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

[zadari]

i dont understand how he could just divorce her god how awful i know my hubby wouldnt do that to me .. he would try to get me to come back .. i am so lucky to have him

 

[BuzzieCat]

This will probably seem horribly unfair, but where is the "fair" in anything about this case?

But I don't think child support should be tied to visitation requirements. I think each should be decided separately based on what is best for the children. (In fairness to the father, I don't know what sacrifices he is making to raise 3 children without a spouse.)

If the children need support (and it is available--I also don't know the details of the mother's financial situation), they should have it.

If they want to visit their mother, it should be made possible. If they do not want to visit her, I don't think I'd force them to do so at 5.

I'm not any kind of expert, but I just can't imagine that seeing their mother every once in a while is going to do them any real harm. They already know there's some reason for their mom not being with them, so I don't see how it would cause them harm to see their mother. When they are old enough, they will at least be able to understand why their mother isn't really in their lives, which IMO they have a right to know. This man seems to want to completely wash his hands of her, never give the kids or the grandparents a chance to see each other again, but by the way, fork over the cash. Ugh.

If the kids get old enough to decide and they don't want to see her, then that would be one thing. But IMO they should be given a chance to see her and make up their own minds as they grow.

As far as the money...I'm sure the mom would want them to have some of her money. And I'm sure raising 3 kids as a single parent is tough. But it really just looks to me like a money grab if he wants to take the money without even letting the kids see her once a year. Really, once a year would be too much? Maybe he shouldn't have divorced her if he wanted that money. That was really tacky, but I said it.

 

[CCmakes3]

I promise you I am well aware of the difference between 2 and 5. I was responding to a post that said the kids should have been visiting the mother when they were younger, so they could have bonded. I'm still skeptical of how much bonding a 2 or 3-year-old can do with a virtually unresponsive parent.

But 5 is certainly different from 2, and 10 from 5, etc.

ETA that though I can't envision it, CC has actually worked with extremely disabled patients and their children as young as 2 or 3. She says it's possible to make it work and I believe her. Instead of "skeptical", I should have said I just don't have the experience to imagine it.

Make no mistake-- I dont mean to imply that the relationship between a child and a severely disabled parent can ever be the same (or even anywhere near as good) as the bond that would exist otherwise (before the injury). Quite frankly, it is not. But it can still be a worthwhile relationship to pursue.

I guess the potential for traumatizing the child is always there, but I have always believed that the trauma would be greater to sever the relationship. This is a common assumption in my line of work, and I guess I have always accepted it as "fact," but Nova is right....it is simply an assumption, supported by a lack of negative results thus far. I'm guessing that a lot of us are taught certain values as "facts" in our professional education, and it's probably important to make that distinction.

 

[kgeaux]

Just noting that I have not read each and every post. If I screw up because I missed something, please give me grace!

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.)

This really is a shame. And nice guy, divorcing her because she's paralyzed. I guess he was kidding when he said for better or for worse, huh?

I am on both sides of the fence. It MIGHT be traumatizing for young children to visit someone in Mom's condition----especially if the children know that her condition is due to a mistake the doctor made during their delivery. As a parent, I would want to protect my kids from feeling responsible.

Secondly, I am weighing in information that doctors could not replicate the parents claims that their daughter communicated through eye blinks. If she truly can communicate, she should be able to communicate with doctors as well as her parents.

Thirdly, if this man wants to terminate Mom's parental rights, then he should not expect her estate to support him and the triplets.

And lastly, if this is about Grandma and Grandpa seeing the children, then I wish they'd leave their daughter out of it.

 

[ziggy]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, ziggy, I understand that "terminating parental rights" is a harsh phrase, but that may be the only legal way the father can prevent visits he believes to be harmful to the children.

As a rule, I believe in telling children as much truth as they can understand without unnecessarily alarming them. And it's the alarm part of that equation that is difficult to calculate in this case.

Obviously, the children now have seen their mother and, at that point, knew she existed. I'm not an expert on early child development, so I don't know how much info 5-year-olds retain without reinforcement. But maybe the father thinks it unkind to keep reminding children that age that they have a mother, when they can obviously see they DON'T "have a mother" in the sense that most of their friends do.

Nova - I doubt that the only way to prevent the court from ordering her fly to hither and yon for his children to visit their bed-ridden mother is for the parental rights to be terminated. There are other considerations the court may take into account including potential trauma to the children and financial hardship.

