Dan Dorn seeks to deprive paralyzed woman of visitation with her kids

New Posts

It says the kids have already seen her once and want to see her again. If that's true, I hope the judge takes it into account.
 
I think that man is things I cannot post here.
I think the grandparents AND the mother have a right to see and hold those children.
Knowing her children are there may just give the mother an edge towards better cognitive function. I know it would me!!
 
On the poll beneath the story, 95% say she should be able to see her kids. I agree.
 
I don't understand why these kids haven't seen their mother prior to this? One visit at four years old?!

He should've gone out of his way to make sure those kids saw their mother and formed a bond with her, regardless of her condition.

IMO he has deprived them and deserves to be stripped of his custody.
 
CCmakes3 said:
Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't sound like a very good way to teach your children compassion and tolerance. What a horribly misguided individual.
Click to expand...

I fully expected to agree with you, CC, but after reading the article I'm not sure. The doctor couldn't get the mother to blink yes and no "reliably." So the grandparents claim that the mother has a right "to hold her children" is nonsense; the mother isn't able to hold anyone. ("Holding" isn't the underlying right being claimed, of course, visitation is. I just thought the use of language was disingenuous, whether the grandparents or the reporter are to blame.)

But the grandparents are demanding that the father drag three 5-year-olds across the country to spend time with a mother who may or may not even blink in response to them. Somehow I think that's a lot to ask of children that young.
 
LadyL said:
I don't understand why these kids haven't seen their mother prior to this? One visit at four years old?!

He should've gone out of his way to make sure those kids saw their mother and formed a bond with her, regardless of her condition.

IMO he has deprived them and deserves to be stripped of his custody.
Click to expand...

How do 2-year-olds "bond" with a non-responsive parent?
 
I don't know...a yearly vacation to see the grandparents in Myrtle Beach doesn't sound too horrible! It doesn't sound as if they plan to leave the kids unattended with her. I would think it would be more traumatizing to tell them they need to just forget about her because she is disabled. Chances are they will one day find out that it was their birth that caused her disability and regret not having been able to spend time with her. As someone who works with disabled individuals, I can tell you that exposing my children to interactions with these people has greatly enriched their lives. They have become patient, compassionate indivduals whom others congratulate me upon frequently.
 
Nova said:
How do 2-year-olds "bond" with a non-responsive parent?
Click to expand...

I have managed to bond with a number of unresponsive people in my line of work, and my children are beginning to learn how to do the same. It's a matter of the inner peace and happiness you feel when brightening the meager existence of someone who doesn't have a lot of true friends. It's not a laugh riot by any means, but a quiet kind of joy and satisfaction nonetheless. :blowkiss:
 
I certainly don't mean to imply that I'm all sugar and no spice, however... I do count myself among the people who wouldn't want my children to have the responsibility of holding a peanut-allergy sufferer's life in their hands at school, so I'm certainly not going to hold my compassion up against anyone else's. To each his own! :)
 
CCmakes3 said:
I have managed to bond with a number of unresponsive people in my line of work, and my children are beginning to learn how to do the same. It's a matter of the inner peace and happiness you feel when brightening the meager existence of someone who doesn't have a lot of true friends. It's not a laugh riot by any means, but a quiet kind of joy and satisfaction nonetheless. :blowkiss:
Click to expand...

I'm not contradicting you, CC, and I readily acknowledge that this is your area of expertise. But I have known a few 2-year-olds in my life and I wouldn't say "inner peace and happiness" was their most notable quality. :)

Responding to your previous post, I wonder how much of this is about interaction with the maternal grandparents. I don't know what South Carolina's law (or California's) is on that subject, but I do think the children would benefit from knowing their mother's parents.

And when they reach an age where they can make the decision, they might benefit from visiting their mother. But I'd hate to see annual (semiannual, whatever) trips to sit with mother while she doesn't respond become a hateful chore for these children. That might well prevent the benefits you describe from aiding a disabled person voluntarily, something they might discover for themselves later in life.
 
CCmakes3 said:
I certainly don't mean to imply that I'm all sugar and no spice, however... I do count myself among the people who wouldn't want my children to have the responsibility of holding a peanut-allergy sufferer's life in their hands at school, so I'm certainly not going to hold my compassion up against anyone else's. To each his own! :)
Click to expand...

I didn't think you were presenting yourself as "holier-than-thou," CC. "Thou" would be I, I guess, since I'm the only one here who questions the wisdom of forcing the children to visit their mother.

By the same token and though I'm not presenting myself as the champion of the disabled, I normally think we all benefit by supporting the rights of those with handicaps. Certainly, as a teacher I followed Title XII requirements scrupulously and never found them a burden.

But this case and the very severe peanut allergy case both raise difficult questions, I think.
 
Sounds as if mom may or may not be capable of responding depending on who you believe. I think this is tragic if the mother is congnizent to the absence of her children while I do understand that she cannot "hold" her children per se, she could still benefit from seeing them. What is most important is what is best for the children. I do not have the answer to that, but do understand that it would be difficult indeed to explain to very young children the situation and why mommy is not like other mommies.

I also feel badly for the grandparents not being able to see their grandchildren. It saddens me that grandparents don't have much in the way of rights in regards to visitation with grandchildren in this country.
 
tlcox said:
Sounds as if mom may or may not be capable of responding depending on who you believe. I think this is tragic if the mother is congnizent to the absence of her children while I do understand that she cannot "hold" her children per se, she could still benefit from seeing them. What is most important is what is best for the children. I do not have the answer to that, but do understand that it would be difficult indeed to explain to very young children the situation and why mommy is not like other mommies.

I also feel badly for the grandparents not being able to see their grandchildren. It saddens me that grandparents don't have much in the way of rights in regards to visitation with grandchildren in this country.
Click to expand...

Totally agree about the grandparents. (I admit I'm biased, being a grandparent myself, but also having preferred my grandparents to my parents.)

I realize we only have a brief news account and so I'm speculating here: but I wonder if the central issue isn't the way the husband conceptualizes his ex-wife v. the way her parents do. The husband seems to have decided his ex is in a perpetually vegetative state; perhaps he is inclined to do so since it justifies his divorcing the mother of his children and moving away. The parents, quite understandably since they continue to care for their daughter, see her as a cognizant human being; and maybe they need to do that in order to face the daily effort to care for her.

In each case, the party is fighting for a specific conceptualization of the mother. The kids are caught in the middle. I'm not sure a court can make the kids think of their mother one way or another. I agree with CC that the children may have much to gain from thinking of their mother as a person with special needs but also much to give; however, I fear a court order will leave them thinking of "Mom" as the "zombie" they have to visit twice a year. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm trying to think of it from the view of a child.
 
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-abbie-dorn-custody-battle,0,1358338.story?page=2&track=rss

"Dorn, who is seeking child support from Abbie's estate, stated in court documents that he has not told the children what happened to their mother because they are too young to understand. He says he will consider taking the children to see Abbie when they are older -- if he receives medical evidence that she will be able to communicate with them."

Now, that's not right to me, that he won't take them to see her and indicates that he might never do so if he doesn't think she can communicate with them, but he does want child support money from her estate!!! IMO he shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If visiting her presented a danger to the children that would be one thing, but it doesn't sound like it does. (She received a malpractice settlement that her parents manage.)
 
Nova said:
I'm not contradicting you, CC, and I readily acknowledge that this is your area of expertise. But I have known a few 2-year-olds in my life and I wouldn't say "inner peace and happiness" was their most notable quality. :)
Click to expand...

Agreed, Nova. It's definitely something that needs to be cultivated over a period of time. You have to start somewhere, though, and I think starting earlier, before biases develop, is generally a good thing.

I agree that this probably has a lot to do with the maternal grandparents and their wishes/heartache. You are correct that this is a very difficult situation and I wouldn't advocate for usurping the father's rights either. I just think he would benefit from finding a bit more compassion somewhere within himself, and doing his best to instill it in his children as well. I can definitely sense your compassion for the childrens' situation....given that you are (or were) a teacher, our opinions are probably not really that far apart. :blowkiss:
 
BuzzieCat said:
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-abbie-dorn-custody-battle,0,1358338.story?page=2&track=rss

"Dorn, who is seeking child support from Abbie's estate, stated in court documents that he has not told the children what happened to their mother because they are too young to understand. He says he will consider taking the children to see Abbie when they are older -- if he receives medical evidence that she will be able to communicate with them."

Now, that's not right to me, that he won't take them to see her and indicates that he might never do so if he doesn't think she can communicate with them, but he does want child support money from her estate!!! IMO he shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If visiting her presented a danger to the children that would be one thing, but it doesn't sound like it does. (She received a malpractice settlement that her parents manage.)
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that it's a bit audacious for him to ask for child support when he doesn't even want the children to know that she exists. I'm sure there is precedent for this type of arrangement in the case of abusive parents or those who are incarcerated or something, but it just seems ethically wrong to me in this case. I'm sure it is costly and overwhelming to raise three children as a single parent, but I think he is making some unfortunate and morally questionable choices that clearly benefit him more than the children. I don't discount the pain he's been through and I certainly don't criticize his decision to divorce her in order to move on, but as a human being Abbie does still have a few basic rights, and it sounds like her parents are trying to go about things in the right way by requesting that the children receive therapy if they are to have contact with their mother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 1,159 (members: 86, guests: 1,073)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
1,073
Total visitors
1,159
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,791
Messages
17,958,920
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top