Woman Sent to Jail for Smoking Near Kids

[Rose Siding]

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.

She allegedly violated the order during a trip to South Carolina for Thanksgiving. For that, Silvius was fined $500 and was given a 10-day suspended sentence on the condition she not do it again.

But Silvius was back in court Thursday for violating the order a second time in June. Silvius, a pack-a-day smoker, claims the restriction violates her rights.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-brf-smoking-mom,0,2084953.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

[jus_the_facts]

1. better put those kids in a plastic bubble then......

......'coz the carbon monoxide from their CAR will harm them much more than cigarettes ever will in the long run. :eyes:

[Carni]

2. No kidding!

Not to mention... Virginia has one of the most toxic sites in the country in their midst and it's being turned into a SOCCER FIELD for the kiddies! (I believe the company was called AFTEX or something like that in Front Royal VA)

[Bandit]

31. She didn't go to jail for smoking but for disobeying a court order

I guess breaking the law doesn't mean anything to you smokers. It is obvious you only care about yourselves. If you cared about others you would not wish for smoking to be allowed in any public place.

[mac56]

33. Good point, Bandit

The headline is misleading. She went to jail for disobeying a court order, even after she'd gotten a suspended sentence for the same thing already.

She couldn't (or wouldn't) refrain from disobeying a court order, around her kids, even after she'd been warned. I think it's a fair cop.

Add on edit: The time for her to challenge this order was when it was first issued. Not when she's actually with the kids!

[DoktorGreg]

138. She went to jail for trying to protect her children from an abuser

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

And it seems the anti-smoking police think that is just great.

You should feel proud!

[Carni]

47. And I guess getting all the facts first doesn't mean anything to a moron

"You smokers"

I don't smoke, but I don't think it's appropriate for a judge to order that a person cannot do something LEGAL within the confines of their own home, or property.

She was awarded custody when she was a smoker and the last time I checked smoking was legal.

Furthermore I have no idea what the details were of this divorce and custody case--for all I know the male in the situation is some domineering asshole just looking for reasons to take away the children from the ex-wife.

I am vehemently opposed to the legal system creeping into people's homes in this manner esp. in cases of divorces and ugly custody matters.

If you don't agree then address the topic in a CIVIL manner instead of spewing personal insults (esp when you don't know jack about the person you are addressing)

[Bandit]

66. Who addressed you anyway?

:shrug: Getting a little defensive are we?

[chimpy the poopthrower]

69. While you are busy calling names...

...and accusing others of "not getting all the facts," it is apparent that you yourself did not read the article. You claim "I have no idea what the details were of this divorce and custody case," yet the story states the relevant detail in the 2nd paragraph: "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."

You also state "I am vehemently opposed to the legal system creeping into people's homes in this manner esp. in cases of divorces and ugly custody matters." What exactly is your solution? Parents who are divorcing are free to make their own terms as long as they are legal and they both agree to them. When they cannot come to an agreement, the courts are obliged to step in and settle things. It may normally be legal to take your 9-year-old child to a pg-13 movie, but if your custody terms stipulate that you will not do so until the child is 13, you are violating those terms and thus the law.

[HuckleB]

41. You got some peer reviewed and accepted studies to prove that contention?

[jus_the_facts]

67. nahhh....globalwarming is just librul propaganda.....

......and your car exhaust is perfectly safe for yourself and your environment...it's been proven that the air straight from your car a/c is like suckin' straight from the tailpipe. :eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

97. That can't be entirely true

I've used the A/C in my car hundreds of times. If I sat by the tailpipe and sucked air for just a few minutes -- once -- I'd be dead. So it really can't be the same.

[HuckleB]

124. That's quite a claim.

Can I get a link to the studies on that, too? Oh, and the links to the first studies I asked for too?

Thanks.

[jus_the_facts]

125. suuuure...there's this search engine called google.....

......knock yourself out. :smoke:

[HuckleB]

126. So...

you can't back up your claims, then?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

:eyes:

[jus_the_facts]

130. No...I just don't give a shit.....

...my point IS there's much more to be concerned about in the world than fuckin' smokin' cigarettes...that's much more damaging to people.:nopity: :freak:

[FeebMaster]

84. Don't you know that asking for proof

is a standard Republican trick?

[ScreamingMeemie]

128. Agreed jus_the_facts. I cannot stand when parents do this to their

children by doing it to each other. Shame on that judge.

[mac56]

3. How important are these kids to her?

More important than the Marlboro Lights?

She knew the terms of the custody arrangement. She dodged one bullet already with the suspended sentence.

I have zero sympathy for her.

[StopTheMorans]

4. agreed

[zanana]

11. Would a 20-year sentence be too lenient for you?

I can't believe the incredibly judgmental attitudes here. Does she curse? 40 lashes! Does she (gasp) watch violent TV shows? Execution! And she damn better not have her boyfriend over! This just has vindictive ex-husband all over it.

[LynneSin]

16. or maybe it has kids who hate smoking written all over it

I had a friend who's kid would beg her to not smoke around her. I tried to do everything I could to help defend the daugher to her mom(my friend) but the mother would not budge. Said her parents did the same thing to her when she was a kid. Poor kid would be stuck in a car with no circulation while the mother smoked.

True, it's dumb to put this woman in jail for 10 days for smoking, but it's also dumb that this woman can't show enough respect for the kids to go outside and smoke or to not smoke while driving.

Personally, I think the dad should sue for full custody. To me it seems the mother would rather put her own bad habits before her kids. I had a father who smoked and he always put us first - I rarely saw him smoking. The only reason I knew he was a smoker - was that it eventually killed him when he was 41 years old

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

if the woman wants to smoke

FINE! She can step outside or open the car windows, etc., and not get the smoke in the kids' faces. She can get a whole house fan and exhaust the house. I saw her on TV and she put up this plastic sheet in the car so the smoke couldn't go in back and somehow the cops stopped her.
PS My father died of lung cancer in his early 40s and I was always affected by the smoking when I was a kid. But if you can't or will not stop smoking, you can smoke outside the area of others. Go in the garage or someplace else.

