California – A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that the parents of a woman who communicates largely by blinking have the legal right to fight on her behalf so that she can see her 3-year-old triplets.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Abbie Dorn 34, was left unable to move or speak because of a series of medical mishaps while giving birth to the children at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in 2006. She now lives in South Carolina with her parents.
Abbie and her husband, Dan, eventually divorced in a proceeding that left decisions over custody, visitation, property and child support until later. A trial is set for May 13.
Dan Dorn has refused to allow Esti, Reuvi and Yossi to visit their mother, arguing that it would be detrimental at their age. He and the children still live in Los Angeles. Abbie has not seen them for 2½ years, and the children know nothing about her, according to court documents and testimony in the novel and acrimonious case.
During a pretrial hearing on Tuesday, Vicki Greene, Dan Dorn’s attorney, argued that it is impossible to know what Abbie wants because she is incompetent, and that allowing her parents standing in the divorce case would set a “dangerous” precedent.
“There is no evidence that Abbie Dorn can communicate,” Greene told Judge Rudolph A. Diaz. “This is a classic case of grandparent visitation….If you give them standing, what’s to stop them from coming in and saying, ‘She blinked, you need to take the kids to a different school’?”
In April 14 2010 ABC News ran Abbie Dorn’s story
But Lisa Helfend Meyer, Abbie Dorn’s attorney, argued that Paul and Susan Cohen, Abbie’s parents and conservators, have a right to make decisions on her behalf; stripping them of that ability leaves Abbie without anyone to speak for her.
Other court cases have upheld conservators’ rights to determine medical care for people who have been declared incompetent, including terminating feeding tubes, an action that hastens death.
“If a conservator can do that, then why shouldn’t a conservator make a decision to pursue visitation?” Meyer asked. “It’s a fundamental right. Abbie is alive. She is entitled to pursue visitation. If she is denied the opportunity, she is denied equal protection under the law.”
Diaz disagreed with Greene’s contention that granting the Cohens standing would allow them — wrongly — to become stand-in parents to the triplets in Abbie’s stead.
“They’re not going to parent,” Diaz said. “They only want a right of visitation. They have the right to pursue that.”
At Greene’s request, Diaz ordered that Abbie undergo neurological testing. He also ordered that a child development specialist be appointed to help him navigate the question of visitation, which he described as “a very delicate situation.”
Greene had asked that Abbie be questioned and a video of that deposition be shown in court. The Cohens invited the media into their home to show a one-sided view of Abbie’s abilities, she said Tuesday, so it is only fair that she be granted access to Abbie as she builds her case for Dan.
Diaz said he would rule on that matter later.
Both sides claimed at least a bit of victory Tuesday.
Diaz “agreed that it’s a long cry before they’re going to actually have any visitation,” Greene said. The Cohens “still have to prove that Abbie is fit to exercise visitation.”
But Meyer characterized Diaz’s action as “a huge victory.” “If I were Dan,” she said, “I’d go home and tell the children tonight” about their mother.
As she told Diaz during the hearing, “the appropriate age has probably come and gone” for the children to hear about Abbie. “Those children should be told Mommy is sick. Mommy sleeps a lot. Mommy loves you. He didn’t have the guts to do that.”
It looks like the judge has more compassion than many of the posters here last week. B”H sanity and justice prevails.
whats really going on is that this woman is obviously a baalas tshuva, and her husband is nervous about giving any legal rights to her parents, who would not raise the children frum.
Davening that she have a refuah sheleima b’korov bsoch shaar cholei yisrael
i am mamesh crying. this is terrible. i hope the case is won in the mother’s/grandparents’ favor. she deserves to see her children and they deserve to see their mother. children are very resilient and pliable, and they will understand that “G-d made mommy very ill right now.”
let’s not be so quick to bash the ex-husband – this is a terrible nisayon for him too.
Commenters, please try to stay civil and understand that the father suffered and does not deserve the nasty loshon hora about him like the last article provoked.
He raised three children on his own and did a great job, al tadin es chavercha ad sheyagia limkomo.
Finally, justice has been served!
“Those children should be told Mommy is sick. Mommy sleeps a lot. Mommy loves you. He didn’t have the guts to do that.”
Well said.
