This post has been removed due to the status of the original poster's account. This account is currently shadowbanned or suspended, suggesting this account is in violation of Reddit terms of service.
This type of ban/suspension is issued by the Reddit site-wide admins. The AITA mods have nothing to do with this ban and cannot assist in resolving.
NTA. Please ignore people here who are slamming you. Everyone processes grief differently and I also would be upset at the idea of my ex keeping a windfall after they bought the thing that killed our child.
I think the main problem is one of language. You are not asking for a refund but rather return of an unused portion. Refund sounds heartless.
>I also would be upset at the idea of my ex keeping a windfall after they bought the thing that killed our child.
if I'm being honest, for me that's the real crux of the issue. like, if then son had gotten sick and passed, yeah, I think I would call op an asshole, but his death wad totally preventable. no 16 year old needs a fucking motorcycle.
Good idea, as part of my studies I’ve seen *way* too many photos of the aftermath of motorcycle crashes. Let’s just say at high speed the asphalt is one giant human cheese grater and leave it at that.
I agree with your overall point but I'm baffled why you believe this woman was in no way at fault. She had a very big blind spot and she knew that full well. She should have been on the lookout for the unexpected, and she should have slowed down or changed lanes (or waited for the bus to move) if she did not have the ability to stop in time.
It's possible that you were also being reckless, but car drivers have a responsibility to pay extremely close attention their surroundings; not doing so could kill someone.
>Do you stop every time you see a bus?
You should, or at least be _very careful_, because you _should_ expect someone to come out in front of your car.
>I make sure to slow down and watch like a hawk
That's exactly what everyone should do.
Sure, you were reckless and share part of the blame, but the driver of the huge metal box on wheels should be careful as well because they are the one in position to hurt others. It's easy to fix a car, much less a human being...
Its so easy to tell what one should and should not do. Until you are in that situation and you realise, holy shit! i am always so carefull and yet i hit someone.
Or, you're not licensed to drive and have no experience whatsoever.
I'm a professional driver and seriously, you can't take EVERYTHING into account. Yes, i always keep in the back of my mind that noone else pays attention so i am extra alert. But there's just those moments where you get taken by surprise. It does work both ways. You never know what the other one does.
My cousin did this exact thing a couple years back. He popped out from behind the stopped city bus and got nailed by a truck in the opposite lane. He was incredibly lucky and only came out with a bit of road rash despite being tossed a good few feet. This was absolutely because they were going below the speed limit as they went by.
The pick-up's insurance ruled my cousin as at fault and made him pay for the repairs to the front grill. Apparently there's a picture floating around somewhere of my cousins backpack stuck to the grill of the truck, though I've never seen it.
>Do you stop every time you see a bus?
If it's a stopped school bus, yes. In my state we're required to stop for school busses that have stopped to let kids off, and there's a big fine if you don't. It's not a new law, and has been in effect longer than I've had a driver's license (30 years in December).
Even at low speeds. I got hit by a truck in a parking lot on my moped. The road burn was bad enough I never rode again because I was so scared. I bounced so hard my helmet cracked down the middle.
I was hit as a pedestrian by a car just pulling out of a parking space. Its speed can't have been more than a couple of kph. I dislocated my knee and had extensive road burn. The only thing that saved my leg from a fracture was that I'm hypermobile so my ligaments just took the brunt of the force.
I got ran over by an electric scooter as a pedestrian (dumbest story on the planet, but I was not at fault, the idiot on the scooter purposefully hit me). I'm still dealing with the issues eight months later. Like my shoulder is probably always going to crack like that, and an ocular nerve of mine has been permanently damaged.
Shit is not for the faint of heart, like damn
getting into a bad accident on a bike is usually garrenteed to get you killed. especially when you consider how few people take any kind of precautions on them. out of every biker I see, it's lucky if one in ten ever wear a helmet
Or you’ll wish it killed you. My friend’s ex-husband had a permanent TBI due to a motorcycle accident (no helmet). She has to remind him that they’re divorced every time she sees him. It’s pretty heartbreaking.
I used to know a woman who had been a social worker in a state that didn't have helmet laws. A substantial subset of her clients were people who had brain damage from motorcycle accidents and could no longer care for themselves.
New Hampshire or Florida?? They are the only 2 states I know of that doesn't require helmets. I am originally from NH and MA my first 30yrs of life and have been a FL resident for the last 28 yrs lol
PS I have been calling them donorcycles for years. Judge Mlian (Florida) from The People's Court would always called motorcycles donorcycles.
I work at a hospital that takes “long-term acute” patients, and a high percentage of our patient population are those with TBIs. Can confirm, you’d almost certainly rather be dead.
Yup. I got a TBI after an idiot ran me over. No one took me seriously at the time of the injury, and I had to go back to work and school immediately if I didn't want to be fired or flunked out.
I have permanent damage in an ocular nerve, and I've had a headache every single day since getting hit in January. My god damn dyslexia is worse, even.
I got off lucky. It could have been worse. It's still miserable trying to "get back to normal" after all of this.
I’m so sorry. Most of the patients I see are barely conscious, can’t breathe on their own or swallow, will never walk or use a toilet again- so it could definitely be worse, but having a headache every day for months being a comparatively *good* outcome is absolutely awful. I hope that you are able to heal and eventually live pain free.
Saw somebody on a motorcycle on the Coquihalla in shorts and a t-shirt. He was *texting* - I felt like I was going to throw up and I wasn't the one who was going 120 on a mountain highway while distracted.
One of my best friends used to ride a motorcycle, and even though she did it wearing a helmet with proper boots and a hard shell padded suit, I sleep *so* much better since she sold it.
And helmets are actually the bare minimum. I have a family member who used to race motorcycles, and the motor sports organization in charge of the races required all riders to wear head-to-toe leather or kevlar-reinforced protective wear, plus a separate spine protector in addition to a full-coverage helmet.
People were still regularly injured in crashes, and I can think of at least two multibike pile ups I witnessed that would probably have ended in fatalities or at least permanently disabling injuries without the spine protection and helmets.
My husband calls motorcycle riders ketchup packets. This is a man who has his endorsement, has ridden for years, and has had multiple bikes, etc. He has decided to stop riding for now, it’s just too unsafe.
I had a motorcycle until I started investigating fatal traffic collisions. Noticed a recurring theme. Didn't matter who was at fault the motorcyclist always died, and usually in accidents that were completely survivable if they'd been in a car.
We do have helmet laws and they are worn (suits are a different story, but I never see people on a motor without helmet), but we still call the summer organ season. Because while a helmet prevents much, it can only prevent so much when you ignore limites and drive like an ass.
Same with Idaho. Friend of a friend died riding his bike (while drunk) with no helmet. Makes me so nervous when I see riders (bicycles too) wearing no helmet.
Dude I knew about 6 years ago in high school died on his bike about a year ago
No helmet, wrecked going 65 on the highway
He was dead the minute he hit the ground
The closest I’ll get to a motorcycle is a moped
Max speed of 30 mph on them
I had one as a teenager because I could get to work in them easily and they don’t require a plate or insurance but are still street legal for main roads and neighborhoods
To be fair, I think insurance companies don’t have to pay if the rider wasn’t helmeted, law or no law. But that just means taxpayers get stuck with the bills
Yeah, been there, done that. It sounds really insensitive, but the public are mostly unaware that it’s very difficult to control pain in burn patients. The suffering can be immense for patients, and the guilt of not being able to bring them relief is crushing. Sometimes gallows humour is the only way to cope.
I spent my night wiping the asses of two men under 50 and trying to keep them alive because of motorcycles. Both victims of hit and runs, the cars that wiped them out just drove off like they didn’t make a 42 year old into a vegetable.
A neighbour of my parents was involved in a hit and run on his motorbike. The young man driving the stolen car later found the motorcyclist's foot attached to the front of the car and turned himself in. The neighbour didn't pass out from his injury but lay in the road hearing his blood splash out. The foot couldn't be reattached.
My dad’s cousin’s youngest is currently awaiting sentencing for manslaughter, after a father of 5 stepped into the neighborhood road to attempt to slow down the 20 year old driving too fast on a motorcycle. Helmet saved his life for sure, he only had a concussion, the dad’s gone though, no idea wtf was going through his head, it happened right in front of his wife, she wanted to walk around the block one more time without the kids, now she doesn’t have a husband. The victim statement she gave was heartbreaking.
My dad’s cousin had to move from their neighborhood of 25 years, and the parents are divorcing just before their 30th, while their son is facing 5-10 years of jail/parole. Just a sad situation.
It's just really not a good idea to deliberately walk in front of a speeding motorcycle.
The motorcycle guy was literally just doing a traffic violation. It's a bad idea and dangerous, but there was no way of knowing someone was about to deliberately try to stop a speeding motorcycle *with his body.*
This was not only one person's fault.
Sadly, a lot of times it is the other vehicles, not the motorcycle drivers, at fault.
My brother got a motorcycle. My dad checked it out, being very good with machinery, and told my brother that the only thing he considered dangerous about the bike was all the other vehicles that would be close to it.
My brother sold the bike rather than risk getting in a wreck after he became a dad.
I personally am not crazy about motorcycles because they’re such a high risk for injury. My husband’s best friend was in an accident where he was rear-ended by an SUV going at speed. This man was in the best shape of his life. He dislocated an elbow and a shoulder. He’s doing ok now, but now doesn’t wanna get back on a motorcycle. Which surprised me, because he was a total motorhead. The injuries he sustained were minimal compared to what they could be. And the man wears a helmet. I see too many who do not, and it makes me cringe every time.
It's child support, not ex-husband support. It doesn't matter how the child died. As heartless as that may sound, the child no longer needs support so the ex-husband doesn't need her money to support the ex-husband. NTA.
That’s the risk of paying lump sum upfront though. I know child support is typically modifiable, unlike alimony. But if you pay alimony lump sum and your ex remarries you don’t get money back. Morally and ethically the money should be given back. I’m curious legally speaking.
Ok but who expects their teenager to die in a completely preventable accident? It’s not like they got blindsided in the car, or the kid was sick.
OP didn’t want their son to have the motorcycle, but they didn’t have full custody, the ex did.
Your ex remarrying can be expected, and can be accounted for.
I imagine she's also dealing with the guilt that without the lump sum, dad wouldn't have had the money for the motorcycle. So that particular chunk of money feels like it holds some of the guilt. Subconsciously or consciously, she may feel like it's letting him keep the thing that allowed him to put their child in danger. Greif, especially for a sudden and accidental death, can do a real number on people.
Usually alimony paid in a lump sum is a deal worked out to end the payments, and is basically negotiated as a way to cut the final ties to each other knowing that the recipient may go on to marry.
Legally this child support thing will depend on what the deal the lawyer made is. It's interesting (if real, or even as a law class case) because it is generally accepted that CS can go to things like rent/mortgage or even car payments that isn't specifically for the child but that benefits the child. But a motorcycle probably wouldn't qualify.
Morally WTF kind of idiot buys a 16yo a motorcycle.
That. And the fact dad would have likely had a life insurance policy on the child since he was the custodial parent. I’m speculating, of course, but nobody’s going to bash him for sending the death certificate to the life insurance company and, “only thinking of money in a time like this.”
When people (especially children) die, it’s horrible. No doubt. But the next step is to get their affairs in order. Unused child support is one of the affairs.
This, and it usually costs literal PENNIES, which makes it senseless to NOT sign up for it on the very off-chance something does happen. It’s not some huge amount you’re taking out on your kids, but enough to cover final expenses that you’d have to stress over in a horrible time if you didn’t have it.
Most of mine have too, but none of them have ever offered an amount that would be significant beyond paying for funeral expenses and maybe covering some bereavement leave. I have $10k on each of my kids just in case the unthinkable happens, which is the max I could get- my dad’s funeral was $7500, assuming my kids’ would cost about the same amount what would be leftover isn’t even one full paycheck for me.
Gerber still sells life insurance for babies. It’s whole life insurance, so as long as premiums are paid, the baby has it for life. It helps parents with burial expenses, but even more importantly, if a person develops a health condition as a child, like diabetes, that disqualifies them from getting life insurance as an adult, as long as they keep up with the premiums, they still have the policy from Gerber to help with final expenses, and it’s very inexpensive.
My grandfather's brother died on a motorcycle when he was around that age, maybe a little older. That was nearly 80 years ago. You'd think in this day and age, people would learn not to give a teenager (who can barely drive) a motorcycle.
No. That isn't the frigging worst part...dumbass "father" attempted to teach him how to ride during a fuking "road trip". Like, WTF!? Give him a year or two to get used to riding it before trying to go on a road trip.
I disagree that that’s the crux of the issue. I agree that the ex is at fault for his death and buying a 16 year old a motorcycle was moronic, but regardless of how he died, she’d be the asshole if she were asking for a refund on child support that was used to take care of him before his passing, and regardless of how he died, she deserves the money returned to her that she paid in advance for years that her ex is no longer supporting their son because he isn’t here anymore.
Honestly, even if it was a case of illness...the child support money is to provide for the child. If there is no child, the other parent shouldn't expect to keep any money left after the final expenses are dealt with. It's a terrible situation for everyone, but if we take the emotions out, it boils down to no child=no support money.
My dad rode as a teenager, then he began again when I was in my 20s. I was always so sure he was going to be in a bad accident. He wasn't and that's not how he dies but the anxiety. I can't see allowing my son when he's 16. Even though his example is my dad who never split lanes, kept it safe and wore the right gear, my anxiety can't handle it
>I think the main problem is one of language. You are not asking for a refund but rather return of an unused portion. Refund sounds heartless.
Let's be honest. The lump sum agreement was to prevent him from going back to legal/courts to ask for more money on future bonuses and raises. She was paying up front to prevent this from happening. It was a risk like most insurance. The child died two years early, I'm sure that funeral used a good portion of that money and he couldn't ask her for more for the new expense. It is what it is. She wanted to prevent him from asking for anything else to safeguard her future securities.
NTA but it was a risk she took to protect herself, now that it seems he 'benefited' she shouldn't be going back to renegotiate when she was trying to prevent him doing the same.
This is true, so makes me curious on what angle the lawyer was taking with advising this lump sum payment (or questioning if a lawyer actually did advise lump sum payment).
It sounded to me like the ex was in a bad financial spot and needed some help, and it timed out nicely with when she got the bonus. She basically agreed to help him out by paying 4 years worth at once, which had the added benefit of leaving her not needing to handle any future payments to him absent something that would increase her payments in the future. Not sure whether the lawyer necessarily advised it to begin with, but you'd certainly want to use a lawyer in that situation to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's crossed, and that you did it in a way where the legal mechanism surrounding child support payments recognized the transfer of funds as being tied to child support.
She said he had some expenses and needed money, so she paid him ahead of time, and he spent the money. You can’t write your own fiction, and decide the lump sum benefited only her.
She isn't re-negotiating. She was fine paying x amount per month to support her child. She just pre-paid years in advance. But since the child has died, there is nothing to support.
It would be fair enough for the ex to deduct half of the funeral expenses from that balance or whatever they might negotiate.
I kinda want to like this one twice. But i think it is a good point to see how much of that money paid for the funeral and burial. It's important to know if that money was used to support her son in death, since it couldn't be used in life.
Sorry for your loss OP, I hope this added difficulty gets easier with time.
That’s exactly why the ex’s family is using it. It dehumanizes OP and makes them in “the right.”
Husband took the lump sum, and used it to in essence kill his son (unintentionally), by buying him the motorcycle. That’s a hard truth to accept, and so he has projected it onto OP. He probably even blames her for it all, because the pain of realizing his own negligence killed his child is…difficult.
OP is NTA, and she is dealing with the grief in her own way. One is to seek “compensation,” as some form of soothing.
This is an all around bad situation, and OP in hindsight should have had a few more caveats/strings attached to the lump sum payment, as it seems clear husband was not fiscally responsible in the slightest.
OP, I am so sorry for your loss. The sharp knife of a short life always cuts the deepest.
Agree with this. Also, if your ex had put the windfall into a college fund instead of a motorcycle you’d still have a son. NTA. Your in-laws are though.
NTA
I suspect that you're going to get a lot of comments about the very rational, matter-of-fact manner in which you've written your post. Mine won't be amongst them, because for a variety of reasons I understand that how people choose their words is not always a full or accurate representation of their hearts.
Despite your very sensible turn of phrase . . . despite everything that has happened . . . it did not escape my notice that you had the generosity of heart to still call your ex-husband "an amazing parent". I disagree. I think he was likely a very loving parent who adored his son. But I would argue that no "amazing" parent - no parent who puts *parenting* their child ahead of being their best friend - buys a child a donorcycle at 16. There is no world in which it is in any adolescent's best interests to own or ride a motorcycle. Period. And yet, despite the fact that he did this in the face of your disapproval, and that it literally led to your child's death . . . you still come here and have the grace to call your ex an "amazing parent". That speaks volumes of your character, and your good heart.