[barb162]

53. if the woman wants to smoke

FINE! She can step outside or open the car windows, etc., and not get the smoke in the kids' faces. She can get a whole house fan and exhaust the house. I saw her on TV and she put up this plastic sheet in the car so the smoke couldn't go in back and somehow the cops stopped her.
PS My father died of lung cancer in his early 40s and I was always affected by the smoking when I was a kid. But if you can't or will not stop smoking, you can smoke outside the area of others. Go in the garage or someplace else.

[TheRovingGourmet]

42. Yuck. I remember those days.

Dear Old Dad would have a few too many and forget that a cigarette tossed out the front window will come in the back window if that window is open, and we opened it every chance we got.

[mac56]

19. Overreacting much?!

She's a grownup, for chrissake. She knew the consequences and made her choice.

I feel bad for the kids that Mommy likes the ciggies more than she likes them.

[Carni]

50. That was my take

But I have already been accused of being a smoker, a smoking proponent and a flagrant law breaker...

Judgemental is right...maybe they should slap a scarlet letter on the harlot and display her ass in the town square.

[mac56]

56. The defensiveness on this thread is overwhelming.

Ad absurdium arguments run amok. I can understand it from the smokers - it's natural to defend one's addiction - but not from a non-smoker.

She violated a court order that she ostensibly agreed to, and that was set in place to keep her kids healthy. She'd already gotten one suspended sentence, and god only knows how many friendly warnings. Yet she chose - chose - to keep smoking around her kids. No libertarian bullshit should justify that.

[Carni]

62. Liberatarian bullshit?

Yeah, OK fine -- I guess you're right

I really like the new homeland security laws too.

[mac56]

71. Nice apples, nice oranges.

You're not really comparing this situation to Homeland Security?!

[The Flaming Red Head]

90. Yes, a lot of us already lost all those rights years ago. didn'tyounotice?

They're just putting a government seal on it and now the yuppies are getting scared.

[mac56]

92. Show me the similarity here between this situation

and the actions of Homeland Security.

[The Flaming Red Head]

96. they come into your home and peer in your walls and take your family membr

and you want comparisons?

[Carni]

93. I see a general trend

It's a sign of the times and a sign of the attitudes of the public.

Yes, I do see a trend in the way things are going and that would include this homeland security crap.

Look, I am not saying smoking is a good thing...or that the woman didn't violate the custody agreement.

She agreed to it she broke the law - fine, point taken.

I am just saying that lately courts seem to have more and more say in in people's personal affairs (the little people of course not the wealthy) and over the last couple of years it looks to me like women esp have gotten the short end of the stick most of the time.

It seems really absurd to me that the CEO's that robbed hundreds of thousands of people of billions, will very likely never see the inside of a jail cell and yet here is this stupid woman being jailed for violating an order to stop smoking around her kids.

[mac56]

98. 'Twas ever thus.

Money talks, money walks.

Is it right? Of course not. Is it fair? Not at all. Should the rotten bastard CEOs do hard time? Abso-frickin-lutely.

But should this inequity earn this woman a "get-out-of-jail-free" card? Reasonable people can differ. I still say it's a fair cop. Maybe she won't smoke around her kids anymore. That's a good thing.

[Carni]

106. I just wish people would spend more time directing their venom

At the REAL criminals (that would include the tobacco companies)
instead of hanging this woman out to dry for basic stupidity.

[mac56]

111. On that we agree.

nm

[The Flaming Red Head]

100. if you're poor or female you have less rights

I could tell you stories about judicial and police state actions that would make your hair stand on end.

A lot of us have had no rights for years and years.


What if they tell someone they have to take psych drugs and so do their kids?

I know someone in that situation and all the drugs are now part of class actions, but the court says they all have to abuse their bodies with this class of medications so they still take them knowing the outcomes, they're trapped in the Nanny State.

Smoking huh.

[DoktorGreg]

78. She didnt agree to the court order!!

Did you even read the article? She says the court order violates her rights.

[mac56]

79. Do you know how a custody agreement works?

Both sides agree to it and sign it.

[DoktorGreg]

91. Do you know how divorces work?

Ususlly when there is a family law court involved they are extra nasty. Also, how did the father even know, when she was 500 miles away from him, that she broke the agreement?

No, all I see here is the father had money and good lawyers and a nasty temper, and the mother had jack. As ususally the case.

Pure and simple, this is about control, and you support nasty ex's having control over their probably abused spouces.

Good for you.

By the way, I looked up saveral boiler plate agreements on the net, they all include a clause that goes something like,

"AGREED that neither party shall obstruct the development and maintenance of love and affection between the children and the other party. Neither will interfere with reasonable and proper companionship with the other party, including reasonable communication by telephone or writing. Neither will do or say anything that may estrange the children from the other parent."

I wonder if their agreement has a clause like this. Cause this smoking thing, with the spying and such, seems to violate an agreement like that. Also the seeking total custody thing...

[mac56]

95. Oh yes, I know how divorces work.

You seem to have a problem with expecting people to honor their agreements. You also sound like you know this couple personally. Lots of insight about their relationship that wasn't in the article.

[DoktorGreg]

105. The only insite I have is...

When a divorce involves a judge, things are extra nasty already.

The custody agreement has a clause the mother doesnt agree with, that violates her rights as a mother, to make bad decisions. Again, cost of lawyers, would indicate the father had a good one. The mother probably had legal aid. She probably wanted out of the relationship, at any cost, so she agreed to things she would not have agreed to otherwise.

The father is spying on the mother, and keeps hauling her into court. Most lawyers would advise the father to just let it go. That means there is money involved, because lawyers are expensive.

Finally, only an asshole of extreme degree would push this thing until there was jail time involved. That tells me this is about a vindictive control freak, and I have deep empathy for the mother. Too bad she didn't put a bullet in his head, when he was beating her (The control freaks ALWAYS beat their wives).

[TaleWgnDg]

154. and a very stupid

state judge in Virginia! But then again VA family law sucks anyway!

[Cocoa]

5. she's a hero

bravely standing up for the right to smoke near her kids. What a noble cause.

[mac56]

7. Yeah. Talk about picking the wrong hill to die on.

nm

[Massacure]

88. If she wanted to smoke near her kids, why did she agree not to

in the first place?

