Disabled Mother Wins Visitation Rights

[goldberry]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/25/california.triplets.visitation/index.html?hpt=T2

 

Wow, this dad is some kind of guy. Reading this story I literally grew claws on my fingers wanting to rip this guy's face off. (Ok, not "literally", but still...)

[Jean in Newcastle]

I had the same reaction to the ex-husband. It makes me sad to think that those kids might pick up that kind of callousness toward another person, and disabled people in particular.

[Bird Girl]

I've read some additional articles about this sad situation. The mother is severely brain damaged and is completely taken care of by her parents. The maternal grandparents are hoping that seeing the children will somehow call the daughter back from her vegetative state.

 

I agree that the husband is portrayed poorly in this CNN article--but the larger story does not make him into the villain he seems to be here. It's a tragic story for all of the participants.

[GnomeyNewt]

I have only read a few articles on this situation, but the exhusband... divorced his wife within a year of the accident and her parents are looking after her. From an accident caused by the birth of HIS children. The thought that a husband would abandon his wife that way, after birthing their 3 children -- there are NO words to express the feeling that evokes.

 

If anybody watches American Idol, earlier in the year there was a story of a contestant whose fiancee was in a terrible car accident and does not have control over her body. He goes to her house DAILY to assist in her care, and they were not even married. He is sticking by her side. They have no children, they have not made a marriage commitment, but he truely loves her and still cares for. And is there.

 

I am not sure what their future is for these cases, but I think hastiness is not the answer.

 

And back on topic. I'm glad she got visitation rights, no matter the reason the grandparents wanted it for. They have the right to know their mother, no matter if she is disabled or not. The children have that right at the least.

[happyhomemaker25]

I closed the article before I copied the quote but the judge is right on in saying that even though the mother might not be able to communicate with the children the children should still be allowed the opportunity to communicate with the mom. To form a bond and memories with her.

How devestating for the whole family.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have only read a few articles on this situation, but the exhusband... divorced his wife within a year of the accident and her parents are looking after her. From an accident caused by the birth of HIS children. The thought that a husband would abandon his wife that way, after birthing their 3 children -- there are NO words to express the feeling that evokes.

 

If anybody watches American Idol, earlier in the year there was a story of a contestant whose fiancee was in a terrible car accident and does not have control over her body. He goes to her house DAILY to assist in her care, and they were not even married. He is sticking by her side. They have no children, they have not made a marriage commitment, but he truely loves her and still cares for. And is there.

 

I am not sure what their future is for these cases, but I think hastiness is not the answer.

 

And back on topic. I'm glad she got visitation rights, no matter the reason the grandparents wanted it for. They have the right to know their mother, no matter if she is disabled or not. The children have that right at the least.

 

I've been following this in our local papers and I totally agree with what you've written here.

[Danestress]

I have only read a few articles on this situation, but the exhusband... divorced his wife within a year of the accident and her parents are looking after her. From an accident caused by the birth of HIS children. The thought that a husband would abandon his wife that way, after birthing their 3 children -- there are NO words to express the feeling that evokes.

 

 

whether he could take care of newborn triplets adequately, support his family, AND take care of a disabled wife. I can't imagine. I had a hard time taking care of new born twins without a lot of help, and I didn't have to work a job or also take care of a disabled adult.

 

I'm not sure anyone can do that!

[Dmmetler]

As someone who had a life-threatening pregnancy, one that could easily have ended in this sort of way, I find this appalling. Yes, she's not the mother the children would have had if the pregnancy had turned out better, but the fact is that she LITERALLY gave her life to give birth to those children. The least they can give her, with the limited life she has left is contact with them. And in at least one article, it mentioned that he also wanted child support from the settlement she'd received.

 

What's more, not only does the mother not have contact, but this effectively limits the grandparents as well. They lost the daughter they knew-and now, because of the limits of caring for her, they've also effectively lost their grandchildren as well.

 

There were a few responses which talked about the difficulty and expense of bringing three young children to see their mother. But I have to ask whether it's required that he live so far away, or whether that's by his choice?

[Nakia]

How incredibly sad. I don't really know what to say except that it breaks my heart that this guy would abandon his wife AND take her children away. I am glad the judge ruled the way he did.

[kchara]

How sad. :(

[MrsBasil]

Leaving aside the divorce and suing of her estate for child support, it saddens and disgusts me that he opposed allowing the children to see their mother. Denying visitation is something I just do not understand.

[Danestress]

But I have to ask whether it's required that he live so far away, or whether that's by his choice?

 

The grandparents took their daughter back to their home in SC to care for her. I can see both sides of this, really. The Dad could have insisted that the Mom stay with him in CA and could have shut her parents out of her life. I am glad he didn't. Maybe the parents should have moved to California to care for their daughter where the grandchildren are, but I can also understand why they didn't do that. They probably would have found it hard to move to CA, even though this obviously would make it a lot easier for their daughter to see her own children.

