’m all for it, but the father is immaterial in this particular case.
Only the custodial parent is required to have a family support plan. The non-custodial parent by definition already is using one…
OK. call me naive–but… What is the RIGHT answer? I mean, ok, she takes her court martial. She should accept her punishment-without brig-tme. But morally- when the the bitch-grandma renegged– what on earth would have been the right answer? What on earth do you do when you really have no one? AND let me tell you- I love the military–I love you guys for giving me this wonderful place to live- because, really- you’ve provided it– BUT the minute a baby is concieved.. a real human child… the “institution” of military or even country comes second.
Would you follow the rules to let a friend/brother die, suffer..whatever? no. Should she just leave it at the Commisary???
People say how could grandma NOT care for the baby- like its a lie- ALL grandmas would, but they would NOT. You are expecting a character trait in the grandma that you negate in the mother.
So, What is the right answer? I say she takes her lumps, but how could she have done anything different.
Boo,
The right answer would have been to find an alternative family support plan. Sitting in your off base apartment is not the right answer.
There is an old, old expression in the Military, “If the Army wanted you to have a baby (or wife/husband), they would have issued you one.” In the ARMY’s mind they come first and that is the agreement you make when you enlist. It is also the agreement that she made. 24/7, nothing less.
She should have had a VIABLE support plan in place and her mommy and the other people involved should have agreed to it.
And mommy not wanting her daughter to go to war is NOT a valid reason for the daughter to not deploy. If it was, no one would know who Mother Sheehan is, and my mom would have seen to it that I would have never made it to the Benning School for Boys.
BNG –
I agree with everything you said. All of it.
But we’ve all stood there with our whole world in shreds in our hands going… what the f*k do I do now? And if you haven’t… thank your God.
🙂 I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. I’m just sympathetic.
I personally got out. Some people hate that, but there’s no family plan, no family leave act crap, nothing… You give up your dream, life, plan whatever.. for that kid. Period.
So a senior NCO gets a pass in all of this? Hell no! Drag his back here and fry him! Blaming the Women alone is complete B.S.
You’re a good man, Casey. It’s disheartening to see this woman being punished for attempting to protect her child, whereas others remained free of that burden. Even more disheartening that she probably will be used as a tool by some freeloading loudmouths to continue their parroting schemes.
Ok, so Maternal Grandma did not want Mommy to go to war, so she refused to take in the kid. Where is Paternal Grandma? Where is Daddy? I do not fault this woman for wanting to ensure that her child is cared for. However, I do fault her for not having a plan “B” and, from the surface, not trying much to find one.
Well, lets face it. We are not getting the whole story. For people dedicated to truth, both conservatives and the anti-war movement, they sure do not like to call out the guilty if it gets in the way of their rambling.
The Senior NCO, if true, that knocked her, needs to be punished ASAP.
The Senior NCO, if true, that knocked her, needs to be punished ASAP.
Casey, what are we talking about here? (as far as punishment) I’m not seeing anything about the father (following the links back through the links back through the links) What exactly should he be punished for? She’s not in trouble for having a child, she’s in trouble for not showing up for deployment. From what I gather, she didn’t try to claim a hardship or anything until after she missed a deployment. So what is going on with Dad? I haven’t found it, is he a senior NCO? Is he deployed already? If she is the sole custodial parent then she’s collecting full child support and assumes full responsibility under the law. Hey, I’m not condoning absent Daddy, I’m just asking questions that I haven’t yet found the answers to. So what exactly is Dad supposed to be punished for? If he was the single parent would he not be obligated to have a plan and deploy with his unit? My guess is yes and I would also guess that it has happened before……70,000 single parents in the military? Some of them are single Dads.
As far as I am aware, she was sleeping with an E7 in her unit, she pops pregnant and he gets shuffled away to Korea, where now he is a 1st Sgt. So yeah, get his ass back here and punish him. She should not have been sleeping with him, both screwed up, but their are rules against this and they need to be enforced. If she is really having all those problems with childcare, daddy needs to be held accountable too. Or do we give Senior NCO’s with dicks a pass?
My point is I don’t know enough from what I read. If she sued for and won sole custodial rights what are we punishing him for? Fraternization would be the worst thing he could be hit for. Now if he just bailed…..it’s a different story……