Jury Duty is not family-friendly!

[DVCLiz]

As for the poster who said that if they couldn't afford daycare for a few days, they would make a lifestyle change, Maybe that lifestyle change is why a person could not afford daycare for a few days. Just read the paper and listen to the news, Some families both parents are losing their jobs. I find that posters attitude to be very rude and judgmental.

Yes, that was my point. If staying at home stretched my finances to the point of not being able to arrange for a few days of emergency childcare, I'd be getting a job. That's way too close to the edge financially for me. And, as I said earlier, that's just me. I know many families make that choice and it works for them. But it wouldn't work for me. And it has nothing to do with anyone losing their jobs - that is a different scenario entirely. There are plenty of posters on the DIS who have a one income family and choose to live like that. Fine, their choice - I'm just saying I wouldn't do it.

Wow. Get a nose bleed from being up on that pedestal much?

It is really nice that you don't want your family to be in that position and I am sure that nobody wants to be in that position but the reality is that many people are in that position and it isn't by choice. I am sure that there are many people who have lost their jobs who have exhausted their savings and are just getting by that never wanted their family to be in that position. I am glad though that no matter what happens to you and your family that you will have a neverending supply of money.

Oh- and I didn't say anything about the ecomony effecting my family's finances. I made a broad statement saying that many are effected by the ecomony right now.

And again, for the third time, the current ecomony is not the issue whether it applies to you personally or not. And I'm not talking about people who have lost jobs. I'm talking about a family with one wage earner by choice who lives so close to the financial edge that childcare for something like a few days of jury duty is a real stretch or impossible. I'm saying I woudl rather not be in that position and I would go back to work before I would let my family be that close to financial instability.

 

[LisaR]

I never said that all the jurors should be retired, I was just giving an example of it being easy for some people. I also said I'd do it now and I'm 30 something, I guess you didn't read where I said I'd sign up now twice. I love it when posters take one sentence and reply like that was all that was said. I still don't see how it's a jury of peers when some people have never been called, like my mom 60 years and never called and she would LOVE to do it.

Good Lord, this thread has gotten snippy. My point to you was that it is a random process. You are ready to volunteer because it fits your lifestyle now and your parents are ready. Great! But if we select a jury based on those that volunteer, the chance of ending up with tainted jury is far greater. That is something I don't want.

I would volunteer in a heartbeat myself. My experiences have been wonderful. However, if I were to ever need the services of a jury, I would want a good cross section of my peers. I don't want someone that volunteers weekly to be on a jury because they will likely have a tainted view.

I was on a jury for a man accused of molesting a child. There was also a drug charge that was dropped. He had some interesting friends in the courtroom that all appeared to be unemployed since they had free time everyday to show up and root him on. What if those were the type of people that volunteered to serve? I didn't want them in the courtroom with me, much less deciding my innocence or guilt. At one point, quite a few were kicked out for jury intimidation. We can't chose a jury based on who is retired or unemployed. We need a good cross section.

I have never served where the judge hasn't said, "if you can think of a better system, I am all ears." People will throw out ideas and the judge will have very logical reasons why they won't work. It really isn't their goal to make potential jurors suffer. The system isn't perfect but it is all we have. I wish there was a better way myself. I have never received a summons at a perfect time in my life.

 

[mtemm]

Here it is called "drop-in" daycare or emergency daycare. It is specifically for the unplanned stuff. If you tell me what city you are in I will try and locate one for you.

This type of daycare is used for hospitalizations, jury duty, illness etc.

I cannot imagine having NO plan for life's occurences.

PS - Work is not always family friendly either!

wow, I didn't know such a thing existed. that's very cool. is there a particular name, is it a particular company, or do I just google drop in daycare if I need one someday?

I am not looking for one, thankfully, at this point. when I was called for jury duty last spring I had my dh take a day off so I could serve. that was fine. I probably could have found a friend to juggle things to watch the kids for a day if he couldn't do it. but for the 2-3 weeks the trial I was almost seated on? that would have been a HUGE issue.

I find it interesting that many people are comparing jury duty with an emergency/hospitilation. to me there is a huge difference! emergency/hospitilization isn't flexible. jury duty can and should be. It would be very hard for me to serve on a trial (at least a trial lasting more than a day or 2) right now, but in a year or two that will be different. most of the parenting issues are similarly temporary. I would be able to have family fly up to stay with my kids, have my dh take more vacation/sick time, or beg/borrow/steal time from my friends if I was in dire need in the hospital. I don't know anyone I could ask that of for 2 weeks for jury duty.

but now I know there are emergency drop in day cares, and I suppose if my state was not as understanding I would have to go with that. it would be a huge financial burden for me (assuming its expensive for 2 weeks, and I wouldn't get a dime of money from jury duty since I'm a sahm).

just glad I live somewhere that does understand!

 

[merryweather20]

Yes, that was my point. If staying at home stretched my finances to the point of not being able to arrange for a few days of emergency childcare, I'd be getting a job. That's way too close to the edge financially for me. And, as I said earlier, that's just me. I know many families make that choice and it works for them. But it wouldn't work for me. And it has nothing to do with anyone losing their jobs - that is a different scenario entirely. There are plenty of posters on the DIS who have a one income family and choose to live like that. Fine, their choice - I'm just saying I wouldn't do it.

And again, for the third time, the current ecomony is not the issue whether it applies to you personally or not. And I'm not talking about people who have lost jobs. I'm talking about a family with one wage earner by choice who lives so close to the financial edge that childcare for something like a few days of jury duty is a real stretch or impossible. I'm saying I woudl rather not be in that position and I would go back to work before I would let my family be that close to financial instability.

No, . Many families have one stay at home parent, because they can't afford day-care. One of my my friends was expecting a second child, who turned out to be triplets. They could not afford day-care with the second salary, so one stayed home.

Having one person stay home is not some sort of luxury, its simple reality.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

My life has NEVER been on hold because I had to spend it with my child

How do you trust a stranger? A stranger is somebody you have never met. How do you trust someone you have never met with the most important thing in your life?

It seems it is ok to put down somebody that wants to be with their baby 24/7 Is this how it is here? You can say that person is strange and bizarre? That is allowed?

I understand your point. Totally!

What I don't get is your dilusion that you are some how a better mother than other parents who don't have such trust issues with alleged "strangers".

It may not be what you meant--but it is certainly how you come across! You cast the first stone when you implied that you cared more for your child by NOT trusting strangers.

While your rationale makes sense to me--the fact that you don't understand why other parents might feel differently and come to the conclusion that they love their kids less astounds me.

I've been a SAHM for 9 years.

And I homeschool.

For what its worth--unless you plan on homeschooling, sooner or later your children will be interacting with complete and total strangers on a regular basis.

Oh--and I nursed on demand and attachment parented and co-slept and I still think that you come across as horrendously judgemental.

 

[mtemm]

I have been thinking about this thread and I got to wondering...what do people who are daycare workers, meaning an at home type of place where they are the sole provider, do about jury duty? that must be rough!

 

[DVCLiz]

Yes, that was my point. If staying at home stretched my finances to the point of not being able to arrange for a few days of emergency childcare, I'd be getting a job. That's way too close to the edge financially for me. And, as I said earlier, that's just me. I know many families make that choice and it works for them. But it wouldn't work for me. And it has nothing to do with anyone losing their jobs - that is a different scenario entirely. There are plenty of posters on the DIS who have a one income family and choose to live like that. Fine, their choice - I'm just saying I wouldn't do it.


No, . Many families have one stay at home parent, because they can't afford day-care. One of my my friends was expecting a second child, who turned out to be triplets. They could not afford day-care with the second salary, so one stayed home.

Having one person stay home is not some sort of luxury, its simple reality.

I'd be willing to bet that there are far more families in the position of struggling to stay home on one salary who would benefit financially if the SAH parent got a job as compared to the number of women who unexpectedly deliver multiples, though. Anyone would have a hard time making a fulltime job work with newborn triplets.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

For those of you with no childcare what would you do if you had to be hospitalized for any reason for days and your husband could not get off work?? Who would watch the kids? Or if he wanted to go to the hospital to visit and there are no kids allowed would he not be able to go visit you because you have no friends and no family close by to watch the kids??

In that case--Federal Law comes into play as long as it is an eligible employer. FMLA would cover for up to 12 weeks for that reason. And his job would have to be maintained. (So long as you meet the rules of FMLA).


Comparing jury duty to a life or death emergency is a bit of a stretch though.

I don't think jury duty is as difficult as some are portraying. But the "What would you do in an emergency" argument isn't working for me either.

Why not say--well what happens if you die?


Back to the childcare issue, I don't feel it unreasonable for a court system to provide a childcare contingency.

And for infants 6 months and under, I Don't feel it unreasonable to grant mom a waver if she is the 100% caregiver for that child, especially if she is breastfeeding. Otherwise the courthouse would have to meet with my legal right to nurse and/or pump on MY schedule, not theirs.

As for the 4 week old--most daycares around here do not accept infants under 6 weeks, so I am shocked that the court system required a fresh from childbirth momma to go sit in court for the day. That's just ridiculous.

 

[mtemm]

I'd be willing to bet that there are far more families in the position of struggling to stay home on one salary who would benefit financially if the SAH parent got a job as compared to the number of women who unexpectedly deliver multiples, though. Anyone would have a hard time making a fulltime job work with newborn triplets.

sahp can indeed mean sacrifice, just like wohp does. sometimes its not easy to choose which works for the family more.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

In that case--Federal Law comes into play as long as it is an eligible employer. FMLA would cover for up to 12 weeks for that reason. And his job would have to be maintained. (So long as you meet the rules of FMLA).


Comparing jury duty to a life or death emergency is a bit of a stretch though.

I don't think jury duty is as difficult as some are portraying. But the "What would you do in an emergency" argument isn't working for me either.

Why not say--well what happens if you die?


Back to the childcare issue, I don't feel it unreasonable for a court system to provide a childcare contingency.

And for infants 6 months and under, I Don't feel it unreasonable to grant mom a waver if she is the 100% caregiver for that child, especially if she is breastfeeding. Otherwise the courthouse would have to meet with my legal right to nurse and/or pump on MY schedule, not theirs.

As for the 4 week old--most daycares around here do not accept infants under 6 weeks, so I am shocked that the court system required a fresh from childbirth momma to go sit in court for the day. That's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]


I agree. I was called 4x as soon as I got home from giving birth. So ridiculous.

 

[merryweather20]

I'd be willing to bet that there are far more families in the position of struggling to stay home on one salary who would benefit financially if the SAH parent got a job as compared to the number of women who unexpectedly deliver multiples, though. Anyone would have a hard time making a fulltime job work with newborn triplets.

That was of course just one example.

As for the second parent getting a job as a magical financial solution, I doubt it. They had a study on one of those news shows a while back and when they added back the tax savings, the day care, and all the conveniences that the 2 wp families justified because they both worked, families with two or more kids were always just breaking even on the second salary.

This spurred a couple of women I know to make the calculations themselves, and what do you know? It applied to them as well.

 

[DVCLiz]

That was of course just one example.

As for the second parent getting a job as a magical financial solution, I doubt it. They had a study on one of those news shows a while back and when they added back the tax savings, the day care, and all the conveniences that the 2 wp families justified because they both worked, families with two or more kids were always just breaking even on the second salary.

This spurred a couple of women I know to make the calculations themselves, and what do you know? It applied to them as well.

Yes, but it was the example you gave - I was just saying it was probably not typical.

And yes, I am sure there are many families who wouldn't find it advantageous to have a SAHM go to work, because she probably wouldn't earn enough to cover those expenses and make a profit for the family. But I was speaking to me own situation and I have enough education and experience to get a job in my profession and earn more than the loss of taxes, childcare and conveniences. And I think there are plenty of women in that position as well - as a matter of fact, I think every woman ought to be trained and educated well enough to work for a bread winner's salary, even if she never needs to do it.

Again, just my opinion...

 

[aprilgail2]

That was of course just one example.

As for the second parent getting a job as a magical financial solution, I doubt it. They had a study on one of those news shows a while back and when they added back the tax savings, the day care, and all the conveniences that the 2 wp families justified because they both worked, families with two or more kids were always just breaking even on the second salary.

.

That all depends on how the couple works- most of the guys I work with that work nights have wives that work days, so they go home at 7 and then the wife goes to work so there is no child care issue- they stay up and watch the kids till the wife comes home then they go to sleep.
My friends husband is a principal at a school during the day and she works evenings as a nurse so they don't have to get any paid childcare.

 

[merryweather20]

That all depends on how the couple works- most of the guys I work with that work nights have wives that work days, so they go home at 7 and then the wife goes to work so there is no child care issue- they stay up and watch the kids till the wife comes home then they go to sleep.
My friends husband is a principal at a school during the day and she works evenings as a nurse so they don't have to get any paid childcare.

Are you just stating the obvious here? Yes, obviously if you are not paying taxes, or if you are not paying daycare, the two largest expenses in the equation your results would be different then the people in the study.

 

[merryweather20]

Yes, but it was the example you gave - I was just saying it was probably not typical.

And yes, I am sure there are many families who wouldn't find it advantageous to have a SAHM go to work, because she probably wouldn't earn enough to cover those expenses and make a profit for the family. But I was speaking to me own situation and I have enough education and experience to get a job in my profession and earn more than the loss of taxes, childcare and conveniences. And I think there are plenty of women in that position as well - as a matter of fact, I think every woman ought to be trained and educated well enough to work for a bread winner's salary, even if she never needs to do it.

Again, just my opinion...

Again I wasn't saying it was typical, I was obviously just giving one example.

Your posts were somewhat critical, well alot critical of stay at home parents. It is not some la-dee-dah, willfull, extravagance. Its simply what works, and often benefits the family financially.

A SAHP isn't willfully being uneducated, I can't imagine why you'd even think that. In fact my friends who did the calculations were all university educated young professionals, they earned similar salaries to their husbands.

An SAHP certainly isn't sticking it to their families, and far more often than you are allowing (given 100% in the study and both my friends) they are saving their family alot of money.

 

[believe]

In KY it is 3 months of serving, you can be picked for multiple cases. Grand Jury is a lot longer, I think 6 months.

DH and I have served in the last several years. We worked opposite shifts so that we could be home for the kids. When I served, no big deal since he was home. We had friends/family willing to get them off the bus if I ran late. When he served I had to have my work agree to let me work from home when he would be called in. They were very flexible. There was a guy whose wife didn't have the flexibility and he still had to serve. They rarely let you off here. You can only plan things on Mondays since you can be called in Tues-Fri for 3 months.

 

[jodifla]

Again I wasn't saying it was typical, I was obviously just giving one example.

Your posts were somewhat critical, well alot critical of stay at home parents. It is not some la-dee-dah, willfull, extravagance. Its simply what works, and often benefits the family financially.

A SAHP isn't willfully being uneducated, I can't imagine why you'd even think that. In fact my friends who did the calculations were all university educated young professionals, they earned similar salaries to their husbands.

An SAHP certainly isn't sticking it to their families, and far more often than you are allowing (given 100% in the study and both my friends) they are saving their family alot of money.

Links to these studies?

All find and dandy until the main breadwinner gets laid off, or hikes out the door when he/she finds another romance. Which we read about over and over and over on these boards.

 

[HelenePA]

Who would watch your kids while your in jail?

To be put out a few days of your life for the chance to live in a "innocent until proven guilty" society IMO is not asking to much.

I don't understand the trend that people assume nothing has to be asked on them to live in a free country.

I dont know I'll be in jail he'll have to figure that one out I do know it wont be his "parents"

 

[DVCLiz]

Again I wasn't saying it was typical, I was obviously just giving one example.

Your posts were somewhat critical, well alot critical of stay at home parents. It is not some la-dee-dah, willfull, extravagance. Its simply what works, and often benefits the family financially.

A SAHP isn't willfully being uneducated, I can't imagine why you'd even think that. In fact my friends who did the calculations were all university educated young professionals, they earned similar salaries to their husbands.

An SAHP certainly isn't sticking it to their families, and far more often than you are allowing (given 100% in the study and both my friends) they are saving their family alot of money.

I'm not trying to be critical of a stay at home parent - I am one now and have been for many years. I was a working parent, too, when my children were small.

I'm just saying that a university educated young professional should be able to earn enough to more than compensate for the tax advantage, daycare costs and convenience shopping that comes with the territory of being a working parent. Either your friends aren't married to husbands who earn a professional salary or they are using some calculations that really aren't realistic.

And I can't think of a single SAHP I know - either in real life or here on the DIS - who benefits the family financially by staying home. IN fact, it's the other way around - usually the family is making pretty substantial sacrifices in order for mom to be home with the children. I think it's fine if someone wants to make that choice, but - to bring this back to my original point - it's not a choice I would make. As I said before, if I can't come up with a few hundred dollars to pay for good childcare for something unexpected like jury duty, I wouldn't be comfortable not earning a decent paycheck that could make my family more secure.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Links to these studies?

All find and dandy until the main breadwinner gets laid off, or hikes out the door when he/she finds another romance. Which we read about over and over and over on these boards.

Actually there is well publicized information regarding that as it is simple budgeting 101. In some cases, it is economically viable for the dad to stay home. Many people state they "have" to work and have a tough time doing so. Often they are surprised when their choice isn't really the must do they thought it was.

When I was working, after actual expenses and daycare, I made only $1 an hour for that particular job. Trimming the budget by $160 ended up not being a big deal.

I'm not unemployable at this point--but our game plan has always been for me to go back to school for a different career choice should something happen to my husband. And if he decides to leave me for some pop-tart, he will pay dearly for choice and I am okay with that.

However--I will not live in fear that I'll end up poor for choosing to be a SAHM or that I have no self work or job skills simply b/c I stayed home while some burly man brought home the bacon.

And we read about many single income families on the dis who are doing just fine, it isn't exactly the best source to prove a point.