Skip to comments.Military mom without childcare goes AWOL
Posted on 11/15/2009 4:28:16 PM PST by Lorianne
The U.S. Army is dealing with an emotional and complicated case involving an Oakland woman. She's a single mother, scheduled to be deployed to Afghanistan, even though she has no one to care for her 11-month-old baby.
The woman is a 21-years-old single mom, who was almost on her way to Afghanistan. However, she is not the only one. A report released last month says 30,000 single mothers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11.
For now 11-month-old Kamani Hutchinson is being cared for by his grandmother, Angelique Hughes of Oakland. A few days ago she flew to Savannah, Georgia after learning the Army had put Kamani in Child Protective Services.
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
What the hell is this woman doing in the Army?
I don’t know how to feel about this. While I do pity her position, she put herself in it, and TBH, it’s situations like this that end up making others have to deploy all the time, while some don’t ever go at all. *sigh*
It's the failure to have a family care plan that got her in the rest of the trouble. Maybe they ought to put unmarried female personnel on mandatory Norplant so they can serve without the distraction.
My daughter (who already has three young children) has the kindergarten-age child of a single (recently divorced) mom -- now stationed in Iraq -- living with her.
If the military is going to put women in combat zones, they, at least, should recognize that they may have needs that most male soldiers simply avoid...
I think men have to have a family care plan as well.
Or the 29,999 others?
Well, I do!
This PC Crap has to stop. How the hell are we supposed to fight a war with young women still suckling their babys?
Send her home where she belongs.
An Old Man
They chose to join the military, right?
Agree, it’s the lack of a family care plan.
Where is baby-daddy?
*sigh* is right. Guess I’m a dinosaur. They used to put pregnant females out of the military. Don’t see why they quit.
While I agree with that as far as it goes, it was the change to a one theater level of military readiness that caused our members of the military to be over-utilized during this campaign.
Clinton allowed the numbers in the military to dwindle to the point we didn’t have a two theater level of preparedness, and Bush made it official during his first few years in office.
I stridently disagreed with him on this matter. I’m sure you can see why. It’s personal for you.
Hubby says any single parent, male or female, has to have a family care plan if they have custody.
That kid wasnt issued in her seabag (or rucksack, whatever the Army calls it)
The Army has the rep of being a good baby-daddy, at least in peace time. The Army has health benefits, day care, etc. I read an article about this a few years ago. In some circles, you don’t need to rely on some man; you can have the joy of a baby, and not the hassle of dealing with the father.
It makes me sick to think of the depths to which the image of fatherhood has sunk. There needs to be a national renewal of the importance of and respect for good fatherhood.
It’s socio-economic, according to something I read awhile back. The higher up you go on the social ladder, the less likely a person is statistically to have a child out of wedlock. The college graduate women are much more likely to realize that kids are raised better with two parents. Lower income/less educated women are less likely to feel they need a man to help raise a child.
Define a “single mother” please.
This is one of those “hide my sin” expressions.
Usually nobody knows whether this was a young promiscuous woman who had a baby out of wedlock.
A divorced woman with children.
A widow with children.
WHAT is a single mother in this case?
These women should not be in the Armed Forces at all.
I respectfully disagree here. Women were the ones who demanded that they be allowed to serve in combat roles. The army’s job should be to fight and not solve family related problems. Those who can solve their problems at home and not complain about them should be the ones defending others.
>> involving an Oakland woman
Armed with that tidbit, I’m pretty sure I can fill in the rest of the details.
Probably chose to get pregnant with the hope of avoiding deployment, but the attempt did not work?
This can also happen to men who get custody of the child/children and then are deployed.
A 21 y.o. single mother, and she enlisted in the military because....????? Where is the father? Seems the logical solution would be for the baby to live with daddy while mommy’s in the war. (brave new world indeed)
"A report released last month says 30,000 single mothers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11."
She was a good servicemember and served her tour. She never had to deploy, but she has a strong family that I'm sure would have been there for her. That's not always the case, though.
Today, she has her college, married a great guy and is getting on with life.