[ChrisK]

6. Not trying to take sides but...

I thought that was no definitive proof that second-hand smoke was killing anyone...Just asking mind you.

[Cocoa]

8. tell it to the judge

A judge upheld the order in January, citing medical evidence of the effects of secondhand smoke on children.

[LynneSin]

10. my brother suffered major respiratory problems because of our dad's smokin

ultimately my mother demanded that he stop smoking in the house and that he not smoke in the car when he was transporting us kids around. My father was a wonderful person who put us kids before his nasty habit. He smoke more around my brother than he did around me (I came 4 years later). I have no major issues with allergies or asthma but my brother suffers greatly from both. Maybe it was just genetics or maybe it was because he was around my father more when he smoked then I ever was.

Unfortunately he couldn't kick the habit and ended up dying of lung cancer.

[lazarus]

82. my daughter asked me to stop smoking 7 1/2 years ago

The cigarette I was smoking at the time became my last.

NOTHING is more important than my little girl. And cigs have killed several members of my family, as well.

[LynneSin]

9. No but it does provoke allergies and asthma attacks - especially in kids

Plus take it a step further. I'm sure there was probably a complaint from one of the kids that they didn't like mom's smoking which is how this ended up in the custody agreement.

The freaking mom only needs to step outside to have a cigerette in order to comply with that agreement. Although I don't agree with the jail stuff, the mom must be a real whack job asshole if she can't even do that much to make her kids happy.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. I was one of those kids....

My Mom smoked until I was 20. Due to a small house, we shared a room until I was 12. In the closed car, in the bedroom, in the closed house during winter it was smoke, smoke, smoke.

And I was absolutely, utterly miserable.

Now, I can barely handle a small amount of smoke without having a huge allergic reaction.

I think one of the best gifts a parent can give a child is a smoke-free living environment.

[LynneSin]

24. amen

sorry to hear about the problems you have. My brother is just as bad with the severe asthma and all. I mean, what did our parents know back then (my brother was born in the early 60's) when it came to smoking and our children. But children's lungs are small & developing, especially if it's an infant or toddler.

[progressivebydesign]

55. My stepkid's natural mother smokes..

.. smoked around them, hell she smoked when she was pregnant, with all four of them! (she refused to listen to the pleadings of her doctor and family on that one.) One kid was born and placed immediately onto oxygen, and has suffered from severe asthma his entire life. The other kids? All of them have major problems with their respitory systems, upper and lower. ANd.. none of them can catch a cold without a major resp. infection following. All of them have at least one birth defect (spine, legs, deafness). The chemicals in smoke are poisonous, and they DO cause birth defects, AND health problems in life. Why in the hell would any parent risk the likes of leukemia, asthma, cancer, or chronic bronchitis, on their children??

[Rose Siding]

17. Is that what the order says?

If they're outside it's ok? Because I'm unfamiliar with the order and don't see the details here.

That would be fair, if she only had to step outside. I was thinking it was an over the top, gotcha that said no where near, rather than just not in a closed room or car.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. definitive proof:

Well, proof enough for me. Kinda like how I've seen all the evidence I need to accept that the world is round.

From Health Canada:

Two thirds of smoke from a cigarette is not inhaled by the smoker, but enters the air around the smoker.

Second-hand smoke has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker.

Regular exposure to second-hand smoke increases the chances of contracting lung disease by 25% and heart disease by 10%.

Second-hand smoke aggravates symptoms in people with allergies and asthma, and can cause eye, nose and throat irritations, headaches, dizziness, nausea, coughing and wheezing in otherwise healthy people.

Children have a higher metabolism and can absorb higher amounts of smoke than adults.

Infants and children exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to suffer chronic respiratory illness, impaired lung function, middle ear infections, food allergies and can even succumb to sudden infant death syndrome.

more:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/blueribbon/secondHand.html

Health Canada's "Blue Ribbon Campaign" raises awareness of second-hand smoke. Here's a link to a powerful TV spot:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/mild/flash_heather.html

[TransitJohn]

28. Bullshit *cough*

Second-hand smoke has at least twice the nicotine and tar as the smoke inhaled by the smoker.


Uh, the smoker draws oxygen through the cigarette, resulting in a higher temperature, resulting in heavier chemicals being burned (oxidized) than if the cigarette were, say, lying in an ashtray.

Edit: grammar.

[Minstrel Boy]

32. That does it. I'm crossing you off our list of babysitters.

Sorry, I'll believe Health Canada and the Canadian Lung Association over your and Joe Camel's opinion.

Are you a non-smoker? Are you shy about defending yourself against smokers? Or are you a smoker who doesn't realize the harm you may be doing to non-smokers?

Non-smokers are no longer a silent majority. They mind if you smoke. And they're speaking up. They know tobacco smoke pollutes their air. And new research gives them facts to defend themselves. It shows that second-hand smoke (also referred to as environmental tobacco smoke and sidestream smoke) has harmful effects on non-smokers.

Facts
Contains more hazardous substances than inhaled smoke and contains 2.7 times as much nicotine, 70% times more tar and 2.5 times greater carbon monoxide levels.

Two-thirds of the smoke from the burning cigarette goes into the air.

Sidestream smoke has higher amounts of cancer-causing and other dangerous things than the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker.

There is twice as much tar and nicotine in sidestream smoke than mainstream.
http://www.on.lung.ca/nosmoking/secondhand.html

[Minstrel Boy]

64. And you should have somebody look at that cough.

It doesn't sound good.

[progressivebydesign]

58. Did you also know that dogs of smokers die of cancer at a higher rate?

Especially the ones with long muzzles.. the smoke stays in there longer. Their metabolism is high, as is children.

I'm sorry that the smoking, addicted apologists don't accept science on this. In that way, they're so very much like the uber right wingers who dispute any science that goes against their tastes. Sad for the children.

[LosinIt]

80. We just had to put our dog down on Monday because of cancer

I told my husband it was from second hand smoke and he should feel bad about it. He thought I was kidding. I wasn't. He is supposedly trying to quit AGAIN. I told him that this time when he quit he could no longer smoke in the house. It isn't fair to my son and I.

