Thread: US Army arrests mother who failed to turn up for Afghanistan

US Army arrests mother who failed to turn up for Afghanistan deployment

* Ed Pilkington in New York
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 November 2009 19.02 GMT
* Article history

Alexis Hutchinson with Kamani Alexis Hutchinson with Kamani. The army cook and single mother was arrested after failing to show up for her deployment. Photograph: Alexis Hutchinson/AP



A 21-year-old single mother serving with the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division is facing a possible court martial because she failed to turn up for deployment to Afghanistan, saying that she could not find anyone to care for her infant son.

Alexis Hutchinson, who serves as an army cook, was meant to have joined her division for a flight to Kabul on 5 November, but failed to show up. She was arrested and temporarily placed in custody while her 10-month-old child Kamani was put into a daycare scheme on her military base in Savannah, Georgia.

Hutchinson denies any suggestion that she was trying to avoid deployment, insisting that she was only acting out of concern for her boy. She had placed him in the care of her mother, Angelique Hughes, in Oakland, California, but after a couple of weeks Hughes found she was overburdened and unable to commit for a whole year looking after him.

"This is an infant, and they require 24-hour care," Hughes told Associated Press. "It was very, very stressful, just too much for me to deal with."

The case has highlighted the tensions within the US military, which has a policy of treating women personnel with children sensitively yet is under extreme pressure to maintain troop numbers in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to a report last month from the group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, more than 212,000 women have been deployed in the US military to the two war zones, making up 11% of the forces there. More than 120 have been killed, and 600 wounded. The deployments include some 30,000 women who are, like Hutchinson, single mothers.

Hutchinson's civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, told the Oakland Tribune that her client had gone missing for a day at the time of deployment because she was afraid of what would happen to the child. The lawyer said that Hutchinson had been pressurised to get on the flight even though she had no satisfactory arrangement for his care.

Sussman said: "The day before she was forced to deploy, they told her you have a choice to make, but your duty is to get on that plane. She didn't have anyone to take care of her child. She thought they'd put her on a plane and take her child away."

An army spokesman said that Hutchinson's deployment has been put on hold while an investigation is carried out. Her child has now returned to Oakland to be with his grandmother.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/no ... fghanistan

As a mother she had no choice. The Army should have helped her find a safe and loving place for her son so she could go to war.

I agree. I don't think single moms should be deployed, period. The military needs to either decide that single moms are ineligible to sign up at all, or can only be given the choice of jobs that will never require deployment.

I disagree that this is an Army problem. She had the ability to get out when she had the baby, and chose to stay in for the money. She is required to have care available for deployment and knew it all along. If her mom was all she had, her mom has a duty to put that baby first and foremost because her daughter goes to jail if she doesn't pony up. Her other relatives should have been assigned to someone else or she should have hired help to take care of them.

I saw many Guard or Reserve soldiers, who were getting paid to be ready, but once they were activated they were upset that they had to actually serve. I don't know if this woman was regular Army, but I suspect she signed up solely for one weekend a month, two weeks per year and a year round secondary income and it backfired.

Women are deployed (I was an Army nurse) in other than combat positions and are needed in the theater for other than combat. But the Army owns you when you sign up, you know that, and you must have arrangements in place for any and all dependents.

Quote(I agree. I don't think single moms should be deployed, period. The military needs to either decide that single moms are ineligible to sign up at all, or can only be given the choice of jobs that will never require deployment.)quote


I have mixed feelings on this as a vet of Vietnam, I believe the future of the military is in trouble with the all volunteer force,standards continue to be lowered we need a larger cross section of our society trained and ready more so now then we did in the past.

This soldier signed on the dotted line for service she knew the consequences when becoming pregnant.

Well said oldguy and gapatriot!

Where's the father? Seems as if there are many variables is this situation, many of which, the result of poor choices on the part of this woman. Did she become pregant while on active duty? This article does not say how long she has been in service.

I find it odd that the grandmother would refuse to care for her own grandchild while her daughter fulfilled her military obligations. The grandmother apparently has no problems caring for the child now, as the child has been "returned to the grandmother in Oakland."

The far left starting with Clinton has pushed the military to mirror our society as that takes place our military will fragment as our society has, while many may argue this the military must have their own set of rules in hiow they deal with personnel.

I don't think single parents should be allowed in the military, period.

I agree with you 100% GaPatriot!!!

Too many exceptions can lead to chaos, perceived favoritism, and special treatment.

Originally Posted by GaPatriot

I disagree that this is an Army problem. She had the ability to get out when she had the baby, and chose to stay in for the money. She is required to have care available for deployment and knew it all along. If her mom was all she had, her mom has a duty to put that baby first and foremost because her daughter goes to jail if she doesn't pony up. Her other relatives should have been assigned to someone else or she should have hired help to take care of them.

I saw many Guard or Reserve soldiers, who were getting paid to be ready, but once they were activated they were upset that they had to actually serve. I don't know if this woman was regular Army, but I suspect she signed up solely for one weekend a month, two weeks per year and a year round secondary income and it backfired.

Women are deployed (I was an Army nurse) in other than combat positions and are needed in the theater for other than combat. But the Army owns you when you sign up, you know that, and you must have arrangements in place for any and all dependents.

I agree with you 100% GaPatriot!!!

Too many exceptions can lead to chaos, perceived favoritism, and special treatment.

Originally Posted by GaPatriot

I disagree that this is an Army problem. She had the ability to get out when she had the baby, and chose to stay in for the money. She is required to have care available for deployment and knew it all along. If her mom was all she had, her mom has a duty to put that baby first and foremost because her daughter goes to jail if she doesn't pony up. Her other relatives should have been assigned to someone else or she should have hired help to take care of them.

I saw many Guard or Reserve soldiers, who were getting paid to be ready, but once they were activated they were upset that they had to actually serve. I don't know if this woman was regular Army, but I suspect she signed up solely for one weekend a month, two weeks per year and a year round secondary income and it backfired.

Women are deployed (I was an Army nurse) in other than combat positions and are needed in the theater for other than combat. But the Army owns you when you sign up, you know that, and you must have arrangements in place for any and all dependents.