agree to disagree? gray areas everywhere

[Lewisc]

They got rid of almost all of the automatic exemptions. That doesn't mean someone like the OP can't make her case and get excused. It means she has to communicate with the court and explain her situation.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Sorry no childcare is not a valid excuse.
If you have no options you are not a very good parent now are you?

You have never researched options in the event of an emergency?
Or are so broke that serving on a jury would mean your kids would go hungry?

I think there should only be excused absences for illness, child illness, care of disabled parent, etc.

Every sahm I know has childcare options, just in case.

 

[mrsklamc]

DH got paid but less than what he normally would make. I believe since he had PTO his company could have required him to turn that money over to them, but they did not.

I don't think the government should make it easier for people to serve but I do think that they should accept reasonable excuses, and that as a whole people in our society should build more community. It's easy to isolate yourself in this day and age, and everyone needs to find some people who can bail you out in a childcare emergency, help you paint, help you move, etc.

 

[jrmasm]

Wouldn't it be nice if childcare was provided!??!

I'm pretty sure that people on this thread have said they wouldn't use it.

Sorry people but IMO, life happens. If you have kids, you need to have a backup plan.

 

[angwill]

Sorry no childcare is not a valid excuse.
If you have no options you are not a very good parent now are you?

You have never researched options in the event of an emergency?
Or are so broke that serving on a jury would mean your kids would go hungry?

I think there should only be excused absences for illness, child illness, care of disabled parent, etc.

Every sahm I know has childcare options, just in case.

So if someone lives away from family and friends and is new in a town is not a very good parent because they have no childcare? To me saying if you have no childcare options you are not a very good parent is as insane and ignorant as saying if you use child care and don't take care of your own child that you chose to have and instead pass them off on a babysitter you are not a very good parent.

I was a SAHM at one time and had no childcare options, just in case and I am a very good mother. My husband travels for work so is only home a few hours a week. I moved to a very small town with no child care centers. The bigger town with child care had one center with a waiting list a mile long. The in home daycares would not take a kid part time or as needed because they only had so many openings and easily filled them with full time children. Even once I made friends those people worked full time and had to travel for work. Guess what, when I had an emergency my child went with me, period.

Not everyone lives in the same situation or in the same environments so to assume someone should do things the way you do is and ignorant statement.

PS: Why would caring for a disabled parent be an excuse to you but not a child with disabilities that needs therapy? Wouldn't that fit under your opinion that not having parent care makes you a bad caretaker?

 

[Shleedogg]

Oh yes they did!!!!! There was no pay you for going to jury duty. No one went and chopped their wood or tended their garden or crops. No one went and baked the bread or milked the cows. So yes they knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it. More so than most of the people trying to get out of it today.

Yes, but keep in mind that it was only men who were called. You weren't in danger of leaving your nursing baby at home w/out food. Women generally didn't work and I'm assuming would pick up some of the farming slack as well as older children.

John Adams (our 2nd president) was a lawyer, but many people don't realize he was also a farmer. He was away from his home for the majority of the year for over 10 years. His wife, Abigail, picked up the slack and had one hired man who worked for little to nothing who would do the majority of the farming. But Abigail milked the cows, made the butter, fed the chickens, etc.

What we're talking about now is requiring mothers to be away from their children that depend upon them for sole care. This is NOT something that our forefathers envisioned as a problem.

 

[pintamino]

I don't understand all of you with the "suck it up" attitude, especially the 20 yr old who hasn't really had to deal with being the head of a household, with children to support. You all have a very idealistic view. Yes, it would be great if we could all serve. I'm sure most people really do want to. How can they be expected to make such sacrifices as going w/out pay? Or putting their children in the care of a complete stranger? There are questionable daycare providers that get screened by parents and still end up hitting, duct taping their mouths shut, or worse. With how quickly a parent would have to find someone to watch their children in the case of jury duty, you clearly would not have time to screen them properly.

The gov't needs to make it easier for everyone to serve. I had always been under the impression that they compensated you financially, I guess that is not the case?

You know, rushing to judge based on my age when you know nothing about me just makes you look foolish. If you have a different opinion I would certainly encourage you to express your thoughts, but it's petty to pull in excuses that for all you know are not valid.

I am not an "idealist", I am a realist. When people choose to live here and take advantage of the benefits of raising a family here, they are obligated to fulfill their civic duties (and I wish more would take advantage of the optional ones, like voting). There are many countries around the world where people aren't given a choice -- my roommate is from a communist country. So yes, there are sometimes sacrifices attached to having the opportunity to live and raise your children here. You do what you have to do. As one of the posters above me said, it's an inconvenience to almost everyone.

They generally do compensate you, but it's only dollars for the first day and after that not much more (I think the most is around $50 + mileage).

Almost everybody on this thread likes/employs the idea of an emergency fund -- I think most people don't think about jury duty, but it's probably something they should set money aside for as well as have a back-up plan for.

Wouldn't it be nice if childcare was provided!??!

I like this! Takes the burden off parents, especially as federal employees for jobs like this are pretty well-screened. Maybe some option for those who care for elderly relatives as well?

And what if the person on trial was someone that stole money from a company or like our local Ponzie guy here where I am from. I don't think that the local SAHM who struggles for money is going to be partial to someone that has stolen millions from people or businesses either, especially when we see how they live and everything they can afford on someone else's money. it works both ways.

Well, stealing is stealing? I think I don't understand your point here.

 

[PEANUT1]

Sorry no childcare is not a valid excuse.
If you have no options you are not a very good parent now are you?

You have never researched options in the event of an emergency?
Or are so broke that serving on a jury would mean your kids would go hungry?

I think there should only be excused absences for illness, child illness, care of disabled parent, etc.

Every sahm I know has childcare options, just in case.

wow...that is an extremely rude and judgemental post. Reread your post. kindness is a virtue.

I have local family and friends so jury duty would not be a problem for me. I could see an instance, though where someone would not have anyone to help them. There are many peoplel who can barely afford to pay for their food and shelter in this economy let alone pay for childcare for jury duty.

 

[Kathi OD]

Yes, but keep in mind that it was only men who were called. You weren't in danger of leaving your nursing baby at home w/out food. Women generally didn't work and I'm assuming would pick up some of the farming slack as well as older children.

John Adams (our 2nd president) was a lawyer, but many people don't realize he was also a farmer. He was away from his home for the majority of the year for over 10 years. His wife, Abigail, picked up the slack and had one hired man who worked for little to nothing who would do the majority of the farming. But Abigail milked the cows, made the butter, fed the chickens, etc.

What we're talking about now is requiring mothers to be away from their children that depend upon them for sole care. This is NOT something that our forefathers envisioned as a problem.

No, they didn't envision it because they never dreamed there would come a time when women would want equal rights. So we can thank the ERA push for the change in philosophy. While the amendment was never ratified, it did pass both houses. As with many things, along with the benefits there are some unintended negative consequences.

 

[mrsklamc]

I like this! Takes the burden off parents, especially as federal employees for jobs like this are pretty well-screened. Maybe some option for those who care for elderly relatives as well?

I DON'T. My taxes are going up enough without the government finding another thing that they 'need' to take my money for.

 

[Michelle and crew]

You know, rushing to judge based on my age when you know nothing about me just makes you look foolish. If you have a different opinion I would certainly encourage you to express your thoughts, but it's petty to pull in excuses that for all you know are not valid.

I am not an "idealist", I am a realist. When people choose to live here and take advantage of the benefits of raising a family here, they are obligated to fulfill their civic duties (and I wish more would take advantage of the optional ones, like voting). There are many countries around the world where people aren't given a choice -- my roommate is from a communist country. So yes, there are sometimes sacrifices attached to having the opportunity to live and raise your children here. You do what you have to do. As one of the posters above me said, it's an inconvenience to almost everyone.

They generally do compensate you, but it's only dollars for the first day and after that not much more (I think the most is around $50 + mileage).

Almost everybody on this thread likes/employs the idea of an emergency fund -- I think most people don't think about jury duty, but it's probably something they should set money aside for as well as have a back-up plan for.

cough cough ~~idealist~~cough cough

Many families are just trying to feed their children and keep a roof over their head. That is what a "realist" would realize. It is easy when you aren't in the position, or if the position wasn't difficult due to your easy circumstance at the time, to stand in judgment.

 

[pintamino]

cough cough ~~idealist~~cough cough

Mature... You don't know me or my background at all. You can disagree and discuss without the snarkiness or judging.

Many families are just trying to feed their children and keep a roof over their head. That is what a "realist" would realize. It is easy when you aren't in the position, or if the position wasn't difficult due to your easy circumstance at the time, to stand in judgment.

I'm not "standing in judgment", I am saying I think it is everybody's civic duty, bar extremely extenuating circumstances, to serve on a jury if and when called to.

