Googly Eyed Tomatoes Exposes Entitled Brats

by admin on August 30, 2011

Ooooh, you all are going to LOVE reading this story.

 

Adult children’s ‘bad mothering’ lawsuit dismissed

Raised in a $1.5 million Barrington Hills, Ill., home by their attorney father, two grown children have spent the last two years pursuing a unique lawsuit against their mom for “bad mothering” that alleges damages caused when she failed to buy toys for one and sent another a birthday card he didn’t like.

The alleged offenses include failing to take her daughter to a car show, telling her then 7-year-old son to buckle his seat belt or she would contact police, “haggling” over the amount to spend on party dresses and calling her daughter at midnight to ask that she return home from celebrating homecoming.

Last week, at which point the court record stood about a foot tall, an Illinois appeals court dismissed the case, finding that none of the mother’s conduct was “extreme or outrageous.” To rule in favor of her children, the court found, “could potentially open the floodgates to subject family childrearing to … excessive judicial scrutiny and interference.”

In 2009, the children, represented by three attorneys including their father, Steven A. Miner, sued their mother, Kimberly Garrity. Steven II, now 23, and his sister Kathryn, now 20, sought more than $50,000 for “emotional distress.”

Miner and Garrity were married for a decade before she filed for divorce in 1995, records show.

Click here for more of the story.

 

The remaining part of this news article describes the “inappropriate” birthday card as being American Greetings card that had a picture of tomatoes spread across a table that were indistinguishable except for one in the middle with craft-store googly eyes attached.  The inside printed sentiment was,  “Son I got you this Birthday card because it’s just like you … different from all the rest!”   Mom had the audacity to write, “Have a great day! Love & Hugs, Mom xoxoxo.”

Cruel, sadistic mother!  Her nefariousness is compounded even further when she failed to put any money in the card.  Folks, we are witnesses to the greatest evil ever inflicted upon poor, innocent children.  Googly eyes.   Got that?  Googly eyes plus no money is a deprivation tantamount to emotional abuse.   You all watch out because if I ever put a picture of a googly eyed vegetable in my responses here, you will know that I intended the highest form of ugly commentary on you I could think of.

Spoiled rotten brat, um, ahem (cough, cough), I mean Kathryn Miner, aged 20, claims being told by her mother to come home at midnight from a homecoming party and having a budget restriction for a dress were all deprivations so profound that years later she is irreparably damaged.

As someone in the article’s comments noted, the internet can be forever and deep stupidity such as this will live on in infamy for DECADES (cue the horror violins).  What employer or future spouse would ever hire or date either Kathryn Miner, age 20, or Steven Miner II, age 23?  If either adult child turns out to be a ne-er-do-well, can we say we were surprised?

I am disappointed that the judge in this case, Kathy Flanagan,  declined to assess sanctions against the children’s lawyer, who just happened to be their father, Steven A. Miner.  Remember that name all you Chicago area readers…do you really want to hire this kind of idiot attorney?   Flanagan should have slapped Miner with paying Garrity’s legal fees for bringing a frivolous, ridiculous, and obviously vengeful lawsuit on behalf of his kids.

{ 122 comments… read them below or add one }

YWalkalone August 31, 2011 at 12:31 am

Reading the link to the court document someone else posted makes me roll my eyes like slot machine spinners. One of the complaints is elaborated thusly: “Garrity refused to purchase Kathryn a dress for homecoming in 2007. She provided an automobile, but at midnight, when Kathryn was with her friends, Garrity allegedly contacted Kathryn and made her return the automobile. Moreover, Garrity allegedly related this incident to a female priest at a church where Kathryn worked as a lay assistant. The priest then spoke with Kathryn regarding the incident. As a result, according to the complaint, Kathryn believed that God was angry with her and was unable to set foot in that church for several months because she believed that ‘everyone was looking at her with disfavor.’”

Some more incidents that are apparently worth suing your parents and ruining a family relationship for life include:
-Garrity refused to pay half of the cost of an over-the-counter skin medication purchased by Kathryn, and
-Prior to Garrity’s remarriage, Garrity allegedly lived together with a man. (It is not
clear from the complaint whether this man is the man that she eventually married.) Garrity told
Kathryn during visitation that this behavior was appropriate because they were engaged. The
complaint states that Kathryn “was so stressed that she gained significant weight as a result.”
-After the divorce, Garrity remarried and changed her surname, thus “causing attention”
whenever she attended events at Kathryn’s school because of their different surnames.

