Severely disabled, is she still a mom? (frum woman)

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> In the News

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

micki

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:20 pm

but now think of the kids.
they are 2.5 now- what would they think if they saw abbie and were told this is their mother.
they are old enough to understand what a mother is- how would it affect them to see her?

tragic for dan, but who can blame him to want to move on? why should he give up basically his whole life? if abbie loved dan, and I am sure she did, she would WANT him to move on. to not be tied down to her.

I don't see him as heartless, just having had to make tough decisions.
the only thing I can think is that if the kids were used to seeing their mother from day one then it wouldn't be so traumatic for them to see her now.
but the past cannot be changed, and fact is they don't know her.

so how would a 2.5 yr old feel being told this is their mother?

sequoia

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:32 pm

It depends on how you handle it. He could let them see her and explain on an age-appropriate level.

No one is faulting him for getting divorced, but it is terrible that he won't let her see her own children.

ora_43

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:33 pm

micki wrote:

Think how the kids might feel in 10 or 20 years, if they find out they had a mother who wanted to see them and wasn't allowed to.

It's a tough situation all around... and hard to figure out what the truth is if she can't talk, the ex-dh has good reason to want to think she's not mentally there, and her parents have good reason to want to think she is mentally there... in any case I think she should be allowed to see the kids, although what they should be told and when, I have no idea.

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:40 pm

micki wrote:

but now think of the kids.

but now think of the mother again & imagine yourself (ch"v) in your spot. is this the way you'd want to be treated? she has given up all functionality for these kids & now the man who should have stood with her throughout it all is stabbing her in the back.

su7kids

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:48 pm

Atali wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I understand her husband's decision to "move on", but not one to deny her access to seeing her children. I have no words.

And then to have the chutzpah to expect her to pay child support shock

I don't think its a chutzpa, I'm guessing that part of the law suit said that they sued for money for the children, because they were being deprived of their mother.

Its very easy to judge and think you know all the facts, but you notice the article is very much written from Abbie's point of view and not Dan's. How can you judge without knowing his side of the story - a single father, raising 3 children alone?

Liba

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:50 pm

I am sickened over the whole story.

I can't imagine both wanting to keep her from seeing her kids and wanting child support from her.

su7kids

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:52 pm

Also, if you read the article carefully, you will see that he is in California and she's in North Carolina. Who is going to pay for the 3 kids (all over 2, so needing their own seat) and the father, or guardian -- which should be the father -- to fly over there to see her, and how often should they go?

Liba

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:53 pm

The grandfather is already flying out there four times a year. I am sure that the grandparents will take care of the transportation.

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:57 pm

su7kids wrote:

Atali wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I understand her husband's decision to "move on", but not one to deny her access to seeing her children. I have no words.

And then to have the chutzpah to expect her to pay child support shock

I don't think its a chutzpa, I'm guessing that part of the law suit said that they sued for money for the children, because they were being deprived of their mother.

I'm going to guess the lawsuit is not about the children at all. It is about the fact that a medical mistake was made & she lost all her functionality & quality of life. It is about the fact that she will need expensive care for the rest of her life. Someone who sues for wrongful long term disability will get much more money than someone who sues for a wrongful death. Because death happens once and it's over- it doesn't continue costing the victim. Someone who is left permanently disabled, will have enormous costs for the rest of their life. The children are really cheap to raise in comparison.

goodheart

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 5:58 pm

so sad! nebach!

BinahYeteirah

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:00 pm

su7kids wrote:

Atali wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I understand her husband's decision to "move on", but not one to deny her access to seeing her children. I have no words.

And then to have the chutzpah to expect her to pay child support shock

I was think of this, too. Perhaps he feels it is a waste for all this money to be spent on various expensive treatments, some of which may have little basis in medical fact, when, in his opinion, she will never regain a semi-normal life or improve appreciably from the state she is in. Maybe he thinks that her parents are just pushing all this treatment for no reason, when at least some of the money should really go to supporting the three children. Maybe he even thinks that is what SHE would want.

I still do not understand denying visitation! They will need to deal with this reality in one way or another; I think it is kinder and gentler to let them grow up knowing about their mother and slowly digesting the circumstances in age appropriate bits.

