Disagree. Sometimes consent is ok. But it's not wrong to refuse consent. Law enforcement can get the warrant they need if they make a proper showing. I tell my kids to refuse to consent to, for example, a routine search of their vehicle. My son is a cop and he doesn't really disagree. Why would I let anyone search my home or vehicle without good enough cause that they could obtain a warrant?

There is a difference between suspending a license because of refusal to consent and using the results of a non consensual, warrant less blood test in a criminal trial. In Villarreal, The Supreme Court rejected the state's argument that under Texas law, the defendant gave implied consent to having his blood drawn when he drove an automobile.

The Supreme Court is pretty clear about the requirement of getting a warrant to draw blood without consent. It's the job of this attorney to protect his client's 4th amendment rights. So he did. I don't consider protection of my constitutional rights a 'technicality.' The sad thing is that the cop could have gotten a warrant, even in the middle of the night, and the result may well have been different. And I can't see how posting that a friend prevailed in that case is in any way unethical. Criminal arrests are public records and cases are generally heard in public forums. I have certainly never seen anyone complain when Prosecutors announce convictions.

In the great state of North Carolina, when many of us were growing up, hundreds of thousands of people lived without indoor plumbing. High school graduation rates were abysmal. Many people live with daily anxiety about food. Educational and employment opportunity were limited for African Americans especially. I don't think there was a general 'living wage' for most people, certainly if a lving wage included not just adequate food, but adequate housing with plumbing and electricity, medical care, and security after retirement. I am not saying that isn't something we should strive for and make a goal. But I do not think we can look, broadly, to the past for a picture of living standard we want to emulate - certainly not if that picture includes a full range of communities dealing with rural poverty, racism, illiteracy, lack of medical care, lack of access to transportation, etc. I also think that we've experienced a major change in our economy. Even when my parents were growing up, children regularly contributed to their families' economic survival. Having a child could mean having help - many children assisted their parents many hours a week on their farms, in their stores, or by quitting school and going to work in a mill. Most of us today do not expect our children to contribute to us economically, except maybe in our old age. Chores, sure. But we don't see them as money makers. Instead, we try our hardest to be able to help them with college and with all the costs associated with the late entry into the workforce while they graduate from high school and go to college.

That one way to look at that. That's not how I see it for myself and my marriage. Premarital counseling was helpful, but I never saw it as a binding contract. Heck, I told him I would never be a SAHM. I held a baby in my arms, and became a different person. He accommodated that different person out of love, kindness, and desire for what now seemed 'best.' He's different too. I absolutely care about his burdens and desires and his happiness, and can't imagine demanding strict compliance with a 'deal' we might have made many years ago when we couldn't anticipate how out lives would unfold. Why would I insist on enforcing decades old agreements that make my husband unhappy?

You are of incalculable worth. You know that and your family knows that. However, I tell my children that they need to be able to make a living, and the way you do that is by figuring out what you can do, and are able and willing to do, that people are willing to pay for. It has nothing really to do with an individual person's worth. It's just about earning potential. I made choices in my life that have seriously impacted my ability to do things that people are willing to pay for. I don't regret those choices. I feel very privileged to have had those choices. I didn't homeschool so that I could make money. I guess I couldn't have homeschooled without my husband making enough money for us to live on, but within the range of choices available to me, I made my choices and I have to live with those choices now. I am back working, and learning, and enjoying it. But I understand that I made choices that impact not only my earning potential, but the experience and knowledge I can bring to the job. So of course I make less. My guess is that you don't value someone more if they make $120 an hour than if they make $7. So why are you doing that to yourself?

You are just worried about the school? I wouldn't. Are they seriously going to ask to see the court order or separation agreement and take it to their legal department?

I have never done it. I have lived with three kids in a 900 square foot house on a military base. That was in Southern California, so we were never cooped up with weather and neighbors had some accountability. But if I could have more of my DH, live in a decent apartment, and save money, I would consider it. A small place is less to clean. Sometimes I miss it. Often a decent newer apartment would have less maintenance than a rental home, and if the maintenance is reasonably responsive, it probably beats having to beg the owner of a single home rental. Definitely try to live in a ground floor and really check out how solid the building is and whether noise carries. Carpeting would help. I had a friend who lived below a family that let their kids roller skate all the time on the wood floors. She did not become a good friend:). Don't do that! Also, see if the police haven an online search for calls within a certain distance of an address. You want to know what you are getting into!

How annoying. It would stress me to know that I could reserve 10-15 more or fewer seats than needed. I think I might send an email saying, "ok everyone, I have reserved x seats at y restaurant for the number of firm commitments I have. If you are still unsure, I leave it to you to make a separate reservation on your own. Hopefully they will be able to at least put us at tables near each other. If I reserved for you -and you are unable to attend, please let me know as soon as possible."