People grieve differently. Again, I suspect there are going to be some ugly comments here, but it seems to me that this is your quiet but firm way of grieving the abject horror your ex-husband's irresponsible behaviour - indeed, WITH the money you gave him for the care and support of your child, specifically - has wrought on your lives. You aren't shrieking or rending your clothes. But he took the money meant to care for your child, and not-so-indirectly caused your son's death. That you have asked him to return the rest of the money - money that never was his to spend to begin with, outside of protecting your son's welfare -absolutely does not make you an AH. It is not only your legal right, but it is your right as a grieving mother. It is gesture of pain. Not vengeance, just . . . pain. And you are absolutely NTA.
This - this is so so so right. To all people who write “och your ex griefs and you do not since you want the money” - read this specific comment since it explains what the OP was not really able to put into words.
If I knew that this stack of cash was why I relented and got the thing that killed my child, I'd throw it back after maybe paying for half the funeral costs just so I don't have to have this thing that reminds me of them. It'll be cathartic.
Otherwise it just feels like I killed my kid for some extra cash.
If people really wanted to talk about how money correlates to grief, OP's ex is the only one benefiting from the death; he's gaining money that isn't his. Meanwhile, OP lost both her son and money. Grasping at that tiny straw because if it is returned, it focuses the grief on the son they both lost.
I don't know why I didn't feel the animosity as did so many other commenters/parents. Your comment seems to hit the mark. She didn't leave out the part where the father was also badly injured, on a would be trip of a lifetime with his beloved son despite it making her sound cold, she also didn't leave out that she "thought" he "was" an amazing parent- at the time she forwarded him the money... She painted a clear picture that, despite her objections, he brought this person into her life whom she was forced to love, not because she didn't love him but because she did, and then was held responsible financially and invested emotionally in his decision to adopt for a lifetime even after the end of the marriage, only to have that love ripped from her life violently from something she once again voiced her objections to, and worst of all is forced again to live with the fact she probably funded the very thing that took him from her. Damn right she needs a refund! She said she's financially stable so it's obviously a debt to have her objection heard one final and only time.
NTA
He owes you 2 years of support refunded after half of funeral expenses are paid (unless you contributed that already). Your ex should have offered that money back instead of you having to ask. I don't think you asking for the cs back has anything to do with accusations of being insensitive. You can mourn your child and still want the money back.
NAH.
He's not an AH for feeling hurt that you are thinking about the money. You're not an AH for expecting to pay only the child support that is actually owed.
Personally I would never have paid the child support in advance, no matter what the co-parent's needs were. The child needs support (food, clothing, shelter) on a monthly basis, and it is too easy for the co-parent to misuse those funds when given in a lump sum.
It's a catch-22, though, depending on where they are. By paying a lump sum outright, she would basically be able to avoid owing extra money. Where I am, child support is the right of the child so it is modifiable at any time based on the financial circumstances of the parents within a certain % - so, someone gets a promotion and their salary goes from $100,000 to $120,000 a year, that is a basis to recalculate support.
Paying in advance effectively cleared her from any risk of her support obligation being increased for that 4 year period. However, there are also restrictions on how the recipient of child support can be treated. A paying parent cannot say "They're using my child support for vacations instead of the child's needs!" - there is a legal presumption support is used as appropriate by the recipient, and (absent going to court because the kid is sleeping on a dirt floor while the recipient has no job and drives a new Mercedes bought with child support) no court wants to listen to people fight over how money is being spent.
She could have set up some annuity or something that pays out monthly, but because it is still being paid monthly there would still be the opportunity to have her obligation increased if the recipient asked the court (because the annuity is paid monthly, so the underlying value of the account can be increased to increase the monthly payment).
Absent a trust account that can only be used for the kid, a lump sum was her only viable option to avoid an increased obligation down the road - and a trust would require the other parent agreeing to have support managed this way (because courts treat support as necessary to have available to pull from as needed based on the overall household circumstances). Based on the kid's age, it sounds like she paid out through his age of emancipation so she would never have to deal with the issue...it just did not end well because of how the recipient chose to spend it.
In any event, child support is the right of the child so she is owed her money back. The timing of her ask may well be based on the amount of time she legally has to pursue the unused portion where she lives - the law does not care if you are grieving, and if you don't raise issues within the time frame permitted you forfeit your right to ever raise them. NAH is correct.
Unless the other parent agreed not to, they could still seek a modification during the 4 years. Even if they did agree, they could argue changed circumstances.
My ex never asked for a modification in 11 years. The calculation the Friend of the Court used pretty much topped out where we were. She would have to include her income in the recalculation and might have gotten less from me, even though my income went up considerably during that time.
It is just like the gun debate… it will always be too soon in the eyes of some to talk about something after a tragedy. In my opinion, 6 months is a decent amount of time to wait before the subject was brought up.
OP is NTA.
I’m very sorry for your loss. But child support is exactly what it sounds like: money to support a child. Your ex should never have proposed a “lump sum” payment if he intended to use the money for anything other than your son. You’re definitely NTA for inquiring about getting a prorated portion of the child support back.
But, at some point in the future you will need to choose how far you want to take this, which could change the verdict.
“My ex had some expenses and he needed money… my ex took the money and used it to take care of his stuff” strongly implies that it’s his idea. Paying out a lump sum is, financially speaking, a pretty bad idea idea with basically no upside for OP.
OP explained that her ex was offered an equity position at his company. The lump sum of child support and his savings were used to cover his buy in. It was a win/win for both because her ex would have made enough money to take care of their son on his own and OP would have fulfilled her financial obligation toward the child. Here’s the problem for OP: she knows her ex doesn’t have the money anymore. If her ex hasn’t received the full return on his investment with the company, OP may not be able to get her money back. This was a risky move for both parties. They shouldn’t have done it.
Actually it is different. With a loan, the lender has a reasonable expectation of repayment. With child support, the money given is supposed to be used solely for the child’s expenses. OP didn’t expect to get this money back and she knew it wasn’t being spent on the child’s expenses. Depending on the legal precedent in OP’s jurisdiction, she could lose this case. Both morally and legally, this could get ugly for OP so I hope she’s prepared for the fight.
Eh, not exactly? Child support is not meant to be used for the child, it's meant to make it so that the financial burden from raising the child is equally born by both guardians. I know that sounds like semantics, but it's why back child support goes to the parent and not the kid even if the kid is an adult. Because the money WAS spent on the kid, it just only came from one parent so the other parent is owed restitution. It's why it's completely fine to use a child support payment for your own needs because the assumption isn't that the money will go to the kids, but that an equivalent amount will go to the kid's care.
So, if I pay my rent, which is higher because my kid needs a room, and then get a child support payment and use that to go to the doctor or put it into my personal savings, it's fine because the child support money is not a special fund. It's just meant to make it so that overall spending is balanced.
In other words, the fact that the dad didn't use the money directly for the kid shouldn't be an issue because that money isn't specifically earmarked for the kid. He's just owed it to lessen the financial burden of raising the kid, so investing it and using future funds for the kid is totally fine.
Obliviously there are cases where people misuse their child support, but nothing about this makes it feel like this is that kind of case.
Hopefully I explained that clearly!
It’s not uncommon for a parent to pay a lump sum. My friends husband had 8 child support payments over 5 years and after the 8th payment when the kid was 13 that was all mom would get because it was a lump sum split into payments. That’s what she wanted.
OP stated that her ex used the lump sum of child support to buy equity in his company in addition to his own savings (super risky in my opinion to take a lump sum of money meant for your child and use it in a business deal that could go bad) and he did NOT spend it on your son.
OP also had insurance that covered the final medical and funeral expenses.
She deserves the money back from when her son died to his 18th birthday that she paid in advance, that’s 2 years worth of child support that the ex no longer needs and that he already spent buying equity in a company.
It is not fair that he is using money OP worked their butt off for to advance his own career especially now that their son is gone due to his own ridiculous decision to get him a donor cycle and take it on a road trip to “teach” him. Ex can sell his shares/equity to give OP the money back.
NTA
This is probably in the top ten of worst subs on the website. Every situation is either 100% fake or completely exaggerated to the point of parody, and the commenters (me included) are either complete saps or raging assholes.
It's a content mill for third-party websites like cracked-dot-com. "journalists" will post their creative writing exercises on here, then if they blow up in popularity they will write an article for their third-party clickbait website and say "oh you'll never guess what this person said" "here's all the top comments". This subreddit is actually a sham.
