Pray for Ian latest post so sad...

[Burris]

I, in no way, think that she's a sexual predator. But what i think has happened is that everyone has somehow deluded themselves into believing that Ian is still "Ian" inside, just trapped in a body that is broken. When in fact, he is not still the same Ian with the mentality of a 28 year old- he is mentally impaired. How much, I don't know. But enough that he was not able to give his own consent to be married. And the only people the judge heard from was Larissa and their SGM pastor. That's it.

Had they even been engaged when the accident happened, this might be a different story- but they were 21 year olds who were Seniors in college and had only dated for 10 months. I don't think she had any binding duty to him to sign her whole life away at the age of 21. She was a baby. And I'm willing to bet that Ian loved Larissa enough that he would have never wanted this life for her; he would have wanted her to move on, get married and have a happy life.

The judge only heard from Larissa and a Pastor before determining whether a man with a TBI could enter into a legally binding contract? Weccch! That’s so damned irresponsible it makes my brain hurt.

I will maintain, however, that no one here can guess as to Ian's capabilities; that Larissa and Ian's doctors and those closest to him are far better situated to know whether ‘Ian is still Ian’ than anyone on the outside looking in. And I also maintain that there's more than a whiff of the idea, in this thread, that Larissa is in some way predatory.

[Just Not Good]

I'm pretty horrified that the judge took/asked for no medical testimony before determining that the marriage was in Ian's best interests. (Also, poor Larissa- no one there to advocate for HER best interests!)

[treemom]

I don't think she is a predator, but I also don't think a sexual relationship is wholly appropriate.

And I am not guessing at his capabilities, I am using the legal standard. If they were not married then this would be viewed entirely different I think by many people.

[Mela99]

The judge only heard from Larissa and a Pastor before determining whether a man with a TBI could enter into a legally binding contract? Weccch! That’s so damned irresponsible it makes my brain hurt.

I will maintain, however, that no one here can guess as to Ian's capabilities; that Larissa and Ian's doctors and those closest to him are far better situated to know whether ‘Ian is still Ian’ than anyone on the outside looking in. And I also maintain that there's more than a whiff of the idea, in this thread, that Larissa is in some way predatory.

I just finished up an externship (law school) as a guardian ad litem for children/mentally ill. If PA works the way MI does, a guardian/conservator would have been appointed while Ian was in the coma, so someone could make decisions for him. Once he recovered, he would need to petition the court to have the guardian removed. If a judge had to be consulted, it is because he still has a guardian. For the most part, those petitions before the court are very informal, and the judge tends to rule in favor of the petitioner unless something is very wrong. I'm not surprised the marriage was approved. I saw one or two similar cases. One was of a man with cerebal palsy needing consent of the court to marry. He kept the guardianship just because it helped with benefits and dealing with SSI. A lot of people do that.

I would like to point out that you can be of sound mind and still have a guardian to help. It just makes some things easier. That said, I don't know where Ian is on the continuum.

[treemom]

Mela99,

If a person had such a guardianship are they legally able to consent to sex? Could say the guardian get a restraining order against someone that was having sex with this person?

[Mela99]

Mela99,

If a person had such a guardianship are they legally able to consent to sex? Could say the guardian get a restraining order against someone that was having sex with this person?

There are different kinds of guardianship. It can be limited, temporary, only for a certain purpose, or a full guardianship. People can file fur different reasons. Normally, in a hospital situation, staff are trained to contact family members or a local guardianship service when someone like Ian goes into a coma. My assumption is that Ian's father filed the necessary paperwork - the basic form gives rights for medical decisions and personal care; a separate form for conservatorship would need to be filed to cover his finances- and became his legal guardian.

Having a guardian is not the same as, say, being declared incompetent. You can be incompetent and not have a guardian and vice versa. Having a guardian doesn't necessarily mean you lose all of your decision making abilities. It really depends on the extent of the guardianship. But here in Michigan, a guardian is required to balance the best interests of the ward along with the listed responsibilities under the supreme court -- Determine where the individual lives, make provision for his or her care and comfort, including food, clothing and shelter, obtain services to achieve the best possible state of well-being, return the individual to self-management, if and when possible, authorize or refuse medical treatment, take care of clothing, furniture, vehicles and other belongings. I can easily see the argument being made that it was in Ian's best interest to marry Larissa.