The children have already asked why are they not normal like everyone else who has a mother. Sorry Dan, keeping Abby a secret is not the right thing to do. This is not an easy parsha, but Lisa Meyer is right.
such a rachmanis story.
while one can understand the difficult decision that her poor husband made to divorce this poor girl, it is such a chillul hashem to hear that this yiddishe man alienates his children from their mother. he should be allowing them to see their grandparents as well.
shame on him for exhibiting such callous behavior. maaseh avos siman labanim, mr. dorn
mommy sleeps alot? Maybe tell the 2 yr olds the truth that she will never wake up. This entire story is very sad for both sides. The children should judge for thenselves. Yes if they are uncomfortable they will say so.
At some point these children will find out the truth. How much trust will they have then if they feel they have been lied to? (even with the best of intentions?)
whats the story hear regarding the money won from the lawsuit? do the children get any of that? what about the husband?
Of course the children should see their mother so they’ll be able to be mispalel for her full recovery. עשה למען תנוקות
heres another idea 2 all the i-know-everything,how about since we r not involved and we havent gone through this and we dont know anything other than what the artice says,how about we stay OUT of all this,once again it amazes me how everytime theres a artice written,every1 decides 2 be the judge and be god,just read the article and move on instead of feeling u have 2 comment on everything!!!!
the media always distorts every story- no one can judge because we really dont know the facts. may Hashem help all involved and please stop loshon hara.
Don’t we teach our children to tell the truth?? If he lies to them now, he will never be able to undo the damage!! NEVER!! They will expect their mother to be ok by the time they are older and will get married so you cannot lie to them!! You must tell them the truth, gently, together with a professional if need be, and have the children speak to a professional after they see their mother each time. They are sensitive and may not confide in their father!! He has kept a Big Secret for a Long time!!! Now he will have to work very hard to build up trust, because now they will wonder, Does he have any more secrets and what are they?????Trust is precious and when you lose it — it is very hard to rebuild. It has to be worked on constantly!!! Personally, I do not think, this father has the time to work on it!!
Considering the fact that everyone is asidim liten es hadin on every word they utter here, and considering that nobody really knows what goes on in other’s hearts, and considering that we cannot fathom the amount of suffering by so many people…. why would anyone think it a good idea to comment on this story?
If Dan is seeking child support from Abby’s estate through the conservators (The Cohen’s), then they are saying that she is capable of participating financially in the care of the kids, that she is obligated to do so. Yet if she is in a vegetative state as they claim, how could she be obligated to do anything? I doubt legally there is an argument there but morally if you’re asking her for child support, then the very same basis that provides you the right to do that should provide the same right for Abby to see her kids and have regular visitation.
The truth is that the Torah states “Umibsorcho AL Tisalem” this refers to ones ex-wife. You must have rachmonus on your ex as one TAnna did for his ex wife. Therefore I hope Dan reads this: I’m sorry about the double tragedy, but know that its not about what you believe is in the best interest of the children; but rather you are obligated by the Torah to respect her Kovod. If there is any chance that she will be hurt by your obstinance, then you will be violating the Torah’s commandment of Umibsorcho Al Tisalem. I daven that she should have a refuah shleima and the children should have their healthy mother back. may Hashem open your eyes to understand what I have conveyed to you.
Everyone has an opinion. The only thing that counts is this: it’s a terrible tragedy for everyone. No doubt both parties genuinely believe they’re doing the right thing.
I just came across this sad story and not sure if the husband divorced Abbie after her sudden illness but who is to say this woman in herself is screaming that her only disability is not being able to move or speak but does know all that is happening only one who has been threw this can tell what is going on inside ones mind. The husband is being very selfish and I will keep abbie in my prayers for complete healing and may God intervene in her behalf and may he give her favor with lawyers and judges. Instead of interferers lets become intercessors pray for her healing!!!!!
To Dan,
If you are receiving etzah from a Rav….. time to get a new Rav, my brother.
I know the Dorn triplets and their father and he is a nice guy that has been through a lot. He is just trying to do what is best for the kids. If he brought his 3 year olds who wonder about their mother and they see someone so sick and disabled as abbie they will be scared and it will be very hard on them.
It will not be hard on them if he prepares them. Moreover, he hasn’t even told them she exists. He must think of those children. The longer he delays in informing them of the facts the HARDER it will be for them. At this age they are very accepting.
Dan didn’t give Abbie’s money to the in-laws – the money is Abbie’s, so how could Dan “give” it to them? Her parents were appointed by the court to oversee the money on Abbie’s behalf, as she is clearly unable to make those decisions herself. Her husband divorced her, so why should he be placed in charge of Abbie’s money?
Whether or not any money should have been earmarked for Abbie’s children would likely be in the court documents regarding the settlement and how the amount of money was decided by the court. But regardless, the money was never Dan’s, it was and still is Abbie’s.