Judge To Decide if Paralyzed Mom Has Right to See Her Kids

[Judi Lynn]

Source: ABC News

Judge To Decide if Paralyzed Mom Has Right to See Her Kids
Paralyzed Mother Abbie Dorn Cannot Eat, Speak or Move
BY SHERISSE PHAM
March 24, 2011

A California judge will hear closing arguments today to decide whether paralyzed mom Abbie Dorn, who cannot eat, speak or move, has a constitutional right to see her three young children.

Dorn, 34, endured severe brain damage following the birth of her children in 2006. She cannot move on her own, and remains in bed unless one of her caretakers moves her to a chair.

Dorn's parents say she has a right to see her kids and watch them grow up. Their father, Dan Dorn, argues that lengthy visits with a motionless woman will only traumatize their young children. He has been raising the triplets – two boys and a girl – as a single parent for nearly five years.

After hearing closing arguments from both sides today, Superior Court Judge Frederick Shaller is expected to decide whether Dorn must grant regular visitation rights to his ex-wife.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-decide-paralyzed-mother-kids/story?id=13211318

[Guilded Lilly]

1. LET HER SEE THEM.

There are plenty of ways that they can make any visit as positive as possible. I understand the agony of such a tragedy. I understand the gutwrenching emotions surrounding such a situation and divorce. (family history here) I understand the desire to protect children. I also know that children have the most open and loving hearts and minds of any humans that walk on this earth. These are her children. She should see them. They should know her.

[WatsonT]

2. Lot's of kids have one or more disabled parents

frankly dragging the whole affair through court is more likely to cause them stress.

[CreekDog]

10. but what are the options if he won't agree?

in a perfect world, there's no going to court.

but what about the world where we live?

:shrug:

[HockeyMom]

3. Look in her eyes

I have worked with many disabled people who could not talk, feed themselves, walk or move. Yet, somewhere deep down they knew what was going on. You could see it in their eyes. It's very hard to explain but if you are around them for a good amount of time, you can tell. They would could show their happliness, or displeasure, with a look.

Yes, she needs to see her kids. Her kids also need to see her. They have to know their mother and that there are disabled people in this world. This can become a good learning, and loving, experience for them.

[SkyDaddy7]

4. This so-called "man" is disgusting!

Children can handle way more than we give them credit for! This disgust me!

[kag]

5. Frankly, it's hard for me to imagine...

how it got to this point. Why is she his EX-wife? Did he divorce her BECAUSE of the disability? And even so, what kind of monster refuses to allow a mother to see her children, and vice-versa, just because of this disability? I understand that it is severe, but Cheeeez?

I agree with the previous commenter: It is more traumatic to drag the whole case through the courts than to allow the mom to see her children.

[KamaAina]

21. Indeed he did

he assumed she would never recover, and basically moved on with his life. Michael Schiavo did the same.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

6. The father of these children is disgusting and maybe being with her children will help her heal

[Wait Wut]

7. Chances are...

...when these kids grow up their father's decision will bite him in the ass.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. indeed it will

[madrchsod]

9. yup...he`ll have a lot to answer for....

[Xithras]

11. There are two important points being left out of this article, that sort of change things.

First: Doctors have stated that she's vegetative and beyond recovery. Her parents moved her into their home and are adamant that she's "still in there" and can communicate, but there has been no independent verification confirming their claims. As of right now, she's officially vegetative. There are a LOT of similarities between this case and the Terry Schaivo case, where the doctors and husband said that she was gone, but the womans family refused to accept it.

The lawsuit was filed by the grandparents, who are trying to normalize their vegetative daughters life, and who insist that she'll improve. It IS harmful to instill that kind of blind hope in a small child. She's not waking up.

Second: The woman and her husband lived in Los Angeles, and she was originally hospitalized in Los Angeles. The husband and children still live in Los Angeles. When the womans parents pulled her out of the hospital, they took her to their home in South Carolina. We're not talking about taking a quick jaunt to visit mom in a care home a couple of miles away. These people want the father to regularly drag his children on transcontinental trips to visit their vegetative mother. THEY took the MOTHER away from the CHILDREN, and not the other way around.

