Posted on 04/03/2007 6:15:39 AM PDT by ShadowDancer
Community Sues To Oust 3-Year-Old
Child With Drug-Addict Mom Lives With Grandparents
POSTED: 3:04 pm EDT April 1, 2007
LARGO, Fla. -- A Florida homeowners group wants 3-year-old Kimberly Broffman to take her Big Wheel and hit the road.
They've banded together to oust the toddler from their Tampa-area community, which bans residents under 18.
The child's grandparents, Judie and Jimmy Stottler, admit Kimberly's been living there in violation of homeowners' association rules for three years. They said her mother has a drug problem, and isn't capable of caring for the child.
The grandparents said they live on a fixed income and can't afford to move until they sell their house. So far, there have been no takers to buy their house, even after they lowered the $189,000 asking price by $10,000 six months ago.
They also said they can't afford to hire an attorney.
Judie Stottler supports the family with her $18,000-per year dishwashing job because Jimmy Stottler is disabled and is unable to work.
Judie Stottler's friends told the St. Petersburg Times that they are worried.
"It is so ridiculous that this has gone so far," said Keith Tinsley, a cook who works with her. "She's trying her best to sell her house. It's like they are trying to force her to put Kimberly in foster care.
"These people keep batting her down and batting her down. They're just mean."
Judie Stottler said she is scared that she wil lose her house before she is able to sell it.
"We don't have any family to take us in," Judie Stottler said.
The Lakes homeowners association filed suit to oust Kimberly last month.
Ultimately, no matter how well you teach them, they make their own decisions.
I'm not sure the parents should get the blame for another adult's bad choices.
There are a lot of grandparents raising grandkids nowadays.
The only shameless party here is the one attempting to ignore the rule of law because it's financially inconvenient for them to abide by it. I'm amaze at the number of leftists posting to this thread...
You are a piece of work. Anyone who thinks a contract freely entered into should be upheld equates kicking babies to death because the people who broke the contract want to play the victim card.
----
I found something quite ironic on your homepage. You lament the 'rise of the the Federal BEHEMOTH'.
Um....what single act BEGAN the increase in size of the federal government....hmmm? (Hint- it was the Civl War)
Ironic how the situation in the article equates that point in history.... People failing to live up to their already-agreed upon contractual obligations.
And here you are, suggesting people should bear false witness and not live up to their oaths or affirmations!
You should be ashamed of yourself.
LOL! Glad I'm not the only one!
;-)
I think the HOA is being cruel. From what I’ve heard on this story, the grandparents had hoped that their custody of their granddaughter would be a temporary situation until the mother of the child could clean up her act. Obviously, that hasn’t worked and they have now accepted the responsibility for their granddaughter. God bless them for doing the right thing.
So a year ago, after deciding that they were going to be permanently raising their granddaughter, they put their house on the market. It has not sold yet. In my opinion, the HOA should be helping the grandparents, not threatening them. It is obvious after seeing the grandmother in an interview that they WANT to move as soon as possible! They want their granddaughter to be other children, they want a back yard for her to play in, and they want to downsize.
Surely the people who live in the HOA can back off and do the right thing by allowing these people to continue to care for their grandchild while trying to sell their home. It’s such a simple thing.
When politicians say "it's for the children" I bet you're one of those who mindlessly jumps to put aside all reason to be manipulated by such loathsome and unprincipled appeals to emotion. Step back and take a good look at what you're agreeing to here.
The difference, of course, is that they were not parties to the contract.
Better luck next time peddling your soap.
Yeah -— when we moved to a new area/school, my son met a classmate who was the sweetest kid. We later learned that his mom was a druggie and that he was being raised by his grandpa. By the time we met them, the grandpa was diagnosed with cancer. We got to know them fairly well and the poor kid lost his grandpa last year. He has a good family of support now, but his grandpa was so worried about what would happen to his grandson when he died. He was such a good, caring man and it crushed him that his daughter turned out the way she did and that, even his illness, wasn’t enough to motivate her to get her act together.
“Don’t like the restrictions - don’t move there to begin with.” I understand that, but this couple could not have anticipated they would be raising their grand child. I’m sure as empty-nesters, they didn’t have a problem with the restrictions at the time. And they’re making a good faith effort to leave the restricted community. “I know from experience I will never live in such a restricted community again.” Exactly, but you didn’t anticipate what a nuisance those restrictions would be at the time, did you?
