Mom Sent To Jail For Smoking Around Kids

WRAL Raleigh ^ | August 13, 2004 | Associated Press

[Hatteras]

Mom Sent To Jail For Smoking Around Kids

POSTED: 6:43 am EDT August 13, 2004

BOWLING GREEN, Va. -- A woman was sentenced Thursday to 10 days in jail for defying a court order not to smoke around her children.

Tamara Silvius was banned last year from smoking around the youths, now ages 8 and 10, as part of a custody arrangement with her ex-husband.

[cherry]

I have to say that if smoking is deemed that dangerous to little children, then the possessing of porn or viewing it in the home with young children must be like sure death...

do judges ever require that porn NOT be in the house with children?.....doubt it...

nope...ex was just looking to cause more trouble for the ex wife and the children while he was at it...

I would love to know about this ex husband...bet he is a petty, little jerk....

and I can't stand to be around smoke....

[cherry]

"I applaud that man for having the balls to have the "no smoking around the kids" clause put into the divorce decree."

I would guess that smoking is not a new habit for this woman....and isn't it ironic that this exhusband could marry and create two children with this smoking woman, yet all of a sudden since he wants to hurt the ex,he is all against her smoking...

it didn't matter to him when he was procreating....no problem when smoking mom was carrying two children inside of her smoking body...

but now, gee, he just got health conscious (not!)

the other thing is.....why are we putting smoking moms in prison....we don't have enough rapist and child molesters to go around?

[cherry]

all those things you spouted are very very questionable...

especially the one about women initiating divorce...

I would like to see what the definition of "initiating" is in this case, because if its simply the filing of papers, that means absolutely nothing...

afterall, if a guy cheats on his wife, gambles away the paycheck, drinks to excess, is lazy and uncomunicative, you can hardly blame a wife for seeking divorce, which is what I suspect happens...

anyway, you should try to enjoy life and stop feeling so sorry for yourself...

life is too short to be carrying this bitterness with you, and it will make you an old man far too soon....

I suppose you will call me a feminazi too.....but don't tell my husband of 28 yrs that, it'll devastate him.....

[Don Simmons]

I'm the one who is brainwashed? Nice.

A very intelligent observation.

My views clash with those of smokers....and I'm brainwashed.

Thanks for enlightening me. I think I'll start smoking so I can truly see the error of my ways.

[SheLion]

A very intelligent observation.

I was wondering why I didn't receive any backlash from you before this.

Well, brainwashed by the highly paid anti-smoking coalitions out there with your views on smoking and the smoker.  It just kills me the way the general non-smoking public takes their word as the gospel.

[Melas]

It's never wise to violate a court order. It wasn't smoking that sent her to jail, it's the pesky little detail that she had to violate a court order to do so.

[RinaseaofDs]

You ARE pro gun control.

I might have guessed.

Oh well, I hope you learn something here. You doth protest too much about being conservative.

Two 17 year-old's invaded the house four doors down from me. A 72 year old man, and a 68 year old woman. A sherriff deputy lives in the cul-de-sac not 100 yards away, and a cop lives less than 200 feet away.

She came in from the garage with groceries to find the two tying up her husband. Both had guns. She called 911 and loaded the pistol the two had in the garage (propping a chair up against the door from the house.

She fired twice into the door, winging one in the shoulder. She pulled the chair away and shot the same guy in the leg and took his gun.

With both guns in hand, she chased the second through the house. He ran through the screen door in the back yard and got away.

Police got to the scene 11 minutes after the call.

11 minutes really isn't that bad, but it would have been long enough had she not been armed.

The MSM and even Fox seems to have an embargo on any story about home defense.

For me, gun control is the ability to kill your intruder with the first shot. The kind lady, who never fails to greet my kids by name when we walk by her house, DID have to aim through a door, and she does have arthritis in her hands. She always has cookies for them too.

As for respect, I'm not the one using personal attacks.

[HawkeyeLonewolf]

Guess the weekend didn't help your attitude. Bummer.

I am NOT pro-gun control. Don't know where you got that from.

I simply pointed out that your prior WEAK gun-control analogy was already refuted.

You have a short fuse. Have a nice day.

[Just another Joe]

Excuse me! How in the world this you come up with that nonsense, of course not!!

This is where I came up with this nonsense. Post 76

"First of all we are to obey laws that do not conflict with Scripture", and "YOU SEE WE ONLY HAVE ONE CRITERIA,,,,GOD'S WORD, and he said to obey those in authority over us, and that includes judges."

It isn't good example for children to follow by disobeying a ruling specifically to protect the children, so be a democrat if you want to...but the republicans I know follow the rules as long as they are appropriate..in this case it was appropriate demand.

In the first place it is ALWAYS a good example to teach your children to QUESTION FOR THEMSELVES anything that anyone tells them. This ruling wasn't to protect the children, it was to take the children away from the mother, period.
YOU accuse ME of being a democrat? Nice ad hominem. But no cigar.
This wasn't an appropriate demand made by the father. It was a demand made in order to take the children from the mother altogether.
The mother may have been an idiot for agreeing to this as part of a custody arrangement and since she DID agree to it she should have stuck to the agreement but the judge fining her and giving her jail time is BS.
If the agreement is broached you take away unsupervised time with the children.

I believe President Bush would agree with me on this one, don't you??

I'm not so sure the President would agree with you. He probably wouldn't agree with me either but I'm not so sure he would agree with you.

OH and I wouldn't want you by my side either when orders are given, you are kind of person that would get someone killed while you are being the maverick know it all.

It's probably a good thing that we don't want to be by each others side when the bad things go down.
You'll be genuflecting to the rulers and I'll be in the woods waiting for them to step wrong.

[Kackikat]

I see no reason to argue with someone who clearly does not understand my post. NO way was that order to take away her children, it only said for her not to smoke in presence of children....she could have went outside, to her room or to another room in house. In fact, it was probably the children who reported her...as it does not say anyone else was there.

Yes, we are to respect and obey laws that do not conflict with scripture...and teaching someone to think for themselves is what should be done, but teaching them respect for authority is also important...there is a balance in all things.

Rebellious teenage attitudes are dangerous, anyone can try and justify smoking, drinking, drugging or whatever, but she disobeyed a court order...period. Obviously she is one of those people who are going to do whatever they want, no matter the consequence to her or the children. ciao

[Just another Joe]

I see no reason to argue with someone who clearly does not understand my post. NO way was that order to take away her children, it only said for her not to smoke in presence of children....she could have went outside, to her room or to another room in house. In fact, it was probably the children who reported her...as it does not say anyone else was there.

I clearly understand your post. I was/have been taking your attitude to the extreme.
IMO, The father somehow enticed her to agree to the custody agreement with the express thought of taking the children from her altogether. Probably something along the lines of, "You can still smoke, don't worry. Just don't do it when the children are in the room", and then had different wording put in the custody order.
The judge issuing the order went too far, IMO. If she violates the custody agreement, take away unsupervised visits.
Fining her and jail time for disobeying that order, again, went too far, IMO, but that's a matter of opinion.

Yes we are to respect laws that do not violate scripture but we are not to blindly obey all laws whether they violate scripture or not. A law can be a bad law and still not violate scripture. Civil disobedience has long been a way of expressing displeasure with bad laws.

Yes, she may have disobeyed a court order. I'm saying fines and jail time for disobeying that order, if she did, were inappropriate for the offense. Especially for disobeying a court order that shouldn't have been given in the first place.

[Don Simmons]

As I originally posted, I base my stand on personal experience, having lost my grandfather to lung cancer because of his years of smoking. I am really gonna hate seeing my grandmother on the respirator after her 55-year marriage to him. She never smoked a cigarette a day of her life -- well, at least she never put one in her mouth and lit up.

She still smoked nonetheless....she just didn't know it.

I'm also gonna lose a dear friend pretty soon -- again to lung cancer from years of cigarette smoking. She's already on assisted breathing.

