Posted on 08/02/2006 10:39:35 AM PDT by Coleus
The father of a disabled woman who died last year is entitled to half her estate even though he had little contact with her during her life, a state judge ruled yesterday. Ruben Martinez of Staten Island will receive about $400,000 of the $1.1 million remaining in a trust established for the care of his daughter, Jennifer Rogiers, who was born with severe disabilities caused by spinal cord injury suffered during her breech birth in 1983.
The girl's mother, Rosa Rogiers of Weehawken, also received $400,000 and an additional $300,000 to compensate her for the years of care she provided her daughter. The money comes from a 1989 malpractice settlement. Jennifer Rogiers died at the age of 22. In granting Martinez the money, Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Olivieri dismissed claims by Rogiers that her former boyfriend -- the couple never married -- should get nothing because he was not involved in his daughter's upbringing and paid no child support.
After Olivieri left the Jersey City courtroom, Rogiers turned to Martinez and glared at him for several moments. "Enjoy the money," she said. "You know, there's a God up there and you're going to pay." Martinez called Rogiers a liar, before his attorney ushered him from the courtoom. In court papers, Martinez said he visited his daughter several times a year and Rogiers prevented him from spending more time with her. He also said Rogiers repeatedly resisted his offers of financial help.
"I was there for my daughter," Martinez said outside the courtroom. "These are lies." In issuing his ruling, Olivieri said the argument over Martinez's emotional ties to his daughter mattered little in the eyes of the law. Under New Jersey law, he said, biological parents retain parental rights regardless of how
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
So....he gets paid a hefty sum to be a deadbeat biological donor to a disabled child? I reckon its a good gig if you can find it. /s
This whole story is whacky from the inheritance to the previous malpractice.
http://www.wnbc.com/news/9572960/detail.html
>>>The issue arose because their daughter, 22-year-old Jennifer Rogiers died in September without leaving a will. The young woman, who was born with disabilities from a spinal cord injury during birth that left her unable to walk and required tube feeding, got a $2.5 million medical malpractice settlement in 1989 which was used to pay for her care.<<<<
Words fail me.
How do such stupid people exist who could be so cold and callous as to even ask for the money?
How do such stupid people exist who somehow rise to the level of being a judge?
Sort of. It would be nice to know the whole story.
My ex's first wife wanted him to pay child support in cash because she didn't have a checking account.... He did because I mailed it for him. Years later she took him to court for non-payment. I told him she would....
How do such stupid people exist who somehow rise to the level of being a judge?
You can't blame the judge for this. His ruling was based on the law. We complain about judges legislating from the bench, so why blame this judge for failing to legislate?
"How do such stupid people exist who could be so cold and callous as to even ask for the money?
How do such stupid people exist who somehow rise to the level of being a judge?"
Someone didn't kill the orginals when we could have prevented them from breeding.
I wouldn't doubt it. Some people have never let morals stand in the way of a buck. Or two.
I think I read the article and figured if the guy wouldn't commit to the marriage, it would be hard to see him diligently paying child support.
Also, I have a friend whose dad refused to pay child support and even sent his kids a certified letter telling them he wanted nothing to do with them. When he was taken to court for failure to pay, guess what he said? "I was denied visitation by their mom." Priceless, huh?
Don't worry the government will get most of it in taxes anyway. /sarc
Read the whole article.
She never applied for support.
If she had there would have been records of it and the women’s attorney would have submitted them as evidence. .
I said nothing about the sufficiency of the the $2.5 judgement to care for her. My comment was about the biological donor receiving payment for no discernable contribution to the daughter's life. I don't think he should be entitled to spawn children like a moose in rut and not have any sort of obligation to the child after that because he was lucky enough to have a child that was the victim of poor medical care.
Yes, spiteful people play all kinds of games. And, if I had spent 22 yrs caring for a daughter with no discernable contribution on the part of the father, who waited in the wings until she died to rape her trust fund for his own benefit, I doubt I'd be shuffling the softshoe and singing like Doris Day.
So was it not his child?
The guy says he visited, and tried to support the kid. There was a ton of money from the malpractice settlemnt so it makes sense to me why mom refused his money.
Why do you automatically beleive the mom over the dad? Hy call him a deadbeat when you know nothing about the case?
Why are men always automatically guilty in cases like these?
I have seen this happen more than once. It's part of the custody dance... get everything drawn out in court for longer periods, hoping that the offended party will give up and walk away from any chance of joint custody.
How could she have a will if she was disabled from birth?
To put a bit of a cynical spin on an old adage: Money conquers all.
That all depends on the law. The responsibility for making sure the law is fair rests on the legislators. The judge's responsibility is to apply that law without bias. If NY inheritance law is such that this is legal, then the judge is absolutely right to apply it as such.
Judicial activism wouldn't be any better coming from the right than from the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.