My first reaction was like many here, thinking that she should ABSOLUTELY get to see them. After reading up a bit more on it, I now think that visitation should hold off until the kids are a little older, and can make the choice on their own as to whether or not they want to see her (and even then, only with a lot of preparatory counseling first).

[DavidDvorkin]

12. That certainly does change things

There's usually more to the story.

[PassingFair]

13. Thank you. Futher information cuts down on the knee-jerking around here.

[n2doc]

14. Thank you n/t

[savalez]

15. How does that info change anything?

He's still not letting them see their mother.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bunny]

18. First of all, those doctors were hired by the husband.

I'll wait for confirmation of her 'hopelessness' by independent experts.

Second, the husband's lawyer actually argued that "the constitutional right to visit with one's children is reserved for fit parents only." That's an obscene interpretation of the constitution. Again, I'll wait for an independent expert's opinion on the alleged constitutional right to see one's child.

Third, her parents took her away from LA because her husband ABANDONED her. He had a moral obligation to take care of her and he punted. He is not at all an impressive man.

Those children are entitled to see and know their mother, with appropriate psychological counseling as needed. The only issue to work out are the logistics of the visits.

[Xithras]

20. Not exactly.

First, The doctors were hired while they were still married, and were paid for by their insurance. It's not like he hired a bunch of doctors after the fact to declare her unfit. She was injured, and he had doctors look at her. The claim by her parents that they were the "husbands doctors" is misleading. They were married, and they were HER doctors.

And if they were wrong, answer this simple question. Why haven't her parents had her examined by a proper neurologist to counter the claim? If there's proper brain activity, it should be easy to prove. What we have today, however, is a bunch of doctors who have declared her vegetative, and a couple of grieving parents who refuse to believe it. Terry Schaivo's parents also claimed that she could see because her eyes tracked the room, and could communicate by blinking. Medical science clearly proved them wrong, but they wouldn't accept it.

Second, the lawyers opinion doesn't bother me. It's a lawyers job to develop a position that supports his client, and his position is actually supported by case law (unfit parents are denied visitation every single day in this country). What should be clear, however, is that a vegetative body does not have visitation rights. If she isn't aware of the visits, this whole thing is just a gambit by the grandparents to try and normalize her situation.

Third, we're going to just have to disagree on that last part. Once a person is declared vegetative, there is little reason to maintain a marriage. It's not like she was in a coma and might wake up, or had cancer and might have recovered. The person he married was functionally dead. His marriage vows were complete. Personally, I'd pull the plug on my wife, and she knows full well that I'd want her to do the same. It's tragic but, like death, it's something that has to be moved past. Normal people don't stay single and grieve a dead spouse forever, especially when they have small children to raise.

[quakerboy]

29. The best current authority saying she is recovering

seems to be an acupuncturist. Or so says reading based on a Google search. I don't think an acupuncturist is overly credible as the main proof that someone is recovering from a vegetative state.

[trotsky]

32. Hell no. We need Bill Frist to weigh in! n/t

[FedUpWithIt All]

31. There are enough cases "baffling" scientists that it may warrant a closer look

at our current understanding of brain function.


http://www.rifton.com/products/mobility/pacergaittrainers/cory.html

http://gimundo.com/news/article/chase-britton-boy-born-with-partial-brain-is-living-miracle/

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darth_Kitten]

33. But the grandparents are caring for the daughter, the husband divorced her.

:shrug:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. i agree with you

[midnight]

16. Sounds like the ex-husband wants to move on. I don't

think he should be making the choice for these children, nor do I think the judge should side with this ex-husband....

[BlueIris]

17. I remember this case. I still don't understand the father's behavior.

Strikes me as cowardly, and suggestive of phobias of people with disabilities. Also makes me think he thought of his spouse as disposable. I can't imagine abandoning my partner outright in this way, even if severe disability prevented me from staying married to him.

[matt819]

19. How's this for a response?

It's none of our fucking business. These are difficult personal issues for all involved, and, did I mention this, it's none of our fucking business.

