Posted on 08/13/2004 5:24:43 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Good. If that was the rule, it's the rule.
This is Rush Limbaugh's blind spot. Anti-smoking laws are not a liberals-only issue.
The way I see it, she didn't go to jail for smoking around the kids; she went to jail for defying a court order.
She should know better, but smoking is not against the law.
We're so concerned about the poisons that enter our mortal bodies, but so indifferent to the poisons that enter our immortal souls.
If it was about defying the court order, the judge shouldn't have found it necessary to quote this evidence.
The medical studies are, as yet, inconclusive and sometimes contradictory. At the very least, they don't rise to the level at which legal decisions should be based on them.
That said, I think it's reprehensible to expose your kids to smoking.
I don't think she should be going to jail. I think the husband should haul her into court to change the custody agreement based on her potentially endangering the kids. They can argue the merits there.
She would if in letting them surf unsupervised, she'd defied a court order saying she couldn't do that. That's why she went to the clink. Not because she smoked, but because she signed off on a custody arrangement that said she couldn't and she broke it.
It was defying the court order that got her arrested, not the smoking. The smoking was the basis of the court order, however the judge had already ruled on it. Therefore she OUTRIGHT DEFIED THE JUDGE. She may not see it that way, as people rationalize whatever they want to rationalize. I dare say her defiant, disobedient and arrogance is why she is divorced in first place. Some people don't want rules, the children suffer.
If she had been told not to drink around the children, and she defied it...everyone here would be up in arms over that kind of behavior...smoking is also dangerous just not as severe. HOwever the real issue here is she refused to obey a court order.
What can you say? Judges are notoriously picky about court orders.
Seems to me the powers that be are making smoking against the law. I am pretty sick of it. I SMOKE and I want people and government to leave me alone.
In reading the article, it does not define what "smoking around the children" means. For all we know, she had the kids, and stepped outside to smoke, yet still go in trouble.
All that aside, this custody settlement is ridiculous, and I cannot believe her lawyer let it stand. It appears the ex husband is doing everything he can to keep her away from the children.
I would say there is far more to this divorce than meets the eye, and the smoking issue is a symptom of the divorce. I mean, can you imagine? An 8 and a 10 year old would have no problem telling daddy "Mom was smoking again!!"
If she couldn't abide by the terms of the custody agreement, she shouldn't have signed on to the custody agreement.
If second hand smoke kills, then anyone who actually inhales the full, undiluted smoke into their lungs, should be dead in a year.
go=got
You're right. It's a tyranny issue.
It isn't 100% clear, but to me it sounds like the custody arrangement already bans smoking. What isn't clear to me at all is whether this ban was imposed on her after a hearing, or whether she voluntarily agreed to it as part of a settlement (which then was made into the Court order). If she agreed to the ban, then she's in a tougher spot, I'd say. Of course, the flip side of the argument depends on how long she smoked. Did the ex object to her smoking around the kids when they were together? If he didn't, then she could ask why her smoking only became dangerous to the kids once they split up? If dad chose to have his children with a smoker, then my sympathy for him is somewhat limited as well. I agree with you that children should not, ideally, be exposed to smoke, but of course putting their mother in jail isn't the best thing for them either!
I know. I was just trying to make a larger point. It amazes me that parents let kids have TVs in their bedrooms. You might as well feed them a bowl full of poison.
Regarding the second-hand smoke issue...my grandparents each smoked 3 packs of menthol cigarettes a day. Neither my mother, nor my uncle, nor any of the grandchildren have suffered any long term health problems due to their smoking. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents and it never bothered me. I never said "I don't want to go to Nana and Grandpa's because they smoke."
However, the mother in this case shouldn't have agreed to the demand by her ex-husband if she didn't intend to comply.
So how long will it be before this court order morphs into a law? How long before Joe Sixpack takes a break from his job at the city museum and steps out front to smoke a cigarette when a bus full of school children on a field trip pulls up and unloads? What happens next? A local police officer on foot patrol sees that the children's lives are now in peril because of this, this..., this SMOKER! The LEO springs into action and slams the smoking perp to the pavement where he is read his rights and dragged off to the pokey.
Could it happen? One day perhaps?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.