Keeping in mind the right to trial by jury among ones peers, what would you suggest as an alternative to random selection? What should the criteria be for deferring?

 

[crzy4my2]

Sorry no childcare is not a valid excuse.
If you have no options you are not a very good parent now are you?You have never researched options in the event of an emergency?
Or are so broke that serving on a jury would mean your kids would go hungry?

I think there should only be excused absences for illness, child illness, care of disabled parent, etc.

Every sahm I know has childcare options, just in case.

 

[mybabesuz]

I was not only a SAHM but a childcare provider for 4 other families.
I was called THREE times for jury duty.
Luckily twice when I called the night before I didn't have to go.
But the third time I did have to.
I tried to fight it too but was told I had to go and DEAL with it.
So FIVE people had to miss work that day so I could go to Jury Duty.
I sat there all day and didn't even get called for anything.
Such a waste of everyone's time...

 

[cseca]

...
If you have no options you are not a very good parent now are you?
...

 

[tlbwriter]

No, they didn't envision it because they never dreamed there would come a time when women would want equal rights. So we can thank the ERA push for the change in philosophy. While the amendment was never ratified, it did pass both houses. As with many things, along with the benefits there are some unintended negative consequences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure women entered the workforce, and got the right to vote/serve on juries, LONG before the ERA ever came up.

 

[Ava]

The gov't needs to make it easier for everyone to serve. I had always been under the impression that they compensated you financially, I guess that is not the case?

Here in NY the pay for serving on a jury is very low, if I remember correctly when I served a few years ago it was $40/day. If you are there for a full 7 or 8 hour day, that's not even minimum wage.

I'm also learning from this thread that the policies vary a lot by state, or even by district. My partner was called to serve in NY State Supreme Court in Brooklyn when DD was an infant, and got excused for 5 years with no problem at all. I am seeing that in other states it's not so easy.

Also here once you do serve, you are excused for the next 7 years. In other states the time excused seems to be shorter. Perhaps the large population in my area makes it easier to be excused, because there's a larger potential juror pool.

 

[lonegirl]

Sorry no childcare is not a valid excuse.
If you have no options you are not a very good parent now are you?

You have never researched options in the event of an emergency?
Or are so broke that serving on a jury would mean your kids would go hungry?

I think there should only be excused absences for illness, child illness, care of disabled parent, etc.

Every sahm I know has childcare options, just in case.

I am OP, and never said I do not have options. But not all grandparents are available 24/7. My folks work, and I would never ask them to take the day off without pay to watch my kids for jury duty. They are available nights and weekends and EMERGENCY situations.
No need to judge the type of parent I am. Geez. Civilized discussions are great, name calling not necessary.

 

[Shleedogg]

Mature... You don't know me or my background at all. You can disagree and discuss without the snarkiness or judging.



I'm not "standing in judgment", I am saying I think it is everybody's civic duty, bar extremely extenuating circumstances, to serve on a jury if and when called to.

Keeping in mind the right to trial by jury among ones peers, what would you suggest as an alternative to random selection? What should the criteria be for deferring?

I'm sorry, I just have to That's generally the response of someone who doesn't have something concrete to back their point up. You are an idealist. In an ideal world, we should all have to serve, family obligations or not; it is our duty to make it happen. The reality of the situation is that some people really cannot serve. I pray that when you get older you never are faced with financial hardship (work at a courthouse). Perhaps then you will understand our side. Without having actually lived through being a sole caregiver, living paycheck to paycheck w/ dependents I think you can see why we say what we say but you can't really understand it and be compassionate yet.

What do you propose a SAHM do (we'll take out the breastfeeding aspect as I don't believe that's an issue for OP) who's husband works, has no PTO, has no family in the area, is new and thus does not really know anyone, and cannot afford childcare? Daycare centers will not take a child temporarily. So are they supposed to go find a stranger off the street? Perhaps just leave their children at home unattended?

As for having childcare in the courts? I can say honestly that I wouldn't leave my child w/ someone I don't know. I thank my lucky stars that this will never be an issue for me.

 

[Michelle and crew]

Our county court pays $10 a day. Woo Hoo!

I am biased against the system because I was forever having to show up and be sent back to work where i had already cancelled my appts. for the day.

As far as chicagodisneyfan's statement about every sahm should have childcare, I'd ask "why." I didn't when I was a sahm. The whole purpose of being one was so that i didn't need childcare.