The court can appoint someone to evaluate these things and make a recommendation.

A lot of kids don't have a father or mother in the sense that most of their friends do - it's not like they aren't aware of that - some kids have a father but he's left or he's got 20 illegitimate kids and so they don't have a father in the same sense the other kids do. I don't think that seeing her is a "constant" and cruel reminder, and remember, anything can be framed in a context of somethin positive, especially with children, if someone wants to make that connection.

Maybe the father is just a jerk - I'm tending to think that he is because he could, if he wanted to, really make their mother out to be a hero for his children, have them only think of her in the most positive way and that she can't hold them or whatever because she got an owie or something, and that she pretends to hold them and kiss them even though she can't. Kids can at least relate to owies and pretending. That man needs a spanking.

 

[i.b.nora]

The judge has ruled:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/paralyzed-...-visitation-rights-children/story?id=13223968

 

[ziggy]

I'm glad he put the smack down on the maternal grandmother. Her giving the children false hope is WRONG, and perhaps the father needed this ruling to keep HER out of the picture and meddling. I like that the judge ordered pictures of the mother be kept on shelves in the kids room. The ruling seems very fair and correct to me. The child-like adults both lose and the kids win.

 

[peeples]

this made me cry

" Abbie Dorn already had outlived her life expectancy.

"The children need to have a relationship with their mother established before she dies,"

 

[Nova]

Make no mistake-- I dont mean to imply that the relationship between a child and a severely disabled parent can ever be the same (or even anywhere near as good) as the bond that would exist otherwise (before the injury). Quite frankly, it is not. But it can still be a worthwhile relationship to pursue.

I guess the potential for traumatizing the child is always there, but I have always believed that the trauma would be greater to sever the relationship. This is a common assumption in my line of work, and I guess I have always accepted it as "fact," but Nova is right....it is simply an assumption, supported by a lack of negative results thus far. I'm guessing that a lot of us are taught certain values as "facts" in our professional education, and it's probably important to make that distinction.

I don't think anyone can accuse you of making sweeping or simplistic claims. And I think you are almost certainly right that greater harm is done by "severing" a relationship because the parent is disabled.

But, unfortunately, that was already done in this case. Now we're talking about trying to force 5-year-olds to bond with a mother who may or may not respond (depending on whom you believe). The article does say that "both sides" say the recent visit went okay, so I'm not really sure what harm the father is claiming will be done.

I wish we had a better sense of what actually happened during the visit.

(ETA "Ask and ye shall hear!" Thanks to the judge's ruling, we now have an answer to the question I raised in this post.)

 

[Nova]

Nova - I doubt that the only way to prevent the court from ordering her fly to hither and yon for his children to visit their bed-ridden mother is for the parental rights to be terminated. There are other considerations the court may take into account including potential trauma to the children and financial hardship.

The court can appoint someone to evaluate these things and make a recommendation.

A lot of kids don't have a father or mother in the sense that most of their friends do - it's not like they aren't aware of that - some kids have a father but he's left or he's got 20 illegitimate kids and so they don't have a father in the same sense the other kids do. I don't think that seeing her is a "constant" and cruel reminder, and remember, anything can be framed in a context of somethin positive, especially with children, if someone wants to make that connection.

Maybe the father is just a jerk - I'm tending to think that he is because he could, if he wanted to, really make their mother out to be a hero for his children, have them only think of her in the most positive way and that she can't hold them or whatever because she got an owie or something, and that she pretends to hold them and kiss them even though she can't. Kids can at least relate to owies and pretending. That man needs a spanking.

My point was that "terminating parental rights" may just be the legal terminology.

Maybe I'm projecting my own feelings during childhood onto this case. If so, I apologize. But my father left when I was 9 and I didn't see him again for more than 2 years (he lived a few miles away but couldn't be bothered). At that time, he began enforcing his rights to custodial visits (I now believe this was at the urging of his well-meaning second wife). They were the most traumatic experiences of my upbringing. By the time I saw him again, he was a stranger to me, but I was forced to spend a day with him every month or so pretending we were a "family." (My stepmother and my two younger siblings were included.)

He was a little stern by today's standards, but otherwise he wasn't unkind during the visitations and he certainly wasn't disabled. We did all sorts of fun things including trips to the beach and amusement parks.