We were married 3 years ago and my son and I moved into HIS house so he never thought that he shouldn't smoke in the house. We have to air purifiers, but that is just window-dressing. He is either in denial or simply selfish, I haven't decided which.

[mac56]

83. I am so very sorry.

Damn secondhand smoke.

[Massacure]

94. Aha!

I never knew smoking caused ear infections. I always got them a lot when I was little. Now that I think about it, they stopped after my grandpa (a smoker) died.

[HuckleB]

44. Definitive proof doesn't exist for most causes of disease.

That doesn't mean the evidence doesn't show something to be a likely cause.

And the bottom line remains: This was part of the custody agreement.

[DoktorGreg]

144. Blunt trauma has definitive causes.

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

And you will see, it was a result of here trying to get her kids away from an abuser, not an agreement.

[progressivebydesign]

48. Ummm.. eve nthe tobacco companies have admitted that.

Where have you been living?

Children of smokers:

Have more ear infections
Have more bronchitis
Have more asthma
Have a greater chance of leukemia
Have more resptitory emergencies

It's been documented.

[Susang]

81. Perhaps, but there is definitive proof that it harms children

Thoroughly documented here:
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etschild.html
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html

[napi21]

13. This is nothing more than an example of a nasty divorce.

Disagreements between ex-spouses will take whatever form that upsets the other the most. In this case, they are both wrong, and so are the courts. If the kids object, they she should just go outside to smoke. If the husband objects, it probably cause her to smoke more around them just to aggrivate him. I'm surprised the judge even made a ruling on this. There is no proof seconhand smoke causes anything, but try standing on the sidewalk waiting for a bus in the city sometime. I did that for 25 years going to and from work. Each time a bus pulled up to load or discharge passengers, I felt the exhaust would kill me. It didn't, and I doubt I'm any worse because of it, but you never hear of a court saying don't walk with your kids on the city streets either.

[progressivebydesign]

60. Ah.. ignoring science... a weakness of the republicans..

.. yet it rears its ugly head here at DU. Here's some info:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39857

Freaky to think that people here on this supposedly liberal board, would take the sides of the tobaccos companies.

[DoktorGreg]

143. Thats ok you take side of abusers

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

[The Flaming Red Head]

14. Don't have kids unless you want to loose all your rights

Don't have children ever or the Nanny State will get you.

[Cocoa]

18. not all of them

for example:

Mark A. Murphy, an attorney representing the children's father, noted that Silvius is free to smoke on days when the children are not with her.

[The Flaming Red Head]

23. Another attack on the right to privacy

what about smoking while pregnant? What about drinking coffe while nursing? What about refusing a C-section and getting charged with murder? The list could go on and on.

I can't believe that anyone wants to raise a family in this atmosphere.

And you guys are the liberals.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

49. I have a question....

if you had a small child and they said to you, "Mommy, your smoking makes me feel bad", what would you do?

Seriously.

[jus_the_facts]

63. I for one didn't have kids to be exposed to my smoking.....

.....some of us aren't as stoopid and selfish and irresponsible as you'd make us out to be....I on the other hand was reared by stoopid...selfish and irresponsible people who exposed me to smoke before.,..during and after conception....is it any wonder why I enjoy smoking too? :eyes:

[DoktorGreg]

54. OMG I think im in love!

You forgot the bicycle helmet nazi's. Along with all the associated bicycle registration and licensing ordinances cropping up everywhere.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

65. Your examples are not relevant here.

This is not a case where the government (i.e. social services) stepped in and told the mother not to smoke around the children (although I don't necessarily think they would be wrong to do so). It was the parents themselves, in this case, who made the custody arrangements. Of course, parents can't always agree on all the custody and parenting arrangements when they are going through a divorce, and sometimes courts have to step in to mediate. Do you wish to do away with divorce courts? What is your alternative solution? (I might also point out that all your examples referred to pregnant women and issues of reproductive rights, which certainly does not apply to this situation at all.)

[DoktorGreg]

70. Your argument is not relevant here

This is an ass hole ex who is trying to get full custody the children, because he is an ass. He doesnt care about the smoking, that is only a tool to get full custody of the children and harm the woman. All he cares about is hurting the woman.

This is about control and humilation. This is a nasty divorce and nothing else.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

74. Are you personally acquainted with these people?

I have no idea how you can know all that you claim to know about the father. Why do you claim he doesn't really care about the smoking? Many, many parents don't want their children to be exposed to second-hand smoke. It doesn't matter whether or not you or anyone else believes second-hand smoke is harmful. Refraining from smoking around the children was part of the terms of the custody agreement. I didn't see anywhere in the article where the father was trying to use this to get full custody. If the mother had simply adhered to the terms they agreed on, this wouldn't even be an issue. Can it be that you are projecting your own personal issues onto this case? It is entirely possible that the divorce was fairly amicable but that this is one issue that the father feels quite strongly about and that he can't see any other way to get this woman to stick to their arrangement and stop smoking around the children.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

101. You are being entirely irrational here.

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that it is obvious this man doesn't really care whether this woman smokes around the children because he married the woman to begin with. That makes absolutely no sense. You are assuming that the woman was an active smoker when they married, which may or may not be the case. You are discounting the possibility that the man may have tolerated the woman's second-hand smoke on his own behalf but did not wish to expose his young children to it. Maybe the woman had promised she would quit smoking when she became pregnant. Maybe she had quit for several years but then started up again. Maybe the woman started off going outside to smoke but gradually started smoking indoors more and more. There are too many maybes to list here. All we know is what's in the article. And the article states that their custody arrangement (that legally-binding document that you refer to as their "so called agreement") specified that she not smoke around the children. If the agreement violated her rights, it seems like she should have contested that at the time. Either she failed to do so, or the courts failed to side with her.

And do you honestly believe that the father must have been "spying" on her to find out that she smoked around the children? Have you really not considered the possibility that the children complained about the smoking to the father? Or that they came to him reeking of cigarette smoke? Or any of the other myriad possibilities that is more believable than that he was spying on her?

I won't speculate as to why you are assigning these unscrupulous motives to the father here. What evidence is there that he merely wants to take the kids away from their mother? The important point is that the woman violated the terms of their custody on more than one occasion. Don't you feel it is important for people to follow the rules they agree to? For example, anyone who posts on DU agrees to refrain from calling other posters ugly names (hint).

[DoktorGreg]

112. You are obviously ignorant of how divorce works

The evidence that he merely wants to take the kids away, is that she is in jail, and he keeps pressing the issue. He obviously has well funded lawyers, and she does not.

Face it, this guy is a vindictive asshole. If he wanted joint custody, he wouldn't be trying to take the kids away from their mother. The evidence of that intent, is the repeatedly going to court.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

119. Sigh. Assuming more facts not in evidence?

You don't know that the husband "has well funded lawyers" while the wife does not. You don't know that he is trying alter the custody arrangement. Going to court is evidence only that he wants the current custody arrangement to be enforced.

But I'll tell you this much, if I had a "vindictive asshole" of an ex-husband, and if he were "trying to take the kids away" from me, you can be very sure that I would not give him an opening to do so by repeatedly violating the custody agreement, whether or not I felt it was fair. I don't know how not smoking "near the children" is defined in this case, but suppose she merely has to step outside. Why can't she do so? I realize how addictive smoking can be. I work with many people who have tried to quit smoking and failed. But none of them have ever smoked inside the building, where it is prohibited. They go outside, even when it is freezing out. They would never jeopardize their jobs, but this woman apparently is willing to jeopardize her kids.

[DoktorGreg]

120. Yes I do

The father is paying lawyers to show up in court repeatedly. Lawyers are really really expensive, court time is even more expensive. I bet he has laid about on the order of 30,000-40,000 dollars to do this.

Also, again, smoking has nothing to do with this case. It is only the tool the asshole ex is using. If it wasnt smoking, it would be something else. This is, pure and simple, about control.

[LiberalBushFan]

108. We're talking about already-born children here,

who've already complained about the smoking. Not fetuses. That's why we're different from the Republicans, we're actually concerned with people AFTER they're born.

[Mari333]

20. She could have taken them to McDonalds Play Room and filled them

up with junk food...silly woman..How dare she commit the unpardonable sin of smoking around them and ultimately causing their horrendous deaths, when she could have just as easily
1. moved them to LA (or any big city), and lived in smog.
2. bought them Big Macs and fries or visited the 5.99 all you can eat buffet at their local restaurant as they grow increasingly large and end up with juvenile diabetes..
3. live on the street with them, because she cant find a job in a country that pays women far less then men.
4. have them drink the nation's water, polluted and rank with agri-business runoff.
5. Put them on Prozac, per the pharmaceutical companies touting of anti depressants for children, or Ritalin, and just let them conmmit suicide down the road as a contraindication of the drug (oops dont tell the phramaceutical companies dont want you to know!)
6. make sure they sign up in the army reserves so they can be sent to Iraq to die.
7. join a fundamentalist baptist denomination and learn to smash their head in with rocks via the ruminations of biblical values..(see: Andrea Yates)
8. let them eat oodles of hormone-infested cows and chicken meat, so their little bodies accumulate tons of hormones and crap into their system forcing them into early deaths
9. let them freeze to death this winter when the heating costs rise 20%
She has so many ways to kill her kids, I cant understand why she would choose something as trite as smoking...sheesh..surely she can do better then that..and maybe she is!
Lets all hope she chooses a great big fat infested, sugary snacked, whitebreaded, hormone laden meal for her kids tonight, moves them to Los Angeles, lives on a street corner with a sign "will work for food", gets the free clinic to put them on Prozac when they freak out from living on the street, and then, when they end up in the women's shelter because they have no place to live thanks to jobs being outsourced, lets hope to god she encourages them to join up in the army reserves or National Guard at 18 so she can REALLY be assured of killing them off by sending them to have their bowels blown out in Iraq..
yes, she could do a LOT better if she wants to kill them.
Shame on her for not being creative enough.

[The Flaming Red Head]

25. My Friend lost her kids

and one thing they pointed out was that she fed them Happy Meals. She had to argue in court about it and tell them that she always made the fast food joints give her kids milk.

It was a big part of their argument for calling her an unfit mother.

She has them back now.

Watch out for the Nanny State they're coming for you next.


Seems one of the foster families had a lawyer for a daddy and wanted her baby, not the rest of them just the baby.

[Mari333]

27. Not surprised by that...glad my kids are raised...oy....n/t

[The Flaming Red Head]

30. Me too

mine is almost of legal age and I am so relieved. I lived in fear that they would try and take him. It was horrible. I know so many poor women who have lost their kids.

It's so sad and this is the supposed liberal stance that the dems so love, too. It's getting very hard to vote the party line when they back crap like this.

I'd have an abortion right now if I got pregnant no question about it.

[Carni]

61. I have a friend that was sued for wrongful death

By a vindictive ex husband...

SHE was hit by a drunk driver running a red light.

Their daughter was killed as a result.

He sued HER for wrongful death.

You don't have to tell me about vindictive ex-husbands or judges that shouldn't occupy the bench.

He didn't collect and she wasn't found guilty but she had to spend thousands of dollars defending herself.

[Mari333]

68. there are a lot of people on the 'rabid' left that remind me

of the fundies on the 'rabid' right.

[Carni]

153. I hear you believe me

It's pretty amazing

[TahitiNut]

59. Don't forget that she should make sure the kids get a good ...

... religious edukamation (with a pedophile, of course). :eyes:

[ChrisK]

21. Ah ok Thank you

For some odd reason I was having trouble reading the article ..kept dropping and I couldn't get to the Newsday site and wasn't sure if there was any information in there relating to second-hand smoke.

Well folks have to make all kinds of small sacrifices for one's kids...can't say I see this as being really any different.

[The Flaming Red Head]

29. We could put unacceptable familes in state run penal colonies

just till the kids turn 18. It's for the good of the children. Go ahead sign over every right that you have, but I'll fight this system till the day I die.

[Mari333]

34. Good idea..! and when they turn 18, off to Iraq they go!

so they can have their guts blown out for large oil companies and lucrative friends of the elite..
Its a win win!

[progressivebydesign]

51. We're not talking about the woman dressing them badly...

.. we're talking about endangering their health. I can always tell the smokers on these boards.

