Children file ridiculous lawsuit against mother

August 31, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As a parent, you may worry that the choices you make in raising your children could leave “scars” or affect them for the rest of their lives. But did you ever consider having your child come home at midnight after celebrating homecoming would be grounds for him or her to sue you as an adult?

A 20-year-old woman and her 23-year-old brother filed a lawsuit in 2009 against their mother, whom filed from divorce from their father in 1995. They claimed she was a bad mother because she didn’t buy toys, sent a birthday card the son didn’t like, and made the kids wear seatbelts, among other complaints.

In reading the news article about this suit, a few things initially struck me. First – these kids would even go so far as to file such a ridiculous lawsuit against their mother. Sounds like they are still upset about the divorce.

Second – their father represented them in the suit. Sounds like he’s still upset about the divorce, too, although he claims that he tried to dissuade his children from bringing the suit. If you didn’t want them to file it, then don’t take the case, Dad.

Third – there were two other attorneys who represented the children. Two other attorneys took a look at this suit, in which these kids sought $50,000 for emotional distress and thought this would be a good case to take.  

Parents can breath a sigh of relief – the case has been dismissed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT