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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT