This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Oher stated in his 2011 book that he entered into the conservatorship as a substitute for adoption. While the book was probably ghostwritten, he presumably read it, and would have been aware of it at that time. It's possible he didn't know that it hadn't been legally wrapped up.
What strikes me as most likely is that the family wanted to take care of him, but not to adopt him, because adoption presumably includes family inheritance on equal footing with the other kids. That's...a lot for a rich family to do, emotionally. That's not just the parents decision, at some level, it's also asking your kids to share their inheritance with the new adult son.
I'm glad you brought this up because I forgot to, and it's my suspicion that this was the real reason they got a conservatorship instead of an adoption. My problem is that, when it comes to adults, the two things aren't comparable the way they are for minors. I dealt with one adult adoption when I had my own practice (they were friends I referred out; I didn't handle it myself). The wife had met the husband when the daughter was very young, and the wife was dodging an abusive boyfriend at the time. The husband raised the daughter like she was his own, and would have adopted her earlier, but that would have involved tracking down the bio father to terminate rights which would have created a whole hornet's nest. The couple was working class and relatively young so they weren't likely to have wills or really do any kind of estate planning. The adoption was largely symbolic, but it had the added benefit of making sure that she would inherit and be able to make decisions without a ton of estate planning on his part. I assumed at the time that that's what most adult adoptions were about.
Now compare that to a conservatorship or guardianship of an adult (different states use different terms). It gives the guardian complete control over one's affairs until the court terminates it. In Pennsylvania the court will appoint counsel for the proposed ward just to make sure that the guardianship is in his best interest. It's not something that's done unless someone has the kind of disability that makes it unwise to allow them to handle money or make important decisions. My sister-in-law has a mildly retarded sister who doesn't have a guardian. The process is so involved one of the reasons I pushed Powers of Attorney on practically everyone who came through my office was that it's a lot easier to appoint someone while you're of sound mind then have the court figure out who the best person would be. I'm honestly surprised the court went along with it in the first place. It's certainly not something done symbolically.
My impression is that they didn't want to do the adoption but told him that the conservatorship, since it's an analog of guardianship, is "like an adoption" so they wouldn't have to explain to him that, upon the advice of their attorney, they didn't really want to formally adopt him. It would certainly be an awkward conversation to have. They probably figured that they just wouldn't enforce it. Then Hollywood comes calling while he's away at college and they're authorized to make decisions for him so they make one on behalf of "the family" without explaining anything to him.Then the movie does well and 20 years later the kid finds out that the adoption was a sham and that some contracts were signed on his behalf without his full participation and they involved a lot of money "to most people" and, to top it off, they never filed annual reports with the court even though they're legally required to (though courts often overlook this requirement). So now he wants answers and has to go to court to get them, because at this point he doesn't trust his "parents" to tell him the truth.
We're also all engaging in a little bit of racism/classism in assuming that the white family knew exactly what they were doing at all times, while Oher was just along for the ride. I've known a lot of rich people who got really odd legal ideas in advice from a family lawyer who doesn't really know what he's doing. They might equally have been under the mistaken impression that the conservatorship was kind of like a half-adoption, or that it expired automatically, or any of a dozen other harebrained ideas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We have things called wills. You can give money however you please. The Touhys gave equal shares of movie proceeds split 5 ways to both parents, Oher, and kids. Wasn’t a ton of money apparently from what they have.
Who knows why they chose conservatorship. Perhaps, they still wanted his birth parents to have that. For all we know he just royally f$cked himself with this and took himself out of family money. And they would have split three ways because they enjoyed all he brought to the family.
Sure you can distribute your money however you like. But you can't do so without introducing all kinds of problems and intrigue into your family. Just the facts of the matter.
The conservatorship doesn’t eliminate that issue. Someday the will gets read and if you told him you were family he’d still be there. And well that’s a rich persons problem if he gets 10 mill and the biologic kids get 95.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link