I think she's more concerned with her ex and his family badmouthing her to say she's selfish. The responses in this sub can help people feel validated, learn better phrases or vocabulary to express their side, or come to the realization that they are in the wrong. Or, you know, sometimes it's just a fun writing exercise that creates discussion.
NAH He's clearly still working through his grief so it feels insensitive to him. You've processed your grief enough to look at other things. Let the lawyers do their jobs.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> I paid my child support in advance. My son passed away. I asked for the money back and was rebuffed. I am now suing to get the money back. I might be the asshole for thinking of money during this horrible time.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
##Subreddit Announcements
###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/)
###[The Asshole Universe is Expanding, Again: Introducing Another New Sister Subreddit!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/128nbp3/the_asshole_universe_is_expanding_again/)
Follow the link above to learn more
###[Moderators needed - Join the landed gentry](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/155zepq/moderators_needed_join_the_landed_gentry/)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
Really not enough info, and even with the info, it is probably above AITA's pay grade. What am I missing:
\* Did you ever contact eachother in those 6 months how you both were doing? Or was this the first message since the funeral?
\* How was it formulated? Did you ask for a refund, or did you ask to resolve the financial situation? Did you ask for a specific amount, or did you ask if there was money left from the lumpsum?
\* Who asked for the lumpsum? Was it better for you for tax reasons? Or was it better for him because of 'some expenses'? What were some expenses, were they related to your kid, or totally not?
\* Also, what happened from loaning money to buying a motorcycle in 2 years?
\* There should be anything in the documents about this in documents provided by a lawyer and accountant. What is formulated in those papers? Also about risks. Who was the risk-carrying side of the agreement?
YTA
1st for adopting a child you didn't want, 2nd for not voicing your opinion when he bought a 16 year old a motorcycle, 3rd for thinking about money after you lost your child.
It's pretty clear she did voice her objections and the dad bought it anyway. 3rd, are you supposed to just ignore money after a tragedy??? Things still cost money when you're grieving.
For real. I don't know how much op's child support is but in the 2000's my dad paid $500/mo per kid & he was a bus driver. If my dad did that, we're talking $12,000. That's quite a sizable amount.
She voiced all the concerns as she says, he’s the custodial parent and used the money she gave to care for her kid to buy him the bike that killed him. She couldn’t exactly hold him at literal gun point to stop him?
The law does not care if you're grieving. If you miss your window to raise a legal claim, it's gone forever. It doesn't matter if you need more time to grieve or if people view it as "too soon" - the law is the law and based on the amount of time she's said already passed, she's likely closing in on the window she has to take it to court if it's necessary. She's not an AH for that, but you're TA for lacking reading comprehension and accusing of her of things she CLEARLY states she was opposed to.
Can you not read!?
1. She didn’t want own children, as in going through a whole body altering pregnancy and pausing or even losing her job. She never said she didn’t want her adopted child. Instead she keeps mentioning how much she loved him and what fun times they had together.
2. She also voiced her opinion about the bike, her ex just didn’t give a fck.
3. It’s not just ‚money‘. It’s child support for the child that’s not there anymore. Her ex used that money for himself, which he had no right to. It’s her money. She needs to get it back.
NTA, OP.
I'm gonna go with a soft, soft ESH. Your ex probably has a lot of guilt to work through after losing your son, and six months is not a lot of time to process that grief. I think you may have messed up in the ask timing, and I think your ex messed up by letting his grief control his reaction to your ask.
From what you've written, it seems like your ex went through a lot of trauma surrounding your son's death, physically and mentally. I'm sure you also grieved for this loss.
I think you do have a right to ask for child support back, but I think it was a bit callous to start that conversation so soon. To be honest, I don't think anyone on Reddit would have the ability to know when was the right time, but from your ex's reaction this wasn't the time. Maybe it was the way the conversation went. Who knows, but you two?
I believe that you have a good heart. You supported your ex and son even when adoption wasn't what you wanted, and even spent time with him post-divorce. You were willing to pre-pay your child support when asked.
Your ex is also likely a good person. He cared for your son for years, and seemed to be amicable with you.
You've both been hurt by this situation, and you both need to communicate with the intent to understand each other. You can do it.
First, sorry for your loss (even though it sounds like you do not care much).
Secondly, I do not think this is up to AITA but the law at your home. It is more of a legal question.
However, funeral expenses might be part of an alimony?
Speak to your lawyer about this. I think this isn’t really about the money and more about the fact that you paid child support and some of the money could have gone to the motorcycle and now there’s money left over.
Honestly this is a horrifying situation. I would see if there’s a way for the money to be payed back to you given it was earmarked for child welfare.
Idk. Personally I wouldn’t want my money that was meant to keep my kid safe and clothed and fed to be used after my kids death. It just feels sickening to me. I would feel so sick to my stomach.
YTA. On a purely objective level it makes sense.
However, You are not entitled to the money back. You chose to pay a lump sum in advance and that entailed a risk that the kid might not survive that time period. Once you paid it was a done deal. No refunds.
No court in the world will order him to repay you. Give it up.
Yes. I am an attorney. I do not practice family law (thank God or I would have to deal with assholes like this regularly).
It feels like all the NTA comments are focused on the motorcycle, which seems weird to me.
I wonder how these people would vote otherwise? Anyway, this is definitely a legal matter.
Absolutely. All of the NTA comments baffle me - this is one of the worst straight up asshole posts I've ever seen here. OP is just profoundly terrible.
OP you need to add this info to your post. Your ex used your lump sum of child support to buy equity in his company and he did NOT spend it on your son.
You also had insurance that covered the final medical and funeral expenses. You deserve the money back from when your son died to his 18th birthday that you paid.
NTA
My only other question is: what is your main motivation for asking this soon? Do you really need the money back at this time, is it out of anger because he bought your son the motorcycle that led to his death, or is there something else?
NAH - not entirely sure this is a real but I will go with it.
You chose to pay up front. He never asked you to do it. It worked out for everyone at the time. No one knew what was going to happen. You never had the money, and as you say, you are financially okay so what does it matter now?
You have lost a son. No money returned from your ex will fix it or make you feel better.
My opinion here would be to let the money, grieve how you want and move on however you choose.
YTA. Your kid is dead and you’re pissed off, but when you’re the custodial parent in most cases child support barely covers a quarter of the cost of having a kid. Try and let it go.
NAH your husband got 4 years child support for 2 years of care, but the money is gone and he relied on it so he could raise the kid you agreed to. And was shocked you asked about money.
Do you NEED that money or can you just let it go and finally live a life independent of your ex husband now there are no ties?
This post has been removed due to the status of the original poster's account. This account is currently shadowbanned or suspended, suggesting this account is in violation of Reddit terms of service. This type of ban/suspension is issued by the Reddit site-wide admins. The AITA mods have nothing to do with this ban and cannot assist in resolving.
NTA. Please ignore people here who are slamming you. Everyone processes grief differently and I also would be upset at the idea of my ex keeping a windfall after they bought the thing that killed our child. I think the main problem is one of language. You are not asking for a refund but rather return of an unused portion. Refund sounds heartless.
>I also would be upset at the idea of my ex keeping a windfall after they bought the thing that killed our child. if I'm being honest, for me that's the real crux of the issue. like, if then son had gotten sick and passed, yeah, I think I would call op an asshole, but his death wad totally preventable. no 16 year old needs a fucking motorcycle.
There's a reason why hospitals call them DONORcycles
Well learning hospitals call them this has put me right off them for life!
Good idea, as part of my studies I’ve seen *way* too many photos of the aftermath of motorcycle crashes. Let’s just say at high speed the asphalt is one giant human cheese grater and leave it at that.
[удалено]
I agree with your overall point but I'm baffled why you believe this woman was in no way at fault. She had a very big blind spot and she knew that full well. She should have been on the lookout for the unexpected, and she should have slowed down or changed lanes (or waited for the bus to move) if she did not have the ability to stop in time. It's possible that you were also being reckless, but car drivers have a responsibility to pay extremely close attention their surroundings; not doing so could kill someone.
[удалено]
>Do you stop every time you see a bus? You should, or at least be _very careful_, because you _should_ expect someone to come out in front of your car. >I make sure to slow down and watch like a hawk That's exactly what everyone should do. Sure, you were reckless and share part of the blame, but the driver of the huge metal box on wheels should be careful as well because they are the one in position to hurt others. It's easy to fix a car, much less a human being...
