Grandparents sued for keeping girl.
@littlemissmistress (187)
United States
April 4, 2007 4:41pm CST
Here's the story, basically:
(Article can be seen here: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/01/Northpinellas/Grandparents_sued_for.shtml ))
A couple moves in to the Lakes, a 55+ year old community. They agree to not have anyone under 18 reside with them, because it is against the rules.
Meanwhile, their daughter, who has three children (two live elsewhere) one including a 6 month old baby.
The daughter cannot take care of the baby, so she gives her to her parents.
But they signed the papers agreeing that they wouldn't let anyone under 18 reside in the house, so they agreed they would move out in October of 2006. The child is 3 1/2 years old now.
They didn't and they are now being sued by the Lakes to have the child leave.
What do you think of this situation?
-----
My opinion:
They need to leave, and that is all there is to it. I don't care about their incomes or situation. They signed the agreement. They knew the rules.
If they want to sell their house, then they need to have the child stay elsewhere; Where are the daughter's other two children? Couldn't she stay with them for a while?
The article I referenced it aimed toward soft hearts, but they didn't find one in me. It said they were "forcing"them to put the girl in child care. Bull. They have other options. Friends, other relatives, even having one grandparent stay in a motel with the girl; there are options that would remove her from the situation.
It has been allowed to go on for too long. They should just make the move and stop with the controversy.
3 people like this
11 responses
@neuroticnymph (13)
• United States
5 Apr 07
I understand that the grandparents shouldn't have kept their grandchild with them for so long. However I believe it's cold to demand that they get rid of the child. But when you say childcare, do you mean a daycare or social services. Putting a child in the social services system can pretty much be a kiss goodbye and if you do get them back they'll always be in your lives in some little way until the child is 18. In my opinion you're reaction is a tad too cold. Shouldn't we feel a little human compassion?
1 person likes this
@danishcanadian (28955)
• Canada
7 Apr 07
That's what they get for living anywhere where there are restrictions. They should not have been there in the first place!! I personally, would never move into such a place, for that exact reason!! Circumstances change, and one can never tell what adaptations they will have to make in their lives.
@LilyoftheThorns (12918)
• United States
4 Apr 07
Sure they signed an agreement, but they didnt plan on having to take care of their daughters baby. If it wasnt for them the baby wouldnt have a home, at least not a good/happy one. I think it is kind of them to take in that poor baby, and they shouldnt have to leave because of the unfortunate events that led up to them helping this baby.
@willfe (149)
• United States
4 Apr 07
Legally? Yup. Throw 'em out on their butts. The reporting here (in the article, not in your post, littlemissmistress) is sensationalist and is blowing this out of proportion.
Still, I have to ask: just how bitter and grumpy do you have to *be* to be unwilling to let grandparents help their children?
There has to be more considered here than just the "letter of the law." There's that whole "spirit of the law" thing, but I'll leave that out of it for now -- just be really glad we don't always get held firmly to the exact letter of law (and that we're not always held precisely and exactly to every single stipulation in every contract we sign), or this world would seriously suck.
Ultimately, yes, these grandparents agreed not to move in any kids into their home, and yes, this community has the legal right to toss them out for moving one in anyway. They're just not going to win any humanitarian awards for doing it.
1 person likes this
@4cuteboys (4099)
• United States
4 Apr 07
I think that they should just move out, since they signed the agreement/contract they are bound by the four corners of the document and they will not win in court. They were put in an unfortunate situation thanks to the daughter, however they are still bound to the contract so they should move. I don't really feel sorry for them , just sorry for the baby. The baby is the innocent victim here and the grandparents are just wrong in this situation. They can sell the house and live elsewhere until they sell the place then rebuy in a new *NOT*senior development.
1 person likes this
@cutepenguin (6431)
• Canada
5 Apr 07
To be honest, there are consequences to every action people take. Yes, it's very good they took in their grandchild, and that child has a right to grow up in a happy family, but in the same token, the other residents have a right to the terms they agreed to when they moved in.
Why can't the grandparents move with the child? When they took the child, they became responsible for figuring out how to keep the child.
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
5 Apr 07
who in there right mind would want to live where children are not allowed they are our future I am old but would never live in such a place!
@revdauphinee (5703)
• United States
5 Apr 07
who in there right mind would want to live where children are not allowed they are our future I am old but would never live in such a place!
@cdparazo (5765)
• Philippines
5 Apr 07
I think that rules are there for certain reasons and I bet there is a very good reason why the Lakes have such rules. The grandparents are aware of the rules and were given more than enough time to prepare and plan. I agree with you that there are other options and the Lakes couldn't just make an exception with them because it would set a precedent. Like you, I think that they should leave too or consider other options.
@retardedrugrat (4791)
• Canada
5 Apr 07
I'm sorry but I feel that people are being a little TOO cold with this.
Sure the grandparents of that little girl knew the rules when they moved into that community, but if you read the article it states that the child was left with them when her mother ran off. She didn't just "decide" to take her in knowing the rules. They were left with very little choice. What should they have done? Handed her to social services to never be seen again? Give me a break!
In the eye of the law yes, they are in the wrong for having a child live in a place that doesn't allow children under the age of 18, but they also are trying to sell their home so they can keep their grandchild and I applaud them for that. I do think it's wrong of the association to be suing these people for trying to do whats best for all concerned.
What the hell happened to trying to come to an agreement till that couple can sell their home? By forcing their hand in this, things for that young girl could get sticky very soon, and as much as the couple are in the wrong, I cannot find it in my heart NOT to be compassionate towards them.