The point of a guardian, when you get right down to it, is to be an advocate for the ward. In a way, the guardian works for them. So, if Ian wanted to marry Larissa and his guardian didn't want that, Ian could contest it. Here in Michigan you have the right to remove your guardian or appoint someone of your own choosing. If Ian's dad didn't want them to get married, Larissa could have become his guardian and petitioned the court herself.

I don't know about a guardian filing a restraining order. Granted, it is routinely done in the Juvenile courts. To keep kids away from bad influences, separate violent couples, that sort of things. I'm not sure what kind of precedent there is as far as sexual congress goes, especially for an adult. I might look into it, I'm kind of curious now. But take a look in the news - there have been cases of adults with downs syndrome who have had sex and gotten pregnant, and now there is a whole debate about whether or not they can consent to abortion or raising a child. Can't remember the name of the last one, but the mother was fighting as guardian to abort her daughter's baby. Sex and reproduction is still a really sketchy area.

[VaSportsMom]

There was an article on the Daily Mail site last week-ish that dealt with 2 mentally disabled adults that had won permission to be married. They each resided in facility/home and met at a day program that both facilities utilized. Even after being allowed to marry they are now having to fight to be allowed to live together. The groom's facility is not equipped to take couples (or maybe they aren't co-ed) and the bride's facility is insisting that she is not capable of consenting to sex so they refuse to host them.

I'll go look for the link to make sure I got the details right and brb with it. The article really interests me in regards to this situation.

Here is an article & video on CBS's site

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=national&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57583235/mentally-disabled-couple-sues-to-live-together/&feed_id=1&videoid=37&catid=57583235

[treemom]

I am far more comfortable when there is not a power differential from the beginning.

I am not saying I think Larissa is a predator, but I think when you can not consent to marriage as an adult then there is problem.

I neither think Larissa's choice is admirable or deplorable, but I also think she as initially coerced and that isn't fair.

[punkiepie]

I am far more comfortable when there is not a power differential from the beginning.

I am not saying I think Larissa is a predator, but I think when you can not consent to marriage as an adult then there is problem.

I neither think Larissa's choice is admirable or deplorable, but I also think she as initially coerced and that isn't fair.

THIS. I am fine when two people, with similar disabilities and IQs, want to get married. Go for it! I think most people would want handicapped individuals to find love and happiness with someone who can't take advantage of them. I am fine with it when a married couple finds themselves in a Larissa/Ian situation; because consent was given when both people were of sound mind to do so. While it may be legal, I think most people would not agree with a mentally handicapped female being allowed to marry a man who is not also mentally handicapped. I still don't think Larissa is a predator or was trying to take advantage of Ian, which is what usually is the case in these types of situations, but to enter into a marriage like this- it just doesn't sit well me.

[salex]

I’m a bit disturbed by the number of people here who believe Larissa should have left Ian, her fiancé, after he had suffered a traumatic brain injury. It reads a lot like, “I’m committed, unless you get hurt. Then you’re on your fucking own.â€

I'm in the "wouldn't have done it, wouldn't have expected my husband to do it for me before we were married" camp. I have also said publically that if I were ever in a Terry Schiavo situation, I believe it would only be fair for my husband to continue with his life, including finding a relationship with someone who could participate in a relationship, whether he divorced me or not, (and that works both ways, if he were in that situation). Our deal is that we'd make sure the other person was cared for.

In this case, it appears that it is Larissa who is on her fucking own, based on the level of injury sustained. Ian has a brother who is a 40 hour a week caretaker and parents.

I don't approve of sati, either.