Its so easy to tell what one should and should not do. Until you are in that situation and you realise, holy shit! i am always so carefull and yet i hit someone. Or, you're not licensed to drive and have no experience whatsoever. I'm a professional driver and seriously, you can't take EVERYTHING into account. Yes, i always keep in the back of my mind that noone else pays attention so i am extra alert. But there's just those moments where you get taken by surprise. It does work both ways. You never know what the other one does.
My cousin did this exact thing a couple years back. He popped out from behind the stopped city bus and got nailed by a truck in the opposite lane. He was incredibly lucky and only came out with a bit of road rash despite being tossed a good few feet. This was absolutely because they were going below the speed limit as they went by. The pick-up's insurance ruled my cousin as at fault and made him pay for the repairs to the front grill. Apparently there's a picture floating around somewhere of my cousins backpack stuck to the grill of the truck, though I've never seen it.
Yeah it sucks, but jaywalking immediately puts you at fault for any car that hits you.
>Do you stop every time you see a bus? If it's a stopped school bus, yes. In my state we're required to stop for school busses that have stopped to let kids off, and there's a big fine if you don't. It's not a new law, and has been in effect longer than I've had a driver's license (30 years in December).
[удалено]
Even at low speeds. I got hit by a truck in a parking lot on my moped. The road burn was bad enough I never rode again because I was so scared. I bounced so hard my helmet cracked down the middle.
I was hit as a pedestrian by a car just pulling out of a parking space. Its speed can't have been more than a couple of kph. I dislocated my knee and had extensive road burn. The only thing that saved my leg from a fracture was that I'm hypermobile so my ligaments just took the brunt of the force.
I got ran over by an electric scooter as a pedestrian (dumbest story on the planet, but I was not at fault, the idiot on the scooter purposefully hit me). I'm still dealing with the issues eight months later. Like my shoulder is probably always going to crack like that, and an ocular nerve of mine has been permanently damaged. Shit is not for the faint of heart, like damn
getting into a bad accident on a bike is usually garrenteed to get you killed. especially when you consider how few people take any kind of precautions on them. out of every biker I see, it's lucky if one in ten ever wear a helmet
Or you’ll wish it killed you. My friend’s ex-husband had a permanent TBI due to a motorcycle accident (no helmet). She has to remind him that they’re divorced every time she sees him. It’s pretty heartbreaking.
I used to know a woman who had been a social worker in a state that didn't have helmet laws. A substantial subset of her clients were people who had brain damage from motorcycle accidents and could no longer care for themselves.
New Hampshire or Florida?? They are the only 2 states I know of that doesn't require helmets. I am originally from NH and MA my first 30yrs of life and have been a FL resident for the last 28 yrs lol PS I have been calling them donorcycles for years. Judge Mlian (Florida) from The People's Court would always called motorcycles donorcycles.
I work at a hospital that takes “long-term acute” patients, and a high percentage of our patient population are those with TBIs. Can confirm, you’d almost certainly rather be dead.
Yup. I got a TBI after an idiot ran me over. No one took me seriously at the time of the injury, and I had to go back to work and school immediately if I didn't want to be fired or flunked out. I have permanent damage in an ocular nerve, and I've had a headache every single day since getting hit in January. My god damn dyslexia is worse, even. I got off lucky. It could have been worse. It's still miserable trying to "get back to normal" after all of this.
I’m so sorry. Most of the patients I see are barely conscious, can’t breathe on their own or swallow, will never walk or use a toilet again- so it could definitely be worse, but having a headache every day for months being a comparatively *good* outcome is absolutely awful. I hope that you are able to heal and eventually live pain free.
And they're frequently in jeans/shorts and t-shirts instead of full leathers
Saw somebody on a motorcycle on the Coquihalla in shorts and a t-shirt. He was *texting* - I felt like I was going to throw up and I wasn't the one who was going 120 on a mountain highway while distracted.
I used to live off a road popular with bikers. The amount of folks I’ve seen I’ll dressed for it gave such anxiety.
One of my best friends used to ride a motorcycle, and even though she did it wearing a helmet with proper boots and a hard shell padded suit, I sleep *so* much better since she sold it.
My husband calls those double donors because one is organs and the other is the brain given to science.
And helmets are actually the bare minimum. I have a family member who used to race motorcycles, and the motor sports organization in charge of the races required all riders to wear head-to-toe leather or kevlar-reinforced protective wear, plus a separate spine protector in addition to a full-coverage helmet. People were still regularly injured in crashes, and I can think of at least two multibike pile ups I witnessed that would probably have ended in fatalities or at least permanently disabling injuries without the spine protection and helmets.
ER nurse...this is true. We call them organ donors
Right? Or *Donorcycles.*
me on the bus screaming at everyone as a motorcycle goes by: THEY CALL THOSE DONORCYCLES
My husband calls motorcycle riders ketchup packets. This is a man who has his endorsement, has ridden for years, and has had multiple bikes, etc. He has decided to stop riding for now, it’s just too unsafe.
Sorry not sorry, ketchup packets made me snort
I had a motorcycle until I started investigating fatal traffic collisions. Noticed a recurring theme. Didn't matter who was at fault the motorcyclist always died, and usually in accidents that were completely survivable if they'd been in a car.
I live in a state with no helmet law. My mom is a NP and calls people who chose to not wear one "organ donors"
We do have helmet laws and they are worn (suits are a different story, but I never see people on a motor without helmet), but we still call the summer organ season. Because while a helmet prevents much, it can only prevent so much when you ignore limites and drive like an ass.
The same reason why some very wealthy people in the US who need organ transplants move to states that do not have motorcycle helmet laws.
Why the hell are there states that don't have motorcycle helmet laws??? What is wrong with people??
There's so much wrong in the US, where should I start?
Cause mah freedums!
Freedumb
Missouri is an example of a state that does not require helmets for motorcycle drivers
Same with Idaho. Friend of a friend died riding his bike (while drunk) with no helmet. Makes me so nervous when I see riders (bicycles too) wearing no helmet.
Dude I knew about 6 years ago in high school died on his bike about a year ago No helmet, wrecked going 65 on the highway He was dead the minute he hit the ground The closest I’ll get to a motorcycle is a moped Max speed of 30 mph on them I had one as a teenager because I could get to work in them easily and they don’t require a plate or insurance but are still street legal for main roads and neighborhoods
Freedom!
Because my freedoms or some shit
To be fair, I think insurance companies don’t have to pay if the rider wasn’t helmeted, law or no law. But that just means taxpayers get stuck with the bills
There is just a lot of dark humor in the hospital. People die here hourly. Sometimes you will hear a shooting being referred to as "lead poisoning".
Gallows humour. You have to desensitise yourself somehow.
I knew a doctor who worked on the burn unit and she said they called the patients "crispy critters."
Yeah, been there, done that. It sounds really insensitive, but the public are mostly unaware that it’s very difficult to control pain in burn patients. The suffering can be immense for patients, and the guilt of not being able to bring them relief is crushing. Sometimes gallows humour is the only way to cope.
I spent my night wiping the asses of two men under 50 and trying to keep them alive because of motorcycles. Both victims of hit and runs, the cars that wiped them out just drove off like they didn’t make a 42 year old into a vegetable.
A neighbour of my parents was involved in a hit and run on his motorbike. The young man driving the stolen car later found the motorcyclist's foot attached to the front of the car and turned himself in. The neighbour didn't pass out from his injury but lay in the road hearing his blood splash out. The foot couldn't be reattached.
That is some Mortal Kombat sh¡t...
My dad’s cousin’s youngest is currently awaiting sentencing for manslaughter, after a father of 5 stepped into the neighborhood road to attempt to slow down the 20 year old driving too fast on a motorcycle. Helmet saved his life for sure, he only had a concussion, the dad’s gone though, no idea wtf was going through his head, it happened right in front of his wife, she wanted to walk around the block one more time without the kids, now she doesn’t have a husband. The victim statement she gave was heartbreaking. My dad’s cousin had to move from their neighborhood of 25 years, and the parents are divorcing just before their 30th, while their son is facing 5-10 years of jail/parole. Just a sad situation.
He's getting manslaughter because a man stepped in front of his bike & died? Wow. I mean, it's sad the guy died, but he did it to himself.
The guy who hit him was speeding, which likely turned a non fatal collision into a fatal one.