 

I don't know. I read the parts about the grandmother telling the children that their mother would get better. I understand why the Dad is afraid of giving them false hope. My father was that way. He always thought that deflating our hopes somehow "protected" us.

 

I read about the grandparents trying to lock the father out of rooms so they could talk to the children alone. I read about them wanting 4 weeks in the summer without the Dad around. I think sometimes we have to trust parents to make the right choices regarding grandparents.

 

Grandparents are a big part of our lives, and I am all over grandparent rights. But I know a lot of parents really struggle with grandparents who don't respect parental boundaries, and I understand that maybe the father is just really worried. I see that the judge, while giving some visitation, seemed to agree with his concerns. The grandparents were legally barred from having the father shut out. He gets to supervise this visitation.

 

It's really sad for everyone, this situation. There is no way to make this a good situation:(

[JFSinIL]

whether he could take care of newborn triplets adequately, support his family, AND take care of a disabled wife. I can't imagine. I had a hard time taking care of new born twins without a lot of help, and I didn't have to work a job or also take care of a disabled adult.

 

I'm not sure anyone can do that!

 

I agree!

 

While I am glad the kids will see their mom now, and certainly agree they should...I can also see the dad's pov - he in effect lost his wife and the triplets their mom in one blow - he is trying to raise three kids the best he can and move on with life.

 

I had twins, btw - a LOT of work. I have a disabled son - not anywhere near as disabled as the mom in this sad story, but I know of some parents who do, and, again, it dominates your life.

 

The dad may also be worried that the triplets may think or feel guilt that they made mom the way she is now. He has probably been thinking he is protecting them from that. I hope the grandparents, who of course have THEIR child's interests as mail concern, do not put pressure on the kids to bond with Mom, etc.

 

I have no desire to have anything but compassion for everyone involved - there is no Bad Dad here.

[Murphy101]

The grandparents took their daughter back to their home in SC to care for her. I can see both sides of this, really. The Dad could have insisted that the Mom stay with him in CA and could have shut her parents out of her life. I am glad he didn't. Maybe the parents should have moved to California to care for their daughter where the grandchildren are, but I can also understand why they didn't do that. They probably would have found it hard to move to CA, even though this obviously would make it a lot easier for their daughter to see her own children.

 

I don't know. I read the parts about the grandmother telling the children that their mother would get better. I understand why the Dad is afraid of giving them false hope. My father was that way. He always thought that deflating our hopes somehow "protected" us.

 

I read about the grandparents trying to lock the father out of rooms so they could talk to the children alone. I read about them wanting 4 weeks in the summer without the Dad around. I think sometimes we have to trust parents to make the right choices regarding grandparents.

 

Grandparents are a big part of our lives, and I am all over grandparent rights. But I know a lot of parents really struggle with grandparents who don't respect parental boundaries, and I understand that maybe the father is just really worried. I see that the judge, while giving some visitation, seemed to agree with his concerns. The grandparents were legally barred from having the father shut out. He gets to supervise this visitation.

 

It's really sad for everyone, this situation. There is no way to make this a good situation:(

 

:iagree: I feel horrible for the dad. I wouldn't want my dh or dc to have to go through that if I were that mother. I would hope he would tell the kids about me and bring them to visit on a somewhat regular reasonable basis. But anything more than that, especially when they are under 5 or 6, is just more than I think reasonable to expect of a man raising triplets on his own from several states away. I would be VERY upset if any people were telling or insinuating to my kids that their visits might somehow heal me or bring me around. That is flat out cruel imnsho. I can easily see my dh telling such people to shut it or be cut off.

[Beetkvass]

I read about this yesterday. I'm so glad to see at least a some what positive update. I have nothing nice to say about this man. There is no excuse to toss aside your spouse like garbage. Of course it would be hard to take care of her and the 3 kids. Life deals some hard blows to people but people are also just not disposable.

 

My cousin is a quadriplegic with severe neurological damage and in a worse state than this mother. He was in a drowning accident. So I'm not unfamiliar with the difficulties. He's been this way for 16 years now. But I can't even imagine this happening to my husband and me just deciding to walk away from him and let his parents take care of him so I could move on and have a life without a severely handicapped spouse. It's just revolting to me.

[newbie]

Plain and simple, he copped out, and a poor excuse for a husband. I feel sorry for the kids, that they have to learn to love and cherish in perfect health only.

 

I have seen these situations, and fortunately the dh stood by their wives, and their wives got better, and even better w/all their family around.

[Miss Peregrine]

So heartbreaking.

