1. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. There IS no common law in Florida. It is NOT recognised. Your argument doesn't hold water.
2. He got money, yes. It was spent on Terri's care, $700,000 of which was controlled BY THE COURTS. The rest went to Michael, which he was FORCED to use on attorneys because her parents couldn't deal with the truth. There was ONLY one million. Not 1.4, not 1.6, ONE. There is NO life insurance monies to be had. This argument REALLY doesn't hold water.
3. She wasn't a drain on his *new* family. She was his WIFE. If she was, he would have simply divorced her, which WAS an option under Florida law. Your argument does not hold water.
4. He kept her alive for 15 years just to piss off her parents? How stupid does that sound now that you look at it? It would have been EASIER on him to divorce her and let her go to them. Your argument does not hold water.
5. Her parents were allowed to see her whenever they wanted to. Michael would go down the hall to a different room when they did. It was Terri's MOTHER who decided that after Easter she just couldn't take it anymore. As for at the end, it wasn't MICHAEL who made them leave. It was Hospice, who wanted to perform an evaluation who asked them to leave. The brother of Terri had a cow and was escorted from the building. The mother and father weren't even on the premises. Once again, your argument doesn't hold water.
6. She WAS allowed to receive sacrements. She was unable to take the wafer, however, she was served WHAT SHE COULD SWALLOW of the wine. Your argument doesn't hold water.
7. He has the right, as every spouse does, to bury his wife where he wants to. Don't you want to be buried with your husband? I do. Don't her parents want to be buried together? Creamation is NOT against Catholic law. This has been documented. Would you want a circus of mediaand the wacko protesters seen at the hospice at the funeral of your loved one? If so, what's wrong with you? Your argument does not hold water.
8. Yes... they did start to help take care of Terri. WAY after her heart attack. Her parents WERE hurting her, keeping her shell of a life not even viable. I wouldn't allow my children to remain in this state, just because I had a selfish need to see them. Your arguments don't hold water.
Now.... You may have answered, however, none of them address what his motive was. You haven't answered me sufficiently. I think many people on this group would love to know. The *facts* her parents are spewing, simply aren't facts. Court documents do not lie. The facts the parents have been stating lately, have contradicted what they stated to the judge in the court.
I would really like to hear back from you on this. Please address my points one by one, so that I may (or may not) be pursuaded by your rebuttle. I would like facts. Facts that support your version. Not emotional/religious diatribe, but facts.
Thank you.
Linda
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by janelle
I answered this in another thread.
His common law wife wanted to get married, he got all the money that was coming and now it was going to be used up on her care, she was a drain on his new family, and he didn't want the parents to take care of her because of all the fighting and he hates them.
No matter what anyone says a spouse should let parents see their dying daughter, he can step out for the time they have with her. Let her receive the sacraments of her church with interfering and let her be buried in her church without interfering. The last two are freedom of religion and if he was denying her that he is the control freak.
The parents hurting her is rediculous. How could they cause her heart attack? She had her brain injury way before they took care of her.
|