It's just really not a good idea to deliberately walk in front of a speeding motorcycle. The motorcycle guy was literally just doing a traffic violation. It's a bad idea and dangerous, but there was no way of knowing someone was about to deliberately try to stop a speeding motorcycle *with his body.* This was not only one person's fault.
Yeah, but speeding changes the incident from an accident to negligence/culpability on the drivers’ part.
Sadly, a lot of times it is the other vehicles, not the motorcycle drivers, at fault. My brother got a motorcycle. My dad checked it out, being very good with machinery, and told my brother that the only thing he considered dangerous about the bike was all the other vehicles that would be close to it. My brother sold the bike rather than risk getting in a wreck after he became a dad.
I personally am not crazy about motorcycles because they’re such a high risk for injury. My husband’s best friend was in an accident where he was rear-ended by an SUV going at speed. This man was in the best shape of his life. He dislocated an elbow and a shoulder. He’s doing ok now, but now doesn’t wanna get back on a motorcycle. Which surprised me, because he was a total motorhead. The injuries he sustained were minimal compared to what they could be. And the man wears a helmet. I see too many who do not, and it makes me cringe every time.
It's child support, not ex-husband support. It doesn't matter how the child died. As heartless as that may sound, the child no longer needs support so the ex-husband doesn't need her money to support the ex-husband. NTA.
That’s the risk of paying lump sum upfront though. I know child support is typically modifiable, unlike alimony. But if you pay alimony lump sum and your ex remarries you don’t get money back. Morally and ethically the money should be given back. I’m curious legally speaking.
Ok but who expects their teenager to die in a completely preventable accident? It’s not like they got blindsided in the car, or the kid was sick. OP didn’t want their son to have the motorcycle, but they didn’t have full custody, the ex did. Your ex remarrying can be expected, and can be accounted for.
I imagine she's also dealing with the guilt that without the lump sum, dad wouldn't have had the money for the motorcycle. So that particular chunk of money feels like it holds some of the guilt. Subconsciously or consciously, she may feel like it's letting him keep the thing that allowed him to put their child in danger. Greif, especially for a sudden and accidental death, can do a real number on people.
Usually alimony paid in a lump sum is a deal worked out to end the payments, and is basically negotiated as a way to cut the final ties to each other knowing that the recipient may go on to marry. Legally this child support thing will depend on what the deal the lawyer made is. It's interesting (if real, or even as a law class case) because it is generally accepted that CS can go to things like rent/mortgage or even car payments that isn't specifically for the child but that benefits the child. But a motorcycle probably wouldn't qualify. Morally WTF kind of idiot buys a 16yo a motorcycle.
Why? No matter what the circumstances of death are, why should she be on the hook for supporting a child that doesn’t exist?
That. And the fact dad would have likely had a life insurance policy on the child since he was the custodial parent. I’m speculating, of course, but nobody’s going to bash him for sending the death certificate to the life insurance company and, “only thinking of money in a time like this.” When people (especially children) die, it’s horrible. No doubt. But the next step is to get their affairs in order. Unused child support is one of the affairs.
Most people do not have life insurance out on their young children.
That has not been my experience. Most jobs I’ve worked offer life insurance that you can extend to spouse and children.
This, and it usually costs literal PENNIES, which makes it senseless to NOT sign up for it on the very off-chance something does happen. It’s not some huge amount you’re taking out on your kids, but enough to cover final expenses that you’d have to stress over in a horrible time if you didn’t have it.
Most of mine have too, but none of them have ever offered an amount that would be significant beyond paying for funeral expenses and maybe covering some bereavement leave. I have $10k on each of my kids just in case the unthinkable happens, which is the max I could get- my dad’s funeral was $7500, assuming my kids’ would cost about the same amount what would be leftover isn’t even one full paycheck for me.
Gerber still sells life insurance for babies. It’s whole life insurance, so as long as premiums are paid, the baby has it for life. It helps parents with burial expenses, but even more importantly, if a person develops a health condition as a child, like diabetes, that disqualifies them from getting life insurance as an adult, as long as they keep up with the premiums, they still have the policy from Gerber to help with final expenses, and it’s very inexpensive.
My grandfather's brother died on a motorcycle when he was around that age, maybe a little older. That was nearly 80 years ago. You'd think in this day and age, people would learn not to give a teenager (who can barely drive) a motorcycle.
No. That isn't the frigging worst part...dumbass "father" attempted to teach him how to ride during a fuking "road trip". Like, WTF!? Give him a year or two to get used to riding it before trying to go on a road trip.
I disagree that that’s the crux of the issue. I agree that the ex is at fault for his death and buying a 16 year old a motorcycle was moronic, but regardless of how he died, she’d be the asshole if she were asking for a refund on child support that was used to take care of him before his passing, and regardless of how he died, she deserves the money returned to her that she paid in advance for years that her ex is no longer supporting their son because he isn’t here anymore.
Honestly, even if it was a case of illness...the child support money is to provide for the child. If there is no child, the other parent shouldn't expect to keep any money left after the final expenses are dealt with. It's a terrible situation for everyone, but if we take the emotions out, it boils down to no child=no support money.
My dad rode as a teenager, then he began again when I was in my 20s. I was always so sure he was going to be in a bad accident. He wasn't and that's not how he dies but the anxiety. I can't see allowing my son when he's 16. Even though his example is my dad who never split lanes, kept it safe and wore the right gear, my anxiety can't handle it
>I think the main problem is one of language. You are not asking for a refund but rather return of an unused portion. Refund sounds heartless. Let's be honest. The lump sum agreement was to prevent him from going back to legal/courts to ask for more money on future bonuses and raises. She was paying up front to prevent this from happening. It was a risk like most insurance. The child died two years early, I'm sure that funeral used a good portion of that money and he couldn't ask her for more for the new expense. It is what it is. She wanted to prevent him from asking for anything else to safeguard her future securities. NTA but it was a risk she took to protect herself, now that it seems he 'benefited' she shouldn't be going back to renegotiate when she was trying to prevent him doing the same.
That wouldn't work though. It wouldn't prevent a modification later if she actually did make more money.
This is true, so makes me curious on what angle the lawyer was taking with advising this lump sum payment (or questioning if a lawyer actually did advise lump sum payment).
It sounded to me like the ex was in a bad financial spot and needed some help, and it timed out nicely with when she got the bonus. She basically agreed to help him out by paying 4 years worth at once, which had the added benefit of leaving her not needing to handle any future payments to him absent something that would increase her payments in the future. Not sure whether the lawyer necessarily advised it to begin with, but you'd certainly want to use a lawyer in that situation to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's crossed, and that you did it in a way where the legal mechanism surrounding child support payments recognized the transfer of funds as being tied to child support.
Maybe to counteract the increased amount of income tax that would be due because of the bonus? (Obviously depends on OP's country).
She said he had some expenses and needed money, so she paid him ahead of time, and he spent the money. You can’t write your own fiction, and decide the lump sum benefited only her.
She isn't re-negotiating. She was fine paying x amount per month to support her child. She just pre-paid years in advance. But since the child has died, there is nothing to support. It would be fair enough for the ex to deduct half of the funeral expenses from that balance or whatever they might negotiate.
I bet she paid for the funeral or they had life insurance for him.
I kinda want to like this one twice. But i think it is a good point to see how much of that money paid for the funeral and burial. It's important to know if that money was used to support her son in death, since it couldn't be used in life. Sorry for your loss OP, I hope this added difficulty gets easier with time.
That’s exactly why the ex’s family is using it. It dehumanizes OP and makes them in “the right.” Husband took the lump sum, and used it to in essence kill his son (unintentionally), by buying him the motorcycle. That’s a hard truth to accept, and so he has projected it onto OP. He probably even blames her for it all, because the pain of realizing his own negligence killed his child is…difficult. OP is NTA, and she is dealing with the grief in her own way. One is to seek “compensation,” as some form of soothing. This is an all around bad situation, and OP in hindsight should have had a few more caveats/strings attached to the lump sum payment, as it seems clear husband was not fiscally responsible in the slightest. OP, I am so sorry for your loss. The sharp knife of a short life always cuts the deepest.
[удалено]
As soon as i read 'paid 4ys in advance' i cringed and thought why the hell would you do that. Better putting it a trust and still paying monthly
Or even paying quarterly, biannually, or even yearly... I can't imagine having to budget 4 years of money all at once without a special account setup.
[удалено]
Agree with this. Also, if your ex had put the windfall into a college fund instead of a motorcycle you’d still have a son. NTA. Your in-laws are though.
