Suing Parents Over Childhood Grievances

Quote:

---

Quoting benjaminwood8

---

I understand. At this stage i am just doing some informations checking. I will be making contact to get some Australian legal advice shortly.
I do not understand the concept of -this late stage-. It is something that i have just recently and continue to overcome and have had the sanity to look at realisticly. I also look at it in a positive way as the continuing support for someone who has been money orientated and basically 'evil' (not just from my own point of view). Now that she has been shown to be NICE to people generally the consequences would be better placed now as it will benefit me to get on with life and serve as a reminder to respect people. How would you consider the time period is of importance rather than quality of life and what is well deserved?

---

Then let me put it into US terms....

You don't have a dog in this fight. You cannot sue your parents because you want to blame someone else for your crappy decision making.

Time to be a grown up and stop blaming your childhood. People have had great lives after far worse childhoods than yours.

If every adult who made bad decisions could go back and sue their parents, do you have any idea how over crowded the system would be? You've been making bad decisions for 8 yrs, take ownership of them. If you don't, history is bound to repeat itself.

Because what is moral and what is legal are two very different things. Typically, once you reach adulthood, the burden of becoming a productive member of society falls on you, regardless of what a crappy childhood your parents provided. It's unfortunate that neither you nor anyone else (police, courts, social services, friends, etc.) was able to tie childhood issues to your adult behaviors, but none of that will put any legal burden on either parent for choices that you made as an adult. Sometimes people have to try a lot of harmful coping skills like drugs, promiscuity, crime, or what have you before they figure out that it's time to face the demons in life instead of running or medicating them away. In short, parents are legally allowed to be bad, emotionless, unsupportive, greedy, money-loving, non-loving, all around lousey people. As unfortunate as that is, it isn't the basis for any court anywhere putting expenses you've incurred in adulthood on their shoulders. You might have had a lack of parenting growing up, but once you hit adulthood, the responsibility falls on you to figure out what's going on with your behaviors and get the help you need, whether it be from counseling, therapy, self-help books, watching Dr. Phil or what have you. Even the parents of adult serial killers don't get held responsible for the actions of their children (at least not legally).

Now that you're getting life back on the right track, get yourself some professional assistance to help you address these issues and come to a realistic outlook on what things you can and can't control and how to best move forward from here.

Quote:

---

I do not understand the concept of -this late stage-.

---

You don't grasp that at nearly thirty, it's time for you to put on your Big Boy Britches and get on with things?

I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but come now. As has already been pointed out, when you reach adulthood, it is incumbent upon YOU to fix what is broken and move on.

Quote:

---

How would you consider the time period is of importance rather than quality of life and what is well deserved?

---

What do you think you deserve, at your age? And from whom?

Your life is what you make of it. If you look closely, you'll find damaged people all around you. They coped, they got counseling, they got over it, and they don't blame Mummy and Daddums for every bit of suck in their lives.

A wise one once said "You've got to put your past in your behind." Find a good counselor so you can do exactly that.

The fortunate circumstance is that counseling is what put me here. Would you not agree that if i can slip on a grape in a supermarket and take legal action that this would be somewhat more productive. I would agree with all of what you say, take responsibility for my actions. Apply this to others. If becoming a productive member of society is the issue, dont you think a 62 year old continuing the behaviour may have an impact on those 'other' constructive members of society. I would also agree with you, my body, my lungs, my job, my future. The distinct side of the legal system is not to apply blame, it is to provide an avenue to which society can function to a constructive degree. Do you not think i have also provided the guidance once again to my mother for HER wellbeing regardless of her actions, and also that of a child who will be going through the same things that i did becuase of her ignorance. I can speed and be fined. But the argument parents have a right to be bad, non supportive etc etc is totally redicilous. If you cant raise children to be respectful to at least a somewhat decent degree, dont have them. (i have no children). Yes we all make mistakes, hence the resposibility taken by me for my body, my job etc etc. I would agree that there are people far worse out there, i have just hopefully stoped one from becoming that person who continues the cycle of abuse and neglect from the SAME woman who shows no respect or compasion for others. I think your point is 'grow up'. I would totally agree, i am 28, she is 62. I didnt have any guidance from a family that obviously needed support, and yet in helping myself i have helped the very people who cannot raise children. I beleive this to be wanting something in return, a quality of life, stopping the cycle. Given that i do take under my wing, bankruptcy, bad credit, loss of 8 years earnings, homeless shelters, loss of education (of which i am fixing at my own expence), loss of relationships, loss of childhood.....perhaps this is my point in saying at this late stage. It is starting your life over....so my question remains. If i am to be a constructive member of society of which i am doing community services in order to help those. Would it not be fair (not blame) to apply these consequences (like a speeding fine) so it doesnt happen again to others, like grand children. If all ties are cut then that wont be the case, however i am still stuck with the burdens of no parenting and what realisticly are her consequences manipulated onto others, i have had counselling to resolve my issues in 28yrs. I am not questioning the horrific situation that HAS occured, i am questioning the horrific situation that will be placed on other members of society like yourself. Given that this woman has not paid one bit of child support, provided no positive emotional support, and continues to abuse and neglect people. And essentially destroy a persons life when SHE has a multitude of options, and yet i now do not. Blame is not the right word, i think it is more learning to stand up for yourself. You can see my argument relating back to the grape. Life is not fair, i agree, money, travel, cars, houses, etc etc. But being nice is free. providing guidance is free (+ or -) but for those who apply their lack of self worth to a child when they dont take the self help rd....well...another 'productive member of society' that may very well destroy your home, your life, your relationships, may become a raging alcoholic and drive and kill one of your family members.....a 35,000$ debt i feel would psycologically keep her ties with the letter of the law and also promote respect. As i have dealt with enough consequence. And ill be the first to admit no matter my age, i had the emotional state of less than a 12 yo. In fact my 11 yo nephew is more mature. Are you not totally disgusted by the implications of this woman? Legally, morally and otherwise...

To answer your question also, what do i think i deserve? A future, options, the respect i deserve, to be a supportive member of the community and also now the return of consequences to those who do not promote self help, but rather self and others disctruction. I now am looking to move out, whilst the young boy is probably going to the state. Funny but if i didnt have these consequences he would be living with me, eating healthy, enjoying a movie, some security and continuing his productive education so he himself ca have the support to change like a child should. Hopefully you understand the degree to which the consequnces flow.

Quote:

---

Hopefully you understand the degree to which the consequnces flow.

---

Big Boy Britches.

Put them on, hitch them up.

If you can find an attorney willing to take on this nonsense, more power to you. But it's my understanding that the courts in Oz are even less willing to entertain these ridiculous notions than the US courts are.

Good doctor, bad patient.

I would also extend your opinion the fact of these consequences will show and improve my parenting skills. These skills have been gained through support, not consequnce.

Quote:

---

But the argument parents have a right to be bad, non supportive etc etc is totally redicilous.

---

I agree. However, that doesn't make it less true in a legal arena. Until someone passes a law that says that mommies and daddies have to play and laugh and have fun and be cuddly with their children, they can get away with not doing it. Similarly, child abuse and neglect laws center around children having enough food, weather appropriate clothing, sanitary drinking water, reasonably sanitary living conditions, and a lack of physical abuse. Beyond that, parents are allowed by law to be crappy parents.

Quote:

---

If you cant raise children to be respectful to at least a somewhat decent degree, dont have them. (i have no children).

---

Morally, I agree with you 100%. Legally, you can't stop them and you can't make them love unwanted children they DO have, you can only make them provide miminal levels of care as outlined above, or remove the children if those minimums aren't met.

Quote:

---

Would it not be fair (not blame) to apply these consequences (like a speeding fine) so it doesnt happen again to others, like grand children.

---

Again, you are confusing fair or right, with LEGAL.

Quote:

---

If all ties are cut then that wont be the case, however i am still stuck with the burdens of no parenting and what realisticly are her consequences manipulated onto others, i have had counselling to resolve my issues in 28yrs. I am not questioning the horrific situation that HAS occured, i am questioning the horrific situation that will be placed on other members of society like yourself.

