A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by spookyfish

Hello. Long time no see.

The following is a story from my own backyard, I'm sorry to say. I'd love to hear what you all think about it. Even though I don't really do this lawyering thing on a regular basis anymore, I think the negligence is a slam dunk, though I'd love to hear why any of you might disagree. That said, I'd be especially interested in what everyone thinks about the damages issue.

As a lawyer, I think that's a tough one to prove and even tougher to quantify. As a human being, I'm inclined to punch the mother in the throat.

As a lawyer and a human being, I'd like to punch her lawyer, Tim "Make Them Pay" Misny, in the throat on general principle. (He's a well-known TV PI attorney in these parts.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...0f0_story.html

ETA: Would be helpful if I posted the link to the story. Duh.
Discuss.

All I know about sperm banks comes from a Beavis and Butthead episode, so factor that in.

A woman looks through a book with candidates described. Tall? Smart? Athletic? And she picks one (Do they charge more for the mes of the world compared to the adders they may have in stock?). For a moment take the race out of this and make it, she asked for 6' father and got a 5'5" guy's stuff instead. This story really messes with the industry, because no one would ever know about a mistake between two donors of the same race, but obviously mix ups happen.

As to this case, in a world where a woman picks the father she is entitled to be pissed when she gets something else. Her explanation of the horrors the kid will face because of her all white town is bullshit, and hopefully she will love the kid, but she should have gotten the guy she picked.

BUT the kid is here and I swear its like some people don't get that the internet will still be around in 18 years. Little girl is going to read about herself and realize she wasn't what mommy wanted? No, you keep you mouth shut unless there was a potentially gazillion dollar payout.

And IRRC the damages for "wrongful life" are minimal, like maybe expenses. So she should dismiss her case, although maybe it is too late to hide all the press?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

All I know about sperm banks comes from a Beavis and Butthead episode, so factor that in.

A woman looks through a book with candidates described. Tall? Smart? Athletic? And she picks one (Do they charge more for the mes of the world compared to the adders they may have in stock?). For a moment take the race out of this and make it, she asked for 6' father and got a 5'5" guy's stuff instead. This story really messes with the industry, because no one would ever know about a mistake between two donors of the same race, but obviously mix ups happen.

As to this case, in a world where a woman picks the father she is entitled to be pissed when she gets something else. Her explanation of the horrors the kid will face because of her all white town is bullshit, and hopefully she will love the kid, but she should have gotten the guy she picked.

BUT the kid is here and I swear its like some people don't get that the internet will still be around in 18 years. Little girl is going to read about herself and realize she wasn't what mommy wanted? No, you keep you mouth shut unless there was a potentially gazillion dollar payout.

And IRRC the damages for "wrongful life" are minimal, like maybe expenses. So she should dismiss her case, although maybe it is too late to hide all the press?

Second this one. Kumbayah.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

All I know about sperm banks comes from a Beavis and Butthead episode, so factor that in.

A woman looks through a book with candidates described. Tall? Smart? Athletic? And she picks one (Do they charge more for the mes of the world compared to the adders they may have in stock?). For a moment take the race out of this and make it, she asked for 6' father and got a 5'5" guy's stuff instead. This story really messes with the industry, because no one would ever know about a mistake between two donors of the same race, but obviously mix ups happen.

As to this case, in a world where a woman picks the father she is entitled to be pissed when she gets something else. Her explanation of the horrors the kid will face because of her all white town is bullshit, and hopefully she will love the kid, but she should have gotten the guy she picked.

BUT the kid is here and I swear its like some people don't get that the internet will still be around in 18 years. Little girl is going to read about herself and realize she wasn't what mommy wanted? No, you keep you mouth shut unless there was a potentially gazillion dollar payout.

And IRRC the damages for "wrongful life" are minimal, like maybe expenses. So she should dismiss her case, although maybe it is too late to hide all the press?

In "wrongful life" cases, is there a duty to mitigate?

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by spookyfish

Hello. Long time no see.

The following is a story from my own backyard, I'm sorry to say. I'd love to hear what you all think about it. Even though I don't really do this lawyering thing on a regular basis anymore, I think the negligence is a slam dunk, though I'd love to hear why any of you might disagree. That said, I'd be especially interested in what everyone thinks about the damages issue.

As a lawyer, I think that's a tough one to prove and even tougher to quantify. As a human being, I'm inclined to punch the mother in the throat.

As a lawyer and a human being, I'd like to punch her lawyer, Tim "Make Them Pay" Misny, in the throat on general principle. (He's a well-known TV PI attorney in these parts.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...0f0_story.html

ETA: Would be helpful if I posted the link to the story. Duh.
Discuss.

I'm sorry. Do I know you?

[spookyfish]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

All I know about sperm banks comes from a Beavis and Butthead episode, so factor that in.

A woman looks through a book with candidates described. Tall? Smart? Athletic? And she picks one (Do they charge more for the mes of the world compared to the adders they may have in stock?). For a moment take the race out of this and make it, she asked for 6' father and got a 5'5" guy's stuff instead. This story really messes with the industry, because no one would ever know about a mistake between two donors of the same race, but obviously mix ups happen.