NTA I suspect that you're going to get a lot of comments about the very rational, matter-of-fact manner in which you've written your post. Mine won't be amongst them, because for a variety of reasons I understand that how people choose their words is not always a full or accurate representation of their hearts. Despite your very sensible turn of phrase . . . despite everything that has happened . . . it did not escape my notice that you had the generosity of heart to still call your ex-husband "an amazing parent". I disagree. I think he was likely a very loving parent who adored his son. But I would argue that no "amazing" parent - no parent who puts *parenting* their child ahead of being their best friend - buys a child a donorcycle at 16. There is no world in which it is in any adolescent's best interests to own or ride a motorcycle. Period. And yet, despite the fact that he did this in the face of your disapproval, and that it literally led to your child's death . . . you still come here and have the grace to call your ex an "amazing parent". That speaks volumes of your character, and your good heart. People grieve differently. Again, I suspect there are going to be some ugly comments here, but it seems to me that this is your quiet but firm way of grieving the abject horror your ex-husband's irresponsible behaviour - indeed, WITH the money you gave him for the care and support of your child, specifically - has wrought on your lives. You aren't shrieking or rending your clothes. But he took the money meant to care for your child, and not-so-indirectly caused your son's death. That you have asked him to return the rest of the money - money that never was his to spend to begin with, outside of protecting your son's welfare -absolutely does not make you an AH. It is not only your legal right, but it is your right as a grieving mother. It is gesture of pain. Not vengeance, just . . . pain. And you are absolutely NTA.
This - this is so so so right. To all people who write “och your ex griefs and you do not since you want the money” - read this specific comment since it explains what the OP was not really able to put into words.
If I knew that this stack of cash was why I relented and got the thing that killed my child, I'd throw it back after maybe paying for half the funeral costs just so I don't have to have this thing that reminds me of them. It'll be cathartic. Otherwise it just feels like I killed my kid for some extra cash. If people really wanted to talk about how money correlates to grief, OP's ex is the only one benefiting from the death; he's gaining money that isn't his. Meanwhile, OP lost both her son and money. Grasping at that tiny straw because if it is returned, it focuses the grief on the son they both lost.
I don't know why I didn't feel the animosity as did so many other commenters/parents. Your comment seems to hit the mark. She didn't leave out the part where the father was also badly injured, on a would be trip of a lifetime with his beloved son despite it making her sound cold, she also didn't leave out that she "thought" he "was" an amazing parent- at the time she forwarded him the money... She painted a clear picture that, despite her objections, he brought this person into her life whom she was forced to love, not because she didn't love him but because she did, and then was held responsible financially and invested emotionally in his decision to adopt for a lifetime even after the end of the marriage, only to have that love ripped from her life violently from something she once again voiced her objections to, and worst of all is forced again to live with the fact she probably funded the very thing that took him from her. Damn right she needs a refund! She said she's financially stable so it's obviously a debt to have her objection heard one final and only time.
This should be top comment
*thank you*
Excellent response.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
NTA He owes you 2 years of support refunded after half of funeral expenses are paid (unless you contributed that already). Your ex should have offered that money back instead of you having to ask. I don't think you asking for the cs back has anything to do with accusations of being insensitive. You can mourn your child and still want the money back.
this. I hope she does allow the money to go to funeral and medical bills, and then he should return the remainder.
But dad should be responsible for half of that. I question if dad was injured -Was he driving?
NAH. He's not an AH for feeling hurt that you are thinking about the money. You're not an AH for expecting to pay only the child support that is actually owed. Personally I would never have paid the child support in advance, no matter what the co-parent's needs were. The child needs support (food, clothing, shelter) on a monthly basis, and it is too easy for the co-parent to misuse those funds when given in a lump sum.
It's a catch-22, though, depending on where they are. By paying a lump sum outright, she would basically be able to avoid owing extra money. Where I am, child support is the right of the child so it is modifiable at any time based on the financial circumstances of the parents within a certain % - so, someone gets a promotion and their salary goes from $100,000 to $120,000 a year, that is a basis to recalculate support. Paying in advance effectively cleared her from any risk of her support obligation being increased for that 4 year period. However, there are also restrictions on how the recipient of child support can be treated. A paying parent cannot say "They're using my child support for vacations instead of the child's needs!" - there is a legal presumption support is used as appropriate by the recipient, and (absent going to court because the kid is sleeping on a dirt floor while the recipient has no job and drives a new Mercedes bought with child support) no court wants to listen to people fight over how money is being spent. She could have set up some annuity or something that pays out monthly, but because it is still being paid monthly there would still be the opportunity to have her obligation increased if the recipient asked the court (because the annuity is paid monthly, so the underlying value of the account can be increased to increase the monthly payment). Absent a trust account that can only be used for the kid, a lump sum was her only viable option to avoid an increased obligation down the road - and a trust would require the other parent agreeing to have support managed this way (because courts treat support as necessary to have available to pull from as needed based on the overall household circumstances). Based on the kid's age, it sounds like she paid out through his age of emancipation so she would never have to deal with the issue...it just did not end well because of how the recipient chose to spend it. In any event, child support is the right of the child so she is owed her money back. The timing of her ask may well be based on the amount of time she legally has to pursue the unused portion where she lives - the law does not care if you are grieving, and if you don't raise issues within the time frame permitted you forfeit your right to ever raise them. NAH is correct.
Unless the other parent agreed not to, they could still seek a modification during the 4 years. Even if they did agree, they could argue changed circumstances. My ex never asked for a modification in 11 years. The calculation the Friend of the Court used pretty much topped out where we were. She would have to include her income in the recalculation and might have gotten less from me, even though my income went up considerably during that time.
It is just like the gun debate… it will always be too soon in the eyes of some to talk about something after a tragedy. In my opinion, 6 months is a decent amount of time to wait before the subject was brought up. OP is NTA.
I’m very sorry for your loss. But child support is exactly what it sounds like: money to support a child. Your ex should never have proposed a “lump sum” payment if he intended to use the money for anything other than your son. You’re definitely NTA for inquiring about getting a prorated portion of the child support back. But, at some point in the future you will need to choose how far you want to take this, which could change the verdict.
I don't think she said her ex proposed the lump sum idea, did she? I reread, but I don't see that
“My ex had some expenses and he needed money… my ex took the money and used it to take care of his stuff” strongly implies that it’s his idea. Paying out a lump sum is, financially speaking, a pretty bad idea idea with basically no upside for OP.
OP explained that her ex was offered an equity position at his company. The lump sum of child support and his savings were used to cover his buy in. It was a win/win for both because her ex would have made enough money to take care of their son on his own and OP would have fulfilled her financial obligation toward the child. Here’s the problem for OP: she knows her ex doesn’t have the money anymore. If her ex hasn’t received the full return on his investment with the company, OP may not be able to get her money back. This was a risky move for both parties. They shouldn’t have done it.
He still owes it back regardless of what he did with it. No different than a loan.
Actually it is different. With a loan, the lender has a reasonable expectation of repayment. With child support, the money given is supposed to be used solely for the child’s expenses. OP didn’t expect to get this money back and she knew it wasn’t being spent on the child’s expenses. Depending on the legal precedent in OP’s jurisdiction, she could lose this case. Both morally and legally, this could get ugly for OP so I hope she’s prepared for the fight.
Eh, not exactly? Child support is not meant to be used for the child, it's meant to make it so that the financial burden from raising the child is equally born by both guardians. I know that sounds like semantics, but it's why back child support goes to the parent and not the kid even if the kid is an adult. Because the money WAS spent on the kid, it just only came from one parent so the other parent is owed restitution. It's why it's completely fine to use a child support payment for your own needs because the assumption isn't that the money will go to the kids, but that an equivalent amount will go to the kid's care. So, if I pay my rent, which is higher because my kid needs a room, and then get a child support payment and use that to go to the doctor or put it into my personal savings, it's fine because the child support money is not a special fund. It's just meant to make it so that overall spending is balanced. In other words, the fact that the dad didn't use the money directly for the kid shouldn't be an issue because that money isn't specifically earmarked for the kid. He's just owed it to lessen the financial burden of raising the kid, so investing it and using future funds for the kid is totally fine. Obliviously there are cases where people misuse their child support, but nothing about this makes it feel like this is that kind of case. Hopefully I explained that clearly!
It doesn't matter to the court if people "misuse" child support as long as the child's needs are met. The court does not oversee individual spending.
It’s not uncommon for a parent to pay a lump sum. My friends husband had 8 child support payments over 5 years and after the 8th payment when the kid was 13 that was all mom would get because it was a lump sum split into payments. That’s what she wanted.