 

Even more sad are some of the comments(on the news article page). I am astounded that people think so little of life.

[kalanamak]

I've read some additional articles about this sad situation. The mother is severely brain damaged and is completely taken care of by her parents. The maternal grandparents are hoping that seeing the children will somehow call the daughter back from her vegetative state.

 

I agree that the husband is portrayed poorly in this CNN article--but the larger story does not make him into the villain he seems to be here. It's a tragic story for all of the participants.

 

:iagree: People also divorce for monetary reasons. At my hospital, people often divorce to make sure all the couple's resources don't go for the tremendously expensive care of, e.g. a Huntington's patient.

 

I'm sure this is all more complex that is there on the surface. For some odd reason, we keep seeing unrealistic parents of grown but incapacitated children. If I thought my kids were going to be pawns of a delusional GM, and the visits would be to a woman who had no idea she was seeing her own children, I'd be fighting it, too.

 

If I were a realistic GM in this situation, I could easily see saying to a SIL: look, you take on those triplets and I'll care for their mother until I'm too old to do so. Then we'll go from there. Would it be realistic to think hubby could raise triplets and give personal, in-home, family-style care to his wife? I'd chose the kids to, if I knew my spouse was going to be well cared for. Kids come first.

 

But as I said, I'm betting it is much more sick and twisted than it appears in the heart-grabbing media.

[Haiku]

there is no Bad Dad here.

 

I agree. People seem to think this is an either/or situation. I don't think it is. I think it is complex in ways that the vast majority of people could never, ever understand. I also think that accusing this man of tossing his wife like garbage is cruel and short-sighted.

 

I definitely think these kids should have contact with their mother. But I don't like how this situation has been portrayed as a mother winning visitation. From everything I have read, the mother had nothing to do with this and isn't able to participate in the decision-making. The grandparents instigated this, for reasons that, while I of course can't know for sure, do seem a bit odd.

 

I think the real winners here are the children.

 

Tara

[JennyD]

I've read about this case before. While it certainly seems not in the spirit of 'in sickness and in health," I still can understand the father wanting to move on with his own life -- didn't he remarry? I seem to remember reading that before -- but she is their mother, even if she isn't his wife any more. Being terribly disabled doesn't erase that reality, even if he wishes it did. Clearly she isn't fit to tend to them on her own, but I can't see how she isn't fit to see them, and I really can't see how it could possibly be in the children's best interest to have this reality wiped away as if it never existed. I'm very glad, for their sakes, that they will get to know her, even in a tragically limited way.

[elizabeth]

.

Edited March 27, 2011 by elizabeth
better judgement

[Dmmetler]

The children can visit their mother without being told that their birth is what caused their mother's condition. And at age 5, that's what I'd do. "Mommy is very sick now, but she wanted you very, very much and loves you very, very much" is probably sufficient until they're a bit older.

 

My daughter does not yet know that her birth risked my life, although she'll need to know my history before she has children of her own, because there is a familial connection. But I know that if I had even one slight bit of awareness, I'd want to see her, want to hear her voice, and want her to know that I'm there with her, at least in spirit.

[Mommy22alyns]

The whole situation is just sad.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I have only read a few articles on this situation, but the exhusband... divorced his wife within a year of the accident and her parents are looking after her. From an accident caused by the birth of HIS children. The thought that a husband would abandon his wife that way, after birthing their 3 children -- there are NO words to express the feeling that evokes.

 

 

Did anyone read this part of the article?

 

At Dorn's request, the Cohens initiated divorce proceedings on Abbie's behalf. The divorce was finalized in the fall of 2008.

 

:confused: It's as if no one read that line. He may have requested it, but they INITIATED DIVORCE proceedings on her behalf. I do not think that the father is the monster he is made out to be. How people think he could have cared for three newborns AND a severely disabled spouse is beyond me.

[GnomeyNewt]

Hmm Their birth caused this. Really you think it appropriate for 5 year olds to process that although it was certainly not their "fault," they are in fact the cause of this woman's destruction. Even if there was horrendous malpractice in their mind it will always be simple, I destroyed my mother and ruined her life. It is not appropriate for them to visit her at this age as they do not have the ability to abstract what has occurred. They are better off waiting until 7 or 8 at least. This smacks of media whoring on both sides and is very, very unseemly reminding me of a case that had no basis in science or medicine being exploited for political ends a few years back. I hope the parties in that fiasco all enjoy what they have sown. So far a few are in jail. This is just beyond tragic for all involved but frankly a course in early childhood develpment or psychology 101 should raise some serious concerns about what is good for those children. Adults make free choices about these matters and those poor darlings did not. While I understand the parents of the young mother wanting to see hope and nurture the person she is, not who they wish she still was, that is not so clearly good for the little ones. Just sad. And in vitro needs to be revisited it has disastrous consequences all too often . Tough cases make bad law once again.