---

It's a dog eat dog world, that's for sure. Sometimes you just have to have faith....either in God or in natural selection.

Quote:

---

Are you not totally disgusted by the implications of this woman? Legally, morally and otherwise...

---

Yep, I'm pretty disgusted. I've seen LOTS of misery that can be directly attributed to parents acting just like yours. However, it doesn't change any of the LEGAL structure of what can be done to hold mom accountable after the fact in a civil court. If she's abusing others, THEY will have to deal with her in their own context.

Again i agree with YOU, famine, world war, natural disasters. Instead of helping to resolve the issues of people who actaully appreciate things, like the young boy, and myself did ( Unfortunately appreciating the wrong things through example). The connection you are making is 'you cant chose your family'...however i should have the option to help those to an extent that makes me happy and others in a constructive manner. I have also through my travels met people that have been sexually abused, entire bodies burnt, long term alcoholism etc etc. So being that i have had to resolve these issues through conversation and my own hard work, the restrictions placed on me i find discusting. Everything happens for a reason as they say so quotes etc are rather pointless. Legally there has been a lack of food, shelter, involvment in criminal behaviour etc etc. For a population of people who can pay millions for a thirty second snippet on tv to make money, but yet i have the replies saying these things are legally acceptable. On a brighter note, in my own mistakes in saying self help at a younger age may have helped me resolve many issues, again a roll model of being emotionally stunted to the point of not working, running from his problems, excluding a child who prefers to paint than use computers, sleeping on the side of the road moving interstate and living in a tent. Constant verbal abuse to those in society as to 'why me why me' attitude. Legally the approach is ery long term, small change builds a brighter community, weeding out the sh*t shall i say and 'do it yourself'. This very opinion leads me to believe that a baby dropped in a dumster as a child as i felt emotionally is perceived to have the life skills given any environment (put on your britches). Not the case. If there is positive guidance then people become positive and negative, negative. For a society of people who can buy million dollar homes, cars and yachts. Dont you think legally someone wanting to make a + difference shoudl be perceived a little more important. Legally i could have stabbed my mother as a child and probably got 6 years for it (discussed with a counsellor-and have have read in the newspaper). However i am stuck with a 35 year sentence of depression and unhappyness from consequence. and moreso from the inability to provide the care to others that would have made a huge difference to alot a people. So if it sounds like blame, there is your answer to that. So no, not blame. Realism. The law is guided by a sence of self protection of past wrong doings, like the liquor industry and the problems it causes, as with gambling. The fact of the matter is, if people cared it would not happen. So coming off an 8 year drug addiction from marijuana and ice coming back after a two week break from employment to have to resolve the abuse issues that put me there in the first place.......perhaps i should 'slip' on a grape and put my hip out for two months and get a few hundred thousand. But then that would be wrong too. "Grow up" i have. I think it is about time others do also to not allow this behaviour to happen again. You cant save the planet, but you can certainly make a difference in anothers life if people allow it.

And also dont exclude like everyone needing support, perhaps the legal system does also.

Lets not forget also that verbal abuse and physical abuse also applies to those around them. Not just the person it is directed to.

Maybe if I type it slower....

All of us wish our parents had done some things better than others.

Regardless, you cannot sue your parents for screwing you up any more than, if you had become wildly successful, they could sue you for giving you life and the genetic makeup that allowed you to be successful.

Once you pass 18, on your head be it.

Oh, and here is a BIG bag of punctuation, paragraphs and white space.... I am NOT going to wade through a big block of text just to hear how mean your mommy and daddy were to you...

Because it makes no legal difference.