Go ahead and waste your breath on me and tell me I'm brainwashed.....while you still have the breath to waste.

Friend, I don't wish any harm on anyone. But if you don't believe smoking kills the smoker -- and those exposed to their smoke for long periods -- you are only fooling yourself.

I wish you health.

[Kackikat]

It appears the smokers have tried to put us both on the defensive, but you and I agree...smoking is bad.
My stand was that the woman violated a court order, and somehow 'some' smokers think the order should never have been given.

I'm glad I am not only one being attacked...we must be right or they would not be so defensive.

[SheLion]

As I originally posted, I base my stand on personal experience, having lost my grandfather to lung cancer because of his years of smoking. I am really gonna hate seeing my grandmother on the respirator after her 55-year marriage to him. She never smoked a cigarette a day of her life -- well, at least she never put one in her mouth and lit up.

I don't know why I am wasting my time to post this to you.  I won't change your mind and you will never change mine.  I am not sure where you live or how old you are, am I am sorry for your losses.  But you just can't poke a finger at a person that died or is dying because they smoke.

How old are they?  How fat are they?  Did they exercise?  Eat well?  One has to take into consideration that keeping up ones health, especially if they smoke, is vital. 

She still smoked nonetheless....she just didn't know it.

Your misguided about ETS or second hand smoke.  Who told you that second hand smoke kills?

Oak Ridge Labs, Tenn. on SECOND HAND SMOKE
 
" I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S.
Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the
question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific
fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke

I'm also gonna lose a dear friend pretty soon -- again to lung cancer from years of cigarette smoking. She's already on assisted breathing.

I had a grandmother who smoked three packs of unfiltered Camels a day and lived to be 86.  She died of old age.

Go ahead and waste your breath on me and tell me I'm brainwashed.....while you still have the breath to waste.

Don't worry about 'me.' I take care of myself, thank you.

Friend, I don't wish any harm on anyone. But if you don't believe smoking kills the smoker -- and those exposed to their smoke for long periods -- you are only fooling yourself.

So, your one of those that believe if we don't smoke we don't die! Friend, no one gets out of here alive.  I can promise you that.

I wish you health.

And you as well.

[SheLion]

I'm glad I am not only one being attacked...we must be right or they would not be so defensive.

We are not defensive. We are just sick and tired of being pounded on for enjoying a legal product!

[SheLion]

I'm glad I am not only one being attacked...we must be right or they would not be so defensive.

Don't pat yourself TOO hard on your own back! Apparently, not everyone agrees with you:

[SheLion]

Children or cigarettes?
Woman accused of defying a judge's order that she not smoke around her children
BY KIRAN KRISHNAMURTHY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Tamara Silvius. PHOTO BY KIRAN KRISHNAMURTHY
BOWLING GREEN - Tamara Silvius is fuming over a judge's ruling that she cannot smoke around her two young children.

The Caroline County woman says she is so addicted to cigarettes that, despite the court order, she duct-taped clear plastic trash bags inside her Chevy Suburban during a trip to South Carolina last Thanksgiving in an attempt to keep smoke from reaching the children, now ages 8 and 10, seated behind her.

"The kids were OK with it. I turned up the air-conditioning," Silvius, who shares custody of the children with her ex-husband, said in an interview this week.

For that episode, Caroline Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Judge John H. Thomas fined her $500 in January and issued her a 10-day jail term; he suspended the jail term on condition she not violate the order again.

Tomorrow, Silvius is due back in the family court for allegedly violating the order again in June, though the hearing might be postponed.

"It's a violation of my rights," said Silvius, a pack-a-day Baileys Menthol smoker. "I don't lock my children in closets with smoke to harm them. I don't blow smoke in their face. It's not against the law."

In August 2003, Thomas barred Silvius from smoking cigarettes when the children are around as a condition of her visitation.

Silvius, 44, had appealed that order to Caroline Circuit Court, where Judge Horace A. Revercomb III upheld Thomas' ruling in January. She and her attorney have filed another appeal with the Virginia Court of Appeals.