 

If the father did stay with the wife and choose another path of supporting his wife and children... than what? He should hide her in the basement, hospital, anywhere that the children can't find her? Do you know how many children in our country and around the world live with their disabled parents? As they get older they can assist in the care, and it is very humbling experience. This happens all the time with grandparents, why not with parents? I'm sure they will be curious to know how their parent got that way, but just like the birds and the bees talk, its one step at a time and certain information is given at certain ages. Most children wonder how babies are made, but we don't exactly tell them out right when they ask at age 5.

 

I cannot judge a person by what I "would" do in that same situation unless I was in it also, I will only judge by what promises he made to his wife when they were married. And since I do not know what arrangement they made, I can honestly say I don't know if they said in "sickness & in health". I will say that is an assumption on my part, since most do say that when they marry in our country. I will reserve further comment on that situation.

 

I simply do not think it is okay to say that because someone is disabled they do not have the right for their own children to visit or spend time with them. I think children are shielded to much in this country and they can handle a lot more of the truth than people think. The whole truth can be dished out over time as appropriate for their age. Helping to care for their parent, can mean a lot to a child even if they can't have a "normal" relationship with their parent.

 

By some of the attitudes on the news article comments and here, I wonder what they must think of us letting my children visit their severely disabled great-grandfather? How did he get that way? Why can't he talk? Why does he lay down the whole time? When can he come home? Why won't he let us play the tv louder? We have those questions and we answer them to the best we can for their age. This teaches children that people who are disabled still need our LOVE and CARE. And that not all people in this world have the same abilities and can also lose them with accidents/old age.

 

Visiting their mother can only be a positive thing. I don't expect them to live there and I can agree that her parents can move to make her more accessible to the children. If the children DO NOT want to visit her, well that is a completely different issue. But from the article it appears they do cherish their visits and like having her picture around.

[Mergath]

I read about this yesterday. I'm so glad to see at least a some what positive update. I have nothing nice to say about this man. There is no excuse to toss aside your spouse like garbage. Of course it would be hard to take care of her and the 3 kids. Life deals some hard blows to people but people are also just not disposable.

 

My cousin is a quadriplegic with severe neurological damage and in a worse state than this mother. He was in a drowning accident. So I'm not unfamiliar with the difficulties. He's been this way for 16 years now. But I can't even imagine this happening to my husband and me just deciding to walk away from him and let his parents take care of him so I could move on and have a life without a severely handicapped spouse. It's just revolting to me.

 

I don't think the man had any choice as far as leaving his wife. Yes, perhaps morally it would have been better to continue to care for her, but it would have been at the expense of the children. It is simply not possible for one person, with no experience in either parenting or caregiving, to suddenly care for three newborns and an adult who seems to be nearly in a vegetative state. The care for one or the other would have suffered. By turning over care for his wife to her parents, who are a doctor and a nurse, from what I read, he made the same choice any of us would have made. If I were the woman in the article, it's what I would have wanted for my family. I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a house where their father never had enough time for them because he was busy taking care of what was left of my body.

 

Also, there's a world of difference between knowing someone who needs full time care, and actually being the person to provide it.

[goldberry]

Wow...I really don't get defending the dad by saying how impossible it would have been to care for the babies plus the mom. So anytime a situation seems impossible, it's ok to walk away from it? He wanted to "move on". I bet mom would have liked to be moving on too, unfortunately she doesn't have that choice, and neither do the grandparents.

 

But even aside from the divorce, for which he waited a WHOLE year...he seemed determined to keep the kids away from her. He actually said even when they were older, they should only see her "if there was medical evidence she could communicate with them" (not exact quote).

 

If he had issues with the grandparents, he could have addressed that without denying ANY visitation. They could all have counseling about the best way to present it to the kids. There are any number of possible ways to handle it without cutting the mom out of their lives entirely.

[Mergath]

Wow...I really don't get defending the dad by saying how impossible it would have been to care for the babies plus the mom. So anytime a situation seems impossible, it's ok to walk away from it? He wanted to "move on". I bet mom would have liked to be moving on too, unfortunately she doesn't have that choice, and neither do the grandparents.

 

There's difficult, and then there's impossible. There simply aren't enough hours in the day for one man to do all that. Either the babies would have been neglected, or the woman would have. By turning over her care to her parents, who are medical professionals, he made sure she got the care she needed and that it was provided by the people who loved her most. He would then have been able to focus on caring for his three newborn children. Seems like the obvious choice to me.

 

Really, anyone who says he would have been able to do both has no idea whatsoever what kind of time goes into providing complete care for an adult.