Can you imagine?! “Mom, I’m suing you because you didn’t pay me $2.50 for my Noxzema and because my teachers noticed that you and I have different last names. Really, these infractions are so egregious that I’m surprised no one’s reported you to CPS yet. Expect a motion from my lawyer on Friday.” Also, if incidents like the ones above cause an 18-year-old “emotional damage”, methinks her skin is so thin, it’s translucent. Imagine what will happen if a classmate at college doesn’t invite her to the weekend kegger?

Reply

YWalkalone August 31, 2011 at 1:06 am

Oh, and who knew life imitated art? (Fast-forward to 3:50).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFWOJJOmTWU&feature=related

Reply

ArtK August 31, 2011 at 1:30 am

@bunnyface

According to the court documents, the father had sole custody of the boy and they had “joint” custody of the girl. The “joint” custody being weekend visits with the mother.

Sometimes we reap far more than we sow. The only evidence of the mother’s misbehavior is a list of very minor complaints. Things that make the average teenager say “I hate you forever mom” and then get over the next week. If that’s the absolute best that they had, then they had nothing. Which makes me think that this was just another exercise in harassment by the ex.

Reply

Jolie_Kitten August 31, 2011 at 1:52 am

Weren’t there some (sarcastic) awards for wackiest lawsuits?

Reply

Jade August 31, 2011 at 3:02 am

Yes count me in as another whose mother made her eat her vegetables, pick up her dirty clothes off the floor and put them in the hamper, *gasp* vacuum, wash dishes, come home by 10pm AND finish my homework before I was allowed to watch TV!!

Maybe we could all form together to launch a class action against our respective mothers, although honestly I’m more inclined to buy mine a bunch of flowers and a nice card (with googly tomatoes of course!) letting her know how grateful I am that she gave me boundaries and curfews and rules and made me into the person I am today, which I’m sure was no picnic for her as I was a very door-slamming type of teenager.

The mother is entitled to never do one single thing for either of those ungrateful little monsters ever again in their lives. Pack them off to their father and let him deal with the entitled little ingrates he enabled. Then kick your feet up on the couch and have a well earned glass of merlot!

Reply

Peter August 31, 2011 at 5:56 am

My mother used to tell me “nobody promised you that life will be fair, did they?”. Apparently, these kids didn’t get the memo. YWalkalone, I am indeed glad I won’t be meeting wasn’t of them. Because they would stuffer emotional abuse of me not liking them, and I’m not too much into the whole sue me sue you thing.

Reply

Sarah August 31, 2011 at 12:58 pm

After reading the court decision, assuming the list of complaints is true, the mother seems like a pretty lousy person. It baffles me that the lawsuit included this really ridiculous stuff about not sending care packages or not including money in birthday cards, and they apparently didn’t realize it would distract from the worse stuff. But you don’t get to sue just because your parents are lousy people.

Reply

Asharah August 31, 2011 at 1:13 pm

“Garrity refused to purchase Kathryn a dress for homecoming in 2007. She provided an automobile, but at midnight, when Kathryn was with her friends, Garrity allegedly contacted Kathryn and made her return the automobile. Moreover, Garrity allegedly related this incident to a female priest at a church where Kathryn worked as a lay assistant. The priest then spoke with Kathryn regarding the incident. As a result, according to the complaint, Kathryn believed that God was angry with her and was unable to set foot in that church for several months because she believed that ‘everyone was looking at her with disfavor.’”
Okay, I think the lawsuit is garbage, but I wonder about the Mom’s motives for discussing a private family incident with the priest and having her confront her daughter about it. It seems to me she might have been trying to embarrass her daughter.

Reply

Robert August 31, 2011 at 1:41 pm

@Kitty Lizzard I had to stop reading the comments when I got to yours. The primary legal definition of barratry is a lawyer pursuing frivolous litigation for his or her own benefit. In this case the benefit was revenge against an ex-wife instead of money but the term was used appropriately.

