|
29 January 2010 By In January, U.S. Army officials announced four
separate court-martial charges against Specialist
Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother who missed her
deployment to Afghanistan in early November 2009 when
her childcare plans for her infant son, Kamani, fell
through at the last minute. Hutchinson was jailed and
threatened with a court-martial if she did not agree
to deploy to Afghanistan. Kamani was placed into a
county foster care system. Hutchinson, in accordance with the family care plan
of the U.S. Army, had been allowed to fly to Oakland,
California to leave her son with her mother, Angelique
Hughes. However, after a week, Hughes realized she
couldn’t care for Kamani along with her other duties
of caring for a daughter with special needs, her
ailing mother, and an ailing sister. She told
Hutchinson and her commander, Captain Gassant and the
Army granted a Hutchinson an extension so that she
could find someone else to care for Kamani. In the
meantime, the boy came back to Georgia to be with his
mother. But only a few days before Hutchinson’s original
deployment date, she was told by the Army she would
not get the time extension after all, and would have
to deploy despite the fact that her son had nowhere to
go. Faced with this choice, Specialist Hutchinson
chose not to show up for her plane to Afghanistan. The
military arrested her and placed her child in the
county foster care system. “I think they didn’t believe her that she was
unable to find someone to care for her infant,”
Hutchinson’s civilian lawyer, Rai Sue Sussman, said at
the time. “They think she’s just trying to get out of
her deployment. But she’s just trying to find someone
she can trust to take care of her baby. She has never
intended to get out of her deployment.” The Army put Hutchinson in the position of having
to choose between caring for her infant son or
deploying to Afghanistan. She chose to care for her
son, and is paying the price. Currently, she remains
assigned to Hunter Army Airfield near Savannah,
Georgia, where she has been posted since February
2008. Hutchinson is not unique in facing unthinkable
choices when it comes to having to choose between
family obligations and the U.S. military. While
Sussman explained that she has not heard of another
case identical to Hutchinson’s, where the military
arrested a mother and placed her child in foster care,
“I’ve spoken with many soldiers who have told me that
that was the choice they were given [to place their
child in foster care and deploy, or face court
martial]. I spoke with someone yesterday who knew
someone who had to place their child with a distant
relative to avoid having them being placed in foster
care by the military.” A soldier in the Florida Coast
Guard had just contacted her over a similar situation
addition, Sussman said. Army regulations exist to deal specifically with
soldiers who have children. “If a soldier can’t find
adequate childcare, they are supposed to be discharged
honorably, according to Army Regulation 635-200,” says
Sussman, “The regulation in this, Chapter 5, is
separation for convenience of the government, deals
with this, and 5-8 is the discharge, which is
involuntary separation due to parenthood. This is
considered a punishment to people in the Army, because
the assumption is that people want to stay in the
Army, but this is for times when it’s not a fit.” “The military is aware that these things happen,
and I believe the regulations anticipate child-care
plans sometimes falling through, and there are
sometimes no alternatives,” Sussman added, “They [U.S.
Military] recognize the parent does have a duty to
care for their child if they can’t find a backup for
when they are deployed. The military doesn’t want
people deployed who are distraught about their
children.” Kathleen Gilberd, co-chair of the Military Law Task
Force, part of the National Lawyers Guild, agrees. “There is a pregnancy discharge, a parenthood
discharge for sole-parents who can’t find someone to
give total care to their kids, there’s a hardship
discharge where an unusual family problem that
requires the soldier to be with a family in financial
crisis or a family member who has a severe mental
health problem,” Gilberd explains. “But, despite
regulations existing to deal with these problems,
these are typically ignored by the military. The
military will typically say, ‘Well, we looked at it,
but we can’t help you with this.’” Gilberd says there are common phrases in the
military that speak to this: “If we wanted you to have
a family, there would have been one in your duffle
bag.” Or, “If we wanted you to have a wife, we would
have issued you one.” “Family is subsidiary to military needs,” she adds.