First off, i am not looking for your sympathy as your paragraphs seem to surround. I am looking for the legal stand point behind 'once you turn 18'. I have also become aware of people abused as kid and in their 30s suid as it has a emoitonal devastating effect on such people. I would agree the legal age is 18 and is defined to set a min age of full legal responsibility for ones actions. On the other hand it DOES make a huge legal difference both from my past and those people in her future regardless of age. Not just to the individual but also the community, crime drugs wrecklessness and the continuing cycle of abuse in friendships/relationships. Hence im asking for someone to explain the standing on 18 & too bad. At whatever age if the promottion of 'not caring' is there....this has a profound impact on the community...where do your taxes go? for community support programs, to pay employees of such, hospitals, roads that the very people who create these problems use. Your argument around if i was highly successful is rather flaud, and is based around 'a dog eat dog' world. The promotion of constructive behaviour is the issue or lack their off and also the general basis that EVERYONE has a right to be treated with respect. That doesnt fall under 18 or over. It falls to them both. So again...could you please aswer the question as to why the legal stand point is 18 years old on such issues, when these issues will impact my life for 35 years? Society is built to be constructive, not destructive, to be able to live with relative freedome and independance except of ones choosing. Plain and simple...there is a right way to raise children and a wrong way. Right way good...wrong way bad...for EVERYONE

another unbroken block of rambling text. Who didn't see that coming?

After the age of 18, on your head be it.

THIS ISN'T EVEN IN THE US.

Go away.

Be a grown up and stop blaming mommy and daddy.

I would like to delve into the issues of ignorance however i have become aware of the devasting effect that has. I can see we both have a little to learn from each other, stay positive my friend.

Delve into your issues with your shrink, bub.

This is a LEGAL forum, and no one cares about your boo-hooing.

Man up, for dog's sake.

Quote:

---

Quoting benjaminwood8

---

I would like to delve into the issues of ignorance however i have become aware of the devasting effect that has. I can see we both have a little to learn from each other, stay positive my friend.

---

I am not your friend.... I already have enough crazies in my life... hell, BlueEagle is even on my friend's list.

Delve into the issues of ignorance somewhere else.

You don't want a philosophical discussion... you want someone to tell you that, even as a grown man, it is still all someone else's fault.

And it isn't.

Dear god, another imbecile blaming mommy and daddy on account of his screwed up life!! He's in this position because of HIS action/in actions! It has nothing to do with his mommy never hugging him!!!

Some part of me is itching to make some comments and throw out a few questions here but to make my point abundantly clear I'd have to cite some things I've read about legal theory and I'm not a lawyer so, before I jump in the fray and disappoint "benjaminwood8" with the real truth about the world he lives in I need to know just how far I'm sticking my neck out. Is it enough for me to make clear that I'm not a lawyer and therefore not giving legal advice yet citing information that I know about the law and that confirms my PERSONAL opinion about "the way things should be" without getting slammed for "practicing law without a license"?

What Benjaminwood8 needs to also understand is that he is not alone. Look at the unemployed mom of 6 who wanted a big family so she had 8 more. Did I mention unemployed? Oh yeah, and living with her parents in a 3 bedroom house. You think your life is unfair? 8 of them aren't even 2 months old! How about the parents? I'm an educated woman who makes a good living and it's hard with 3.

We all aren't born with silver spoons. If you want to help a cause....try planned parenthood. Thats where it needs to start, not with a trip to the fertility Dr.

And I don't know how many times you need to be told, there is no legal grounds to go after your mother.

Quote:

---

Quoting PeekABoo

---

Some part of me is itching to make some comments and throw out a few questions here but to make my point abundantly clear I'd have to cite some things I've read about legal theory and I'm not a lawyer so, before I jump in the fray and disappoint "benjaminwood8" with the real truth about the world he lives in I need to know just how far I'm sticking my neck out. Is it enough for me to make clear that I'm not a lawyer and therefore not giving legal advice yet citing information that I know about the law and that confirms my PERSONAL opinion about "the way things should be" without getting slammed for "practicing law without a license"?

---

C'mon in, the water's fine.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

C'mon in, the water's fine.

---

Jeff! You could sue your parents for the way you turned out? HAHAHA! Only kidding. You're a decent guy. Sout of...

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Jeff! You could sue your parents for the way you turned out? HAHAHA! Only kidding. You're a decent guy. Sout of...

---

In the words of Olympia Dukakis (Steel Magnolias): "Spoken like a true smart a$$"

Quote:

---

Quoting M'sta Mikey

---

"Spoken like a true smart a$$"

---

Bless you sir. Being a true smart is has always been my life ambition!

