Army Mom Refuses Deployment

[Salem]

Okay - I read the article. The Army was going to put her child in foster care - they were trying to push the issue of the Grandmother taking the child. The mom had a plan - but Grandmother said it was too much for her and the plan was not going to work.

This is wonderful, young mother that is putting her child first and making sure that he is well taken care of while she is away. The Army is not supposed to force you to put your child in FOSTER CARE!!!!!!

I'll put money up for her bail!

Salem

 

[Salem]

What she's doing wrong is not that she's standing by her child. Even the military wouldn't deploy her with no child care in place. What she did wrong was not take the responsibility to either leave the military when she got pregnant or make adequate child care arrangements. She was willing to take all the perks having a family gets you in the military but not the duties.

I don't think that is a fair assessment, according to the article. She HAD a plan. Grandmom backed out on her. All she requested was more time to make other arrangements and her supervisor told her to "put the baby in foster care." To me, that doesn't sound like a young mom trying to abuse the system. It sounds like a young mom that loves her child. No way in he?? would I allow my child to go to foster care?

Soldiers understand their responsibility for deployment. Most of them take it very, very seriously. Many, who don't deploy with their unit for whatever reason, feel guilty for years and years. From what I understand, it is like surviviors' guilt. It just doesn't sound to me like this young woman is shirking her duty. It sounds like she is desparate, confused and conflicted about her duty to her country and her duty to her child. The Army should be helping her make good, strong decisions, not prosecuting her because she finds herself in a place of dilimma.

Salem

 

[STEADFAST]

What is the grandmother supposed to do? Turn her back on her mother and her daughter? Wow.

Life happens. We have to deal with it and we don't always get to make the choices or be in control. She can work here in the states. Not everyone has to go overseas. I know in some ways that seems unfair but damn.... I feel so badly for all those parents that have been deployed and their children. The kids miss their parents and some of them probably need their parents more than we will know.

This young woman is choosing to stand by her child - I just can not see that as a bad thing. If she is a single mom and the military is her only source of support, then if I was her, I wouldn't quit my job either.

Salem

Not everyone in the Army has to go overseas at the same time, but pretty much everybody will be overseas at some point. This woman being slotted into a stateside billet would just force some other soldier, who may also have children, to go and take her place. She had a certain function in her unit and somebody's going to have to perform it. If single soldiers with children who have not arranged for child care can force married soldiers or soldiers who have taken the responsibility to provide for their children's care to deploy in their places, then there would be an unfair burden on the responsible soldiers and their families.
I think she needs to be discharged, less than honorably. And I hope whoever has to take her place on the deployment stays safe.

 

[Salem]

~respectfully snipped~

I think she needs to be discharged, less than honorably. And I hope whoever has to take her place on the deployment stays safe.

Point taken and I do agree with you. However, I think this young woman should be given 30-60 days to find adequate and appropriate child care for her child so that she can deploy and catch up with her unit. The article makes it sound as if there is other family, but the young woman did not have time to work anything out. If she can not or will not make arrangements, then yes, she should be discharged. I hate to see it be dishonorable though.

Salem

 

[Lyn1001]

When I first read this thread, I could already hear what my mother would say. I'm a military brat (although my dad got out when I was young and I don't remember much of it). If you enlist, you are making a commitment. Whether during peace time or when our country is at war, you have a commitment to do your job and do what you signed up for. It's not like someone, especiallly now, doesn't know what they're getting into. When I was born, we were stationed overseas. We weren't at war, but my mom and I had to both have passports (I'm only a few days old in my picture) so if something happened and my dad was sent to war, my mom and I would both be sent home immediately. They had some friends who were parents and both in the military. Those parents purposely made friends with the non-military spouses so they would have someone to watch their kids if need be. Being overseas, no one had family there to help out, the other members of the military and their families WERE a family. If a person does not want to have to leave their child(ren), they should either not be in the military, or not have kids. There are too many preventitive measures these days for some to "accidently" get pregnant. Yes, it does happen, on occassion. However, as STEADFAST mentioned, this woman could have left the military when she realized she was pregnant. Also, knowing that you're going to be deployed, don't you think you would talk with the person who is supposed to watch your child when you leave? This woman should have known long ago that it would be too much for the grandmother to watch the child.