[J-rap]

***

Edited February 19, 2023 by J-rap

[Haiku]

If I were the woman in the article, it's what I would have wanted for my family. I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a house where their father never had enough time for them because he was busy taking care of what was left of my body.

 

Abso-frickin-lutely.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

So anytime a situation seems impossible, it's ok to walk away from it?

 

No, you figure out the best plan you can. In my humble, outsider, reading only what the media chooses to tell us opinion, having the mom with her parents is the best choice.

 

Reasonable people can disagree. But it's not cool to villainize dad just because he decided his wife would get better care from her parents. Or that his kids would get better care if mom didn't live with them. "Till death do us part" sounds nice until you have to make hard decisions about what is actually BEST for everyone in an untenable situation, not just what was promised when all was rosy.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

I will stand by him and love him until the day I die.

 

That is wonderful. Truly, it is. But your choice is your choice for your situation and need not be the correct choice for everyone in every situation.

 

Tara

[elizabeth]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36694847/ns/health-health_care/

 

How awful. However when the only expert purporting that she is in anything other than a permanent vegetative state is an acupuncturist I am left shaking my head that any person who ascribes to reason and science could think it was appropriate to demonize the father for wanting to spare the children. The whole thing is just a mess and absolutely nightmarish. I wonder how many" tort reform "proponents who are also pro life can square those two positions. You either want justice for persons who have been horribly damaged by incompetent physicians or you do not. That is it there is no alternative in a democracy.

[Aggie]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36694847/ns/health-health_care/

 

I wonder how many" tort reform "proponents who are also pro life can square those two positions. You either want justice for persons who have been horribly damaged by incompetent physicians or you do not. That is it there is no alternative in a democracy.

 

Elizabeth,

 

I am a conservative who wants tort reform and I'm also pro-life.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "square those two positions" in this case.

 

If this doctor was found to be negligent, then his patient(s) should have a right to sue for compensation. No doubt.

 

Tort reform refers to blatantly ridiculous law suits brought about by unscrupulous attorneys. When a thief sues a homeowner because the thief was hurt during the home invasion, there is need for tort reform, don't you think?

 

One state (PA or NY?) is having a difficult time keeping OB/GYNs because malpractice insurance is so high. Why is their insurance so high? Because those states allow law suits and *high* compensations. Yes, birth is natural, but there are risks involved. Does that mean every birth that goes wrong is the physician's fault and his patient deserves millions?

 

Most people in favor of tort reform want to get the ridiculous law suits out of our courts. The hot coffee from McD's comes to mind. It's not to protect incompetent physicians, honestly.

 

I do realize that you, as an attorney, may have a stake in law suits. Law suits aren't all bad, but they're not all good, either. I don't want to lose the right to sue someone who has negligently caused harm or death, but I do want to see law suits become more about serious issues.

 

I hope this has answered at least part of your question.

[JennyD]

No, one man cannot do it all, but a marriage is a life-long commitment, and even if someone else took care of his wife (such as her parents or even a long-term care facility) while the children were young, she could have remained his wife and he could have visited her when he could, lovingly.

Live does not promise to be perfect. Some of us are dealt hard blows -- harder than we could possibly imagine -- but that doesn't give us the right to walk away. It just doesn't. Period.

My husband had a massive stroke last year and was left severely brain damaged. He was completely paralyzed and lost all ability to communicate and even comprehend what others were saying. Did that give me the right to walk away and divorce him?

No.

My husband stands a chance to recover much of what he lost, over years of hard work. He is more fortunate than this man's wife. But, we do not know. I will stand by him and love him until the day I die.

 

I'm so sorry to hear about your husband's stroke. I hope that he makes a full recovery. Hugs to you :grouphug::grouphug:

 

Just to be clear, I am not demonizing the man for not caring for his former wife. I'd like to think that my husband wouldn't divorce me if I became terribly disabled, but what makes me crazy about this story is him not wanting the children to have any contact AT ALL with their mother, as if she doesn't exist. The court order is for 5 days a YEAR. Her parents are fighting to not have her erased completely from her own children's lives.

[pqr]

Elizabeth,

 

 

Tort reform refers to blatantly ridiculous law suits brought about by unscrupulous attorneys. When a thief sues a homeowner because the thief was hurt during the home invasion, there is need for tort reform, don't you think?

 

 

 

Absolutely.

 

It also attempts to limit some of the insane judgements that are awarded, but if it does so it will cut into the fees that the lawyers receive and we can't have that can we? Think of all the "ambulance chasers" who may not be able to afford their TV commercials.

[TXMomof4]

I read an article about this yesterday on the NPR website (I think). What struck me about it was the grandparents kept talking about what the mother deserves. She deserves to see her children. She deserves to have them near her. She deserves to see them grow.

 

I don't think there's a word that goes all over me more than that. I agree, she should get to see her children - because it's the right thing, NOT because of what she deserves or doesn't deserve.

 

I know it's probably just a matter of semantics, but people who say they ought to get it just because they deserve it automatically go on the wrong side of my little list. Silly, I know.

[newbie]

No, you figure out the best plan you can. In my humble, outsider, reading only what the media chooses to tell us opinion, having the mom with her parents is the best choice.

 

Reasonable people can disagree. But it's not cool to villainize dad just because he decided his wife would get better care from her parents. Or that his kids would get better care if mom didn't live with them. "Till death do us part" sounds nice until you have to make hard decisions about what is actually BEST for everyone in an untenable situation, not just what was promised when all was rosy.

 

Tara

 

Not to argue the point, but that seems to give you the right to walk away any time there is a bump in the road, what does that teach our children. My marriage was rosy for the first 15 years, but now the circumstances we are facing are unbearable. Do I leave him, b/c he is at fault, or do I work through it as a married couple. Definitely the easy thing to do is walk. It would be best for the children and take a load off everyone, but life is not about the easy road.

[J-rap]

***

Edited February 19, 2023 by J-rap

[newbie]

"If I were the woman in the article, it's what I would have wanted for my family. I wouldn't want my children to grow up in a house where their father never had enough time for them because he was busy taking care of what was left of my body."

 

I agree with this too, that the three young children definitely need to come first. Absolutely. But, I still think the husband didn't need to divorce her and completely separate his and their lives from her. As I said earlier, he could lovingly place her in the care of someone else, and visit her when he could -- not divorce her. He should also be bringing the children to see her. She is still their mother, she did nothing wrong (she is not a murderer or rapist); it is reality.

:iagree:

 

And just to let you know, I have friends who are stroke survivors, who were in comas for months, fully recover and live on their own. God bless you and your family.

[J-rap]

***

Edited February 19, 2023 by J-rap

[Nakia]

When I worked at a long term care facility many years ago, we had a patient in a similar situation. Her husband had to place her in the facility because there was no way he could take care of her. But he visited every day and never stopped being 100% devoted to her. He was one of the kindest and most amazing men I have ever met. But he knew his limitations, and he did what was best for his wife and himself. I admire him for that. They didn't have children, so of course, he didn't have that burden (and I don't mean burden in a negative way) as well.

 

I have been thinking about this a lot since it was posted. Personally, I would never want my care to come before, or get in the way of, the care of my children. I think this is very sad and difficult beyond what many of us can imagine. And of course, there is probably much much more to the story. Maybe he did explore all his options and thought this best. Maybe he is a jerk. Who knows? Grandparent issues aside, I just wish the mother had not been abandoned by her husband and had her children kept from her. She is innocent. And her children are innocent. I don't agree that the sight of their mother would traumatize them. Kids are much more accepting than adults, in general. I really don't believe this ruling can be anything other than beneficial to mom and children.

 

And I'm so glad this thread has been so calm and respectful! We might be getting better at agreeing to disagree. :D

[Haiku]

Not to argue the point, but that seems to give you the right to walk away any time there is a bump in the road, what does that teach our children.

 

That was not my point AT ALL, and in fact I used the word "hard decisions." It seems that some people think that the ONLY correct choice is for the father to care for his wife, because he married her and it's his responsibility. I would argue that his responsibility is to find the best care for the wife AND the kids, and that might not mean he does it. That is NOT "walking away."

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

Did anyone read this part of the article?

 

At Dorn's request, the Cohens initiated divorce proceedings on Abbie's behalf. The divorce was finalized in the fall of 2008.

 

:confused: It's as if no one read that line. He may have requested it, but they INITIATED DIVORCE proceedings on her behalf. I do not think that the father is the monster he is made out to be. How people think he could have cared for three newborns AND a severely disabled spouse is beyond me.

 

:iagree: I have read nothing so far that goes anywhere near he walked away and abandoned the mother of his children.

 

She is more than severely disabled. She is completely and utterly incapacitated in every way, has been for 5 years, and it is tremendously unlikely that will ever change. No one is wanting the plug pulled so to speak, which I find miraculous given that many would these days.

 

I am not demonizing the man for not caring for his former wife. I'd like to think that my husband wouldn't divorce me if I became terribly disabled, but what makes me crazy about this story is him not wanting the children to have any contact AT ALL with their mother, as if she doesn't exist. The court order is for 5 days a YEAR. Her parents are fighting to not have her erased completely from her own children's lives.

 

You know after reading all the stuff out there I could find the time to read, I don't think he necessarily wanted to do that. I think the fact is that traveling that far with 3 little ones is hell for anyone in many ways, financially, time, and just sheer nerves. The grandparents knew that when they flat out refused to move to be near their dd and instead brought her to them. Now they are older, 5, and I think the father isn't worried so much about time with their mother as time with grandparents who seem to have a really unhealthy goal in having the kids visit them. Saying things like hoping the kids will help bring her around? Like it is her choice?:confused: Living as though any moment she will start to recover? I have to say I think it is the grandparents he is worried will emotionally damage the children, not really seeing their vegetative mother.

 

As for the divorce. I don't think there are many people more anti divorce than my dh and I. But you know what? Bottom line is not being married in this country can absolutely mean more funds and access to care. If I had to choose between making sure my dh got the best care possible or divorce? Yes, I'd get the divorce. Is it right that people have to make those decisions? No. It isn't. But it doesn't mean they didn't or don't love them.

 

Also, I seriously question the ability of an elderly couple who has to devote 24/7 care to a completely vegetative adult daughter to care for triplets without supervision from the father. Now they are 5 it might not be too much of an issue, but even if the dad had sent three 2 year olds to visit - how the heck would the grandparents have taken care of them AND their daughter? I would have said no to that too. It seems a no brainer to me.:001_huh:

 

I don't think the father has cut the mother out of his kids lives. The sad truth is, she just isn't there. She is several states away, physically and mentally. And he has to do his best to raise and provide for 3 children.

 

Maybe they are all complete turds of humanity. It certainly possible.

 

But I don't think so based on what I've read so far.

 

It just sounds like several sad people doing their best to get through a life they never imagined living.

[Mother Superior]

I have only read a few articles on this situation, but the exhusband... divorced his wife within a year of the accident and her parents are looking after her. From an accident caused by the birth of HIS children. The thought that a husband would abandon his wife that way, after birthing their 3 children -- there are NO words to express the feeling that evokes.

 

If anybody watches American Idol, earlier in the year there was a story of a contestant whose fiancee was in a terrible car accident and does not have control over her body. He goes to her house DAILY to assist in her care, and they were not even married. He is sticking by her side. They have no children, they have not made a marriage commitment, but he truely loves her and still cares for. And is there.

 

I am not sure what their future is for these cases, but I think hastiness is not the answer.

 

And back on topic. I'm glad she got visitation rights, no matter the reason the grandparents wanted it for. They have the right to know their mother, no matter if she is disabled or not. The children have that right at the least.

 

:iagree:

[Harriet Vane]

I have spent the last seven years living with a reality that is very, very similar. I have posted about it before.

 

I had an aunt who was not that much older than me, named Lisa. We grew up together because our mothers had a business together. I was at her house every single day, for years, and I lived with her for two years. She was, for all practical intents and purposes, my big sister.

 

Several months after the birth of her fifth child, Lisa was diagnosed with a life-threatening brain tumor. Her oldest child at the time was just 9yo. Her first operation yielded results that seemed miraculous--she was better than she had been in years.

 

Her second operation left Lisa irrevocably brain-damaged. She spent the remaining six years of her life anxiety-ridden, delusional, and with severe cognitive problems. Overnight she became just like an advanced Alzheimer's patient.

 

Lisa's husband devoted his life to trying to save her life. Few realize how many hours he spent sleeping in a chair at her bedside, negotiating with hospital personnel, hours driving her medical records to various doctors, etc., etc. He threw all of his energy into helping her regain her cognitive function.

 

The brain damage was absolutely irreversible.

 

After roughly two years Lisa's husband had to face the fact that Lisa would not get better, and that he could not continue raising five children alone AND care for Lisa. It was absolutely the most painful decision of his life to turn over her care to a nursing home. She lived the rest of her life there.

 

I have spent the last seven years supporting her and her husband and children as best I can. I have spent years caring for her children as well as visiting Lisa on a weekly basis--often more depending on Lisa's health and emergency hospitalizations. It has been the most painful, intense journey of my adult life.

 

Some thoughts on the linked situation:

 

1--DO NOT JUDGE. Unless you have had to live with these choices yourself, you have NO WAY to understand the pain and the intensity inherent in this situation. You were not there, and you have NOT spoken to any of the participants in this unhappy drama, and you really do not know why they have made the choices they have had to make.

 

2--It is unbelievably expensive and time-consuming and intense to care for someone who has suffered brain damage. Anyone who thinks this man could have cared for his wife, raised children, and maintained an income, is wrong.

 

3--You do not know the father or the grandparents, so you have no way of knowing what is in the best interests of the children. You do not know if any of these people will behave appropriately towards the children or each other, because you do not know them.

