|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 12, 2011 04:51 PM |
|
|
Sad case.
The sad thing is, though, that the parents couldn't agree on a reasonable MO.
"Stable" is a a very optimistic and, sadly, temporary description of metastasized Breast Cancer. It can further metastasize into brain, lung and liver, and the treatment can be rather exhausting.
In my opinion the best solution would have been, after Mom lost her job, to move to Chicago near her ex and let him have the children, but being there for the children to visit her, when she feels well enough.
While I sympathize with her, I see only two options:
1) She puts every ounce into trying to survive - she's only 30, who knows.
In that case, while it may grief her, she can't afford to put her strength into single-handedly raising 5 and 11 year old kids.
2) She doesn't care about her life and wants to be only with her kids.
In that case she still has to think about THEM, and that it is indeed important for them to see something else as well than her slowly dying.
This leaves the solution I sketched as the reasonable one.
The Ex is right to take an interest, and shoould he have suggested this solution, he is doubly right.
As the case is, I understand the judge and his call.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 05:17 PM |
|
|
I agree it's a difficult case, and I think it's too easy to sipmly condemn the judge's decision due to pity of the woman's condition. Obviously, the judge's decision was based on the physical wellbeing of the children - the father is healthy and will have a better chance of the day-to-day seeing to the children's physical needs.
That said, I think the judge failed to take into consideration the children's need to see their mother, particularly since she won't probably be around much longer. I'm no psychologist, but my impression is that the kids will end up hating their father for steeling them from their mother's last good years and will have a lot of problems later on (although, the father does sound like a complete tool, and probably deserves the hate he's eventually going to get).
I think the appropriate solution would have been to award custody to the father - since it's true, the mother is going to be in no condition to take care of them) but place the financial burden on the father to ensure the mother sees the children at regular intervals. As it stands, the mother has visitation rights but no means to exercise them, and the children will thus never see their mother. I think the judge needed to take that into consideration, because these cases are supposed to be decided by what is good for the children. A decision which makes it impossible for the children to see their dying mother cannot possibly be good for them, psychologically, in the long run.
I think we can also use a bit of a slippery-slope argument here, where illness is used to justify fitness of a parent. At what point does a chronic illness compromise a parent's ability to be a parent? Stage 4 cancer? Ok. Heart disease? Maybe. Diabetes? Well... Herpes?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
yaeliccc
Known Hero
Undead, but warm and fuzzy
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:14 PM |
|
Edited by yaeliccc at 18:14, 12 May 2011.
|
no kid should stay and watch while their parents slowly die, parents take care of kids and not the other way around, but that father better let them say their goodbyes to their mom otherwise he will forever be "that guy". judge is an idiot though coz mediator should of have taken care of that, sick woman shouldnt be spending energy on a stupid trial, epic fail on being human beings by all sides 
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
but place the financial burden on the father to ensure the mother sees the children at regular intervals.
NONONONONONO!
You're punishing the husband for wanting to take care of his kids?
Otherwise, understandable case.
Ps. why did she lose her job?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:44 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:52, 12 May 2011.
|
Quote:
You're punishing the husband for wanting to take care of his kids?
First, if he's a good father who really wants to take care of his kids, he wouldn't have sued for complete custody in the first place. He'd also make sure his kids could see their (sick and dying) mother. I don't know all the facts in the relationship, of course, but it seems to me that he's just suing for custody out of spite - who the hell divorces his wife after she is diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, and then tries to take the kids away from her? God, even if he hated the woman, it's not like she's going to be around for long. For his kids' sake he should have just stuck with the ship until it finally slipped beneath the waves.
Second, it's better to "punish" the father by forcing him to make resources available to help his kids spend time with their (sick and dying) mother, than to punish the kids by not giving them the means to spend time with their (sick and dying) mother. The kids are the victims here - not the father, who owns a responsibility to their well-being. Ensuring that they are able to see their mother - whose only claim to "unfitness" is the fact that she is sick - is part of ensuring their well-being. IMO when you decide to become a father, you take that responsibility on your shoulders, and the courts have the duty to force him to own up to that responsibility if he refuses.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 06:56 PM |
|
|
Leaving everything else aside, the case is stated as a complete mess so someone else can sort it out if they wish.