Is the same type of PC crap that got 13+1 killed in Ft Hood?
Indeed. I'm sure all the details that show how the mom, Alexis Hutchinson, was negligent or just too lazy to follow standard pre-deployment procedures in having a workable family care plan and keeping her chain of command updated on her current situation after her unworkable plan fell apart have been ommitted so that we can make the Army look cold and uncaring.
Common sense has been outlawed. You will have to report for re-education.
I am NOT going here ....
Things happen, birth control doesn't always work. So what are you going to do?
My nephew had to have a plan while he was serving active duty and he was a single father with sole custody. The plan was my sister, the children's grandmother. Specialist Hutchinson had a plan, but her mother couldn't handle it all.
This is a very complicated situation that needs to have a solution that doesn't encourage these young parents to go AWOL nor to get pregnant to get out of deployment.
What could the command be thinking, by allowing someone like this in the army? I guess its just PC thinking or something.
Army personnel should be people who can be deployed anywhere in a flash- and who can support their dependents on what the military pays.
That’s why, traditionally, young single men without dependents fill the lower ranks in the military.
Women in the military another benchmark in political correctness . Let those with children serve state side only or discharge them at their request . I do believe women should be able to serve their country and many , many have served with distinction . I salute those patriotic souls .
I thought the Army boarded you out if you didn’t have a famliy care plan for your kids in case of deployment.
My single, unattached in anyway nephew has been in the Marines for 5 years and has not been deployed once. He is so furious about it he is getting out. My daughter is in the Air Force and was deployed within 11 months of graduation. He was quite jealous. Especially after he made fun of her joining the Air Force.
I agree. But just because a man is young and single, doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have dependents.
My then-husband and I had been married three years and were told that I wouldn’t be able to have kids. With the knowledge of this, we enlisted together. Right out of basic training we got pregnant. When our daughter was 8 months old, we got pregnant, again. I think the Army agreed with my body.
I got out after my three years because of my motherhood.
Not all soldierettes with children planned it.
Yep. It is insidiously working its way into all aspects of American life. It will destroy this once great nation. Those children will be emotionally damaged, but, of course, that is what these marxists want--more dysfunctional, non-thinking Americans.
Young men who have dependents that can’t be supported on a buck private’s salary shouldn’t be accepted either for enlistment-whether they are single or married.
Or instead just don’t let them deploy at all. . . .but wait. . .that would put undue hardship on males in service (and their wives and children) as those men take up the slack for the single moms. So, the men that are responsible are now double-tapped to not only look out for their own family, but for the single mom, too. But hey, the military is supposed to be a social welfare child-care agency, anyway. . .this going to war stuff is sooo dated.
Single mothers are required, required by regulation to have a plan when it comes to deployment. No exceptions.
The “simply avoid” comment was uncalled for attack against all men.
Yes, you are correct.
Well the Army owns you when you are enlisted and you might want to think ahead before getting pregnant when serving! Now when she is caught she could go to the brig and the kid directly to fostercare.
Why horonable? After shehas went AWOL I’d think a general discharge would be more appropriate?
How many of “these things” do you supposed are planned?
Sometimes exposure takes, and sometimes it doesn’t.
I’m sorry he didnt’t get to go, but I was referring more to people that have to cover for women like her. Women Marines get away with this kind of stuff all the time. They can just keep getting pregnant and never have the responsibilities (PFT’s, deployments, etc) that my husband and others do. I don’t feel it’s right. It makes me sound like a child to rant about it not being fair, I know, but he goes so much. This last deployment was really bad, both for him and for our family, but we did what we were required to do. She should have to do the same. If not, then she should not be in the Army. Period.
When both parents are soldiers, it gets sticky.
No sympathy. It is not the military's responsibility to provide daycare for unwed mothers. These women wanted combat duty, equal treatment' etc. The slut got herself into this situation. Discharge her from the Army.
All of these women in the military, and the rest of the men are hiding behind their skirts. I've never agreed with the concept of women in the military, except in auxilliary positions. All due respect goes to them, but it's totally unnecessary for women to be fighting the battles men should be fighting.