As to this case, in a world where a woman picks the father she is entitled to be pissed when she gets something else. Her explanation of the horrors the kid will face because of her all white town is bullshit, and hopefully she will love the kid, but she should have gotten the guy she picked.

BUT the kid is here and I swear its like some people don't get that the internet will still be around in 18 years. Little girl is going to read about herself and realize she wasn't what mommy wanted? No, you keep you mouth shut unless there was a potentially gazillion dollar payout.

And IRRC the damages for "wrongful life" are minimal, like maybe expenses. So she should dismiss her case, although maybe it is too late to hide all the press?

I thought "wrongful life"/"wrongful birth" cases were only recognized in a few jurisdictions, and neither cause of action should apply here. The only cause of action would be negligence and (mayyyyybe) breach of contract for not getting the "benefit of the bargain," but the whole idea of making it a payday on the basis of the discrimination the child may face is complete bullshit. The child is at least as likely to face discrimination based upon the fact that she has two mothers, it would seem to me. I'm sure the parents have been discriminated against for their sexual orientation and the hypocrisy of even bringing this case when they basically say in the article that they love the child completely pisses me off. I see absolutely no good coming from this.

[spookyfish]

Originally Posted by bold_n_brazen

I'm sorry. Do I know you?

Does anybody ever truly know anyone?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by spookyfish

I thought "wrongful life"/"wrongful birth" cases were only recognized in a few jurisdictions, and neither cause of action should apply here. The only cause of action would be negligence and (mayyyyybe) breach of contract for not getting the "benefit of the bargain," but the whole idea of making it a payday on the basis of the discrimination the child may face is complete bullshit. The child is at least as likely to face discrimination based upon the fact that she has two mothers, it would seem to me. I'm sure the parents have been discriminated against for their sexual orientation and the hypocrisy of even bringing this case when they basically say in the article that they love the child completely pisses me off. I see absolutely no good coming from this.

As to damages I'll defer to pony. But I only referred to my recollection of wrongful life as a data point for no $

[spookyfish]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

As to damages I'll decer to pony. But I referred to my recollection of wrongful life as a data point for no $

Gotcha. It was just really odd that you brought that up, given that was one of the first things mentioned in the complaint. Yet another reason I'd like to punch her attorney in the throat.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

As to damages I'll defer to pony. But I only referred to my recollection of wrongful life as a data point for no $

Pain and suffering. And the right jury. All you'll ever need. Typically we waive everything else anyway.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by spookyfish

Hello. Long time no see.

The following is a story from my own backyard, I'm sorry to say. I'd love to hear what you all think about it. Even though I don't really do this lawyering thing on a regular basis anymore, I think the negligence is a slam dunk, though I'd love to hear why any of you might disagree. That said, I'd be especially interested in what everyone thinks about the damages issue.

As a lawyer, I think that's a tough one to prove and even tougher to quantify. As a human being, I'm inclined to punch the mother in the throat.

As a lawyer and a human being, I'd like to punch her lawyer, Tim "Make Them Pay" Misny, in the throat on general principle. (He's a well-known TV PI attorney in these parts.)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...0f0_story.html

ETA: Would be helpful if I posted the link to the story. Duh.
Discuss.

Pure money-grab. At best, it's a breach of contract. Return their money if they give the kid up. Give them $1 in damages if they choose to keep the kid.

I think the child would actually be better off in foster care given the fucked up thought process these people have exhibited. And that includes this fantastically thought out sentence:

'“They took a personal choice, a personal decision and took it on themselves to make that choice for us out of pure negligence,” Cramblett said.'

That makes no fucking sense.

TM

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by spookyfish

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...0f0_story.html

They’re seeking as damages the cost of therapy bills, from therapists who’ve offered such nuggets as:

Therapists have recommended that Cramblett, Zinkon and Payton move to a more racially diverse community with good schools, the lawsuit said.

Hepful.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

They’re seeking as damages the cost of therapy bills, from therapists who’ve offered such nuggets as:



Hepful.

See, if they hired a therapist who gave them advice like "grow a pair" or "man up" I would have been more sympathetic.

Yeh, I would make a bad therapist.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

In "wrongful life" cases, is there a duty to mitigate?

Sick fuck.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

See, if they hired a therapist who gave them advice like "grow a pair" or "man up" I would have been more sympathetic.

Yeh, I would make a bad therapist.

That's the beauty of the Texas version: Cowboy up.

NB: In the part of Texas I lived in, this word was essentially gender-neutral in most contexts. I also offer that "strap on a pair" could just as easily refer to spurs. In many contexts.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

They’re seeking as damages the cost of therapy bills, from therapists who’ve offered such nuggets as:


Therapists have recommended that Cramblett, Zinkon and Payton move to a more racially diverse community with good schools, the lawsuit said.


Hepful.

First, they sound more fucked up than their neighbors likely are. Second, I'm pretty sure they ain't moving to any diverse place.