Okay so the mom can't afford to fly there and back every weekend, understandable if the ticket is expensive. Should the husband pay this(what is expensive?, 200-400 dollars?) bill every weekend? Once a month? That's hell of a lot money. He's already taking the financial burden of bringing up two kids. Should his already(possible shaking) monetary situation be further punished? Say the mother comes by twice a month so that's 400-800 dollars a month for that. You can live with your two kids with that amount!
As if there weren't enough hospitals in chicago to take care of the cancer. Mother should move.
PS. Better the father takes the kids now, they'll hate him less than if he took them after she died.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 07:04 PM |
|
|
Who should pay for what is a good question. A questoin I'm quite convinced would be irrelevant had free health care been present.
/Political agenda.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 07:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ps. why did she lose her job?
yeah, why?
was it right after she was diagnosed with cancer? which may mean that she showed no signs of disability in her work?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2011 07:41 PM |
|
|
The mother has no job.
The father lives in Chicago.
Ergo, the mother can move.
The judge cannot place the burden onto the father to pay air travels every week or something.
The judge may order the father that IF the mother is willing to move into the vicinity, the court will help (via the usual organizations) to help mom find a decent apartment in Chicago and get her treatment in Chicago done, with dad having to pay the move - but that's it. It's the sensible thing to do anyway.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 04:27 PM |
|
|
Dilemmas 10 is brought to you by Roderick Long.
Dilemma 10:Quote:
a. I invite you to my house for dinner. When you arrive, I serve you a casserole made from (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools. You eat it, and consequently die.
b. We encounter each other in the forest. You mention that you’re hungry. I point to (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools, and ask why you don’t eat some of those. You say you can’t tell which things of that sort are safe to eat and which aren’t. “Oh, I’m an expert,” I assure you, “and I can guarantee that those ones are safe.” So you eat some, and consequently die.
c. I post a picture of (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools on my blog, and announce: “Some people think these are poisonous, but in my opinion they’re perfectly safe.” So when you come across some toadstools that match the picture I posted, you eat them, and consequently die.
d. I tell you, “I’ve received a revelation from Zeus, and if you recite the following formula for 90 minutes a day, I can guarantee that you’ll get into heaven when you die.” So you waste 90 minutes every day reciting my formula – and when you die you go to hell like the stinker you are.
In which case are your rights violated, if any?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 04:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is allegedly the first time that a judge has used an illness to decide a child custody case.
I don't believe that's true. In Michigan, for example, one of the 13 best interest factors of child custody is the mental and physical health of the parties involved. It may have been the first time stage 4 breast cancer has been considered or even a terminal disease, but I doubt it.
The judge made the appropriate decision. Her ability to provide and physical health are factors that can not be ignored.
Quote:
First, if he's a good father who really wants to take care of his kids, he wouldn't have sued for complete custody in the first place.
Not true. We don't know the circumstances surrounding the child divorce. She may have been suing for sole custody herself. We don't know what their marriage was like before the action either other than what she told the interviewer.
Quote:
I think we can also use a bit of a slippery-slope argument here, where illness is used to justify fitness of a parent. At what point does a chronic illness compromise a parent's ability to be a parent? Stage 4 cancer? Ok. Heart disease? Maybe. Diabetes? Well... Herpes?
That's what medical evidence is for.
@JJ
I'm not sure if you are presenting these quotes as what could be done or what you believe should be done.
Quote:
The judge cannot place the burden onto the father to pay air travels every week or something.
Actually, a judge could.
Quote:
The judge may order the father that IF the mother is willing to move into the vicinity, the court will help (via the usual organizations) to help mom find a decent apartment in Chicago and get her treatment in Chicago done, with dad having to pay the move - but that's it. It's the sensible thing to do anyway.
The court does not get involved in helping people move or find places to live. I also doubt if a judge would order an ex-spouse to pay for an ex-spouse's moving expenses. It could be construed as part of the settlement award I suppose..
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 05:00 PM |
|
|
A is planned murder. Nothing strange about that.
B is deceit. Acting as an expert and cheating to get eat the shrooms. I think you're just stupid to believe anyone you meet but I think law makes this quite the offence.
C is ok. It's a blog and opinion.
