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

Barbara

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 7:45 pm

chaylizi wrote:

sarahd wrote:

I don't understand. He wants to deny her even minimal visitation rights, but wants her to pay child support? She sacrificed her life to bear his children and this is his gratitude?

this is my problem with the story.

Its likely that a claim was asserted not only on behalf of the children, but also on behalf of her now ex-husband. Its also very likely that they received a large chunk of change in settlement or at trial. The childrens' money would probably be subject to some sort of trust or other control, so it could only be used for their care.

Abby's money is presumably needed to care for her in the long run. At the costs they're dicussing, it won't last her whole life. Asking for child support in these circumstances is tantamount to demanding that her level fo care be substantially reduced.

My heart goes out to all of them. If the article is correct, she's not in a persistent vegatative state. She has a functioning mind in a body that no longer works. The kids will be traaumatized whatever happens. Its a tough situation.

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 7:48 pm

Barbara wrote:

Abby's money is presumably needed to care for her in the long run. At the costs they're discussing, it won't last her whole life. Asking for child support in these circumstances is tantamount to demanding that her level fo care be substantially reduced.

Thank you. I was starting to think my opinion was unreasonable. Her care has to be taken care of first. Health care costs are expensive now & will be more expensive in the future.

Mama Bear

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 7:49 pm

I must quote this comment from the LA Times article which really hits home many points:

Quote:

israelschochet at 1:55 PM April 11, 2010
As a personal friend of those involved I want to emphasize here that being that Dan refused any interviews you are hearing a one sided story. I find it ironic that the only "professional" to come forward about the progress taking place was an acupuncturist while all the doctors and neurosurgeons say otherwise. Point being is simple: don't judge someone from an article. You were not there when the tears of joy at the birth of these beautiful children turned to tears of sadness. You were not there through the many sleepless nights required to raise those triplets (which Dan has primarily single handedly done with some assistance from his parents and nannies). You were not there when countless decisions needed to be made, heartwrenching decisions. We are not taking about a divorce case. We are talking about two people very much in love when was was cruelly torn away by a freak accident. Nothing was taken lightly or easily. It's easy to sit on your couch, 4 years later, and judge. G-d forbid you should ever be put in that position I would hope you would handle it with the strength and integrity that Dan did.

smilingmom

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 7:49 pm

Parenting time and access is a two way street. Parents have a right to access to their children, but more importantly, children have a right to know and have access to their parents.

There are many parents with different degrees of disabilities, and children know that their parents may be different, perhaps blind, in a wheel chair or suffering from a mental illness. Are we going to judge which children can have a relationship with their parents, based on what we think is a "normal person".
If children are introduced to an ill parent at a young age, they acclimate to the situation and learn to deal with it, perhaps with therapy, if needed.

It is absolutely cruel and inhuman to not allow children to know their parents.

A lot of divorced people live in different states and kids get accustomed to cross country visitation trips.

As to the financial aspect. Parental alienation is a reason for termination of child support in most states.
If the father is alienating the children from their mother, which he seems to be doing, most courts would rule that he will not be granted child support.

Ima2NYM_LTR

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:05 pm

chaylizi wrote:

Barbara wrote:

Thank you. I was starting to think my opinion was unreasonable. Her care has to be taken care of first. Health care costs are expensive now & will be more expensive in the future.

Far from unreasonable. This is a human being who has needs and wants. She cannot and should not be ignored.

Marigold

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:05 pm

I can't imagine what her husband must be going through but this woman gave her life for these kids. If he takes them away from her, what does she have left?

Also, they mentioned that it costs about $33,000 a month for her basic therapy and care which is funded by a nearly 8million malpractice settlement. at the rate they are going the money definitely won't last forever.
(hopefully she will have a complete refuah and the money won't be needed.)

micki

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:42 pm

Paddington Bear wrote:

I can't imagine what her husband must be going through but this woman gave her life for these kids. If he takes them away from her, what does she have left?

but does she know? is she aware they are not with her? is she aware they are her kids?

or are these the projected feelings of her parents?

again, not right or wrong, just pointing out a side.

kitov

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:45 pm

Mama Bear wrote:

I must quote this comment from the LA Times article which really hits home many points:

Quote:

Atali

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:52 pm

Paddington Bear wrote:

Actually, the amount is enough that they can use the interest and not dip much into the principal and have it last much longer or even forever. Even ignoring compounding, the yearly interest on $8 million is $400,000 if they can have it earn 5% per year, which is enough to not have to dip into the principal at all if she doesn't have to pay child support. Even if it earns less, it will IY"H be enough to last the rest of her life.

Atali

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:54 pm

Atali wrote:

Paddington Bear wrote:

I just wanted to add that I realize that this does not take inflation into account so they will be dipping into the principal somewhat, but hopefully they will not need to too much.

Atali

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 8:57 pm

chaylizi wrote:

Doesn't that assume she has an interest bearing account?

No one in their right mind would not put that amount of money in an interest-bearing account. And with that amount of money, it would not be hard to find banks that will pay decently.

chavamom

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 9:04 pm

su7kids wrote:

Liba wrote:

The money was granted long after he left with the kids and cut off her access to them.

He cut off access to them? Her PARENTS moved her to their home, she is the one who was moved, not him and the kids.

I think you misread the article. What do you propose? That she be left in a facility in CA, far from her parents and with a xh that wants to move on?

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 9:11 pm

Atali wrote:

chaylizi wrote:

Doesn't that assume she has an interest bearing account?

No one in their right mind would not put that amount of money in an interest-bearing account. And with that amount of money, it would not be hard to find banks that will pay decently.

I just heard that interest bearing accounts are hard to come by these days. Maybe it's different if you have 8 million dollars. I wouldn't personally know.

chaylizi

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 9:12 pm

chavamom wrote:

su7kids wrote:

Liba wrote:

The money was granted long after he left with the kids and cut off her access to them.

He cut off access to them? Her PARENTS moved her to their home, she is the one who was moved, not him and the kids.

I think you misread the article. What do you propose? That she be left in a facility in CA, far from her parents and with a xh that wants to move on?

Don't you think it would be much better for her parents to pick up and move to CA & take care of her so she can be close to the kids she's not allowed to see?

Marigold

Sun, Apr 11 2010, 10:52 pm

Atali wrote:

Paddington Bear wrote:

Right!
(so now you know. I'm neither an heiress nor a millionaire.)