No plants. Please no plants. People put a place in obits for donations because they don't want plants and flowers. Go the the funeral (him only if you can't). Write a note. Make a donation - make sure you make it in his name. We received notes from the foundation we listed for my father telling us certain people made donations. It didn't matter who specifically or how much - it was just nice to see that people honored his memory that way.

Well I am glad you are enjoying that! Carmel salt sounds better than most - it's been a few years, so maybe they didn't have that when my boys sold. I tried the canister pop corn, sweet ones, savory ones, and I just wasn't impressed. But Carmel, popcorn and salt are all hard to dislike.

I love the thin mints. I am not a huge cookie eater, but I like those. I hated every boys out popcorn out there. Crush are just awful. But my kids sold some. It was mostly all because people could buy them to be shipped to the troops over seas. No one really eats packages popcorn.

Well, show me the law. Because I continue to think that if we have entered into a binding contract with consideration paid, and IF this wasn't one of the terms and IF there were no term covering all rules and regulation (big ifs, I know) I think I could argue that their refusal to provide a room under the terms and conditions agreed to is a breach of contract, or at least that they can't actually encore this new rule against me. You insisting otherwise doesn't entirely sway me. Again, I would not choose to argue this except on a forum, lol. And at the very very least I do think if those 'ifs' are in place, they can not charge me for the room when I cancel there at checkin.

I think I could make a decent claim depending on the facts. But let's face it - I would probably never bother, as an attorney or a patron. But hypothetically, they would hate having to deal with the issue too, and a small claims court loss is the least of things they would be worrying about. Corporate needs to address is the possibility that they have a rule that the staff ignores unless subjectively they think a patron is a 'problem.' It raises the possibility of allegations of discrimination, for example, that a mostly white staff seems to always notice the black kids who are unsupervised or loud. Or when a 15 year old commits a violent crime against another patron, the hotel gets sued by a victims who says the hotel is at fault for not enforcing that rule. It's probably not a winning argument, but it's still a bother. I can imagine a number of really bad PR possibilities, as well. I don't object to enforcing rules about quiet. Or about unaccompanied minors, really, aware the rule before I committed. But I do object it a rule being sprung on me after the fact, if that is the case. The hotel, though, need to think about making rules that are not going to be enforced except sometimes against some people, if that is the case here. It's a bad rule if there is no easy enforcement mechanism, the hotel doesn't really intend to try to enforce it, it's really meant to deal with an entirely different problem than what appears in its face, and it's likely just much broader than the actual situations the hotel is concerned about. To me, it's laziness. Put some brains together and ask, what is the problem? How do we address it in a way that is meaningful, effective, and safe? Why are our existing rules about noise not working? What rule do we really need, that we are willing to announce and enforce, and how will we enforce it? What is out actual policy about unaccompanied minors? Do we call DSS below a certain age? What age? When would we call the police? What do we actually do about unruly guests of any age? How do we handle complaints about noise? Would shutting down the pool at a certain time make a difference? Would a security guard help? If we have the "under 16" rule, what do we do when a patron complains about a kid who appears to be 15, quietly reading the paper and eating a donut at breakfast alone because his mom took the toddler to the toilet? And do we expect her to take her 15-year-old son into the ladies room so he won't be unaccompanied in the hall, or do we expect her to change the toddler in the men's room where her teen can be present? What happens when a large party books 30 rooms not knowing about this rule, and then cancel at checkin when informed? Will we tell them that as long as they are quite we don't enforce it? Will we let them cancel with out penalty? Will we insist that we charge their cards for late cancellation even if the rule was not provided ahead of time?

Actually I have said twice in this thread that if they have the rule, it needs to be on the website or made clear at the time of reservation. If they have done so, great. I did not assume either way. Secondly, I think a good Argument can made that, having made a reservation and given my credit card number, we have entered a binding contract. They can usually charge me if I don't show up or cancel before a certain date. Arguably I have a contractual right to a room under the terms agreed upon. Most likely, the terms include a broad 'all rules and regulations' type provison, anyway. Lots of different facts that can come into play, so I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush. But mostly I was responding to the attitude of 'their hotel, their rules." There actually are limitations on those rules, and basic contract law may be one of them. And actually I think there Is a general assumption about this being a noise issue. I think it's also possible that the rule is about hotel liability. In the event a child is victimized or injured, the hotel may want to be able to say, "the parents are at fault here. We had a rule."