“Soldiers hear this from the beginning.” Gilberd is currently working on a case similar to
Hutchinson’s, but her client is not ready to go public
yet. Gilberd says, “The military isn’t going to be
forthcoming about the reasons soldiers refuse to
deploy or go AWOL, but I certainly run into many cases
of soldiers struggling with the military while they
try to care for their children, or sick family
members.” “Helping Children Cope”? The U.S. Military has, via a large and ongoing
propaganda effort, attempted to sell itself as being
“family friendly” in an attempt to lure recruits with
families to join. On the U.S. Army’s primary recruiting website,
goarmy.com, a section titled “Army Families” has
sections for health care, finances, family services,
and even a section on relocating with a sub-section
titled “Helping Children Cope.” A small paragraph
addresses the stress on children whose military
parent(s), faced with moving on a regular basis, feel
the stress. A sentence states, “If you have young
children, their first move can be challenging and
maybe even downright scary.” But moving is not the most frightening proposition
faced by children whose parents are in the military
today. Rather, it is the unwillingness by the military
to accommodate the needs of their parents. When Sergeant Heath Carter returned from the
invasion of Iraq, he discovered that his daughter,
Sierra, was living in an unsafe environment in
Arkansas under the care of his first wife, who had
full custody of the child. Heath and his new wife,
Teresa, started consulting attorneys in order to
secure custody of Sierra, who also suffered from a
life-threatening medical condition. Precisely during
this time, the military chose to keep changing
Carter’s duty station from Fort Polk, Louisiana, to
Fort Huachuca, Arizona, then to Fort Stewart, Georgia.
Not only did these constant transfers make it
difficult for Carter to see his daughter, they also
reduced his chances of gaining custody of Sierra.
Convinced that this was a matter of life and death for
his daughter, he requested compassionate reassignment
to Fort Leavenworth, Missouri, about two hours from
his first wife’s home in Arkansas. His appeals to the military command, the legal
department, a military chaplain, and even to his
congressman failed, and the military insisted that he
remain in Georgia. Having run out of all available
avenues, in May 2007 he went AWOL from Fort Stewart
and headed home to Arkansas where he fought for and
won custody of Sierra, and was able to literally save
her life by obtaining for her the medical care she
needed. But on January 25, 2009, Carter was arrested at his
home by military police, who flew him back to Fort
Stewart where he has been awaiting charges since then.
Initially, his commander told him it would take a
month and a half for him to be sent home. Instead,
several months later, it was decided he would receive
a court-martial. “Now I have to wait for the court martial,” Carter
explained in an interview last fall. “It’s taken this
long for them to decide. If we had known it would take
this long, my family could have moved down here. Every
time I ask when I’ll have a trial, they say it is only
going to be another two weeks. I get the feeling they
are lying.” His ordeal has forced Carter to reflect on the
wars. He admits that, although his original reason for
going AWOL was personal and he had otherwise been
proud of his missions, he sees things in Iraq
differently today. “I don’t think there is any reason
for us to be there except for oil.” To add insult to injury, Sergeant Carter’s command
even offered him a deployment to Afghanistan amid his
struggles. An equally shocking story is that of Army
Specialist Leo Church. Shortly after Church completed his Basic Training,
he received a call from his partner and mother of his
two children, informing him that they were homeless
and living in a van. Church asked his commander for
permission to leave Fort Hood and go get his family,
but permission was denied. “Seeing that I had no other choice I left to pick
up my children and then immediately returned to Ft.
Hood, back to my company,” Church wrote of his
experience in a statement from September 1, 2009.