Some people are just too stupid to care for their own children... and the court has to step in. End of story.

[DoktorGreg]

72. We are not talking about smoking either

We are talking about a nasty divorce, with a selfish pedantic ex who will do anything he can to get deny custody of the children to the woman. The smoking and the court agreement are just a tool to get at that.

[The Flaming Red Head]

86. Are you serious?

What are you going to do with all the children they take?

[MARALE]

121. I'm a smoker

I don't know why she could not get some gum or patches for when her kids are with her. These are her kids! I do not smoke around my kids because they don't like it and I don't want them addicted like I was from my parents smoking around me. I don't like smoke in restaurants either, ruins the taste of the food. Many of my smoking friends feel the same way. She needs to rebel against something else in the divorce decree before she gets sympathy for me.

[Bandit]

76. You have a right to smoke but not blow that smoke onto others

Your right to smoke is not a right to smoke publically. It is allowed in certain places but certainly not a Right Neither is driving an automobile. It is allowed but not a Right I find no where in the US constitution where it says you have the right to smoke let alone blow that smoke on others. Smoke is not only unpleasant but it is proved to be unhealthy.

[Carni]

103. Interesting avatar image

You are railing against some poor slob, single mom, that apparently can't quit smoking cigs, while you are displaying the image of a man that was addicted to heroin on your avatar.

(not to mention the fifth of brandy he drank a day)

[mac56]

107. Interesting comparison.

Did Jim Morrison ever enter into a custody agreement to refrain from this behavior around his children (if he had any)?

[Carni]

115. No, he was banned from the airwaves

For exposing himself and pissing on the stage in front of "impressionable youth" in Florida
(and subsequently run out of the country)

He was credited with the spreading of a "pro-drug counter culture" message.

He also encouraged people to fuck their mother and kill their father in "The End" (if you want to really take the line of "conservative" society at the time)

I'm just making the observation that...this woman smoked around her kids and Morrison glorified hard drug use.

The poster apparently admires Morrison.

Why the admiration for one type of addict yet scorn for another?

On Edit: Morrison didn't have any children, he was accused of screwing up OTHER people's children.

[Bandit]

118. I find your argument illogical

If I shoot myself in the head that effects me alone if I shoot others in the head that effects society. I have no problem with you or anyone else smoking. Smoke to your hearts content. I have a problem with you forcing your poisons upon others by smoking in public. Is it impossible for you to recognize the difference? On edit Jim Morrison was never banned from the air waves. I still hear him on the radio today.

[Carni]

122. Really? Do you? Gee I thought it was still 1969

Morrison was "Dixie chicked" in the late 60's--but yes, you are correct you can hear the Doors on oldies stations.

You are honestly going to sit there and tell me that you don't see just a little bit of hypocrisy in using Jim Morrison for your avatar image, while at the same time you're hanging some dummy out to dry for smoking ( a legal substance) around the public?

Back in Morrison's time the argument was routinely made that he DID endanger others, physically, as well as emotionally because his songs promoted drug use.

I'm not going to say I agree that Morrison endangered other people's kids with his pro-drug message... but I am also not going to 100% rule out that a pro-drug message had no affect on his listeners back during that time.

I lived through the 70's -- I know better.

You can't call tobacco users P's OS that could care less about anyone but themselves while you apparently admire Morrison's message.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in that, then I am sure, I am not going to be able to explain it to you.

[Bandit]

133. So you are saying songs poison people as thoroughly as poison does

You have a very convoluted argument that would have fit in very well with the British in 1776. I'm sure they felt Thomas Paine's pamphlets "Common Sense" also poisoned the mind. I find it hard to understand how the "abstract" can damage in the same way physical poison can. Granted you think people who advocate for drugs are horrible people. If they were to make people experience the drugs in any manner other than thought I might agree. Smokers who pollute the public air with their poison is real and identifiable while thoughts are just that, thoughts. There is no justification in my opinion for poisoning children with real physical substance. Do you consider the tobacco companies that push their products as vile as you consider Jim Morrison? How about tobacco advertisements near schools? Why do you feel the need to argue for polluting the air? The human being needs three things to sustain life, Food , Water, and Air. You certainly can't pee in the community water supply and you can't serve dirty food to the public why would you advocate for serving dirty air to the public, especially children? Yopu make my head spin. :crazy:

[Carni]

152. Nope, didn't say that

Actually, I liked the Doors.

What I said is...That you are a hypocrite for displaying an addict as your avatar while you call some poor slob addicted to nicotine "unfit to raise children" and display zero empathy for people addicted to cigarettes.

[TheRovingGourmet]

35. Well....she signed the agreement. If she had a problem with

the contract she should have dealt with it before she signed it.

[Nevernose]

38. I wasn't clear whether it was agreed or not

She might have just gotten the shit-end of a custodial order. As I posted below, though, it doesn't really matter if it was voluntarily entered into or not, following a judicial order is the law. File an appeal or lobby you representative if there's a problem.

[Nevernose]

36. She shouldn't have broken the law, plain and simple.

The fact that she smoked -- bad for the children -- was brought up by the father during the custody hearing. The judge found the argument valid, and so included in the custodial order a requirement that the mom not smoke around the kids. One has to go out of their way to break the law, it can't just happen on accident.

By smoking around them, she violated the law. Her own damned choice. She could have walked ten feet outside while the kids were watching Sponge Bob, but chose not to.

BTW, I'm a single, custodial parent, and I'm a smoker. I smoke outside, away from the house, and don't let the kid anywhere near me when puffing. Filthy, nasty habit that will give me heart disease and give her asthma -- and that's the best case scenario. I also happen to be a "law and order" type of individual these days.

[mac56]

39. Glad you love your daughter more than the cigs.

There should be more like you!

:thumbsup:

[Nevernose]

40. If I had the will-power to quit smoking

Believe me, I would.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

37. Maybe this is a silly question...

...but if this was part of the custody arrangement, that means that it was something that she and her lawyer agreed to, doesn't it? If so, then all the medical arguments about second-hand smoke seem irrelevant. All that matters is that the father objected to her smoking around the kids strongly enough that he requested that she refrain from doing so as part of their custody arrangement. And she, apparently agreed to it. Now she is going back on her word. If she thought the terms were unfair, she never should have agreed to it in the first place, right? Or am I missing something here?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. Nope you're not...

