agree to disagree? gray areas everywhere

[mrsklamc]

Well, fortunately we're paying judges to decide these things reasonably...just like us,I am sure they vary in what they think is a reasonable excuse.

AND they will deal with it if there is a shortage of jurors. I know in my county they started jailing people who didn't show up.

 

[Michelle and crew]

That's a good point. There are many valid (IMHO) reasons/excuses in this thread for jury duty being a hardship, but homeschooling?

The flexibility has nothing to do with placing your children elsewhere. It has to do with being able to be flexible with plans involving parents and children. That seems rather obvious to me. Unless one doesn't want to see the obvious, of course.

 

[JaymeC]

I know people in this thread have claimed that SAHMs are being picked on, that if they could do jury duty they would but they can't because (any one of a number of excuses). But I have to be blunt - it seems that with many people, when they don't have being a SAHM/childcare/homeschooling*/self-employed spouse**/etc, current excuses, they'll come up with other excuses not to perform jury duty.

Have you ever heard the phrase you shouldn't' make ASSumptions because it just makes you look like an ***?

I think you're seeing what you'd like to. I would have had a very hard time when my little ones were young, but even now I would go do jury duty even though it WOULD be significant loss for my family since I'm the only wage earner and have zero PTO (thank you economy...) But would I do it? Oh yes. Would I have done it with infants? If i truly had to, but I would have begged and pleaded to be dismissed.

 

[kinntj]

This thread is certainly interesting.

The OP should definately show up for Jury duty and if your number is called, then ask the judge for excusal due to hardship. I went several years ago now (to Detroit's Federal court) and we were all called into the courtroom. When they called a person's number, the Judge asked that specific person if there were any reason a person couldn't fulfill their duties as a juror. I think 3 or 4 women said they couldn't due to childcare and they were released.

The worst thing a Judge could say is no. The stories you read here and opinions don't mean a thing. If the Judge excuses it, then it must be a resonable excuse. I wonder if anyone would question a Judge on that decision?

 

[mjbaby]

lol, while the dis seems to have its share of snowflakes, do you really know a lot of people like that irl?

I know many, many children who have never been in the care of anyone other than a parent - I mean no auntie, grandparent, neighbor, etc. I know a number more whose playdates are very carefully calibrated so mom maintains as much control over the situation as possible. It's astonishing, really. (Although, truthfully, I get it - when something happens to a child, the first thing people ask is "where was the mother". It's very much a case, I think of darned if you do and darned if you don't, you know?)

I don't see people having an issue with strangers watching their small children to be extreme. Do you all really just leave your kids with strangers?

Strangers? No. I do think, however, that contingency planning and building a network of trusted friends - whether through work, place of worship, school, or whatever - is a part of good life management. It's not really about kids, it's about organizing one's life so that a grown adult can fully participate in our society.

 

[My3kiddos]

**Relatively certain that being self-employed isn't a valid reason for the juror to be excused, so it would seem entirely reasonable that a judge wouldn't accept a juror's spouse being self-employed as the reason that juror couldn't serve.

Being self-employed can be a very valid reason. My dad owns a milk distributing business. The only employees he has are himself and my brother. If he doesn't work a day he will lose all the stores he was supposed to deliver to and therefore could lose his entire business. He's been excused 3 times I know of because of this.

 

[kinntj]

Being self-employed can be a very valid reason. My dad owns a milk distributing business. The only employees he has are himself and my brother. If he doesn't work a day he will lose all the stores he was supposed to deliver to and therefore could lose his entire business. He's been excused 3 times I know of because of this.

I think that's valid.

 

[Michelle and crew]

Being self-employed can be a very valid reason. My dad owns a milk distributing business. The only employees he has are himself and my brother. If he doesn't work a day he will lose all the stores he was supposed to deliver to and therefore could lose his entire business. He's been excused 3 times I know of because of this.

That makes sense. Luckily most people, and all of our local judges have the sense to see that some things just make sense.

 

[ccgirl]

eh, about as absurd as telling people who can't find childcare they ought to move out of the country...

It does seem a bit snowflakey to assume that because someone thinks your point is wrong that they are attacking you...

One should never assume anything. I never did. As a matter of fact, I believe the term I used was agree to disagree. No skin off my back.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Have you ever heard the phrase you shouldn't' make ASSumptions because it just makes you look like an ***?

I think you're seeing what you'd like to. I would have had a very hard time when my little ones were young, but even now I would go do jury duty even though it WOULD be significant loss for my family since I'm the only wage earner and have zero PTO (thank you economy...) But would I do it? Oh yes. Would I have done it with infants? If i truly had to, but I would have begged and pleaded to be dismissed.

I didn't assume anything. "It seems like" = "it appears to me that" = "I get the distinct impression from numerous statements made in this thread by stay at home moms".

I read everything, I processed all the information I read, and based on everything I read I formed an opinion - and I posted it here. But I didn't assume anything, and I don't deserve a childhood taunt.

 

[tlbwriter]

The flexibility has nothing to do with placing your children elsewhere. It has to do with being able to be flexible with plans involving parents and children. That seems rather obvious to me. Unless one doesn't want to see the obvious, of course.