[Wednesdays]

22. Best answer yet.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[May Hamm]

25. So why not videotape the children?

Other than the fact that it legitimizes that she is not vegetative, it could be a compromise that's workable.

[hayu_lol]

27. May, that is the best idea yet...

videos of the kids going about their normal lives and activities could be played back on continuous loop for her...bedside puter or tv.

Had a daughter-in-law once who, car accident, was in total coma for over 7 months. Am aware of what this comes to and is like.

She was a neo-natal ICU BS/RN supervisor at the time of the accident. She did not come back all the way.

[happyslug]

28. The legal issues are interesting, must California recognize S. Caroline law as to Mother being alive...

I can see California ruling that as a matter of California law, Persistence Vegetated State is the same as being dead, thus no need to require the Children to see a dead parent. On the other hand, South Caroline may consider Persistence Vegetated State as being "alive". How do the California courts follow the Federal Constitutional Requirement of giving South Carolina law "Full faith and Credit"? i.e. Is California required to accept that the mother is alive, when California says she is not, BUT being in South Carolina, South Caroline governs Mother and South Carolina law says Mother is alive?

This was NOT one of the problem foreseen by the writers of the US Constitution when their included the "Full Faith and Credit" clause to the US Constitution. An Interesting point of law, lets see how the Courts in California handles it.

California has jurisdiction over the case for the Jurisdiction on Child Custody cases is set by State law. All states EXCEPT Massachusetts and Vermont has adopted the "Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act" (UCCJEA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Child_Custody_Jurisdiction_And_Enforcement_Act

The UCCJEA states what States has Jurisdiction over Child Custody cases. It contains four tests, but the first one applies in this case, i.e. "Which State has the Child lived in for the last six months". Thus both South Carolina and California accept California has jurisdiction over this case. In larger states the UCCJEA also applies to what county has jurisdiction over the custody case (Pennsylvania is one such state).

The UCCJEA was adopted so that all states can comply with the Federal "Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act" of 1980:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Kidnapping_Prevention_Act

The Actual "Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act" of 1980:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001738---A000-.html

(c)(2)(ii) of the "Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act" of 1980 sets the Six months test.

The Uniform UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (1997)
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/uccjea/final1997act.htm

Please note the above is a proposed "Uniform act" i.e. an act proposed by NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and then sent to the states to enact. Some states do not change it, other states do modify it (Pennsylvania, for example modified it to be the act that determined in-state jurisdiction among its counties, other states have not made that modification).

[rug]

30. The children have a right to be with their mother

regardless of her condition.

[Thor_MN]

35. Completely true, and totally irrelevant.

There is nothing in this case challenging the children's rights. This case is about the parents of a person in a persistently vegetative state trying to force their grandchildren to travel cross country to visit the shell of what used to be their parent. By the best medical opinions reported, one of the parents is dead, the body just hasn't stopped breathing.

I have worked in a long term care facility and have cared for people that are 'gone'. Each person is unique, some retain the ability to swallow food placed n their mouths, others would die without a feeding tube. A few, I believe, actually knew they were eating, others were just a "swallow or drown" reflex. Most had no quality of life whatsoever. Have food and liquids shoved in one end and someone cleans up what comes out the other side. I personally would not want my body to exist in that state.

To all the "men are evil" people out there, please turn this case hypothetically around and make it the father that is vegetative, whose parents are trying to force their former daughter-in-law to travel thousands of miles to bring the grandchildren to parade in front of their brain dead son. Do you still feel the same way?

If by some miracle, they could inject stem cells into the person's brain and start regrowth of dead brain tissue and the person became self aware, learned to see, eat, walk, talk again, would you force them to uphold the legal obligations of the person that body used to be? Would a woman who somehow emerged from a brain injury, with no memory of her past life, be forced to be the wife of the man who had been married to that body?

[Marrah_G]

34. I would not want to live like that

Nor would I have ever wanted my young children to see me like that.

These incidents are why it is SO important for people to make their wishes known BEFORE a tragedy happens.