Last edited by BinahYeteirah on Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

Raisin

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:03 pm

chaylizi wrote:

su7kids wrote:

Atali wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I understand her husband's decision to "move on", but not one to deny her access to seeing her children. I have no words.

And then to have the chutzpah to expect her to pay child support shock

I don't think its a chutzpa, I'm guessing that part of the law suit said that they sued for money for the children, because they were being deprived of their mother.

But isn't the fact that she is a mother of 3 small children relevant? after all, her care for them will have to be replaced for the next 18 years, one way or another.

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:03 pm

BinahYeteirah wrote:

If he divorced her, he has no right to an opinion as to what her treatment should be. Her family will take care of her care.

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:07 pm

Raisin wrote:

chaylizi wrote:

su7kids wrote:

Atali wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I understand her husband's decision to "move on", but not one to deny her access to seeing her children. I have no words.

And then to have the chutzpah to expect her to pay child support shock

I don't think its a chutzpa, I'm guessing that part of the law suit said that they sued for money for the children, because they were being deprived of their mother.

But isn't the fact that she is a mother of 3 small children relevant? after all, her care for them will have to be replaced for the next 18 years, one way or another.

And if someone dies on an operating table & leaves 3+ orphans? They wouldn't be assured of getting any money. If she worked, she should get some kind of social security for disability. Again, her ex husband is not paying for her care. So she has to take care of herself first. If someone sues with a sob story of kids deprived of their mother, first thing to do would be allowing the kids access to their mother. Otherwise how is that different from the guy who killed his parents & begged for mercy because he was an orphan?

Nomad

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:09 pm

oy oy oy.

this is just so horrible for everyone involved.

the article is written in a one sided way, but it is most definitely agonizing for everyone involved.

x-dh needs therapy. I dont think kids will be denied visitation. at this age, they are still young enough to accept what they see and the argument they will be traumatized is not enough.

su7kids

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:13 pm

Raisin wrote:

But isn't the fact that she is a mother of 3 small children relevant? after all, her care for them will have to be replaced for the next 18 years, one way or another.

Exactly. I have a friend who had a misdiagnosed Breast "C" and in her law suit they covered money for the children until the age of 18.

BinahYeteirah

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:13 pm

chaylizi wrote:

BinahYeteirah wrote:

If he divorced her, he has no right to an opinion as to what her treatment should be. Her family will take care of her care.

You are absolutely right, but maybe this is his thought process, that now that he has "moved on" his only way of making his views on the topic relevant is by suing for child support. It, of course, makes no sense, and seems very wrong, to ask for child support, yet grant no visitation in this case.

On the other hand, if he did grant visitation, I don't think he would be so terrible for asking for a normal amount of child support from her 8 million dollar estate.

Mama Bear

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:14 pm

the kids are not 2 1/2. they are 4. look at the thread where we said tehillim for her, it was in 2006. they have been asking why they dont have a mommy. at age 4 they can be prepared for what their mother looks like and meet her.

Raisin

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:14 pm

chaylizi wrote:

Raisin wrote:

chaylizi wrote:

su7kids wrote:

Atali wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I understand her husband's decision to "move on", but not one to deny her access to seeing her children. I have no words.

And then to have the chutzpah to expect her to pay child support shock

I don't think its a chutzpa, I'm guessing that part of the law suit said that they sued for money for the children, because they were being deprived of their mother.

But isn't the fact that she is a mother of 3 small children relevant? after all, her care for them will have to be replaced for the next 18 years, one way or another.

Oh, I think the xh is wrong in denying visitation. But I am assuming when the settlement is made the children were taken into account - that money was alloted for their care.

(and if a hospital makes a terrible error and a mother dies in childbirth wouldn't the children get the compensation?)

I can only assume the ex is not being malicious - it's not like him and Abby had a fight and their marriage broke down. So he must have some weird reason why he is denying visitation.

su7kids

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 6:14 pm

I'm only guessing his decision to 'move on' was not made lightly. I think he must have agonized over it extensively and quite honestly we have no clue, all of this is speculation, every drop of it, since he has not been able to speak for himself.

Page 2 of 9

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next