The WM Parenting Connection

Image by Pandiyan via Flickr

Abbie Dorn, who was left paralyzed after doctors botched the c-section delivery of her triplets in 2006, has finally won the “right” to see her children.

For those who may be unfamiliar with this story, Abbie’s husband Dan divorced her after doctors left her paralyzed during the surgery to deliver her babies. Abbie is being taken care of by her parents, and ex-husband Dan has denied Abbie and the children’s grandparents the right to see or even speak to the children.

He does however, want some of Abbie’s $8 million malpractice settlement, although the triplets have received settlement money of their own.

The father has stated he doesn’t want the children to know of their mother’s condition or existence, fearing it would traumatize them. He has allegedly even denied the children a picture of their mother and refused all communications from Abbie’s parents.

This case brings up many questions. First of all, since when have marriage vows said, “in sickness and in health,’ til death do us part, unless you get so injured that I don’t want to be married to you anymore, in which case I’ll get a divorce and just pretend you no longer exist”?

Is it just me, or is this man selfish, self-centered and shallow? What lesson is he teaching his children by his behavior – that disabled people are to be shunned, stigmatized and ignored? Is that really a message you’d want your children to be raised with?

Dan Dorn’s lawyers have made the argument that Abbie is so disabled by her injury that she is an unfit mother. Abbie’s lawyers countered that while Abbie may not be able to have a traditional mother/children relationship with the triplets, they, and she, at least deserve the right to see and know one another.

I agree with Abbie’s lawyers. Children have far more resilience than adults generally credit them with. Those children have a right to know their mother is alive, that she hasn’t died or abandoned them. They have a right to know their mother. And Abbie has a right to know them; she gave her health to give them life.

And what about Abbie’s parents? Do they not have the right to a relationship with their grandchildren? Do the children not have a right to a relationship with their grandparents?

Do we need to be concerned for the welfare of those children? Apparently the father believes that loved ones are disposable if they’re disabled. What if one of the children gets injured – would their father dump them like he did their mother?

What is this man going to say to these children when they grow up and start asking these kinds of questions? What do you say? Do you think Abbie and the children have a right to see each other? Or do you think that Dan is right to shield them from seeing their severely disabled mother?

Is Abbie Unfit?