To me it's the same thing as any other job. If you don't complete your REQUIRED job duties, which you are already aware of, you'll be fired for being in noncompliance. Doesn't matter if your children are sick for 3 weeks, find an alternative care giver. You cannot just refuse to do your job without consequences. If she wanted a child, she shouldn't have enlisted.

I know it sounds like I'm being harsh, but these issues, along with others, are what I discussed with my parents before I graduated high school. I was contemplating going into the military. I chose not to for a number of reasons. Bottom line, this woman CHOSE to enlist and CHOSE to have a child and CHOSE to apparently not discuss the "plan" with her mother. Her CHOICES have led to this situation, there is nothing in this situation that was beyond her control.

 

[Lyn1001]

~respectfully snipped~

Point taken and I do agree with you. However, I think this young woman should be given 30-60 days to find adequate and appropriate child care for her child so that she can deploy and catch up with her unit. The article makes it sound as if there is other family, but the young woman did not have time to work anything out. If she can not or will not make arrangements, then yes, she should be discharged. I hate to see it be dishonorable though.

Salem

After my extremely long rant, I do want to say I understand the points you've made. I may not agree with everything, but I do see where you're coming from.

In response to the quote above, if the baby is 10 months old, mom has had 10 months to come up with a plan. Unless circumstances have totally changed with the grandmother in a very short period of time, or unless she hasn't been talking with the grandmother and just assumed the plan was a go, then she should have had some clue this was going to happen. Honestly, if I was in that situation and knew I would have to deploy, I would have more than one back up plan in place. Because what happens if something happens to my alternate caregiver while I'm deployed? Also, knowing all of the things the grandmother was involved in, the mom should have at least had a plan to have someone helping grandma out. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that this came out of nowhere with no warning and there was nothing else she could do.

 

[Salem]

My point is: She did have a plan. Snipped from the article quoted in the first post:

"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's already having to care for her ailing mother and sister, as well as a daughter with special needs. She also runs a daycare center at her home, keeping about 14 children during the day.
"This is an infant, and they require 24-hour care," Hughes said. "It was very, very stressful, just too much for me to deal with."
Hughes said she returned Kamani to his mother in Georgia a few days before her scheduled deployment Nov. 5."

Bolded by me. My vote is she gets some time to work this out. I think she was trying and was scared they would place her child in foster care.

Salem

 

[STEADFAST]

~respectfully snipped~

Point taken and I do agree with you. However, I think this young woman should be given 30-60 days to find adequate and appropriate child care for her child so that she can deploy and catch up with her unit. The article makes it sound as if there is other family, but the young woman did not have time to work anything out. If she can not or will not make arrangements, then yes, she should be discharged. I hate to see it be dishonorable though.

Salem

Have to admit, it seems like the Army could delay her deployment a few weeks or give her family leave to work this problem out. It wouldn't surprise me if that didn't happen in the end.

I think there may be more to the story than we're getting. For one thing, how could she not know her mother wasn't going to be able to handle a baby? Why didn't she speak up when she got pregnant? Could it be because your pay can almost double with dependent allowances? Obviously, she can't deploy and send her child to foster care, but she needs to be held accountable for allowing the situation to go this far.

 

[Lyn1001]

My point is: She did have a plan. Snipped from the article quoted in the first post:

"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's already having to care for her ailing mother and sister, as well as a daughter with special needs. She also runs a daycare center at her home, keeping about 14 children during the day.
"This is an infant, and they require 24-hour care," Hughes said. "It was very, very stressful, just too much for me to deal with."
Hughes said she returned Kamani to his mother in Georgia a few days before her scheduled deployment Nov. 5."