Does he have contact through his job with better paid people who are not college graduates? I think there are many 'blue collar' type jobs that can pay a decent wage. Even a ups or fedex driver makes more than it sounds like he is making. I would start asking everyone questions about their jobs (in a friendly, getting to know you way). To me, a college degree would not be my first choice unless he knows what he would want to do and that his employment prospects would be good. With no college, he would have a lot of hours to complete and would not be earning during those hours. If he had that as a strong desire, I would say to go for it. But otherwise, I would also look at jobs that don't require starting a degree program. Also, I would also think about how I could start laying the groundwork for being more employable myself. Even if right now you can't get a full time job, I would start getting up to speed on basic skills like using all the windows office programs, volunteering in an area I care about etc. You don't want to be in this situation ten years from now, and can't change it overnight. So think shorter term. Is there anything I can do in the next six months to be a little better off? Is there anything he can start doing to build a network, generate ideas, or build a financial cushion? Do I know what kind of job I would be good at? Does he?

It's not like I think people have to follow every rule. I just don't like to model an attitude that certain rules don't apply to me, or that I am too cowed to confront a rule but will skitter around avoiding it, or that everyone understands that rules saying one thing mean another or apply only to some people. Hotels love to call us "guests" but I am not a guest. I am someone who entered into a contract to exchange money for lodging. I am an equal player in that business transaction. I am not a child who has to follow rules I did not agree to. I am not a child who has to "break" rules on the sly. I don't care, in this case, about just or unjust rules. This is a badly designed rule that can't be easily enforced and probably wasn't not intended to be enforced as written. I haven't looked, but I bet most hotel websites already have boilerplate language about noise and disruption. This rule is probably posted because they have a hard time enforcing the rules they already have and just want really broad power. But I don't give people that power lightly. I am a consumer who can say, "That rule was not on your website or agreed to when reserving a room. I won't follow that rule. Would you like to see my 'add on' rules for you and your staff?"

Right. I understand that. Their enforcement power is limited to asking the people to leave. They don't make a rule saying "excessively noisey people will be asked to leave," because they know that is a subjective standard. So instead they make a rule that seems less subjective and universally prohibits everyone from having a child unattended. But they never intend to enforce that rule consistently. They know they will only enforce it when there is a problem in the eyes of whoever is on duty. Back to a subjective standard that leaves room for Inequal inforcement. If they think it's a good rule, they should make its very clear to people considering staying there. I don't like dumb rules, but I also don't like tellng my kids we don't have to follow rules.

Then in that case, I would want them to write that. "We have this rule. But it probably only applies to other people, not you. Our employees are empowered to decide which people have to follow which rules."

I just hope they display that prominently on their webpage or make it clear when reserving. I would not want to stay at a hotel where I would have to get all my kids out of bed to get ice or when one wants a snack or needs a tooth brush from the front desk. It's an odd enough rule that I think people should know it up front. If they do that and it doesn't affect their business, great. But I would not want to only hear about this after I am in town and the other hotels around are booked.

I would add the following rules: No more than two women can meet up for a drink in the bar or by the pool. Groups of women have no idea how loud they are! No checking out before 9:00 because people are loud as they leave. Shut the ice Machine down between 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. No mowing or blowing leaves ever. Finally, for reasons I have never understood, some parents speak unnecessarily loudly to young children. So be with your kids at all times, but use inside voices of pantomime.

Sometimes a little directness is worth it. With normal people, it doesn't have to be repeated and it can them set the stage for less conflict ongoing. So I would explain to MIL privately that I follow the advice of educators who say to only address one thing that needs to be corrected at a time. If I am working on spelling, I will address spelling issues, not handwriting issues. Otherwise the child gets tightened up or overwhelmed. I would tell her other educators (and grandmothers) may disagree, but this is the way I am doing it, and if that's hard for her, she may need to read a book or something during school time. The next time she did it I would say, "MIL, perhaps you would like to relax and read a book while I am teaching." If necessary I would point out that she would not go to DH's work and, 'help' but correcting what he is doing. But it is unlikely to come to that if she is a reasonable person and you are confident and clear.

YeAh. God knows my own heart is an impenetrable mess that he can affect but not steal. And I didn't take his name but if I had, he would still have it too. Sort of ick, and hard to say why.

Two! One went with his dad. The rest of us voted separately. And I am happy to say they watched debates with real interest.

She's so young. I do think kids eventually have to be weaned off crying as a regularl thing. Despite what people might say, crying is a 'frowned upon' way to express emotion in many situations. I would not want to cry at work, cry in meetings, cry when I am frustrated as a consumer. I am not saying those things are the end of the world, but I think it's best to minimize crying just as yelling is not always acceptable, I think teaching self control over crying is necessary as kids grow. But she is so young. And she may be one of those kids who thinks that she has to really SHOW her emotions for people to take it seriously. So maybe you have to focus on not letting the crying bother you, but also on teaching her over time that you recognize her emotion when she isn't crying. Also, teaching names of feelings helped with my kids. When they learn to recognize and *say* that they are feeling frustrated, overwhelmed, defeated, disappointed, inadequate, ignored, etc, they didn't just emote but described.