Good God, even in maritime law mutiny is a secondary meaning. Primarily it means when the master of a vessel (i.e. the captain) uses the vessel for purposes contrary to the owner of the vessel. An example would be when a captain uses a vessel to smuggle contraband without the owner’s knowledge.

No offense intended but if you took the time to actually look up the definition of a word your eyes might not bleed so much.

As for the story I kind of feel sorry for the kids. They have been in the primary care of their father since they were 3 and 7 respectively. I doubt they will ever have a normal life or a normal relationship after what their biological male parent (I just can’t use the word father again in this context) has subjected them to for sixteen years. At least not without a lot of therapy!

Reply

lclark August 31, 2011 at 2:44 pm

Holy Cow. Even the kids here on the Main Line are way nicer than these two schmucks. And most come from verrrry priveleged backgrounds. They hold fundraisers and assist at homeless shelters. I’m talking about kids from top-dollar affluent mansions. Sure, they get cars for birthdays, etc., but most are extremely well mannered and kind. My father worked as a butler for many years for a family, in a mansion, on the Main Line. Villanova to be exact. One of the sons actually yelled at his mother for being overindulgent to him. He was actually embarrassed about being overindulged upon, especially in front of his friends. The other two kids got jobs while they went to school, even though they really didn’t have to.

Reply

grumpy_otter August 31, 2011 at 10:56 pm

While I also find the article funny, I can ( a little, maybe) see the children’s side. I am also the child of well-off parents, and I had two older siblings. There is a long scenario here with the wills and executor-ships but let me just cut to the chase–eventually only my mother and I were left living. Instead of making me, her only living child, the beneficiary of her will, she gave that to my aunt. And then, in the intervening years she has occasionally “left it all to me” with a big announcement and ceremony, but then changes it without telling me until it comes up in conversation later. I have NEVER expressed any interest in her will or her money (mostly because I know that’s what she wants).

My mother is a manipulative control freak, and uses her money as a goad to get people to act as she wishes. Though I consider this more of a personal problem and would never go to court, I can imagine that if I did, the list of “grievances” against her would be similar to those in this lawsuit. The one that springs to mind is “she didn’t get me gift for getting my master’s degree!” (No, instead she booked a trip leaving the day before I was to receive it so she couldn’t attend.) She never beat me or starved me–she just toyed with me as much as she could. And since I am not a bitch, I never cut her out of my life and I endure it.

I paid for my own schooling with work and student loans and never once did she help me out unless I begged for money to feed my kids. And one time she said no, and I went to a nearby church who helped me.

So yeah–this lawsuit seems silly–but I can also see how kids might get so frustrated that they might do something like this. Sometimes “abuse” is hard to quantify.

Reply

Ange August 31, 2011 at 11:45 pm

I don’t think the mother is lousy. One can only imagine the stressful legal wrangling her ex husband put her through during all the time she had partial custody of the kids. It could make anybody’s life difficult.

As to the broken arm thing… well, my oldest brother accidentally fractured my other older brother’s arm with a golf club when they were both fairly young. My mother didn’t believe my brother when he said it hurt because he was, to put it mildly, a horrible whiner who always tried to get my oldest brother in trouble (to note: this kid would bite my oldest brother so hard his skin would break then start crying and say HE’D been bitten!). Mum put him down for a nap then tested the arm in his sleep, realised he was actually telling the truth for once and took him to the doctor. Does mum feel guilty about this? Of course! Does it make her a bad mother? No, it makes her human.

Reply

Jade September 1, 2011 at 8:26 am

“Okay, I think the lawsuit is garbage, but I wonder about the Mom’s motives for discussing a private family incident with the priest and having her confront her daughter about it. It seems to me she might have been trying to embarrass her daughter.”

I don’t think the above is the case, it seems to me that a priest in your church would be a person you would confide in if you were facing an issue that was troubling you. I only wonder why the priest would approach the daughter about the matter rather than keeping it confidential. Perhaps the mother hoped the priest would mediate but the daughter perceived it as an attack rather than an attempt to clear the air…

Reply

Mabel September 1, 2011 at 2:12 pm

This is why the world sucks so much today. Because these people are everywhere. Those kids (and they are NOT adults, apparently) need a spanking.