 

4--If I could have chosen between the institution that cared for Lisa versus someone who loves her and will pay close attention to HER comfort, I would have done whatever it took to keep her out of the institution. In many ways Lisa's nursing home experience was positive, but there were also many, many things about that institution that were not good at all. I struggled with guilt all these years knowing that she was in that setting, that not everyone there would be kind to her, knowing that she would spend hours parked at a table with no one talking to her and nothing to look at. I struggled knowing that she would not ever go outside unless I took her out myself, or that she would only be bathed once a week. She had the capacity to participate in therapy, but very limited opportunities to do so even though her nursing home was a good one. When she was anxious or confused many of the nursing home staff either ignored her or were impatient with her (I personally witnessed this when they did not know I was there.) I certainly do not fault the father in the article for giving his wife's care over to her parents, and the only financially viable way for him to do that is through divorce. It's not his fault--the issue there is with governmental policies. Those that think the father of the article should have institutionalized his wife rather than make it possible for her to be home with her parents do not know the reality of the difficulties of that choice.

 

5--I do think this poor mother should be able to see her children. I can tell you that it meant everything to Lisa to see hers, that Lisa absolutely lived to see her kids as she was able. However, that is not the only consideration in this situation. I think I made that point in the paragraph above.

 

6--Like it or not, the father is the one who bears this burden, and he has the right to make the hard choices. Unless he is criminally abusive in some way, we can only offer compassion for the load he must bear.

 

I have nothing but the sincerest compassion for each person in that family, and I absolutely do not judge. They are definitely in my prayers today.

[CarolfromIL]

I think the father deserves to move on and have a life for the sake of

the children. The children deserve normalcy as well. Has anyone considered that the children may now have bonded with a new mother since the father remarried. How confusing to these small children and I believe the mother asked for the divorce (the article says she can blink yes or no). However this is very sad for all. :grouphug:

[Jennifer3141]

Situations like this are why I'm very glad my DH and I have had long talks about our care. There is no way in heck I'd ever want to live like this. :(

That's what makes me the saddest about this whole story.

[goldberry]

The mother did not ask for the divorce. The mother's parents initiated the divorce at the father's request.

 

One year to the day after the triplets were born, he notified the Cohens that he was ready to move on.

"I still love Abbie very much, but I am trying to move on and have been and will continue to parent our children, who are happy and are thriving," Dorn told CNN in an e-mail last year.

At Dorn's request, the Cohens initiated divorce proceedings on Abbie's behalf. The divorce was finalized in the fall of 2008.

 

Also, I'm not arguing the fact that he may have had to make hard choices in order to give the children the care they needed. If he had to legally divorce for financial reasons - I get that. If he had to turn over his wife's care so he could focus on the kids - I get that. But not wanting the kids to even see the mom is totally another issue and says something very serious about who this man is.

 

Daniel Dorn stated in court documents he wants the children to see their mother when they are older, perhaps 6 or 7 -- if he receives medical evidence that she will be able to communicate with them.

 

We are talking about 5 consecutive days each summer, and monthly skype visits. After everything the mom sacrificed to give those children life, he couldn't sacrifice one visit per year???

 

And again, if there are other issues involved, he could have addressed those without fighting the visitation.

[elizabeth]

Elizabeth,

 

I am a conservative who wants tort reform and I'm also pro-life.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "square those two positions" in this case.

 

If this doctor was found to be negligent, then his patient(s) should have a right to sue for compensation. No doubt.

 

Tort reform refers to blatantly ridiculous law suits brought about by unscrupulous attorneys. When a thief sues a homeowner because the thief was hurt during the home invasion, there is need for tort reform, don't you think? There is no way this would be permissable under the law. Unclean hands doctrine prevents that. This is part of the spiel put out by "tort reform" advocates who work for the insurance lobby.

 

One state (PA or NY?) is having a difficult time keeping OB/GYNs because malpractice insurance is so high. Why is their insurance so high? Because those states allow law suits and *high* compensations. Yes, birth is natural, but there are risks involved. Does that mean every birth that goes wrong is the physician's fault and his patient deserves millions? Absolutely not. OB/GYN is by its nature very risky. My father was a physician so I definitely feel strongly about having certain evidentiary thresholds that must be reached before a lawsuit can be filed. Most people in favor of tort reform want to get the ridiculous law suits out of our courts. The hot coffee from McD's comes to mind. It's not to protect incompetent physicians, honestly.

 

I do realize that you, as an attorney, may have a stake in law suits.No I do not as our practice isdevoted to workers compenation and social security /disability and divorces. Law suits aren't all bad, but they're not all good, either. I don't want to lose the right to sue someone who has negligently caused harm or death, but I do want to see law suits become more about serious issues.

 

I hope this has answered at least part of your question.

 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to clarify where possible and respectfully disagree with some of the contentions raised in your thoughtful post. All the best, elizabeth