[Mela99]

I'm in the "wouldn't have done it, wouldn't have expected my husband to do it for me before we were married" camp. I have also said publically that if I were ever in a Terry Schiavo situation, I believe it would only be fair for my husband to continue with his life, including finding a relationship with someone who could participate in a relationship, whether he divorced me or not, (and that works both ways, if he were in that situation). Our deal is that we'd make sure the other person was cared for.

In this case, it appears that it is Larissa who is on her fucking own, based on the level of injury sustained. Ian has a brother who is a 40 hour a week caretaker and parents.

I don't approve of sati, either.

If it had been that way, I might agree. They had only been dating for less than a year when he had an accident. Hadn't been engaged or anything. Ian's dad told her after Ian came home she needed to move on AWAY from Ian, or move forward and marry him. He really pushed for the marriage.

[duplessis3]

I find it odd that on one hand, people are concerned about Ian's ability to consent, and then on the other hand are blaming Larissa's parents for "allowing' their fully grown, of legal majority age, mentally and physically competent daughter from marrying Ian. There is no legal way, or even reason, to stop her. I also suspect that she doesn't say anything about her family simply because they disapprove (and/or are out of the picture entirely for reasons completely unrelated to this marriage.) Ian has a parent, his mother, - do we know what her physical capabilities are? and a brother who is likely being paid by the state to care for Ian 40 hours a week.

I certainly couldn't stop my sons from marrying someone - regardless of how unsuitable I thought that person was - but I would try like hell to keep the door open and an escape route available.

[Burris]

I'm in the "wouldn't have done it, wouldn't have expected my husband to do it for me before we were married" camp.

This is my opinion:

Life doesn’t come with guarantees. If one cannot accept the fact she may end up having to care for a critically ill husband, to whom she pledged herself through a lifetime contract, then she should not marry – or, of course, she should make it clear in the contract that if her man becomes critically ill, she’ll exchange him for a new model.

I have also said publically that if I were ever in a Terry Schiavo situation, I believe it would only be fair for my husband to continue with his life…

Michael Shiavo did continue with his life while his wife was in a vegetative state – and I honestly don’t think many people would fault him for his having taken a lover in that situation.

What stands out, however, is that Terri Shiavo’s parents were both willing and capable of continuing to care for their daughter. Michael could have divorced his wife and given over guardianship to her parents.

Instead he elected to kill her.

And while we're on this subject, I would like to straighten a few things out.

The presence of a feeding tube, while acting as a source of life support, is not in itself an extreme measure. That g-tube and probably a colostomy bag seem to have been the only ongoing invasive medical treatments Terri Shiavo was receiving. In other words, she was not being kept alive by a clever but inhumane system of tubes and machines. She was not on life support in the sense that she would die shortly after someone 'pulled the plug.'

Terri Shiavo died when the hospice stopped feeding her, much in the same way as anyone else would die if they were left locked up to starve - and, just for the record, starvation is a terrible way to die.

…including finding a relationship with someone who could participate in a relationship, whether he divorced me or not, (and that works both ways, if he were in that situation). Our deal is that we'd make sure the other person was cared for.

If those are the terms of your contract, then so be it. But – and I don’t mean to aim this criticism specifically at you – there is a definite undercurrent in our society that treats people with disabilities as both consumable and disposable.

And while I will admit, with no reservation, that it’s costlier and more difficult to provide a safe and humane level of care to a family member with complex needs, I also think a lot of the complaints caregivers make are related to the following:

1) They don’t have access to proper resources, or;

2) They believe themselves entitled to an easier life than the one they have.

My husband is home now, recovering from a triple whammy that nearly killed him. He spent nearly six months in ICU, part of that time in a medically induced coma. He required a tracheotomy and a feeding tube. (He still requires the former, with supplemental oxygen by day and ventilation by night.)

My husband was already disabled and I knew, almost instinctively by then, how to meet his needs. But this was new, and I wasn’t sure how to handle it. My husband asked the floor social worker for resources and training materials.

My husband is systems analyst whose IQ was tested in school and it topped 170 - and that jerk-off social worker suggested he move to a long-term care facility not equipped for families. My husband lodged a formal complaint against her and spoke to his doctor about it, who said hubby was too young and his prognosis was far too optimistic for the facility in question to even consider him.

