Posted on 02/28/2005 1:47:24 PM PST by TAdams8591
VICKIE CHACHERE
Associated Press
TAMPA, Fla. - Terri Schiavo's parents asked a Pinellas court judge Monday to allow her to divorce her husband - in either life or death - in a court filing accusing Michael Schiavo of adultery and not acting in his wife's best interests.
The filing was one of a flurry of 15 motions filed by Bob and Mary Schindler as they now have less than three weeks to find a legal way to keep their severely brain-damaged daughter alive.
Terri Schiavo is scheduled to have the feeding tube that has kept her alive for 15 years removed March 18 unless her parents can convince an appeals court to block Michael Schiavo again. Michael Schiavo says he will have the tube pulled because his wife once told him she would never want to be kept alive artificially.
David Gibbs, the Schindler's attorney, said Pinellas Circuit Court Judge George Greer has indicated he will not hear the divorce request and five other motions filed Monday - but that only means that the matters are now on their way to being appealed to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland........
Terri Schiavo's parents ask judge to let her divorce husband
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
From what I've read, he has not.
It would appear, Michael has violated it in all kinds of ways.
Interesting that Michael is so concerned about protecting Terri from choking to death while simultaneously pushing to STARVE her to death.
Good point!
LOL!
An attorney friend has looked over the pleadings to have Michael Schiavo removed, and he noted a number of serious defects--reliance on hearsay evidence as causes of action, et cetera.
Bottom line: if you come to court to argue a position that is radically at odds with "presumptive" law (i.e., what the law defaults to without any pleadings being filed), you'd better have solid reason for doing so, and be able to back up that reason with solid evidence.
Also, Michael Schiavo's managed to use some of the dumber moves by the parents as counterarguments, including the times they hired some real out-and-out quacks.
No.
On his wedding day every husband makes a promise to take good care of his wife that is supposed to last his whole life. Some of us can't or won't make it work that whole time, and when we decide we will not keep that promise anymore, when we're (forgive the harsh term, I mean no offense to the divorced) "done" with our spouse, then it's time for the divorce lawyer.
Michael Schiavo made that promise, and then some years later he told a jury he needed a hefty settlement so he could take care of his wife for the rest of his life. Now, he might change his mind about that promise, just as some men change their mind about their marriage vows. But it was a promise, and he isn't following it anymore. And we're not talking about a guy who's got a fickle pickle and is hoping to not get caught, we're talking about a guy who desperately wants out of his promise, and has been fighting in court for years to get out of it.
I cannot think of any better signal you're done with someone than to move in with them, have children with them and then deny the old model food and water. And when you add that he's been signalling that he's done with her through the courts for years, I see no reason the court shouldn't make his "being done" with her a reality. After all, I've never heard of any man having to fight this hard to get out of his marriage.
Michael Schiavo should get equal justice under the law: A diivorce. Any questions?
Terri's parents say he hasn't; the courts say he has. The issue has been litigated around the mulberry bush several times over.
Ain't YOU the lucky one!
Mine goes on to mention both the method, AND what would come prior.
It makes me believe that were I selfish & foolish enough to seriusly contemplate, let alone actually committ such a breach, that I would be wishing I had married Lorena Bobbitt instead!
OOPS!
This...
"I cannot think of any better signal you're done with someone than to move in with them, have children with them and then deny the old model food and water."
...should have been this:
I cannot think of any better signal you're done with someone than to pick a replacement, move in with the replacement, have children with the replacement and then deny the old model food and water.
He became eligible for a no-fault divorce 3 years after Terri was incapacitated. Why doesn't he file for one?
But a guardian also has the fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of his ward. Not allowing any treatment AFTER winning money based on the expense of treatment, not allowing swallowing tests or even test feeding, restricting visitors, fresh air and stimulation, getting involved and having children with another woman, etc.... all definitely not in the best interest of the ward.
It would have been so easy to avoid all this controversy by just assigning a professional guardian to Terri. I think alot of people could have lived with that decision, even if it was to remove the tube if she had been given every shot at rehab.
Interestingly, early on she did have a guardian ad litem, and when the report went against what Michael wanted to do, the GAL was removed for bias!
The whole error in this case (and in your line of thinking) is that anybody has the "right" to demand that another human being be forcibly starved to death - regardless of what their claims as to the wishes of that person. One of the biggest flaws in this line of reasoning is that it disallows the retraction of a statement made in ignorance, once the person is faced with the reality of the situation. Is it not within the realm of reasonable doubt that Terri would reassess her position now? Shouldn't we be cautious about condemning a person to death for some possibly ill-advised words? Shouldn't we always err, when reasonable doubt exists, on the side of life?
We put people in jail, and rightfully so, if the person starving is a child and the "guardian" is a negligent parent.
Of course, maybe the parents in child abuse cases should make their defense the old "they wouldn't want to live this way, dirty diapers and unable to take care of themselves - they told us so" argument.
You want consistency in law - the law that protects children from the abuse and/or negligence of their parents, protects this woman also. If the law can't protect her, how can it protect children from evil parents?
Yeah. Ain't that interesting?
Um...mine too, actually. The phrase (from the TV Show Roseanne "she stabbed him until her hand cramped up" has been used.
But she really is a sweetheart, she just likes to make her feelings known on certain issues...
A bit SCHIZO, wouldn't you say?
No, Michael's long been talking out of both sides of his mouth; he's consistent only in saying whatever he can to get money.
1) wants her to die so he can get money; and
2)doesn't want anybody to know she can swallow food and water because then they'll be witnesses to say she can swallow (which would allow more food and water given to her) and he doesn't want that to happen because he wants her to dies so he can get money; and
3) if people know she can swallow, she will possibly get therapy to improve her swallowing, and get therapy for other things, and he doesn't want that to happen because he wants her to die so he can get money.
so, Michael pretends Terri can't swallow and says since she can't swallow she'll choke if given food and water or communion host, because that makes it sound like he's really not a monster.....so he can withhold giving her any food in any form, so he can get money.
He knows Terri can swallow; everyone knows Terri can swallow. he just doesn't want people to realize she's been swallowing her own saliva for the past 15 years....and, therefore, has a capability of swallowing more than that.
Michael knows Terri won't choke to death if she's given food.
Short answer: Michael just wants Terri dead so he can get the rest of the money.
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.