Bolded by me. My vote is she gets some time to work this out. I think she was trying and was scared they would place her child in foster care.

Salem

Expecting your mother to care for an infant while already caring for two sick relatives and 14 other children is not what I would consider a stable plan. If there are other possible people to watch her baby, she should have already had that lined up. Also, the grandmother's comments seem a bit flighty. Of course an infant is going to require 24 hour care, you didn't realize that before you said you'd do it??

I understand it appears like a last minute fall through. However, to me, it appears to be either very, VERY poorly thought out, or deliberate.

 

[STEADFAST]

My point is: She did have a plan. Snipped from the article quoted in the first post:

"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's already having to care for her ailing mother and sister, as well as a daughter with special needs. She also runs a daycare center at her home, keeping about 14 children during the day.
"This is an infant, and they require 24-hour care," Hughes said. "It was very, very stressful, just too much for me to deal with."
Hughes said she returned Kamani to his mother in Georgia a few days before her scheduled deployment Nov. 5."

Bolded by me. My vote is she gets some time to work this out. I think she was trying and was scared they would place her child in foster care.

Salem

Why would she even consider leaving her baby with a woman who is already taking care of three disabled adults and 14 other children? I wonder how she described the situation in her child care plan she showed her command? I just don't find this soldier's story credible.

 

[Salem]

The plan was probably written while the young mom was pregnant or shortly after the birth of the child. We don't know when the Grandmother's mom became ill or her sister for that matter. I think it would be safe to assume that the Grandmother was taking care of her special needs daughter and running the day care at the time she agreed to care for the baby, if mom was deployed. Generally, you know you are going to be deployed for 2-3 months before it happens, unless it is an emergency deployment, such as 9/11.

If Grandmother did not have the care of her mom and sister 10 months ago... who's to say? She probably thought she could handle the baby. It is her grandchild. I would never allow my grandchildren to go to anyone but me...

And Grandmom tried. She had the baby for 2 weeks as the mom prepared to deploy. It was probably very difficult and Grandmom got scared when she sat down and contemplated a whole year.

Again, life happens. Try as hard as we like, we just can't plan for everything, even when we think we have.

I'm gonna give this mom the benefit of the doubt until I see something that would lead me to believe she really is trying to shirk her duty.

Salem

 

[STEADFAST]

More info:

Savannah's WTOC -TV reports that Larson {Army spokesman] calls some of the statements from the Hutchinson camp "misleading" and says that the Army gave her an additional 30 days to work out a plan when her initial child care arrangements fell through.At the time of Hutchinson's arrest, Kamani, was placed into custody overnight with a daycare provider on the post, Larson says.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...m-refuses-deployment-to-care-for-infant-son/1

An Army spokesman says she is not in custody, but has been told not to leave the airfield until her commander can review her situation and determine if her deployment would present an undue hardship on her family. http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11521186

 

[Kymistry35]

I support this young lady 100%. I don't know how she got pregnant or why - I don't care. It is all water under the bridge now and doesn't matter. This young woman can do all kinds of military work right here at home and look after the well-being of her child at the same time. She doesn't need to go overseas.

One of the hardest things for any parent to do, is leave their children for an extended period of time and it is IMPOSSIBLE if you do not have a safe and loving environment to place the child in while you are gone.

I send her lots of support and hope that she is not punished. She is doing the RIGHT thing by standing by her child - in my mind, there is no question about that.

Salem

I think we are in the minority here. I cannot believe how many people want to see her punished for wanting to stay with her child instead of sticking him in foster care or with someone who might not put his best interest first. Yet we gripe and complain about other mothers not putting their kids first.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

Remind me not to own a company in Canada!:angel:

The gov't pays the mat leave money, actually. I think it comes from Human Resources, like Unemployment... Not sure, though.

ETA: Also, I had no idea what the military rules were, so thanks for that info. Still doesn't make me keen to join, but it's good to know.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

I think we are in the minority here. I cannot believe how many people want to see her punished for wanting to stay with her child instead of sticking him in foster care or with someone who might not put his best interest first. Yet we gripe and complain about other mothers not putting their kids first.