Nonetheless, I found those encounters so painful that my chronic strep throat would flare up and I spent a week in bed after each visit. (Dad disappeared for good when I was 18, so whatever bonding we'd done (none) went for naught.)

So I guess that's my frame of reference for "forced visitations." All of my arguments above should probably be considered suspect.

 

[CCmakes3]

I'm glad he put the smack down on the maternal grandmother. Her giving the children false hope is WRONG, and perhaps the father needed this ruling to keep HER out of the picture and meddling. I like that the judge ordered pictures of the mother be kept on shelves in the kids room. The ruling seems very fair and correct to me. The child-like adults both lose and the kids win.

I had not previously heard about the maternal grandmother's "meddling." It is troubling, to be sure, but likely born out of grief and heartache. As Abbie's primary caregiver, I'm sure she needs to believe that Abbie will "get better" in order to sustain her own sense of purpose and make all of her heartbreaking efforts meaningful. She should have been more careful about transmitting these beliefs to the children, but I'm not convinced her intent was as malicious as the judge and the ex contended. Regrettably, it sounds as if her behavior has likely cost her and her husband a relationship with their grandchildren. Tragic all the way around, as I think they could have played a very important role in facilitating a bond between Abbie and her kids and making the interactions fun and meaningful. Hopefully other families will take note and not make the same mistakes.

 

[Nova]

I'm glad he put the smack down on the maternal grandmother. Her giving the children false hope is WRONG, and perhaps the father needed this ruling to keep HER out of the picture and meddling. I like that the judge ordered pictures of the mother be kept on shelves in the kids room. The ruling seems very fair and correct to me. The child-like adults both lose and the kids win.

Well, there's the internet for you. We've all been critical of Dan Dorn (including I, even while defending his point of view) and now it turns out that he had offered yearly visits all along. He just doesn't want his ex-wife's mother to delude the children with false hope.

I think he's right about that.

 

[Nova]

I had not previously heard about the maternal grandmother's "meddling." It is troubling, to be sure, but likely born out of grief and heartache. As Abbie's primary caregiver, I'm sure she needs to believe that Abbie will "get better" in order to sustain her own sense of purpose and make all of her heartbreaking efforts meaningful. She should have been more careful about transmitting these beliefs to the children, but I'm not convinced her intent was as malicious as the judge and the ex contended. Regrettably, it sounds as if her behavior has likely cost her and her husband a relationship with their grandchildren. Tragic all the way around, as I think they could have played a very important role in facilitating a bond between Abbie and her kids and making the interactions fun and meaningful. Hopefully other families will take note and not make the same mistakes.

I couldn't agree more. Absolutely tragic and not at all malicious. I think we can all understand that perhaps the grandmother needs to believe her daughter will get better; it may be the only way she gets through each day.

But I agree with Mr. Dorn: passing that belief onto the children would be cruel.

 

[BuzzieCat]

I hadn't read before that he was offering yearly visits and the grandparents wanted more. However, he didn't want to do it for another year, and apparently Abbie Dorn's prognosis is such that she might not be alive at that point. So I think it is good that the judge stepped up the time line a bit so the kids can see her before it's too late.

Very sad IMO that the grandparents are now shut out. I'm sure the grandmother needs to believe that her daughter will get better, but I'll bet there's not much chance of that. She should have tried to restrain herself from making such statements to the children because that would be harmful to them IMO.

I guess there will be a separate ruling on the child support? I wonder what happens to the settlement money if/when Abbie Dorn dies?

 

[CCmakes3]

I hadn't read before that he was offering yearly visits and the grandparents wanted more. However, he didn't want to do it for another year, and apparently Abbie Dorn's prognosis is such that she might not be alive at that point. So I think it is good that the judge stepped up the time line a bit so the kids can see her before it's too late.

Very sad IMO that the grandparents are now shut out. I'm sure the grandmother needs to believe that her daughter will get better, but I'll bet there's not much chance of that. She should have tried to restrain herself from making such statements to the children because that would be harmful to them IMO.

I guess there will be a separate ruling on the child support? I wonder what happens to the settlement money if/when Abbie Dorn dies?

I would hope that the grandparents would put it in a trust for the kids.

I hope yosande will weigh in with her take on the verdict. She has such a unique and refreshing perspective.

