Severely disabled mother wins visitation rights (crimes, world, history, great)

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I know parents that raised their children totally deaf-blind. Their children came out happy and healthy. Amazing, isn't it, how things aren't an issue if you don't make them one?

Those parents were apparently able to communicate and interact in other ways. I'm sure they didn't just blink and smile to everything their child said to them.

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

The mother cannot respond to the children other than blinking. Blinking does not a good bond make.

Also, children may unconditionally love by default. So maybe what the mother is wanting is for someone to still love her, after her husband left her (and not one of us could say what we would do in that situation, so it would help for the comments about the father to stop). Maybe the mother has selfish reasons for wanting the visitation, if that's even what she wants. It could be the grandparents wanting her to have visitation. WE DO NOT KNOW.

What is so hard to understand about a mother (or even a set of grandparents) wanting visitations rights? It doesn't make them selfish to want to form a relationship with those kids. Obviously she'll never be a hand-on parent but she deserves to know them and they deserve to know her. Blinking yes and no answers can make a stronger bond than you might imagine....especially for children who look at that kind of communication as a game. My husband has had a hard earned vocabulary of 25 words for the past 10 years and children have more patience than adults to sit play the yes/no game with him and to help him with his language/gestures homework. Exposing children to people with disabilities makes them more compassion and empathy adults.

I have no doubt that it's the father who doesn't want to see his former wife the way she is now and he's projecting those feeling onto their children. It probably makes him feel guilty and traumatized for not standing by her. 50% of all marriage fail when one person gets disabled because the healthy one can't handle the challenge, heartbreak and loss of their former way of interacting. That in itself doesn't make him a bad person, but keeping the kids from his x-wife is still unforgivable. Since the judge, who heard from all sides and every manner of expert, ruled against him that speaks volumes, don't you think?

[hothulamaui]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

Have you ever heard how some people have children b/c they want someone to love them? THAT is selfish.

Using a child to have someone to love you is selfish. It IS natural to want to be loved, yes, but to jerk a child around or have them for the wrong reasons is simply selfish. Not saying that's what happened here, but it could be why she wants to have contact with them.

Like I've said tens of times in this thread, I don't have enough info to make a firm argument for or against. Just playing devil's advocate b/c I'm one of the lucky ones who can see things from both sides, at least on topics such as this.

in this thread you really haven't taken the mother's side at all so seeing both sides is not what you are posting.

most people want to be with their kids for selfish reasons.
you want to assume this woman is capable of having the ability to have selfish motives, yet isn't capable of anything more than a blink?

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Um, once again, the conditions that the court granted her do not involve her fixing them lunch, etc.

Because apparently the court only needs a warm body to act as a parent before granting visitation.

And a real expert in child psychology would probably tell you that if these children are denied seeing their mother at all, that's going to cause some very unhealthy hostility towards their father in a few years.

I would agree with that. But again, we do not know all the circumstances involved in the case. What the father is doing is protecting his children, not trying to keep them away from their mother. They are too young to fully grasp what is going on and why Mommy isn't responding to the things they say and do.

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by Neuling

That is my point. Humans simply like other humans, whether they benefit from it or not.
Again, there are other adults present, nobody expects the mother to do any parenting as such.

Children are much more sensitive and flexible than we think. They learn how to handle the darker sides of life such as illness or death, especially if there are other adults by their side.

So then what is the point? Everyone here seems to concede that she is not a parent to these children, aside from the fact that they came out of her. The lesson you all want to teach is for the children to cope with injury and illness? That makes no sense. The children want a mother.

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by hothulamaui

all children grow up with "baggage" if that was an issue when a judge issues visitation rights than the mean abusive, drunk parents that see their kids every other week should also not be allowed visitation.

we are not talking about an abusive household, where the kids will be hurt or neglected.

the grandparents can surly make the kids visits pleasant and fun. how she reacts to them, expresses love towards them, along with your other concerns are not truly relevant. the kids will be supervised, again if they had visited her all alone the kids would have a feeling of comfort just by being there.
if the children are scared, that fear is on the father for not allowing them to be a part of her life from the start.

Sooo, the visitation granted is intended more for the grandparents?

Here we go, back to blaming the father. You may not agree with his decision, I certainly don't, but he is doing what he thinks is best, and I tend to agree with the decision he made to not allow them visitation with her until they are older (since he had already cut off contact), able to understand better, and hopefully by then she will be able to communicate better.

[Jill61]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

I voted Undecided. I'm not sure how healthy it is for the children to see their mother like that. And what about the mother? If she can understand enough to answer yes or no to a question (and that is debatable), she can probably grasp everything her children are saying but can't respond appropriately. That probably kills her inside. What is the Skype call going to do to help either party? For the children, it's probably more about touching her and physically being with her. The mother probably just wants to watch her children grow up, but Skype may just frustrate her since she cannot respond adequately to the things her children say and do. I know all this sounds pretty random, just giving my thoughts on the situation and why we need more information. I would not say she is "unfit" from the evidence given in the article. But definitely, more info is needed before I can say I agree or disagree with the judge's decision. Yes, it's ironic that her injury occurred during birth, but that does not entitle her to visitation privileges if she cannot be a proper parent.

The notion that you'd need more information to determine if the judge, who has all the information (or did you manage to miss that somehow?), made the right call in affording this woman and her children an opportunity to bond, is offensive beyond the extreme. Despicable, even.

Originally Posted by andrea3821

Yes, but you don't know how this affects the children mentally. I have worked with children who have been removed from broken homes, and you would not believe how intuitive children are.

Oh give us a damn break. This is hardly a "traditional" broken home.

Originally Posted by andrea3821

They pick up on EVERYTHING. The fact of the matter is that it may not be psychologically healthy for the children to visit with her. The interactions they have with her are likely not fulfilling and they may develop an unhealthy attachment to her.

There is no such thing as an unhealthy attachment to one's mother when you're 5 years old!

Originally Posted by andrea3821

The early years are so important, psychologically speaking, and this could have a big impact on them. Again, I don't know the whole situation, but there is definitely another side that has apparently been looked over by the whole lot of you...the emotional health of the children.

Which HAS BEEN LOOKED OVER BY THE JUDGE. Jesus!

Originally Posted by andrea3821

This is not about the mother, it is about the children. And that is why the father is not "vile" or whatever other adjectives that have been used to describe him in this thread.

Yes he is vile. Where is that "sanctity of marriage" crap your side always trots out, huh? The woman was turned into this condition, GIVING THAT MAN THESE CHILDREN. And he disrespects her and breaks his vows before G-d and the universe to abandon her and steal her children. He's even worse things than I'd be allowed to call him.

But you're here being his apologist.

Color me disgusted.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

Have you ever heard how some people have children b/c they want someone to love them? THAT is selfish.

Yes. I have. But I don't see how just wanting to see the kids you've already had is selfish. If anything it shows you actually care about your kids. I'd be pretty worried about a parent who never cared to see their children.

Using a child to have someone to love you is selfish. It IS natural to want to be loved, yes, but to jerk a child around or have them for the wrong reasons is simply selfish. Not saying that's what happened here, but it could be why she wants to have contact with them.

It's not like this mother is bossing her kids around or treating them like little servants. She just wants to see them. I don't get how that is so selfish. Just wanting to spend time with your kids is selfish?

If the mom was able-bodied, would anyone be arguing that she DOESN'T have the right to just see her kids? I doubt it. This does boil down to disability, because if this were a totally able-bodied mother, this whole issue wouldn't have even made it to court.

Like I've said tens of times in this thread, I don't have enough info to make a firm argument for or against. Just playing devil's advocate b/c I'm one of the lucky ones who can see things from both sides, at least on topics such as this.

I can understand some of the concerns you have, for example, the children feeling guilty they caused their mother's disability. But even if they don't see her, they may still feel guilty. Issues like that should be addressed. Any adults in the children's lives should make sure to help them understand it wasn't their fault. It just doesn't doesn't justify keeping a mother and her children apart, though.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by andrea3821

So then what is the point? Everyone here seems to concede that she is not a parent to these children, aside from the fact that they came out of her. The lesson you all want to teach is for the children to cope with injury and illness? That makes no sense. The children want a mother.

The children have a mother. She's severely disabled and cannot care for them like a "proper" (your word) mother would. That doesn't mean she has less than no place in their lives.

The lesson that you seem to "want to teach" is that the disabled are non-humans.

[andrea3821]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I have studied up on child psychology. I was adopted at age 3 so I have studied A LOT about attachment patterns and attachment disorders. Funny how I had issues with my parents, even though they were completely able-bodied.

You can show love by letting someone hug you. By holding a hand. You can show love by just being with a person.

Where did I say she had to take care of them? Visitation rights just means them being able to hang out. I know if she only move her eyelids, she can't give them a bath or cook them dinner. Where is anyone in this thread arguing for that? Visitation rights just means they get to spend time together. Anyone can do that. Look at Stephen Hawking. He's theorized about the whole Universe, written books, and been a professor for decades, all with severe ALS.

Kids don't inherently fear disability unless it's taught to them that it's somehow bad or negative by the adults in their lives.

What the heck? I never said they fear disability! Again, you are personalizing this.