Like I said, from what I heard it sounded to me like during the first two years the grandparents still held out hope that their daughter would get her life together so she could raise her child. When that didn’t happen and they realized that they would have to become the permanent parents to their grandchild, they put their house on the market.
But that is past history. The HOA wants them to move. The grandparents WANT to move. They have their house on the market. If the HOA could tolerate the past three years, surely they can now be patient enough to allow this home to be sold without persuing a lawsuit. Do they think that a lawsuit will help this home sell faster?
I realize there are rules. I’m fine with that. But I’m also a firm believer in good old fashioned commonsense. I heard this morning that an attorney has taken their case pro-bono. Nice to know there are still kind people in this world.
I knew what the restrictions were when I moved in. It’s kinda hard to complain about them when I voluntarily signed them.
Let’s look on the other side. You move into a neighborhood because you don’t want kids around. Someone moves in a kid. The HOA doesn’t do anything about it and suddenly the neighborhood is awash with kids because the rule cannot be enforced. You’re wobbling down the street and some kid runs you over with a skateboard and you break your hip.
All because YOU moved into a neighborhood assuming the rules meant something.
OK. So how long is long enough in your opinion? And if the HOA will tolerate a break for 3 years, shouldn't other members be able to break this rule as well? After all, their grandkids are just as important.
"Just because you can't get someone to agree fast enough to suit you doesn't give you the legitimate authority to usurp their rights."I want to start in the middle, because, well, that statement misses in the middle. It's just two non-related statements, with a demand in the middle.
I do not agree with your demand, btw. What is that demand? That I, and by inference, the young child and her guardians, have no legitamte authority.
And what's the sandwich you place that demand in? In between "Just because you can't get someone to agree fast enough to suit you", and "their rights".
Last is first here, we must deal with that last assertion first. What rights? You assert that they have some right to ban children, to enter into a contract to ban children. Is that a right?
I do not agree there is such a right. I hold that such a ban is void before the law of Nature's God (to use the term from the Declaration of Independence).
One of society's most important roles is to protect the next generation -- even atheistic Darwinists would agree with that! We all were children once, without children who will care for us and support or social necessities -- run our sewage plants, fix the water pumps, run the hospitals and grocery stores, farm the food, doctor and nurse us in our old age? How rude -- and how ridiculous! -- it is to deny children a place in our lives.
Laws and contracts that ban children from living in this place of that are spreading poisons -- cancers to the protection and encouragement of the next generation. They are ANTI-SOCIAL.
Such laws and contracts are as void of any authority as are contracts for murder, for illegal activities, for slavery -- and for the same reasons.
Now that it is clear that such laws and contracts are anti-social and illegitimate, thus that there is no "rights" to them -- let me deal with the first part of that sandwich whcih you placed on my plate.
Should we wait and talk things over and agree all gentle-like?
LOL! In these times of all times to suggest that waiting for a polite discussed settllement while a wrong is underway is proper behaviour! Are you channeling Nancy Pelosi?
I’m lucky that I have never had any issues with drugs in my family. What frightens me is that today’s drugs of choice seem particularly addictive and destructive. If your kid screws up one time, it could be all over.
I get that. But they aren’t trying to ask the HOA to ignore the rule. They’re leaving — they just need to sell the house.
No, they want the kid out of the neighborhood, which is one of the rules. Why don’t you adopt the drug-child?
Look I’m not heartless I’m a family values guy myself, but 3 years seems more than sufficient time to sell their house. If the HOA doesn’t move to enforce these restrictions they eventually become moot, so they have no choice. What happens when another homeowner decides to bring children into this community, are they now going to be entitled to ignore this covenant for 3 years? The HOA has already bent over backward for these people allowing them 3 years, what more do you want from them? If covenants aren’t enforced, eventually they become legally unenforceable.
Yes, all grandchildren are created equal. I doubt that the HOA in this particular story is going to have a breakout of motherless grandchildren because this unfortunate set of grandparents did. How long is long enough? I'd say until their home sells. I could understand the outrage if these people were refusing to sell their home, but they're not refusing to do so. They've even dropped the price on their home. What more do people want? Do you actually think these people should just give their home away? Walk out, close the door and be homeless themselves?
If I lived in that HOA, I would do everything I could to help these people sell their home, and I'd even babysit for them. Kindness doesn't cost a penny, and the results can be miraculous. :)
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.