 

[i.b.nora]

Its not over, the parents are still suing. This is just a tentative ruling to take the parties through to the trial. A trial date still needs to be set.

"Her parents are also her conservators and sued Dan on her behalf, asking the court to order him to bring the children for regular visits."

Personally, I think the mother has been meddling since the two got married, if not before.

 

[CCmakes3]

Its not over, the parents are still suing. This is just a tentative ruling to take the parties through to the trial. A trial date still needs to be set.

"Her parents are also her conservators and sued Dan on her behalf, asking the court to order him to bring the children for regular visits."

Personally, I think the mother has been meddling since the two got married, if not before.

Thanks for that info, i.b. nora. Perhaps I was too hasty to criticize the ex if the grandmother is indeed the true villain here. Ater all, he did stick around for almost a year after Abbie's injury, which is a lot longer than many spouse's would wait. As I've said before, I certainly don't fault him for wanting to divorce an unresponsive wife and find love again at his age. I simply hold the opinion that the mother-child relationship is worth preserving, even when severely compromised.

Still, I can't help but wonder if her parents would have been less aggressive about the visitation had Dan not sued to collect child support from the money that was granted to Abbie from the malpractice suit for her medical expenses and long term care. I know it's not an excuse for the grandmothr's meddlesome behavior, but as a mother and daughter myself, I can see how she might believe she is genuinely acting in her daughter's best interests. It's unfortunate that we can't choose who our advocates are or how they conduct themselves in these situations.

 

[Nova]

I hadn't read before that he was offering yearly visits and the grandparents wanted more. However, he didn't want to do it for another year, and apparently Abbie Dorn's prognosis is such that she might not be alive at that point. So I think it is good that the judge stepped up the time line a bit so the kids can see her before it's too late.

Very sad IMO that the grandparents are now shut out. I'm sure the grandmother needs to believe that her daughter will get better, but I'll bet there's not much chance of that. She should have tried to restrain herself from making such statements to the children because that would be harmful to them IMO.

I guess there will be a separate ruling on the child support? I wonder what happens to the settlement money if/when Abbie Dorn dies?

I would assume any estate left by Abbie Dorn will go to the children. She doesn't seem to have been in a state where she was able to make a will that says otherwise, not if her blinking yes and no was "unreliable."

 

[BuzzieCat]

I would assume any estate left by Abbie Dorn will go to the children. She doesn't seem to have been in a state where she was able to make a will that says otherwise, not if her blinking yes and no was "unreliable."

I think so as well but wonder how much say the grandparents have in it. Will it go under Mr. Dorn's control, or controlled by some unbiased executor to provide for the children while they are still minors, or would it be put into a trust for the kids to have when they are of age, is what I am wondering.

ETA: I feel bad if I have unfairly villainized Mr. Dorn, but most of the news reports made it seem like he was trying to totally walk away from the children's mother forever while also trying to take money that is supposed to be used for her care. I am glad that the judge ruled as he did, because apparently Mr. Dorn was trying to put off the visits for too long, given the mother's fragile state, and the grandmother was apparently being difficult.

 

[Nova]

I think so as well but wonder how much say the grandparents have in it. Will it go under Mr. Dorn's control, or controlled by some unbiased executor to provide for the children while they are still minors, or would it be put into a trust for the kids to have when they are of age, is what I am wondering.

ETA: I feel bad if I have unfairly villainized Mr. Dorn, but most of the news reports made it seem like he was trying to totally walk away from the children's mother forever while also trying to take money that is supposed to be used for her care. I am glad that the judge ruled as he did, because apparently Mr. Dorn was trying to put off the visits for too long, given the mother's fragile state, and the grandmother was apparently being difficult.

Good points, Buzzie. I have typed literally thousands of wills and trusts over the years I worked at law firms, but I never encountered a case remotely similar to this. It may be possible for the parents to put Abbie's money in trust for her children (and for all we know, Dan may have no objection to their doing so); or it may be they will have to petition a court to create a trust on Abbie's behalf. (To do the latter, I think they'd have to make a good argument that Dan would misuse the funds.)

(P.S. I'm sorry to refer to principals by their first names. I try to avoid doing so, but there are a lot of people named Dorn in this case.)

FWIW, I think we were all unfair to Mr. Dorn--including myself, and I was DEFENDING his position! But we can only work with the media reports we get.