At the end of the day, she is going to jail for breaking the custody agreement.

[HuckleB]

46. Exactly.

[lastliberalintexas]

142. Yep, you've missed quite a bit

God, I hope none of you people works in the legal profession, because your clients would be getting screwed if so.

The article does NOT say that this was an agreed custody arrangement, merely that it was an order of the court. This could have been a sticking point of the divorce that the family law judge decided in the husband's favor, rather than something to which this woman agreed. You can't tell merely from this small article.


And for those of you on this thread saying that this was a judicial order and that the woman should simply bow to the will of the court, let me remind you about another decision of another court. Another court decreed that George W. Bush would be president, so quit yer bitching.


Nope, I'm not a smoker. Yes, I do have a child. That's really irrelevant to this discussion. With very few facts, you people have jumped on a woman simply because you disagree with the way in which she is raising her children and/or disagree with a lifestyle choice she's made.

The article isn't even clear on whether she was actually smoking IN THE PRESENCE OF her kids so as to endanger them. The article simply said NEAR and AROUND. Did that mean she was 2 feet from them- or 30? Did it mean she was in the car with them- or outside on the beach? She could have actually been smoking outside their hotel room if they were on vacation. Or she could have been blowing smoke in their faces. You don't know, by God, yet you feel compelled to judge without real evidence.

You people have completely and wholly pre-judged a situation while knowing only a *handful* of *incomplete* facts. Please don't ever serve on one of my juries.

[Carni]

155. THANK YOU! AND BRAVO!

I am glad to see that I am not the only one wondering who opened the water supply at Stepford Village!

[progressivebydesign]

45. Cool!

When parents are too self-centered, and ignorant to care for their children, unfortunately, the law has to parent for them. What kind of assbite smokes around their children, anyway? Oh yeah.. lots of them. These are the same morans who buy bottled water because they don't want "all those chemicals" in the water their family drinks.. then they light a cigarette.

Before all the smokers here have a coronary over this.. do some research on the effects of smoking around your children. Or perhaps the concentrations of cancer-causing chemicals found in the children of smoker's bodies.

BooHoo.. violates Mommy's rights. She might as well have the kids sit on the ground next to her exhuast pipe while she runs the car. Absurd? That's the same effect as smoking around them. I'm sorry the government has to legislate intelligence.

[DoktorGreg]

75. I gotta wonder...

What kind of assbite spies on his ex to try and find anything to maintain control over her, and take her children. At the center of this case is freaking obvious nasty divorce, with an asshole passive aggressive ex.

Maybe if the ass hole bastard guy didnt want his wife to smoke around the kids, he shouldn't have married a smoker.

[mac56]

85. "He shouldn't have married a smoker."

Maybe she started after they got married.

Maybe she hid it from him.

None of that matters anyway. She promised not to smoke around the kids, and she broke that promise.

[DoktorGreg]

117. Three cheers to the abuse enablers!!!

Holy fucking crap man.

You make me doubt my beliefs, but not in the way you think.

Yesterday, I was all bent out of shape about NOW's intents to take away all fathers rights, because of ass holes like this guy. This thread is really giving me pause to think about that position.

I am sorry, even though the effect of second hand smoke is well documented, its hard for me to think that throwing mommy in jail isn't affecting the kids more, and in more profound ways.

BTW, they both promised a lot of things when they got married. They both broke those promises.

[mac56]

127. Just because you took a big leap and decided the ex-husband's an abuser

Don't expect me to follow you off that cliff.

[DoktorGreg]

131. So now you are against base jumping to???

Man these churlish lawyer wanabes. Trying to ruin all the fun for everybody else, and make their decisions for them.

The fact of the matter is, the husband is an abuser control freak. The only evidence I need for that, is this incredibly odd arragement in their custody agreement, and his willingness to prosecute it, to this degree.

[Bandit]

123. Smokers reek and anyone around them does also

The father would not have had to spy on her just smell the kid's clothing. Smoking is a filthy smelly habit that affects all around the smoker in one way or another.

[DoktorGreg]

132. So all the father has to do is complain about smoky smell

And he can further abuse and control his ex wife.

Thats just great.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

134. I don't think you are as thick-headed as you are pretending to be.

You can't be. Bandit said (as I said) that the father wouldn't necessarily have to spy on his wife to know that she was smoking around the children (which was your contention). The children might have told him or he might have smelled it in their clothes.

[DoktorGreg]

135. I am glad you agree

All this bastard has to do is say he smells the smoke, and the woman goes to jail and loses her kids.

Whatever the effects of second hand smoke are, they are not as bad as enabling an abuser like this.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

136. Don't you think they interviewed the children?

I can't quite see what point you're trying to make. Are you arguing that it's just his word against hers? That seems to be a different argument than what you've been saying up till now -- that the woman does not need to comply with their custody arrangement and that the man is abusive simply for insisting that it be enforced. You know, there are two parents involved here, not just one. They have a custody arrangement that specifies certain aspects of how they will raise their children now that they are no longer living together. The woman may not like the terms of the custody arrangement. Parties to a compromise are never 100% happy with all of the terms - that's what a compromise is. As mac said, if she thinks the terms are unfair, this is not the way to go about changing that.

If I were divorced and had a custody arrangement with my ex regarding our children, I would expect him to comply with those terms even if he didn't agree with every single aspect of them. This is not the first time the woman has been caught violating the terms of their arrangement. And she has probably violated the terms more often than she's been caught. Perhaps the terms are unfair. If they specify that she cannot smoke at all on the days she is with the children, it's arguable that requirement goes too far. If it simply requires that she go outside to smoke on the days when the children are with her, I don't see why she can't do so. If she is travelling in the car with them, why can't she pull into a rest area every so often for a cigarette break?

