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, if he had sent the money, and she wouldn't accept it, then I suppose there would be documentation, right?
Call it bias or call it experience, but 9 times out of 10, it is the guy singing the song this guy was singing. But, you're right, sometimes it is the woman being a fiend.
The point is, if biological donation is all he can demonstrate of his parternal contribution, what's the need for the $400,000....?
My ex-husband was held to the fire, made to pay child support as a part of his probation for his offense of child abandonment (time 2). I hadn't seen or heard from him in four years and he would move everytime Child support recovery found him. So after being forced to pay or jail, he sent a birthday gift (first one in five years) and sent a note "Hope you had a good birthday... (her birthday was three away still) and I would like to see you, but your mama won't let me..."
I let her read it so she could see. The last time he saw them I drove them an hour each way for the visit. They are not fools, they know I haven't kept him from them.
Moral of the story: Get a Will.
>>>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. >>>
Oh whatever.
If he sent her money orders, he would have receipts. Dated for how far back?
I guarantee this jerk decided she didn't 'need' the money since she got the settlement and didn't bother paying.
As far as the law is concerned need has nothing to do with the question is he entitled to the money.
Nothing in the article says that he ever denied she was his child.
So it was up to the mother to demonstrate that he owed child support. If she never sought child support how can he be held responsible by the court for not providing it
I don't know the reason, but it's the law.
I strongly suspect your 9/10 is closer to 5/10, having recently spent a LOT of time in family court
Yeah, my friend's mom had let her see the letter he sent originally, so when he claimed the mom wouldn't let him see her, the court ordered mediation. She politely and respectfully told him to get stuffed. She was no dummy either.
He was between wife #3 and #4 by then. This is Texas, it all came down to "prove it" or lose it. He lost.
Yea, that's fair.. you botch a delivery, have to pay a penalty for your malpractice, and when the victim or your incompetence dies, you get the money back... yea, that makes a whole lot of sense.
Good God, you are gullible. Read a biased reporting, clearly written with an agenda and swallow it hook line & sinker.
If she wants to deny him his legal rights to his inheritance the burden is on her to prove that he was negligent in support.
Nice thing about our legal system when someone wants to deny you your rights the burden of proof is on them.
Bingo, it's a jungle out there.
That had nothing to do with the ruling, only her subsequent claim for back child support. Under the current NJ law, even if a parent completely abandons a child and avoid paying court-ordered child support, they are still entitled to the intestate share of their child's estate. That's why it is so important for people to have a valid will that clearly designate who gets what.
I stand corrected.
I could have worded that better.
She is not entitled to back child support because she never requested child support in the first place.
>>>Good God, you are gullible. Read a biased reporting, clearly written with an agenda and swallow it hook line & sinker.>>>
Yeah, let me guess. The mother, who took care of this child herself (not putting her in a home even though she could have afforded it) physically kept this man from a) paying his child support, and b) seeing and taking care of his child.
Yeah, and you say I'M gullible.
>>>If she wants to deny him his legal rights to his inheritance the burden is on her to prove that he was negligent in support. >>>
How do you prove a negative? How do you prove someone DIDN'T do something? You seem underqualified to be on this board.
She refused any support, as stated in the article, and probably refused any proposal of marriage, etc. She also barred him from seeing the kid. If anyone is a POS here, it's the mom for denying the dad.
Glad you admit to being gullible. Makes the whole discussion more simple with that kind of honesty.
Did your skip your 3rd grade reading comprehension classes, and all thereafter? Geez, re-read what he wrote, it's not proving a negative, it's proving he HAD an obligation! Not so subtle diference.
From the article.
(Judge) Olivieri also rejected a motion by Rogiers to force Martinez to pay years of back child support.
He said he based that decision on the fact Rogiers had never sought child support while her daughter was alive and that the legal purpose of child support no longer existed.
If she never sought child support she has no legal standing to seek back support, whether he ever paid support or attempted to has no bearing.
If you are not going to read the entire article please refrain from making foolish comments.
So--why didn't he make copies of the cancelled checks?
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.