D is ok. Opinion again.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 05:15 PM |
|
|
Mvass, did you just hijack my thread? 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 05:22 PM |
|
|
Dilemma 10
Quote:
a. I invite you to my house for dinner. When you arrive, I serve you a casserole made from (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools. You eat it, and consequently die.p
That is first degree murder. Use of poison is similar to ambush and the intent is certainly there.
Quote:
b. We encounter each other in the forest. You mention that you’re hungry. I point to (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools, and ask why you don’t eat some of those. You say you can’t tell which things of that sort are safe to eat and which aren’t. “Oh, I’m an expert,” I assure you, “and I can guarantee that those ones are safe.” So you eat some, and consequently die.
Hmmm... First, second degree murder, negligent homicide, battery, could be a bunch of things. Sue for a lot. See what sticks.
Quote:
c. I post a picture of (what I know to be) poisonous toadstools on my blog, and announce: “Some people think these are poisonous, but in my opinion they’re perfectly safe.” So when you come across some toadstools that match the picture I posted, you eat them, and consequently die.
Hmmm... Maybe negligence but that's a stretch. I guess it would come down to the sincerity of the belief. Anyways, you did not tell the person to eat the mushrooms. You wrote that there is a difference in opinion as to if the mushrooms are poisonous. They ate the mushrooms of their own free will and consequently died of it. I guess it comes down to whether or not a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that you posted the information with the intent of causing others to reasonably rely on it.
Quote:
d. I tell you, “I’ve received a revelation from Zeus, and if you recite the following formula for 90 minutes a day, I can guarantee that you’ll get into heaven when you die.” So you waste 90 minutes every day reciting my formula – and when you die you go to hell like the stinker you are.
No rights have been violated but if you don't believe me, I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers in Hell that give a free consultation.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 05:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They ate the mushrooms of their own free will and consequently died of it.
But this is also the case in A and B. You didn't hold a gun up to their head and force them to eat the mushrooms.
I think the difference is that in A it's understood that the mushrooms you're being given are safe to eat, and the problem is that there's a violating of that implicit understanding. In B and C, you're not being given any mushrooms - you're only being told that they're safe. What's the difference between reading it on a blog and being told in person?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 05:47 PM |
|
|
The difference between the two is that in B, you actively gave the advice as fact. You even told the person you were an expert and he relied on that. You knew exactly what would happen if he ate the mushrooms. Contrast that with C. You merely posted an opinion about mushrooms on a passive website. You did not seek the reader out. He sought you out. You never claimed to be an expert. You even warned him by saying that other people believe the mushrooms are poisonous. You just believed otherwise. There was no scientific explanation evidence posted to support your reasoning. He decided to play the odds and bet that one person's opinion was correct against the others. He lost.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 06:04 PM |
|
|
Suppose that in case C, someone took you to court and you said, "Yes, I purposely provided this incorrect information in hopes that someone would read it and poison themselves." Maybe you have a popular blog and thousands of people read it every day. Maybe it's a blog for hikers and/or campers. Your intent is clear: to influence people to eat these mushrooms. Even then, that's not murder, manslaughter, negligence, or anything illegal, as nothing was done to actually kill the person. The victim (if they can be said to be a victim) chose to follow your advice.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 06:18 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:20, 10 Aug 2011.
|
Ethics and law are two different things, mvass. It's very clear which ones are legal and which ones or not, and the difference between the various grades of murder and manslaughter and nothing at all is basically what the intent was. The ambiguity comes in when trying to prove intent, of course.
For instance, (b) could be easily range from murder (if the putative mushroom expert was intending to kill the eater) to manslaughter (if the putative mushroom expert was intending only to hurt the eater, but not kill him) to nothing at all, depending on what the intent is proven to be. Maybe he really is an expert and just made a mistake. That'd be quite a bit different than if he was literally trying to kill someone by supplying false information - but the story doesn't provide this kind of detail.
Since the various items doesn't really explain what the intent was, or how far in advance things were planned, but only tell events, it's impossible to say what the legal culpability is.
Of course, ethics is something else entirely. 
EDIT: Who the hell eats mushrooms, anyway??
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 06:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ethics and law are two different things, mvass.
I understand that. I'm referring to the ethical meanings of the words "murder", "intent", etc, not the legal meanings.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2011 06:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
EDIT: Who the hell eats mushrooms, anyway??
I do I do They taste best if self picked 
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