I would never agree with any organization that was forcing me to leave my child in foster care.

And I think there are a lot more people who agree than you think - a lot of folks probably just realized sympathy for the mother wasn't a very popular idea. Thanks to you and Salem for taking the hit on this.

But, as a Canadian, I am otherwise maintaining my right to silence on this whole issue. :angel:

 

[STEADFAST]

I would never agree with any organization that was forcing me to leave my child in foster care.

And I think there are a lot more people who agree than you think - a lot of folks just realized sympathy for the mother wasn't a welcome idea on this thread. Thanks to you and Salem for taking the hit on this.

But, as a Canadian, I am otherwise maintaining my right to silence on this whole issue. :angel:

There is no corroboration of the mother's story that the Army advised her to leave her child in foster care. I've been a military family member for over 55 years, and I've never heard of such a thing.
She's in trouble for missing her deployment, even after she was given an extra 30 days to come up with an alternate plan. The military is not forcing her to deploy and putting her child in foster care. They don't have the authority to do that. She'll probably get a family hardship waiver. She should have taken care of this situation and there should be a penalty for letting down her comrades.

 

[STEADFAST]

I think we are in the minority here. I cannot believe how many people want to see her punished for wanting to stay with her child instead of sticking him in foster care or with someone who might not put his best interest first. Yet we gripe and complain about other mothers not putting their kids first.

Nobody here has posted that they want to see her punished for not putting her son in foster care. Certainly no one has posted that she should be forced to deploy and send her child off to strangers.

I personally would like to see her punished for not doing her duty by her child or by the military. She did not make adequate arrangements for her child, as was her duty.

Maybe considering my husband deploys into harm's way for six months at a time every year, is responsible enough to make all needed family arrangements, and counts on his comrades to do the same and have his back, I am less sympathetic about her irresponsibility than some others.

ETA And I also know what it would be like for the family of the soldier who is going to have to take her place.

 

[Opie]

Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I would be afraid to place my child in the daycare run by the grandmother unless she has other help of which we are unaware. Fourteen children of obviously young age, 2 ailing relatives and a special needs person would be a lot for ANYONE to handle even without adding a 10 m.o. to the mix.

 

[Lyn1001]

Nobody here has posted that they want to see her punished for not putting her son in foster care. Certainly no one has posted that she should be forced to deploy and send her child off to strangers.

I personally would like to see her punished for not doing her duty by her child or by the military. She did not make adequate arrangements for her child, as was her duty.

Maybe considering my husband deploys into harm's way for six months at a time every year, is responsible enough to make all needed family arrangements, and counts on his comrades to do the same and have his back, I am less sympathetic about her irresponsibility than some others.

ETA And I also know what it would be like for the family of the soldier who is going to have to take her place.

I agree 100%. It's not that I think she should just put her son in foster care and take off. The point is, she has a duty to her son and her job. By not having an appropriate plan in place for her son, it is letting him down as well as her job. Unless the grandmother started caring for two sick relatives and 14 other children less than a month before the mother was to deploy, she had adequate time to arrange another plan.

 

[Lyn1001]

I think we are in the minority here. I cannot believe how many people want to see her punished for wanting to stay with her child instead of sticking him in foster care or with someone who might not put his best interest first. Yet we gripe and complain about other mothers not putting their kids first.

If she wanted to stay with her child, she should either a) never have joined the military or b) taken the opportunity to be discharged when she became pregnant.

It is not that she should be punished for wanting her child to be cared for. She had ample opportunity to find care for her child, which she did not do. Other people should not be punished for her failure to have a plan in place for her child. If she was putting her child first, she would have had a plan in place for him. I completely understand not wanting to leave your child. That is why I chose not to join the military. It is also why my husband chose not to take a job that paid better. It would have meant traveling all the time. For him, and for me, being with our child is more important. This woman had a choice, this was not forced upon her.