10 days may seem harsh, but I think that judges lose patience with repeat offenders. Speeding may not seem like the crime of the century, but when you get pulled over too many times in too short a period of time, the consequences become more and more severe. Was the no smoking around the children provision set up as a trap by her ex? I don't know. But if it was, this woman is certainly doing a good job of falling into that trap. As I said before, if I had a husband as evil as you are portraying this person to be and who is just waiting for an opportunity to snatch my children away from me, as you claim he is trying to do, you can bet I would do everything I could to prevent him from having that opportunity. I think it is sad for these children that their mother has to go to jail, but whose fault is that? If she would simply comply with the custody terms, there would be no problem.

[DoktorGreg]

137. Well looky here, it seems my assumptions about this bastard were right

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

Look at that, a series of 911 phone calls, and she petitioned for full custody.

Dont you feel salty now?

[lastliberalintexas]

147. So what if he's an alleged abuser?

She's a smoker by golly. She is certainly the one who belongs in jail. /sarcasm/



And even that more informative article doesn't contain enough facts to allow these posters to accurately judge this situation. Please keep your minds open if you ever get called for jury service, people.

[Carni]

156. Geez, I wonder what the moral majority will say now?

But I think he's probably a "good guy" because after all at least he's not polluting the public air, or physically affecting anyone but himself.

Haven't you heard?

Ill intentions and concepts don't kill people...2nd hand smoke does.

[The Flaming Red Head]

102. Gawd I hope you're not

a policy maker or involved with the courts.

[leesa]

52. There's a slippery slope.

I hate cigarette smoke too and hate being exposed to it, but this would be impossible to control and sets a really bad precedent.

[msanthrope]

57. What if she was addicted to alcohol and was told not to drink.....

around her kids?

Alcohol is legal, and yes, any adult can purchase and consume it. I've known plenty of custodial agreements where an addicted parent is specifically told that they may not consume or practice their addiction while they have custody of their minor children. I don't see why this is different.

Of course, I'm biased. My parents smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day between the two of them. I have asthma. So does my brother. My mom now smokes while breathing from an oxygen tank. Nice.....

[DoktorGreg]

141. Knowing what you know...

Would you rather be around an abuser?

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

Or the parent that smokes?

[matcom]

73. you fucking people crack me up

:eyes:

[Carni]

109. Your butt and purple man

Are the most pleasing thing on this thread!

[BiggJawn]

87. This ain't about the kids...

It's about one ex-spouse "sticking it" to the other.

And the judge is as big an ass as her ex-husband for even OK'ing such a provision.

And who's the real losers here? Why, the kids. It's ALWAYS the kids who lose when they become weaponry in "The War of The Roses".

[mac56]

89. Then why did she agree to it?

If she didn't intend to live up to it?

[BiggJawn]

104. Guess you've never been through a custody fight, have you?

Her ex probably had a better lawyer who was friends with the judge.

Sometimes you don't have a "choice". You take what's offered you or you don't see your kids. And even then, if your ex's new boyfriend gets a hair up his ass to try and make it a super hassle to visit your kid, like demanding you sign a "receipt", or telling you that if you say you'll have the kid back by 5PM that a Warrant for kidnapping will be sworn out agaist you by 5:10 PM if you're late (you have to drive 125 miles, sometimes through winter storm watch territory), or having the local cops "jack you up" every time you come to town to pick your kid up.....

Anyone who believes you get "justice" in a divorce court should check out the deals being offered on Florida time-shares for this weekend....IOW, pretty naive, eh?

[mac56]

110. Conjecture. But even so -

If she has a problem with some part of the custody agreement that she put her name to, this is not the way to go about fixing it.

[BiggJawn]

113. Quit being such a legalist.

You may have read my post before I edited it give some PERSONAL, non-"conjecture" information.

Like I asked originally, You have not been through a divorce with kids,have you? Yes or no.
Save the "Conjecture" for your classmates at law school.

"... this is not the way to go about fixing it."

And Ghandi should not have broken the law and made salt, either.

[mac56]

114. I did read your post before you edited it.

That's what I was responding to. Sorry if you got a different impression.

[mac56]

116. And now we're equating this woman with Gandhi?!

Some may argue that a purpose of Gandhi's civil disobedience was precisely so he'd get arrested.

[lastliberalintexas]

146. Are you psychic?

Have some sort of ESP that tells you she actually agreed to it? Because I didn't see that in the article. This could be a judicial decree *imposed* on the parties, as most court orders are.

[madmike1]

150. I agree with the ex-spouse comment totally

I think they should BAN second hand methane

[davsand]

99. Aaaall-righty then...

1st off, let me get it out here right now--I am a smoker. I'm not gonna get into a discussion of smoking and how bad it is--we've done that to death on here. I am not gonna discuss the fact that I don't smoke in my own home or in the car or any place my kid will see me. Frankly, that is MY decision to make and nobody else's.

What I do want to discuss here is the idea that violating a court order/signed agreement is OK. While we sit and debate the validity of a court order barring someone from a legal act, the fact remains that the woman signed that agreement with the no-smoking clause in it. She's bound by it until it is vacated. Period.

I am more disturbed by the message ignoring the court order sends those kids than I am the existence of the order or the exposure to smoke in those instances when she lit up.

Might I suggest that they ALL be sent to an ethics workshop, and that she, by herself, be sentenced to a tour of the oncology ward at the local hospital along with a free course in smoking cessation...


Laura

[DoktorGreg]

140. You should head on down to the abused spouce clinic at same time

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

Shame on you for supporting abusers.

[davsand]

149. WTF? Supporting abusers?

Where, EXACTLY, did I say I support abusers? :shrug:

Laura

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genius]

129. I know some kids who hate smokers and would be happy about that

[DoktorGreg]

139. I think the kids would rather not be in home of abuser

http://www.no-smoking.org/august04/08-11-04-3.html

Deal with it.

[DoktorGreg]

145. How come no one wants to discuss with me anymore??

Huh?

Not a single person is going to recant their bad choices? Sick sad world.

[Carni]

157. Because you kicked their ass

EOM

[Branjor]

148. *

My mother was a heavy smoker, my father a nonsmoker. Neither were abusers. I had some bronchitis as a kid but no other problems even though I later smoked heavily myself. I have since quit. I would have been very traumatized to see my mother go to jail. If they had divorced and I was given the choice, I would have chosen to live with my mother.