“When I returned I was charged for leaving without
permission and given an Article 15, and my pay was cut
in half. Things only got worse from there.” Church’s captain suggested that he have his
children live with him, and Church could take them to
work with him, except there was a six-month wait for
this to be approved. “Knowing that I was not allowed
to have them in my room overnight and it being
inappropriate to take them to my company to work, I
left to take my children to Amarillo, Texas so I could
find them a safe place to live,” Church wrote of the
situation, “Having only my mother to turn to, but
knowing that she could not keep them 24 hours a day
for me to be able to return to Ft. Hood, I stayed and
found myself a civilian job. I knew my obligation was
to the Army and my company, but my children were my
obligation long before I ever considered enlisting and
they needed their father.” Church was picked up for being AWOL in 2007 and
flown back to Fort Hood where he was returned to his
company, and threatened with 15-20 years in prison for
having gone AWOL, despite the fact that it was to take
care of his children. His partner left him during this
time as well. “So, again I found myself leaving, this time not
for my children, but for me,” Church added, “I was
scared and alone, and had no one to help me as it had
been since the first day I arrived at Ft. Hood.” This time Church “started to build the foundation
for my life,” adding, “a beautiful home, an excellent
job, a wonderful wife, Amanda, and my only son on the
way, I could not have been happier. But, my desertion
charge had been discovered and I was once more picked
up and returned to Ft. Hood.” Church was unable to find anyone to support his
wife and children, and the Army refused to assist him,
so he and his wife were forced to give their newborn
son, Austin, for adoption. Meanwhile, Church was
court-martialed and spent several months in the brig
at Fort Lewis in Washington State. Of that time he
wrote: “I have lost so much because of the Army; I
don’t have custody of my daughters and I had to give
up my son for adoption, all because of the Army. My
wife is struggling to make ends meet now without me.”
On December 9, 2009, Church was released from the
stockade, and discharged from the Army. According to Gilberd, Church’s story is not unique. “When there’s a parent dying who wants their son or
daughter home with them, or there is a child with
special needs who needs intensive parent support, or
some other family emergency, the military is not
willing to provide that support,” she explained.
“Military regulations say there should be assistance
available to the soldiers, and superiors are supposed
to help with this, but soldiers find that the opposite
happens.” After remembering an incident during the first Gulf
War, when “there were reservist mothers who were
breastfeeding who were ordered to active duty,”
Gilberd shared another story. “Jose Crespa came home from an Iraq deployment. He
went home on leave and found his sister had developed
schizophrenia. His mom was unable to deal with the
situation, which was complicated by the fact that his
sister had a child to care for. He went AWOL for a
month [late 2007] to help them, then went back to Fort
Carson and let the military know what was going on.
They threatened him with a general court martial, and
it took attorney intervention and his Article 138
Complaint (A Redress of Grievance procedure for when
soldiers are wronged by their command) to get him
out.” Crespa was lucky to have good attorneys, as he was
discharged without any disciplinary action and with an
honorable discharge. However, things usually don’t
turn out this way. “I wish I could say that’s a common outcome,” was
Gilberd’s comment on Crespa’s case. The Pentagon tracks hard numbers of soldiers going
AWOL, and since October 2001, more than 50,000
soldiers have done so. But the military does not keep
track of the reasons why soldiers go AWOL, or get
hardship discharges, including when the reasons are
those like Hutchinson’s, Carter’s, Church’s, or
Crespa’s, or if the soldier has PTSD, or other
mitigating circumstances. According to Gilberd, cases like Crespa’s “get lost
in the shuffle,” and added, “To most folks, this is
just one more AWOL, or one more hardship discharge.
There’s no way to know how many soldiers are going
AWOL and are trying to apply for hardship discharges,
but counselors run across these cases often.” “Looking at these reasons would not reflect well on
the military, but there are lots of these,” Gilberd
continued, “And to me, the irony is that there are
procedures that should be available to these folks to
get out, but the problem is that the command is not
willing to follow the procedures. And it’s all part of
that “there’s no family in your duffle bag” mindset.
So it’s all about keeping the numbers up, and having
enough deployable service-members, and not letting too
many people go.” As the military now finds itself preparing to
deploy 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan and
maintains more than 120,000 in Iraq, it is under
tremendous pressure to maintain personnel in the
ranks, which only exacerbates these problems. “When a division is seen as having too many
discharges or disciplinary problems, pressure comes
down on them to not let so many people go,” said
Gilberd, “So the lower command gets subtle pressure
for them to stop [losing personnel], and ultimately
people become disposable. And not just the soldier,
but their kids, or their mother, father, sister, or
infant.” |