Quote:

---

Quoting M'sta Mikey

---

In the words of Olympia Dukakis (Steel Magnolias): "Spoken like a true smart a$$"

---

Or...."if you can't say something nice about a person, come sit by me"

Well, Hmmm, let's play "devil's advocate" here, so-to-speak. Now if I have this right this fella isn't in the US so I don't know how it would fly in another country but, though it ain't common, sometimes someone in the US comes along and takes another someone that "ain't got no dog in [a particular] fight" and finds them a dog. Take the Karen Silkwood case, for instance. Before Jerry Spence came along, people in her parent's position "didn't have a dog in that kind of fight". Then Spence comes along with the "Tiger let loose from a cage" argument and his dog wins the fight. So, just for a moment, here, let's see if we couldn't find this fella a dog. I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand what I've read about the (US) law, marriage is a contract, right? If it is, then children could arguably be considered "creditor beneficiaries" to the marriage contract. As creditor beneficiaries, children would be owed a debt and that debt could arguably be that they are given all the nurturing they need to stand on their own two feet as adults. If the parties to the contract cheat a child out of that, and they enter adulthood deficient in what they need to be truly productive players, then it could be said that adult child was cheated out of his contractual rights. I guess at this point what I would be wondering is when does the statute of limitations toll? Could it be argued that it tolls from the point in time someone realizes they were cheated, especially if they were cheated in a way that would make it highly unlikely they would uncover the cheat? Expert witnesses could be called. There are plenty of scientific findings out there showing the actual damage done to the developing human brain when it comes to neglect. Some of these findings show that this damage is done to the area of the brain that manages stress. If that's the case then it would be plausible that the "cheated" adult child was unable to deal with the real world because of the stress doing so causes (because the part of the brain that handles stress is broken) and that "throwing them out there into it" in such a damaged state would be the same as breaking their leg and requiring them walk on it. However, this being a damaged brain instead of a damaged leg, the injury is further compounded because they're in a situation that makes it quite plausible that they can't really use their minds in a way that they can understand or figure out, much less articulate, where the damage really came from and why. When the fortunate few who, like this OP, finally do get enough recovery to start getting their minds back and realize what happened, and how they were cheated, then it's time for the statute of limitations to start tolling, perhaps?

As far as there being plenty of people who've gone through much worse and not screwed up their lives as much as the OP, would one argue that someone injured in a car accident that's someone else's fault should not be compensated because other people have been in far worse car accidents that were someone else's fault and walked away without a scratch?

Quote:

---

As creditor beneficiaries, children would be owed a debt and that debt could arguably be that they are given all the nurturing they need to stand on their own two feet as adults.

---

Except that nowhere is such a right legally conferred. The states have set forth guidelines on what parents MUST provide, and those provisions have already been spelled out.

Quote:

---

Except that nowhere is such a right legally conferred. The states have set forth guidelines on what parents MUST provide, and those provisions have already been spelled out.

---

The fact that the law at present nowhere legally confirs such a right seems a shoddy excuse for not working to change that. At one time the law didn't confer the right for a child to be treated better than a farm animal. As a society, we realized something was wrong with that and did something to change it.

Quote:

---

children having enough food, weather appropriate clothing, sanitary drinking water, reasonably sanitary living conditions, and a lack of physical abuse.

---

I was going to make the comment that since scientific findingss can argue for the presence of damage to the brain where certain types of neglect exist then that is physical abuse. But, I'm assuming physical here means in the sense of battery where a "touching" would need to occur.

In any case, because I've seen you post your personal opinions in other posts on this matter, I know at least that you agree with the damage certain forms of "legal parenting" can cause. I guess my question is this: why do those of us who know this to be true throw our hands up and say "the law won't allow us to do anything about that." It seems to me if we really valued what we say we believe, we'd collectively stand up and do something about it. Maybe the truth is we feel we're dealing with a situation so complex we can't see our way to the fix. What I fear is that what we're really saying is that as a society, we value a parents right to emotionally and psychologically abuse their children. And because we value that, we don't care to do anything about it. And, quite frankly, that's more than just a little bit scary.