That's what she tried to do, and they said "no, too bad, you still have to serve."
No. They said she had to show up for the day of selection and they wouldn't just dismiss her via mail. She showed up with a baby, specifically going against what she was told. Totally shocking, the judge was then pissed.
Which makes zero sense.
"I can't serve jury duty this date because I have no childcare for my kid."
"You have to come here to the courthouse to get an exemption. And you'll need to have childcare for your kid."
No, she showed up with a baby. They told her that she needed to at least find a helper for that ONE day in order to make her case. She instead showed up with just the kid. She had a month and she couldn't scrape up a person to sit in the hallway with her baby for one day.
We'll never know if the judge would have been reasonable and dismissed her because she couldn't manage to follow the rules for that one single day.
If she followed the rules, made her case without having a baby on her hip at that time, and the judge then told her to suck it up and she brought her baby the next day...i'd be on the other side. But as is, I'm sorry - yes it's a pain in the ass. yes it's expensive. it's like that for EVERYBODY. A BFing mom with a kid who won't take a bottle should get an exemption, but if the rules in this place are that you have to do that in person, just follow the fucking rules like everybody else who also probably has their own sob story.
That's not what it says in the original story. It says she asked for an exemption *before* her jury duty date, and was denied. Come jury duty date, she had no other way to care for the baby, so she brought baby with her.
I just reread the story. How you're interpreting it is not how I read it, but rereading it now I'm not sure. Is anybody actually from this area who can clarify how they do things?
Was she told that she had to come in regardless because they just don't issue deferments/exemptions over the phone (which is how i read it at first - that they told her she had to come in and make her case and the judge sometimes excuses people for hardship at that point) or because they actually denied that it was a hardship (which is how I'm assuming all the people who think she was in the right read it)?
That's not what it says in the original story. It says she asked for an exemption *before* her jury duty date, and was denied. Come jury duty date, she had no other way to care for the baby, so she brought baby with her.
Because there are two stages for saying you can't do it. Stage one is when the summons is issues and there are automatic exemptions. That's before you show up. If they deny those ones or you don't fall under those exemptions, you come in and offer up specifically why you can't. She was told they could come then with her baby and someone to help with the baby. She chose to just bring the baby.
That's not what it says in the original story. It says she asked for an exemption *before* her jury duty date, and was denied. Come jury duty date, she had no other way to care for the baby, so she brought baby with her.
Because there are two stages for saying you can't do it. Stage one is when the summons is issues and there are automatic exemptions. That's before you show up. If they deny those ones or you don't fall under those exemptions, you come in and offer up specifically why you can't. She was told they could come then with her baby and someone to help with the baby. She chose to just bring the baby.
What if she had nobody to bring with her? I keep asking this and you keep not responding.
"She asked to be exempt from appearing, as she was breastfeeding, but received notice that she must report to court to fullfill her civic obligation and serve jury duty, according to the Kansas City Star.
Trickle was told to either arrange for child care or bring somebody with her who could care for the child during jury selection."
She wasn't told to show up to be on the jury. She asked for an exemption so she wouldn't have to show up, but was told she still had to show up and offered options for childcare (bring someone with or not bring the child). Fulfilling her civic duty meant showing up for selection, where it seems like she could have made her case for an exemption then. I guess I could be reading it wrong, but this format is exactly how the court I worked in handled it.
Post by penguingrrl on Oct 21, 2013 15:33:33 GMT -5
Oh, and I've never heard of people unable to be exempt for financial hardship, whether they SAH or have a job where they won't be paid. Any form I've seen (only two states) has a provision where you can prove financial hardship by mail if going for a single day will cause a real hardship. When we asked for my exemption as a SAHP we had to provide DDs birth certificate, the previous year's W2 and our three most recent paystubs. That was the only way a SAHP was excused, but it's the same system (minus birth certificate) for low income people who would be unable to support themselves if they lost that day's wages.
"She asked to be exempt from appearing, as she was breastfeeding, but received notice that she must report to court to fullfill her civic obligation and serve jury duty, according to the Kansas City Star.
Trickle was told to either arrange for child care or bring somebody with her who could care for the child during jury selection."
She wasn't told to show up to be on the jury. She asked for an exemption so she wouldn't have to show up, but was told she still had to show up and offered options for childcare (bring someone with or not bring the child). Fulfilling her civic duty meant showing up for selection, where it seems like she could have made her case for an exemption then. I guess I could be reading it wrong, but this format is exactly how the court I worked in handled it.
To me "find someone to watch your child while you're here or find someone to watch your child at home" are not exactly options. I mean, if you can do one, you can probably do the other, and if you *can't* do one, you likely can't do the other either.
Because there are two stages for saying you can't do it. Stage one is when the summons is issues and there are automatic exemptions. That's before you show up. If they deny those ones or you don't fall under those exemptions, you come in and offer up specifically why you can't. She was told they could come then with her baby and someone to help with the baby. She chose to just bring the baby.
What if she had nobody to bring with her? I keep asking this and you keep not responding.
You know what? It is one day. Everyone that has to go to jury duty loses a day of pay, that's life. So since she is a SAHM and showing up on her own wouldn't lose any income, I now say her husband could have stayed home instead or gone to court with her. Same loss of income as everyone else. Win-win. Is that a better solution than scrounging a stranger off the street corner to take in with her?
"She asked to be exempt from appearing, as she was breastfeeding, but received notice that she must report to court to fullfill her civic obligation and serve jury duty, according to the Kansas City Star.
Trickle was told to either arrange for child care or bring somebody with her who could care for the child during jury selection."
She wasn't told to show up to be on the jury. She asked for an exemption so she wouldn't have to show up, but was told she still had to show up and offered options for childcare (bring someone with or not bring the child). Fulfilling her civic duty meant showing up for selection, where it seems like she could have made her case for an exemption then. I guess I could be reading it wrong, but this format is exactly how the court I worked in handled it.
To me "find someone to watch your child while you're here or find someone to watch your child at home" are not exactly options. I mean, if you can do one, you can probably do the other, and if you *can't* do one, you likely can't do the other either.
I understand that and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I think she went in with an attitude that set the judge off. I just know that is how it was handled when I worked in a court, and the judge HATED when people brought their kids in against the rules. However, it was never someone who was sorry or upset they had to do that - it was always someone who was just trying to prove a point and came in with an attitude of entitled "I shouldn't have to serve, I have kids! It's too hard for me!" Like they were showing the judge they should have been given an automatic exemption.
What if she had nobody to bring with her? I keep asking this and you keep not responding.
Because I flat out don't believe that in a month since the summons was issued, she couldn't find someone to come with her to the courthouse for a couple hours.
I just don't.
Asking or paying someone to sit in the hallway of a courthouse for a couple hours does not require the same level of trust as finding someone to keep your kid in their home, your home, or day care center.
To me "find someone to watch your child while you're here or find someone to watch your child at home" are not exactly options. I mean, if you can do one, you can probably do the other, and if you *can't* do one, you likely can't do the other either.
I understand that and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I think she went in with an attitude that set the judge off. I just know that is how it was handled when I worked in a court, and the judge HATED when people brought their kids in against the rules. However, it was never someone who was sorry or upset they had to do that - it was always someone who was just trying to prove a point and came in with an attitude of entitled "I shouldn't have to serve, I have kids! It's too hard for me!" Like they were showing the judge they should have been given an automatic exemption.
I wish I could give this more than one 'like'. I very much doubt this woman did this for anything more than attention and entitlement. I am curious how she got to GMA if she is in such dire straights, frankly.
What if she had nobody to bring with her? I keep asking this and you keep not responding.
You know what? It is one day. Everyone that has to go to jury duty loses a day of pay, that's life. So since she is a SAHM and showing up on her own wouldn't lose any income, I now say her husband could have stayed home instead or gone to court with her. Same loss of income as everyone else. Win-win. Is that a better solution than scrounging a stranger off the street corner to take in with her?
Legally, your job is required to give you time off work to serve jury duty. They are not legally required to do so so your spouse can serve jury duty and you can watch the kids. For lots of people it's not as easy as "just take the day off."
I once saw a guy get excused from jury duty because he owned an air conditioning repair service, and it was the hottest day of the year. I still don't know if the judge excused him because he was going to lose so much money or because he wanted people with broken air conditioners to be able to get them fixed.
I understand that and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I think she went in with an attitude that set the judge off. I just know that is how it was handled when I worked in a court, and the judge HATED when people brought their kids in against the rules. However, it was never someone who was sorry or upset they had to do that - it was always someone who was just trying to prove a point and came in with an attitude of entitled "I shouldn't have to serve, I have kids! It's too hard for me!" Like they were showing the judge they should have been given an automatic exemption.
I wish I could give this more than one 'like'. I very much doubt this woman did this for anything more than attention and entitlement. I am curious how she got to GMA if she is in such dire straights, frankly.
To me "find someone to watch your child while you're here or find someone to watch your child at home" are not exactly options. I mean, if you can do one, you can probably do the other, and if you *can't* do one, you likely can't do the other either.
I understand that and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I think she went in with an attitude that set the judge off. I just know that is how it was handled when I worked in a court, and the judge HATED when people brought their kids in against the rules. However, it was never someone who was sorry or upset they had to do that - it was always someone who was just trying to prove a point and came in with an attitude of entitled "I shouldn't have to serve, I have kids! It's too hard for me!" Like they were showing the judge they should have been given an automatic exemption.
Maybe she is, and maybe I would totally hate her if I met her personally. But I still think the system is really screwed up. That if you need an "I don't have childcare" exemption, you have to....get childcare.
I don't get how paying $100 in childcare is a different hardship than losing $100 in income.
Because getting a $600 paycheck instead of a $700 paycheck isn't the same as having to pay a (usually cash-only) babysitter WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
I wish I could give this more than one 'like'. I very much doubt this woman did this for anything more than attention and entitlement. I am curious how she got to GMA if she is in such dire straights, frankly.
That's not what it says in the original story. It says she asked for an exemption *before* her jury duty date, and was denied. Come jury duty date, she had no other way to care for the baby, so she brought baby with her.
Because there are two stages for saying you can't do it. Stage one is when the summons is issues and there are automatic exemptions. That's before you show up. If they deny those ones or you don't fall under those exemptions, you come in and offer up specifically why you can't. She was told they could come then with her baby and someone to help with the baby. She chose to just bring the baby.
Maybe in your state. I requested postponement because my date for jury duty was my start date for my first job out of college. I said it would be a hardship to miss my first day. I got the postponement. I hardly think something so specific is an automatic exemption.
I once saw a guy get excused from jury duty because he owned an air conditioning repair service, and it was the hottest day of the year. I still don't know if the judge excused him because he was going to lose so much money or because he wanted people with broken air conditioners to be able to get them fixed.
#random
I saw a woman excused because she sobbed that she just couldn't handle cases involving small children. The judge rolled his eyes and the lawyers pretty much agreed that unstable people do not make good jurors.
I also saw quite a few excused because they fell asleep during voir dire.
I understand that and don't necessarily disagree, which is why I think she went in with an attitude that set the judge off. I just know that is how it was handled when I worked in a court, and the judge HATED when people brought their kids in against the rules. However, it was never someone who was sorry or upset they had to do that - it was always someone who was just trying to prove a point and came in with an attitude of entitled "I shouldn't have to serve, I have kids! It's too hard for me!" Like they were showing the judge they should have been given an automatic exemption.
Maybe she is, and maybe I would totally hate her if I met her personally. But I still think the system is really screwed up. That if you need an "I don't have childcare" exemption, you have to....get childcare.
which, as we've already found out upthread, is dirty.
I don't get how paying $100 in childcare is a different hardship than losing $100 in income.
Because getting a $600 paycheck instead of a $700 paycheck isn't the same as having to pay a (usually cash-only) babysitter WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
YOU ARE PAYING A SOCIETAL DEBT THAT CANNOT BE PAID ANY OTHER WAY. FUCK MONEY.
I don't get how paying $100 in childcare is a different hardship than losing $100 in income.
Because getting a $600 paycheck instead of a $700 paycheck isn't the same as having to pay a (usually cash-only) babysitter WHEN YOU SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.