Adult children sue parent over 'bad mothering'


Locutus
#1
At least common sense prevailed in this case. I'm sure there will be more now.




First published Aug 27 2011 07:01PM
Updated Aug 28, 2011 12:06AM Chicago ē Raised in a $1.5 million Barrington Hills, Ill., home by their attorney father, two grown children have spent the last two years pursuing a unique lawsuit against their mom for "bad mothering" that alleges damages caused when she failed to buy toys for one and sent another a birthday card he didnít like.


The alleged offenses include failing to take her daughter to a car show, telling her then 7-year-old son to buckle his seat belt or she would contact police, "haggling" over the amount to spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that she return home from celebrating homecoming.


Last week, at which point the court record stood about a foot tall, an Illinois appeals court dismissed the case, finding that none of the motherís conduct was "extreme or outrageous." To rule in favor of her children, the court found, "could potentially open the floodgates to subject family childrearing to ... excessive judicial scrutiny and interference."




more...


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/5...wsuit.html.csp





 
Goober
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

At least common sense prevailed in this case. I'm sure there will be more now.




First published Aug 27 2011 07:01PM
Updated Aug 28, 2011 12:06AM Chicago ē Raised in a $1.5 million Barrington Hills, Ill., home by their attorney father, two grown children have spent the last two years pursuing a unique lawsuit against their mom for "bad mothering" that alleges damages caused when she failed to buy toys for one and sent another a birthday card he didnít like.


The alleged offenses include failing to take her daughter to a car show, telling her then 7-year-old son to buckle his seat belt or she would contact police, "haggling" over the amount to spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that she return home from celebrating homecoming.


Last week, at which point the court record stood about a foot tall, an Illinois appeals court dismissed the case, finding that none of the motherís conduct was "extreme or outrageous." To rule in favor of her children, the court found, "could potentially open the floodgates to subject family childrearing to ... excessive judicial scrutiny and interference."




more...


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/5...wsuit.html.csp





It would be interesting to see how these children, and they still are, turned out. I would assume not good.
 
SLM
#3
Something tells me that none of the members of this family are paragons of virtue and integrity. Sheesh!
 
petros
+1
#4
Did you heareabout the woman who boinked her son's friend and was charged not for sexual assault but ANNOYING a minor?
 
taxslave
#5
SOunds like a few spankings are in order. Its never too late to start.
 
petros
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Did you heareabout the woman who boinked her son's friend and was charged not for sexual assault but ANNOYING a minor?

Criminal Law

Share|


1122. Annoying or Molesting a Child

The defendant is charged [in Count ______] with annoying or molesting a child.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant engaged in conduct directed at a child;
2. A normal person, without hesitation, would have been disturbed, irritated, offended, or injured by the defendant's conduct;
3. The defendant's conduct was motivated by an unnatural or abnormal sexual interest in the child;
AND
4. The child was under the age of 18 years at the time of the conduct.
[It is not necessary that the child actually be irritated or disturbed.] [It is [also] not necessary that the child actually be touched.]
[It is not a defense that the child may have consented to the act.]
[Under the law, a person becomes one year older as soon as the first minute of his or her birthday has begun.]
 
karrie
+4
#7  Top Rated Post
The proof is in the pudding.... if you're so messed up that you hold grudges over birthday cards, then you were clearly raised with some whacked out priorities. I say fine, go to court, prove to the world that you're douche bags, but we need to revisit forced sterilization for your family tree at that point. Morons.
 
mentalfloss
#8
 
petros
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

I ... prove to the world that you're douche bags,

Please don't say douche bag or douche anything. It's pickling season.
 
gerryh
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

The proof is in the pudding.... if you're so messed up that you hold grudges over birthday cards, then you were clearly raised with some whacked out priorities. I say fine, go to court, prove to the world that you're douche bags, but we need to revisit forced sterilization for your family tree at that point. Morons.


ummmmmm...wow.
 
WLDB
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

SOunds like a few spankings are in order. Its never too late to start.

They may enjoy it too much as adults.
 
TenPenny
+2
#12
As soon as I read the headline, I assumed that it was the father. And, sure enough, there it is:

Quote:

In 2009, the children, represented by three attorneys including their father, Steven A. Miner, sued their mother, Kimberly Garrity. Steven II, now 23, and his sister Kathryn, now 20, sought more than $50,000 for "emotional distress."

I would suggest that the father be either disbarred, or at least reprimanded, for a blatant conflict of interest and unethical behaviour.
 
The Old Medic
#13
And the case was thrown out of court, as it should have been. This was a rich man, using his children to get back at his ex-wife. Frankly, the kids should be required to pay 100% of their mothers legal expenses.
 
lone wolf
#14
Sounds like daddy could use a bit of legal harassment - some of his own medicine. Freakin' ambulance chaser....
 
EagleSmack
+3
#15
It sounds like Mom and Dad are holding out on the cash and the kids want an early inheritance. They just don't feel like waiting for them to die IMO.

Years ago I went to Nashville TN and took a bus tour. A small house was pointed out to us at the Vanderbilt college campus. It seems that Vanderbilt wanted to buy it but the elderly woman kept refusing. Her children tried to get the courts to give them custody of the house as they wanted to sell it and get the cash. So they claimed that their mother was mentally incapable.

So off they go to court and when the judge asked the elderly woman her side of the story she said...

"This is the house that me and my husband built. We raised all of our children in it and we led happy lives. I simply am not ready to move. I love my house and I want to stay."

Her children lost the case. Eventually the woman did pass away and in her will she left her house and all the land to the college free of charge. Vanderbilt got it for nothing and that is what the children got... nothing.

Quote: Originally Posted by The Old Medic View Post

And the case was thrown out of court, as it should have been. This was a rich man, using his children to get back at his ex-wife. Frankly, the kids should be required to pay 100% of their mothers legal expenses.

Ahh... I just read the whole article. What a bunch of brats.

Carry on.
 
shadowshiv
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

It sounds like Mom and Dad are holding out on the cash and the kids want an early inheritance. They just don't feel like waiting for them to die IMO.

Years ago I went to Nashville TN and took a bus tour. A small house was pointed out to us at the Vanderbilt college campus. It seems that Vanderbilt wanted to buy it but the elderly woman kept refusing. Her children tried to get the courts to give them custody of the house as they wanted to sell it and get the cash. So they claimed that their mother was mentally incapable.

So off they go to court and when the judge asked the elderly woman her side of the story she said...

"This is the house that me and my husband built. We raised all of our children in it and we led happy lives. I simply am not ready to move. I love my house and I want to stay."

Her children lost the case. Eventually the woman did pass away and in her will she left her house and all the land to the college free of charge. Vanderbilt got it for nothing and that is what the children got... nothing.


And the children got exactly what they deserved. Money is a nice thing to have, but my mother is a hell of a lot more important to me. Too bad those greedy kids didn't figure that out before it ended up being too late.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

As soon as I read the headline, I assumed that it was the father. And, sure enough, there it is:



I would suggest that the father be either disbarred, or at least reprimanded, for a blatant conflict of interest and unethical behaviour.

I blame the father most of all. This sounds like nothing more than petulant behaviour designed to get back at his ex.