Her attorney, Tucker L. Henley, declined public comment but argued in court papers that Revercomb was "without jurisdiction" to order his client not to smoke around her children.

Her ex-husband, Steve Silvius, declined to comment, referring questions to his attorney, Mark A. Murphy.

Murphy was out of town, but his law partner, J. Bruce Strickland, said he believes Revercomb was within the law when he upheld Thomas' ruling, which also bars Tamara Silvius or anyone with her from consuming alcohol when the children are with her.

Revercomb cited medical evidence of the effects of secondhand smoke on children.

"In my mind it's akin to the court prohibiting any type of behavior," Strickland said, noting that judges routinely bar contact with certain people. "I think it's one of those things where it's not violating her constitutional rights."

Tamara Silvius said the issue arose when she petitioned for full custody of the children in 2002 because of a series of 911 calls for domestic disputes at the home of her ex-husband and his third wife. Sheriff's department records show six 911 calls originating from Steve Silvius' house within a three-month period in early 2002.

"The children were not in a good environment," Tamara Silvius said.

When the custody matter came to court, she said, Murphy, Steve Silvius' attorney, raised the issue of her alcohol consumption.

"From there, it went to smoking. The whole 911 thing never came up," she said.

A court-appointed guardian concluded that Tamara Silvius' farm home, where she lives with her boyfriend, was not a particularly clean or safe environment.

After an inspection, the guardian wrote she found the home to be "filthy and cluttered, to have many beer cans and bottles strewn about inside, and with such debris as broken glass and jagged metal scraps outside the home as to make entry dangerous."

Tamara Silvius was ordered to undergo a substance-abuse evaluation. She told an evaluator that she and her husband both drank early in their 14-year marriage, but that they stopped after counseling with a military chaplain in 1987. She indicated she continued to abstain, off and on, and last began drinking again in 2000.

A waitress at the All-American truck stop in Doswell in neighboring Hanover County, she has a "couple of beers a couple of times during the week" and "a six pack every other weekend," according to the evaluation. She and her ex-husband trade weekends caring for the children.

Steve Silvius alleged that Tamara Silvius consumed alcohol while driving, according to court papers.

"No," she said yesterday. "If I did, it was moving the truck from one side of the property to the other."

"I like to crack a beer, especially in the summer," said Tamara Silvius, who has smoked since she was 15.

The evaluator determined that she did not have a substance-abuse or substance-dependence disorder, though she had the potential to develop one.

Tamara Silvius believes the judge's ruling is one-sided because it proscribes her behavior, but not that of her ex-husband.

"I can't smoke around the kids, but he can," she said of her ex.

Does he smoke?

"No, but he can. It's not fair."

Contact Kiran Krishnamurthy at (540) 371-4792 or kkrishnamurthy@timesdispatch.com

[Don Simmons]

Well, I appreciate your sentiments -- and you and I both know it's not a matter of who's right or wrong.

It's simply a matter of NOT being so stubborn that you refuse to accept something that is just plain ole common sense.

And it's also a matter of NOT being so self-righteous that we carry on the same "deny, deny...til the day you die" rhetoric for which we criticize others (hard-headed liberal freaks).

That line of thinking makes us no better than the turds on dumbocratic underground.

At least on here, all we get is replies accusing us of being brainwashed trolls when we express intelligence outside the sphere of hard-line, tunnel vision, far right thinking.

On DU, you get banned for spewing anything other than extreme liberal vomit.

Thanks goodness we're better than that!!!

[Don Simmons]

WOW!!!! Amazing!!!

That looks amazingly a lot like the 2000 election results!!!!

DUUUUHHHHH......

[Paved Paradise]

There is so much truth to what you say. Due to the humanistic culture we live in now, people spend far more attention on what affects us physically vs. what affects us spiritually and morally. However, my general comment on this lady is that if she's so addicted that she can't give up smoking around her kids as a means of protecting their health, then she needs counseling to find out why she's so selfish that her need to smoke overrules good thinking.