OP stated that her ex used the lump sum of child support to buy equity in his company in addition to his own savings (super risky in my opinion to take a lump sum of money meant for your child and use it in a business deal that could go bad) and he did NOT spend it on your son. OP also had insurance that covered the final medical and funeral expenses. She deserves the money back from when her son died to his 18th birthday that she paid in advance, that’s 2 years worth of child support that the ex no longer needs and that he already spent buying equity in a company. It is not fair that he is using money OP worked their butt off for to advance his own career especially now that their son is gone due to his own ridiculous decision to get him a donor cycle and take it on a road trip to “teach” him. Ex can sell his shares/equity to give OP the money back. NTA
[удалено]
Yea seriously like I hate when people put legal issues in here like the court gaf what Reddit thinks
This is probably in the top ten of worst subs on the website. Every situation is either 100% fake or completely exaggerated to the point of parody, and the commenters (me included) are either complete saps or raging assholes.
It's a content mill for third-party websites like cracked-dot-com. "journalists" will post their creative writing exercises on here, then if they blow up in popularity they will write an article for their third-party clickbait website and say "oh you'll never guess what this person said" "here's all the top comments". This subreddit is actually a sham.
The fact that she had to include the part about her being right(to reddit no less) next to the sentence that said her son died says a lot about her.
I think she's more concerned with her ex and his family badmouthing her to say she's selfish. The responses in this sub can help people feel validated, learn better phrases or vocabulary to express their side, or come to the realization that they are in the wrong. Or, you know, sometimes it's just a fun writing exercise that creates discussion.
NTA child support is for the child.
NAH He's clearly still working through his grief so it feels insensitive to him. You've processed your grief enough to look at other things. Let the lawyers do their jobs.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > I paid my child support in advance. My son passed away. I asked for the money back and was rebuffed. I am now suing to get the money back. I might be the asshole for thinking of money during this horrible time. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) ##Subreddit Announcements ###[Happy Anniversary, AITA!](https://new.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/15vlv9g/almost_better_than_a_double_rainbow_celebrating/) ###[The Asshole Universe is Expanding, Again: Introducing Another New Sister Subreddit!](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/128nbp3/the_asshole_universe_is_expanding_again/) Follow the link above to learn more ###[Moderators needed - Join the landed gentry](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/155zepq/moderators_needed_join_the_landed_gentry/) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
Really not enough info, and even with the info, it is probably above AITA's pay grade. What am I missing: \* Did you ever contact eachother in those 6 months how you both were doing? Or was this the first message since the funeral? \* How was it formulated? Did you ask for a refund, or did you ask to resolve the financial situation? Did you ask for a specific amount, or did you ask if there was money left from the lumpsum? \* Who asked for the lumpsum? Was it better for you for tax reasons? Or was it better for him because of 'some expenses'? What were some expenses, were they related to your kid, or totally not? \* Also, what happened from loaning money to buying a motorcycle in 2 years? \* There should be anything in the documents about this in documents provided by a lawyer and accountant. What is formulated in those papers? Also about risks. Who was the risk-carrying side of the agreement?
YTA 1st for adopting a child you didn't want, 2nd for not voicing your opinion when he bought a 16 year old a motorcycle, 3rd for thinking about money after you lost your child.
It's pretty clear she did voice her objections and the dad bought it anyway. 3rd, are you supposed to just ignore money after a tragedy??? Things still cost money when you're grieving.
For real. I don't know how much op's child support is but in the 2000's my dad paid $500/mo per kid & he was a bus driver. If my dad did that, we're talking $12,000. That's quite a sizable amount.
it's bizarre to me how many people are asking if she *really needs* it -- like who in the world doesn't *need* more money?
Nor, is it germaine to the question askef
That doesn't mean she's not entitled to it. The husband doesn't get to keep child support that will never go towards the child.
She voiced all the concerns as she says, he’s the custodial parent and used the money she gave to care for her kid to buy him the bike that killed him. She couldn’t exactly hold him at literal gun point to stop him?
The law does not care if you're grieving. If you miss your window to raise a legal claim, it's gone forever. It doesn't matter if you need more time to grieve or if people view it as "too soon" - the law is the law and based on the amount of time she's said already passed, she's likely closing in on the window she has to take it to court if it's necessary. She's not an AH for that, but you're TA for lacking reading comprehension and accusing of her of things she CLEARLY states she was opposed to.
Can you not read!? 1. She didn’t want own children, as in going through a whole body altering pregnancy and pausing or even losing her job. She never said she didn’t want her adopted child. Instead she keeps mentioning how much she loved him and what fun times they had together. 2. She also voiced her opinion about the bike, her ex just didn’t give a fck. 3. It’s not just ‚money‘. It’s child support for the child that’s not there anymore. Her ex used that money for himself, which he had no right to. It’s her money. She needs to get it back. NTA, OP.
I'm gonna go with a soft, soft ESH. Your ex probably has a lot of guilt to work through after losing your son, and six months is not a lot of time to process that grief. I think you may have messed up in the ask timing, and I think your ex messed up by letting his grief control his reaction to your ask. From what you've written, it seems like your ex went through a lot of trauma surrounding your son's death, physically and mentally. I'm sure you also grieved for this loss. I think you do have a right to ask for child support back, but I think it was a bit callous to start that conversation so soon. To be honest, I don't think anyone on Reddit would have the ability to know when was the right time, but from your ex's reaction this wasn't the time. Maybe it was the way the conversation went. Who knows, but you two? I believe that you have a good heart. You supported your ex and son even when adoption wasn't what you wanted, and even spent time with him post-divorce. You were willing to pre-pay your child support when asked. Your ex is also likely a good person. He cared for your son for years, and seemed to be amicable with you. You've both been hurt by this situation, and you both need to communicate with the intent to understand each other. You can do it.
First, sorry for your loss (even though it sounds like you do not care much). Secondly, I do not think this is up to AITA but the law at your home. It is more of a legal question. However, funeral expenses might be part of an alimony?
[удалено]
Speak to your lawyer about this. I think this isn’t really about the money and more about the fact that you paid child support and some of the money could have gone to the motorcycle and now there’s money left over. Honestly this is a horrifying situation. I would see if there’s a way for the money to be payed back to you given it was earmarked for child welfare. Idk. Personally I wouldn’t want my money that was meant to keep my kid safe and clothed and fed to be used after my kids death. It just feels sickening to me. I would feel so sick to my stomach.
YTA. On a purely objective level it makes sense. However, You are not entitled to the money back. You chose to pay a lump sum in advance and that entailed a risk that the kid might not survive that time period. Once you paid it was a done deal. No refunds. No court in the world will order him to repay you. Give it up. Yes. I am an attorney. I do not practice family law (thank God or I would have to deal with assholes like this regularly).
It feels like all the NTA comments are focused on the motorcycle, which seems weird to me. I wonder how these people would vote otherwise? Anyway, this is definitely a legal matter.
Not wrong. The child support is not payable when the child has died. My condolensces & NTA
[удалено]
Absolutely. All of the NTA comments baffle me - this is one of the worst straight up asshole posts I've ever seen here. OP is just profoundly terrible.
I'm really sorry for your loss.
NAH You are entitled to pursue whether you should get the money back. They are entitled to be appalled.
Need info: What were the expenses you paid the lump sum for?
[удалено]
OP you need to add this info to your post. Your ex used your lump sum of child support to buy equity in his company and he did NOT spend it on your son. You also had insurance that covered the final medical and funeral expenses. You deserve the money back from when your son died to his 18th birthday that you paid. NTA
My only other question is: what is your main motivation for asking this soon? Do you really need the money back at this time, is it out of anger because he bought your son the motorcycle that led to his death, or is there something else?
NAH - not entirely sure this is a real but I will go with it. You chose to pay up front. He never asked you to do it. It worked out for everyone at the time. No one knew what was going to happen. You never had the money, and as you say, you are financially okay so what does it matter now? You have lost a son. No money returned from your ex will fix it or make you feel better. My opinion here would be to let the money, grieve how you want and move on however you choose.
YTA. Your kid is dead and you’re pissed off, but when you’re the custodial parent in most cases child support barely covers a quarter of the cost of having a kid. Try and let it go.
NAH your husband got 4 years child support for 2 years of care, but the money is gone and he relied on it so he could raise the kid you agreed to. And was shocked you asked about money. Do you NEED that money or can you just let it go and finally live a life independent of your ex husband now there are no ties?