I had spent months carefully coaching my husband, getting him a new tablet so he could communicate despite an initial inability to speak (and so he could surf the net), celebrating every new accomplishment – and then, one day, an assface comes along and practically undoes a lot of that work through her shear ignorance; her misplaced pride; her stupidity.

She didn’t even know my husband is slated for a return to work in the fall.

That bitch was extremely lucky a family member found me before I found her, because I was about to make that particular Friday by far the worst day of her entire career.

And I’m tired as shit of people assuming either that I am a martyr or a hero, or that I married this man because I wanted to be a martyr or a hero.

I married because he and I had an agreement on the subject and because we love each other. Full stop.

Everyone who spends even a minute in conversation with my husband knows full well that he’s capable of making his own decisions; that he doesn’t need a guardian, or their disgusting pity. But the discrimination we’ve faced – some of it would seem far-fetched had I not seen it for myself.

Now back to Larissa and Ian: We have no idea why she married him. We have no idea how much functionality Ian has.

A judge - perhaps a shoddy one with little respect for facts, but a servant of the law nonetheless - permitted Ian to wed. The thing is done, and I do not believe, given what we currently know of the situation, (a) that Larissa is taking advantage of Ian in their sex life; and, (b) that she should consider divorcing him ostensibly because she is suffering caregiver burn-out.

I hope she finds someone in the helping profession who can connect her with appropriate resources so she can get respite care for her husband during weekends and a proper caregiver for him - i.e., not his brother – for the rest of the time. The kind of burn-out she is exhibiting could lead to suicidal ideation and worse. And I think we can all agree, despite our different opinions, that such would be a tragic outcome.

I don’t approve of sati, either.

You liken a situation such as this to sati? Seriously?!

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

Burris you seem like you are in a very hard place & have a lot of anger (understandably). However married compared to dating is very different. Your situation has nothing to do with Ian's.

Also what suits some couples does not suit others. I am getting married in 3 weeks & am also a nurse. I have told my fiancé if I get brain damaged he is to make sure I am taken care of but too divorce me. I want a husband, not a carer. And he feels the same way. If I was in the same situation as Terri I'd rather be dead. And almost everyone I have spoken to about this feels the same way. So why should we disbelieve her husband when he said Terri did not want this life?

I hope your husband continues to improve-how awesome he is returning to work! The social worker made an error but...we all make mistakes. We are all human. She may have seen hundreds of cases & thought she was saying something helpful. I have no doubt she was doing her best.

[Burris]

Burris you seem like you are in a very hard place & have a lot of anger (understandably). However married compared to dating is very different. Your situation has nothing to do with Ian's.

Not entirely. The guesswork which takes place here regarding the relationship between Larissa and Ian is different in degree but not in kind: There is a definite undercurrent of, in the very least, mistrust at the idea that two people so apparently mismatched would marry without some ulterior motive.

On the one hand, for example, we have people feeling sorry for Larissa because she's burning out, and may have been pushed into the marriage; whereas on the other hand there's a belief Larissa is taking advantage of her husband or at least of the power differential between them.

Those two ideas don't mix very well, and yet here they are in the same thread and sometimes appearing together in single posts.

Also what suits some couples does not suit others.

True, but commitment means something.

I am getting married in 3 weeks & am also a nurse. I have told my fiancé if I get brain damaged he is to make sure I am taken care of but too divorce me.

What level of brain damage? If you lose vision from damage to your occipital lobe, should he still divorce you?

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous: 'If I become disabled beyond a certain point, divorce me.'

That kind of thinking devalues people with disabilities as a class, which is why I think my husband's story is relevant here even though his disability isn't a TBI.

I want a husband, not a carer. And he feels the same way.

You wouldn't remotely appreciate my opinion on your above statement. It's acerbic enough that I'll keep it to myself and wish you all the best in your upcoming marriage anyway.

If I was in the same situation as Terri I'd rather be dead.

Terri's situation was extreme enough that a lot of people would agree with you. I wouldn't care to live like she did either. But I also know that the preservation of life is important, and if we start drawing deadlines for other people based on our own perception about their quality of life, then we dehumanize people with disabilities even further.

The social worker made an error but...we all make mistakes. We are all human. She may have seen hundreds of cases & thought she was saying something helpful. I have no doubt she was doing her best.

Her best was an idiot. Part of a social worker's job is to research and to keep abreast of new trends in her field. If she can't do that, then she should find another line of work.

[Burris]

Burris you seem like you are in a very hard place & have a lot of anger (understandably).

And one more thing: Just what kind of cheap shot is that? What angers me is that you probably don't even see a problem with your above statement.

[salex]

I don’t approve of sati, either.

You liken a situation such as this to sati? Seriously?!

[treemom]

This is a case in which I feel that anyone who makes a different choice than you is wrong Burris.

I believe you are fulfilling your vows of marriage if you make sure your partner who has been severely disabled to the point of now longer having the mental capacity of an adult is cared for.

I don't think it is more honorable or wonderful to stay married. It just is one of many difficult choices. In one of the previous threads someone posted a story about a woman who remarried after her husband had a devastating stroke. It was the most beautiful story of love, family and commitment I have ever read.

[treemom]

And one more thing: Just what kind of cheap shot is that? What angers me is that you probably don't even see a problem with your above statement.

I don't think that was a cheap shot. You seem angry that people might dare choose something different and their choice devalues people with disabilities.

[Koala]

I am sorry for what your husband (and you) have had to go through Burris...truly I am. It's very difficult to have a loved one struggle with health issues.

If my husband had a TBI I would stay- no questions asked. However, we have been married for almost 12 years and together for almost 15. We have children. We are in our 30's. That's a lot different (imo) than a very young dating couple. Had my husband suffered a severe TBI when we were dating I wouldn't have been able to continue our relationship in the same capacity. I wouldn't have signed up for that and I wouldn't have expected him to either. Further, I don't think either of our parents would have encouraged such a union.

I think a lot of people here are troubled by the fact that the push to marry seemed to come from Ian's father. I am not convinced at all that Larissa would have made the same decision if she had taken more time to consider the long term effects Ian's injury would have on her life. When she married Ian, she essentially signed up for a life as a full time caregiver. She may very well never be able to have children, or even adopt them- and sadly that seems to be something she wants very much. She is not able to pursue the things that most young women her age are able to pursue. If you read her blog, her depression is almost palpable. She does not read as a woman who is happy with her life.

I also think that there is some major concern about the fact that Ian required a judges permission to marry and apparently didn't have anyone testify other than a pastor and Larissa. I don't think Larissa is a bad person, but I do suspect she tries to "normalize" Ian as much as possible (I wish I could think of a better way to phrase that). I think she is desperately searching to make their life like that of other young married couples and from the overwhelming sadness I read in her words, I think she is failing.

[salex]

I'm answering your post in chunks, since it hits on multiple topics.

I am assuming you think men should / will step up to hands on care tasks for their critically ill husband in exactly the same way?

I am not remotely "nurse" like. I am not a hands on caregiver. 35 years ago, before I married (and before genetic testing was common / prevalent) I made it clear to my husband that if we had a severely disabled child, I would work as much and as many jobs as needed to provide the best possible care, but I would not and could not be the hands on carer in that situation. As times changed, we both agreed that prenatal testing was something we would do and would act on.

We have seen family members who had spouses develop severe disabilities, and some continued in the marriage, others divorced, often neither choice was based on lack of love or wanting other relationships but on strategic planning for care options, financial and other considerations.

I also understand that as we age, one or both of us become more at risk for dementia, stroke, etc and that car accidents and illnesses can and do happen. We have discussed and we both know one another's views on when treatments should be stopped and what if any life sustaining efforts should be made, based on situation. I trust my husband and he trusts me and we are on the same page. If our level of commitment doesn't meet your standards, all I can say is, good thing you aren't marrying one of us.

[treemom]

I find it odd that on one hand, people are concerned about Ian's ability to consent, and then on the other hand are blaming Larissa's parents for "allowing' their fully grown, of legal majority age, mentally and physically competent daughter from marrying Ian. There is no legal way, or even reason, to stop her. I also suspect that she doesn't say anything about her family simply because they disapprove (and/or are out of the picture entirely for reasons completely unrelated to this marriage.) Ian has a parent, his mother, - do we know what her physical capabilities are? and a brother who is likely being paid by the state to care for Ian 40 hours a week.

I certainly couldn't stop my sons from marrying someone - regardless of how unsuitable I thought that person was - but I would try like hell to keep the door open and an escape route available.

I never said I thought her parents should stop her, but I did comment that I think was spiritually coerced.

[salex]

I thought she had quit her bank job to focus full-time on writing the book. IIRC that's why they moved in with the mother, so she could work from home. (The parents also had built a specialized place for Ian after his injury.)

Wow. I hope this is not the case, as her bank job would have given her some contact outside of the Ian cult.

[punkiepie]

I never said I thought her parents should stop her, but I did comment that I think was spiritually coerced.

I did ask where are her parents and why didn't/aren't they doing something about her situation. But by that, I meant, why aren't they trying to get her some help right now? She needs an intervention. Full Stop.

Her life is devoted to being Ian's advocate, but at some point, someone needs to be an advocate for Larissa. She needs real counseling done by a real psychiatrist and possibly/probably medication therapy. Yes, I know she is a grown adult, but that doesn't mean her parents should sit back and do nothing while she has a complete mental breakdown.

As to what they should have done in the past in regards to them marrying- I'm not 100% sure. And it could be that they did try to intervene and it came down to Larissa saying this was her choice and her parents could be part of that choice and stay in her life or they could choose to not support her decision and then not be a part of her life. The fact is, we don't know about that. But we do know from her writing that she has been spiraling down into a deep dark pit of despair; so where is her family now?

I'm a nurse and caregiver role strain is a huge issue. There was a study done a few years ago about people who were caregivers for a disabled spouse, parent, or child for more than 6 weeks; they did a skin punch test on them, on caregivers caring for a non-relative, i.e., a nurse, and then on non-caregivers. The caregivers who were caring for their disabled spouse, parent or child- they healed at a 50% slower rate than the other non-relative caregivers. That kind of stress can actually kill you.

Another question I have is why isn't Ian's mom seeing what's happening to Larissa? If her goal is truly for Ian to have a caretaker when she is dead, then why isn't she doing more to help Larissa cope with all of this? Is everyone in that family so afraid of getting real counseling and medication for Larissa because they think once she's a mentally healthy person, she will leave? Personally, I'm afraid of what will happen if she doesn't get help.

[lilwriter85]

THIS. I am fine when two people, with similar disabilities and IQs, want to get married. Go for it! I think most people would want handicapped individuals to find love and happiness with someone who can't take advantage of them. I am fine with it when a married couple finds themselves in a Larissa/Ian situation; because consent was given when both people were of sound mind to do so. While it may be legal, I think most people would not agree with a mentally handicapped female being allowed to marry a man who is not also mentally handicapped. I still don't think Larissa is a predator or was trying to take advantage of Ian, which is what usually is the case in these types of situations, but to enter into a marriage like this- it just doesn't sit well me.

This pretty much sums up my view on Ian and Larissa's situation. Ben and Katie another couple in a similar situation have been discussed here on FJ several times. Katie seems to come from a fundie lite background. She and Ben had been married two years before they were injured in a car accident. Ben is physically and mentally disabled, he seems a little better off than Ian. Ben and Katie are still together. I agree with you on two people of similar disabilities and IQs getting married. The documentary Monica and David is about two people with Down syndrome who got married.

I also don't think Larissa is a predator or trying to take advantage of Ian. But I agree the situation doesn't sit well. I also believe there was coercion brought on by Ian's father before he died.