Reply

Butterfly September 1, 2011 at 3:43 pm

The horror, the horror! (sob, sob, sob) I should totally sue my mother because she demanded that if she was going to pay for piano lessons that I would have to actually practice the piano, or she would stop paying and sell the piano! And the time she told me she would throw away all my clothes because I didn’t care enough to put them in the laundry or hang them up . . . (sob, sob, sob) I’m crippled for life because of her!
(Note to Mommy Dearest: thank you so much for being stern with me when I was a small brat so I could grow a back-bone and actually grow into a rational, emotionally mature adult, and not merely age into a larger and more obnoxious brat.)

Reply

Michelle P September 2, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Ahhh, just when you think you’ve seen it all. Admin, love the pic.

@Mabel, you hit the nail right on the head.

@grumpy_otter, please tell me you’re joking defending the “kids” in this. Sounds like you and your mother have issues, but you obviously are grown and successful now, so stop whining. She never abused you in any way from what it sounds, and there are far worse things you could have endured. And sorry, but yes, it certainly sounds like you were very interested in her money, which you are in no way entitled to.

Reply

Enna September 3, 2011 at 6:09 am

@ Grumpy_Otter and Michelle P. Finacial abuse does exist and from the sounds of it Grumpy_Otter just wants her Mum to make her mind up and stick to it, instead of forever chaning her mind. She has children and maybe doesn’t want to punish them for not seeing their grandmother so doesn’t cut her mother out. Although I think with case of the children whining about not receving gifts and so on – maybe the mother’s ex husband/children’s father has done enough to drive her way of pison his children against the mother. Or maybe the Mum, Dad and Children are just as bad as each other.

Reply

Jan B. Wozny September 12, 2011 at 7:32 pm

These kids are my step niece and nephew, The mother is my step sister. She has been nothing but wonderful to those children their whole lives. The only thing she is guilty of is trying to Parent these un grateful children who have been indulged by their father in an effort to bribe them to his thinking their whole lives. I have seen this first hand. they have been rude and unfeeling to their mother. Their mother was never in as well off finacial postion as their father to buy and emotionally manipulate these children,which I consider mentally damaging to his children.If a father loves his children,you dont berate their mother. shame on you kids,Thank goodness I am not related to you by blood . I stand by you Kimmy my wonderful step sister . I know the real truth!

Reply

Maya September 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm

“In May 1995, also prior to the divorce, Steven gave Garrity a popsicle stick jewelry box
for Mother’s Day. He subsequently asked her to give the box back. When Garrity refused,
Steven took the box anyway. Garrity allegedly claimed that she had a diamond necklace in that
box and called the police to report that Steven had stolen it.”

To me, it sounds like Steven stole property. Whether there was a diamond necklace inside the box or not is irrelevant.

And to the people who are saying she sounds cold – Oh, give me a damn break! The “favoring” problem couldn’t have been too bad if she was ALTERNATING WHICH CHILDREN SHE FAVORED.

Oh, and this is priceless… “In May 2009, Garrity asked Kathryn to attend an event at her church to bless new students who would be attending college in the fall. Kathryn attended that event, although she did not want to. However, Garrity did not attend the event.”

My mom forced me and my sister to go to so much synagogue crap, and didn’t attend herself because of “appointments.” I should add that our synagogue is near several excellent antique shops and a farmer’s market. I WILL SEE YOU IN COURT, MOTHER.

Reply

Maya September 18, 2011 at 6:39 pm

I also want to add that I am the kid of divorced parents, and my mother has never paid a cent for my college. Why? Because my dad makes great money and I am the first to admit that he spoils me effing rotten. My mother, however, does more than enough to make her one awesome mom. The saddest part is that these little brats probably measure love in dollar signs. They need to be rocketed to the damn moon.

Reply

Jayne September 18, 2011 at 7:06 pm

@grumpy_otter

I’m calling foul. In one paragraph you say “getting my master’s degree,” and in the next you refer to you and your children being a step above homeless. It sounds like you’ve made some poor life choices that your mother disapproves of.

Reply

Marja October 2, 2011 at 8:01 pm

I’ll just bet those kids are aiming at getting their own reality show. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is either a hoax or a real lawsuit filed just to make them famous.

Really. Suing you own mother over googly eyes. Who DOES that!?

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: