US Seeks To Imprison Single Mother

[uscitizen]

Ohh being in the military is just what some youngsters need to get their ass in gear.
But for some of us it just about ruined us.
It is not for everyone, esp the combat part.

 

[DiamondDave]

But.. but.. but... cafe.. that does not fit uscitizen's ignorant stereotype used to bash the military and the 'right'

LOL

 

[uscitizen]

But.. but.. but... cafe.. that does not fit uscitizen's ignorant stereotype used to bash the military and the 'right'

LOL

I was bashing the military?
Naah if I bash the military you would know it and put up the cats and children.


I said some go into the military becuase they cannot make it on the outside.
And that the military has lowered it's enlistment requirements.

Those are facts. but do not apply to all those in the military of course.

 

[bodecea]

I get so tired of those people who say we join the military because we can't make it with a "real" job.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And just why is this item news?

Should the US prosecute a single mother who won't leave her newborn?

The US is not prosecuting a single mother who won't leave her child.

The US is prosecuting a soldier who happens to be a single mother for refusing a direct order.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Ohh being in the military is just what some youngsters need to get their ass in gear.
But for some of us it just about ruined us.
It is not for everyone, esp the combat part.

As there are many jobs that are not a fit for everyone in the civilian world.

 

[noose4]

As her attorney points out there are several available means to resolve the situation. I can't fault her for not leaving with no where for her son to go that she would be confident.
Army charges single mom who refused deployment

In my opinion this situation should not have gotten this far, if somebody becomes a single parent during part of their enlistment and the child they have affects that persons readiness within the Army(or any other military)service that person should be discharged from the service.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I do think you guys need to acknowledge that the army HAS dropped its standards DRAMATICALLY. Does that mean that most people who join the military do so for reasons OTHER than they can't make it elsewhere of COURSE but there are a LOT of people in the military would have been INELIGABLE 10 years ago.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

This is from NEWSMAX not a "LIBERAL RAG"


Military Lowers Standards to Fill Ranks
Sunday, 28 Oct 2007 07:07 PM Article Font Size
By: Clayton B. Reid


The military has loosened recruiting standards to enlist older, less educated soldiers — some with criminal pasts — in an effort bolster the nation’s dwindling volunteer ranks.

Critics warn the new policies would leave the U.S. with military defenses that are too old, too unskilled, and too poorly behaved to protect America’s future.

Five years into an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, the Army barely made its annual recruiting quota of 80,000 for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 after missing several monthly goals. Army and Air Force National Guards are still short, and future recruitment is looking bleak, officials say.

“This country is turning against the war, so people are not letting their children join,” Dr. Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told Newsmax. “To attract and keep troops, the Army is taking some extraordinary steps, which may have disastrous consequences to the military’s future.”

For example, the Army is lowering the bar on requirements for enlistment, beginning with granting more waivers to would-be soldiers who have had problems with the law.

The U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky., reported that the Army allowed 1,620 enlistees with felony arrests and convictions into the forces this year, compared with just 459 in 2003.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

“This is a recipe for disaster,” says Korb, who served as assistant secretary for manpower and reserve under President Reagan. “Parents are being told that their kids who want to enlist will be more likely to be living in the barracks with convicted criminals.”

The number of “moral character” waivers granted to recruits who would otherwise be ineligible for enlistment jumped to 12,057 last year, the highest total in five years. Some 18 percent of Army recruits required such waivers in 2007, up from 15 percent in 2006.



"MORAL CHARACTER" waivers. Do you WANT our military to be made up of people who NEED "MORAL CHARACTER" waivers? Now once again I know that even WITH these number 90% of our military are people of the FINEST CHARACTER but you can't just dismiss USCIT when he is pointing out a FACTUAL practice.

 

[Darkwind]

The hyperbolic response is an attempt to not address what I suggested. If she had failed to make any arrangements I'd be inclined towards a stiffer response but given that she did make plans and the fact she informed her COC they fell through it is reasonable to find a compromise instead acting with a Death Star philosophy.

Death Star philosophy?

She did fail to make arrangements, otherwise she would not have missed the troop movement. The military's response is reasonable. What sentence she gets will be a matter for debate.

No. Failing to make arrangements would mean she never arranged a caregiver for her son. She did make the arrangements and through no fault of her own they fell through.

That is incorrect. Military people are required to have more then just a single source. Her plans for the care of her child were inadequate. It is not the military's problem that she failed to provide suitable care for her child.

 

[Darkwind]

Would this have been an issue to you CurveLight if it had been a single dad who missed a troop movement because he had failed to adequately provide for his children?

I wonder why this was ignored?

 

[CurveLight]

Would this have been an issue to you CurveLight if it had been a single dad who missed a troop movement because he had failed to adequately provide for his children?

I wonder why this was ignored?

I didn't ignore it as I responded to it earlier but there was a glitch after I hit the "submit reply" button so maybe it didn't actually post. In any case, what I said is the biological relationship to the child is irrelevant. It wouldn't even matter if the primary caregiver was not biologically related because the principle remains supreme. She didn't permanently refuse deployment but only wanted to find a suitable caregiver. I don't see any objectionable about that and certainly nothing worthy of a court martial.


Eta: I just saw the post did make it on the thread. It's number 97.

 

[Avatar4321]

She had obligations. She refused to live up to them. I see no reason to feel sorry for her or why the law should not apply. If the military decides to be merciful, Id have no problem with that, but she broke the law. She has to deal with that.

 

[foggedinn]

Being the cynical sort that I am, her whole story sounds like a bunch of made up excuses. She just doesn't want to be deployed.

Her mother backed out at the last minute. She doesn't trust foster care. She wasn't able to make other arrangements. And last but not least; who got the media involved? You can bet it wasn't the military.

Missing a movement is a courtmartial offense. If she is offered an administrative discharge, she should take it and thank the Lord she didn't end up in Leavenworth for a couple years. If her mother still wouldn't take the child, the foster care she doesn't trust would be the only option.

 

[CurveLight]

Sorry Curve but when you have me agreeing with DD then it should be pretty clear that YOU are in the wrong.

That's some strange logic. Who are you and DD that I should form my opinion on, or admit I'm wrong simply because you two agree?

 

[CurveLight]

But would they have? Are there any documented cases where this has actually happened?

-TSO

The military tries to help where possible to take care of their own WHEN YOU PLAY BY THE RULES.. this woman did not play by the rules....

Oh please. Even the military doesn't play by the rules as much as you are pretending here. When she knew of the problem she informed her superiors. Don't act like she tried to pull a fast one. Or you could continue to impress the hell out of me by using the rep button to call someone a moron because you need to compensate for your lack of communication abilities.

Again... it is not the military's job.. it is HER job to make those arrangements and to keep them current and VIABLE.... she is indeed in violation of UCMJ

How is THIS for communication ability - YOU ARE A PHONY, A LIAR, AND IGNORANT TO HOW THE MILITARY RUNS

The all caps and false accusations show you are now increasing compensation. Might even say that's over compensation for lacking communications.

 

[Darkwind]

Would this have been an issue to you CurveLight if it had been a single dad who missed a troop movement because he had failed to adequately provide for his children?

I wonder why this was ignored?

I didn't ignore it as I responded to it earlier but there was a glitch after I hit the "submit reply" button so maybe it didn't actually post. In any case, what I said is the biological relationship to the child is irrelevant. It wouldn't even matter if the primary caregiver was not biologically related because the principle remains supreme. She didn't permanently refuse deployment but only wanted to find a suitable caregiver. I don't see any objectionable about that and certainly nothing worthy of a court martial.


Eta: I just saw the post did make it on the thread. It's number 97.

Then you missed My point completely.

I was asking if you would feel the same outrage if a single father was being prosecuted if he also failed to provide adequate care for his children should he be deployed? Or is this outrage because the person is a woman?

 

[CurveLight]

The reason the plan fell through is irrelevant. For whatever reason, her mother returned the child to her after keeping him for two weeks. When this happened she informed her COC and all she asked was more time to find a replacement. She was not permanently refusing deployment. She was refusing to leave her son with strangers and would have deployed when she found a replacement. Under the circumstances that seemed reasonable.

She was given an extension once already to find care.

Mom chooses son over service - CNN.com

And curve light's stance is now completely blown away

This would be a good time to practice what you preach about acquiring information. If you or the person had read the article you would have noticed glaring contradictions:

"Hutchinson had agreed to such a plan and her mother, Angelique Hughes, took in Kamani in a month before Hutchinson's deployment date."

Then read:


"But after a week with the infant, Hughes, who cares for ailing relatives and runs a day-care out of her home, said she felt so overwhelmed that she backed out."

(The op article by Yahoo says her mother had him for two weeks.)

Then look at:

"Fort Stewart spokesman Kevin Larson said Hutchinson's unit had known for months about its pending deployment and that it wasn't until the last minute that Hutchinson notified the Army of her child-care woes."

By the above information Hutchinson didn't find out until one or two weeks after she already sent her son to her mother, which would be 2 or 3 weeks prior to the deployment date. She learned of it at the last minute herself. Look at how the spokesperson pretended that never happened.


So if she sent her son to her mother one month before the deployment date and her mother kept the child for one or two weeks that means by the time Hutchinson found out it was between 21 and 14 days before the deployment date. How is it possible she was given a 30 day extension? If she was given an extension how is it possible she was ordered to deploy with her Unit? If she was given an extension there is no way her date of deployment order was the same day her Unit deployed. Based on the info in that CNN article someone is largely mistaken or being dishonest.

 

[CurveLight]

I wonder why this was ignored?

I didn't ignore it as I responded to it earlier but there was a glitch after I hit the "submit reply" button so maybe it didn't actually post. In any case, what I said is the biological relationship to the child is irrelevant. It wouldn't even matter if the primary caregiver was not biologically related because the principle remains supreme. She didn't permanently refuse deployment but only wanted to find a suitable caregiver. I don't see any objectionable about that and certainly nothing worthy of a court martial.


Eta: I just saw the post did make it on the thread. It's number 97.

Then you missed My point completely.

I was asking if you would feel the same outrage if a single father was being prosecuted if he also failed to provide adequate care for his children should he be deployed? Or is this outrage because the person is a woman?

No I didn't miss your point. Considering you are the one who totally missed my response I should think you would take more caution about accusing others of missing things. Could you tell me what was ambiguous about this part of my post:

"...the biological relationship to the child is irrelevant. It wouldn't even matter if the primary caregiver was not biologically related because the principle remains supreme."

The "principle" is what is behind my disagreement. I don't live on the crotch watch as demonstrated by certain political camps.