Careful, your snark is showing. Someone upthread, posting a list of reasons why she wouldn't be able to serve, included the fact that her homeschooled child would miss a day of education. If the issue is childcare, specify childcare. Don't pretend your child is going to fall behind in his homeschooling.

 

[MrsPete]

Well, if everybody called for jury duty would just show up and serve, instead of coming up with a wide range of excuses why they can't serve, such extreme measures wouldn't be necessary. Every one of us should simply expect to be called for jury duty one or more times in our lives, and have some type of support or care system in place if one's situation warrants.

Excellent point. I don't think anyone ever says, "Yes! Jury duty! And such a convenient time for me -- I had nothing whatsoever going on in my life for that week, and I was hoping for something to fill my schedule!"

But it's everyone's responsibility to take a turn. Flaking out on your week of jury duty means that you're pushing it off on someone else and making them take more turns. Why is your time more valuable than that other person's time?

It's really an extension of the entitlement issue that we see so often in so many places these days.

 

[ccgirl]

Excellent point. I don't think anyone ever says, "Yes! Jury duty! And such a convenient time for me -- I had nothing whatsoever going on in my life for that week, and I was hoping for something to fill my schedule!"

But it's everyone's responsibility to take a turn. Flaking out on your week of jury duty means that you're pushing it off on someone else and making them take more turns. Why is your time more valuable than that other person's time?

It's really an extension of the entitlement issue that we see so often in so many places these days.

Thank you. You said it so much better than I did. I realize there are exceptions to every rule. Maybe someone did just move to the area and doesn't want to leave their child with strangers. However, it is going to cost money for just about everyone. I would lose a day of pay myself, plus have to pay extra $$ in daycare should I be chosen to serve for the day. It is still my duty to serve on a jury. So, a DH having to take off a day of work so a SAHM can serve is just not a good excuse in my book. But...it is not my book that counts.

 

[blanq]

Excellent point. I don't think anyone ever says, "Yes! Jury duty! And such a convenient time for me -- I had nothing whatsoever going on in my life for that week, and I was hoping for something to fill my schedule!"

But it's everyone's responsibility to take a turn. Flaking out on your week of jury duty means that you're pushing it off on someone else and making them take more turns. Why is your time more valuable than that other person's time?

It's really an extension of the entitlement issue that we see so often in so many places these days.

Bravo!

 

[zachnsamsmommy]

I am a SAHM, but would never use that 'card' to get out of jury duty. I have a retired mom and FIl who can and would watch my children if needed.

BUT...I am 8 mos pg...I would find anyway possilble to not do jury duty if called in the next 3 mos. I plan on BF, and while I do plan on my child to take occassional bottles, would not be able to serve the first few weeks of her life while she is still too young to introduce a bottle. And I definately would consider it a hardship if it was weeks-long jury duty.

And I have done jury duty before and quite enjoyed it (except the pitifiul pay, lol).

I'm sorry...but I don't agree with the PPs that said there are never valid reasons. There are, but I don't think just being a SAHM is one of them...

 

[dogluva]

In my opinion, pintamino and some others have nailed it: if the only people who served were people for whom it was convenient, then it wouldn't be a jury of your peers. If you ever faced criminal charges, how would you feel knowing no one on the jury was someone like you-someone struggling to care for small children and balance a tight budget and manage a home?

I'm not trying to minimize the hardship-I've been there, too. But it's one of the hard things that our democracy requires of all of us.

I totally agree. I was picked for jury duty last year and had to serve a week. No, it was not "convienent" for me. I have six kids so getting everything squared away the night I was picked but I had no choice. Also, I did it because it is my civic duty! I just don't understand all the wining about serving! Just because you have kids does not mean you can't serve! You need to have a back up plan anyway. Life does not always go as planned and people should be prepared.

 

[dogluva]

My DH has never been called and I have. He's the worker and the head of the household.

Really, do you actually refer to him as "the head of the household"?. This seems so fifties to me. Once you are married, aren't you both the heads? Maybe people do it but, I have never heard anyone I know refer to their husbands in this way.

 

[dogluva]

Well, if a mom works outside the home, she's already got some kind of childcare arrangement during the day, so I don't see how she's in the same boat.

Really? I worked part time for years and only had day care certain days. I could not bring my kids on my days off because other kids were in their slots. So if I was called on my day off, yes I would be in the same boat. And believe it or not, my kids need to be taken care of just like SAHMs do. However, I always had a back up plan for emergencies (and I may be the only one, but to me jury duty is not an emergency but pretty close). It is called being responsible.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

In the State of Fl, I want to say if you have a child younger than 6 years old, they excuse you.

 

[dogluva]

That's a good point. There are many valid (IMHO) reasons/excuses in this thread for jury duty being a hardship, but homeschooling?



I know I've heard of it being used - I think that's one that varies by judge and jurisdiction. Not just the fact that one is self-employed, but that it would cause a severe hardship to the juror and to others to shut down business for the length of the trial.

Can't homeschooling be done at night?