Ok, this is fairly interesting. This woman had a child 30 years ago (the result of a rape) and gave it up for adoption. After hearing nothing for 30 years, her estranged child shows up one day at her door. The mother is not amused, is appalled by the reunion and basically goes into shock. Now she wants to sue the state for $1 million for emotional damages for setting up the reunion and tracking her down.
Do you feel that her rights were violated here and she is in the right? Or is the state totally in its right to pursue her?
While on one side I can see where the lady is coming from, she was given up for adoption and was the product of rape. On the other hand she stated she didn't reply to a request from the agency. She could have contacted them and said no and stated her reasons. Is it tramatic to her, sure should she get a million dollars for it, FUCK NO! People piss me off so bad.
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24887
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 02:19 pm
Failure to reply is as good as a no. The only way the state should have given the child an address or a name is if the mother explicitly consented.
While on one side I can see where the lady is coming from, she was given up for adoption and was the product of rape. On the other hand she stated she didn't reply to a request from the agency. She could have contacted them and said no and stated her reasons. Is it tramatic to her, sure should she get a million dollars for it, FUCK NO! People piss me off so bad.
^This.
I definitely feel as though the state was a bit over the top. I mean she gave up the child at birth 30 years ago and has heard nothing (excluding that one letter 4 months before the meeting), she obviously wanted nothing to do with it (understandable as the birth was a result of rape). So I can definitely understand her reasoning for putting the child up for adoption.
However, this by no means constitutes that she should receive a $1 million check from the state, that is just her being exceedingly greedy.
Apparently the child still keeps trying to contact her, if I were that kid, I would have quit by now...
A well placed falcon punch at the appropriate time would have saved a lot of trouble.
Ice2SeeYou
Title: Sexual Tyrannosaurus
Joined: Sep 28 2008
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 1761
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 02:38 pm
I'm not generally a fan of "emotional distress" claims in lawsuits.
Stressful things happen to everyone (deaths of loved ones, layoffs, cheating spouses, unwanted pregnancies, etc) and people don't get paid for them. At the most, the state should perhaps pay for some sort of counseling for the woman. But straight up cash? Unless you're Scrooge McDuck, nobody gets that much emotional support from cash.
I don't mean to downplay the emotional trauma of rape, or any other violent crime. But I don't see how handing someone a check makes things better. Like I said, at the most the state should offer the woman counseling.
Sydlexia.com - Where miserable bastards meet to call each other retards.
Cattivo
Joined: Apr 14 2006
Location: Lake Michigan
Posts: 3332
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 02:49 pm
Considering it was an unwanted reminder of a traumatic event in her past, she deserves something. She could have PTSD, and have been going to therapy, and this could have just resurfaced everything. Very inconsiderate. Like Syd said, no reply is tantamount to a "no."
SoldierHawk
Moderator
Title: Warrior-Poet
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6113
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 03:19 pm
Syd Lexia wrote:
Failure to reply is as good as a no. The only way the state should have given the child an address or a name is if the mother explicitly consented.
Would have typed this exact thing if you hadn't beaten me to the punch. Well said.
William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
Andrew Man
Title: Is a Funklord
Joined: Jan 30 2007
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 5603
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 03:25 pm
Syd Lexia wrote:
$1 million dollars isn't even that much anymore.
It's not really the money as much as it is the principal of the matter, even if it were $20 it still feels wrong...
No means "no". No reply means "I don't give a shit." This is obviously a big deal to this women, and she should have treated it accordingly. Simply ignoring something doesn't make it go away. I still say it sucks but giving her $1 mil is ludacris. Fuck her and this sue happy nation. I don't know all the information involved, but it's possible that the daughters file doesn'thave "RAPE BABY" stamped on it.
Andrew Man
Title: Is a Funklord
Joined: Jan 30 2007
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 5603
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 03:32 pm
RobotGumshoe wrote:
A well placed falcon punch at the appropriate time would have saved a lot of trouble.
Haha, had to post this...it's almost obligatory.
Yea....that definitely would have ended this thing before it even got started.
Stressful things happen to everyone (deaths of loved ones, layoffs, cheating spouses, unwanted pregnancies, etc) and people don't get paid for them. At the most, the state should perhaps pay for some sort of counseling for the woman. But straight up cash? Unless you're Scrooge McDuck, nobody gets that much emotional support from cash.
In civil cases, the only compensation that the American justice system affords is money. Which means that you can have to put a price tag on your pain. Sorry, that's just the way it works. On top of actual damages, a judge can award punitive damages to a plaintiff. Punitive damages are essentially "I can't believe you fucked up this badly, so I'm going to add extra money onto the damages to make sure you never fuck up this badly again and to make an example out of you and prevent similar things from happening in the future".
Okay, the State screwed up here, but really, I can't possibly see this being as bad as all that. It's not like Jennifer McFly meeting her past self or something. You open the door and someone says "Mommy!", you just slam the door in their face. I can't see "emotional distress" here, it's not like she didn't know the child, or know that the child was trying to contact them. She's owed something for the trouble, but nowhere NEAR a million bucks.
Also, there's a very good reason why someone may want to know their birth parents. It helps complete a medical history, you may want to know if you have certain diseases in your past. Perhaps the State released the info for that reason, and the child did the rest of the work themselves?
Stressful things happen to everyone (deaths of loved ones, layoffs, cheating spouses, unwanted pregnancies, etc) and people don't get paid for them. At the most, the state should perhaps pay for some sort of counseling for the woman. But straight up cash? Unless you're Scrooge McDuck, nobody gets that much emotional support from cash.
In civil cases, the only compensation that the American justice system affords is money. Which means that you can have to put a price tag on your pain. Sorry, that's just the way it works. On top of actual damages, a judge can award punitive damages to a plaintiff. Punitive damages are essentially "I can't believe you fucked up this badly, so I'm going to add extra money onto the damages to make sure you never fuck up this badly again and to make an example out of you and prevent similar things from happening in the future".
Pretty much, yeah. The idea of civil court is to be made "whole" when someone injures you. Money's the only way to do that without opening up a whole ethical can of worms. ("Okay, Mr. Smith, since he accidentally killed your wife, he gets to kill yours...") Courts can also rule for specific performance, if they think that will help (mostly useful in contract cases...it pretty much means the court forces you to do something).
A key note, though, is that someone has to cause you the distress, and do so in a negligent way. You don't get money because of things that are your own fault, nobody's fault, or come from non-negligent actions. To get a dime, this lady is going to have to prove that the State was negligent here.
Stressful things happen to everyone (deaths of loved ones, layoffs, cheating spouses, unwanted pregnancies, etc) and people don't get paid for them. At the most, the state should perhaps pay for some sort of counseling for the woman. But straight up cash? Unless you're Scrooge McDuck, nobody gets that much emotional support from cash.
In civil cases, the only compensation that the American justice system affords is money. Which means that you can have to put a price tag on your pain. Sorry, that's just the way it works. On top of actual damages, a judge can award punitive damages to a plaintiff. Punitive damages are essentially "I can't believe you fucked up this badly, so I'm going to add extra money onto the damages to make sure you never fuck up this badly again and to make an example out of you and prevent similar things from happening in the future".
You are right, and I can understand that money is going to be the only standard that affects everyone, for better or for worse.
All the same, I think dollar amounts into the millions are excessive for "emotional distress." Of course we already have a precedence of paying out these large sums, so it's probably too late. But if it were up to me, I'd rather see the huge payouts to victims replaced by charitable donations by the party at fault. This would discourage frivilous lawsuits, and contribute something to society rather than hand someone a fortune just because she spilled coffee on herself or because someone accidentally smashed her favorite Fabersche egg.
Sydlexia.com - Where miserable bastards meet to call each other retards.
SoldierHawk
Moderator
Title: Warrior-Poet
Joined: Jan 15 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6113
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 06:09 pm
Ice2SeeYou wrote:
But if it were up to me, I'd rather see the huge payouts to victims replaced by charitable donations by the party at fault. This would discourage frivilous lawsuits, and contribute something to society rather than hand someone a fortune just because she spilled coffee on herself or because someone accidentally smashed her favorite Fabersche egg.
Actually, I really, really, REALLY like that idea. Exceptions to that rule would be when someone's actual property was damaged, and I suppose court fees should be covered, but other than that, this 'emotional pain and suffering' stuff going to charity I like.
But not yet. Let me get my millions first, THEN we enact the rule.
William Shakespeare wrote:
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
Knyte
2010 SLF Tag Champ*
Title: Curator Of The VGM
Joined: Nov 01 2006
Location: Here I am.
Posts: 6749
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 06:38 pm
But, now isn't a precident set, so the child could also sue the state for "emotional distress"? They are the ones who said that she could see her mom, without receiving the concent from her mom to do so. So, when she came face to face, hoping to placate the maternal need that she had her whole life, she was tramatized by the emotional rejection of her mother.
That's why "emotional distress" is bullshit. It usually never flies except in these rare cases. You get in car wreck and sue? You'll get your hospital bills covered, your lost-wages covered, and at most $5k-10k in "emotional distress" or the other favorite sue-happy phrase: "pain & suffering".
In the vast majority of small claims cases, the judge will throw out any request for ED or P&S by the plantiff.
Hacker
Banned
Joined: Sep 13 2008
Posts: 3129
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 06:48 pm
I can see where she is coming from but the only words i can think of to describe her are "greedy whiny Bitch"
First of all, it never said she went to te hospital so there are no medical bills to pay. secondly it doesnt say anything about therapy so she doesnt need anything to cover that.
if she wins she should get enough money to cover court fees and an extra 700 just for dealing with that stuff but nothing more
Kubo
Joined: Aug 24 2005
Location: Mount Holly, NJ
Posts: 1062
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 06:57 pm
I could go on for a while about this, but I'll write my thoughts in quick format to save myself the effort and you all the TL;DR situation that would arise:
-Her failure to respond to the state's calls should not have been construed as "I don't care." It shouldn't have been construed as anything. The state should have continued to attempt to get a hold of her if they could not reach her, no matter how long it took.
-She is entitled to some compensation, as it likely would cause psychological distress.
-Not a million dollars
-More like a few tens of thousands
-Then again, any number I come up with is arbitrary (as is any other number that is thrown out there)
Thou, because I am wroth, be not dismayed, for I shall win the strife, whoever circle round within for the defence. This their insolence is not new, for of old they used it at a less secret gate, which still is found without a bolt. Above it thou didst see the dead inscription; and already on this side of it
descends the steep, passing without escort through the circles,
One such that by him the city shall be opened to us.
Douche McCallister
Moderator
Title: DOO-SHAY
Joined: Jan 26 2007
Location: Private Areas
Posts: 5672
Posted:
Jun 23 2009 07:01 pm
The bigger you go the more likely you will get atleast a fraction of that. Which is still substantial cash.
