Possible Lawsuit for Josh

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

I totally agree with occupancy limits. A house does reach a point where there are just too many people in it. I wouldn't mind living next to a large family that maintains their property- but unfortunately they are just few and far between.

When I bought my first house, I looked at one that was super nice and in a great neighborhood but the yard next door looked pretty grubby. I still loved the house and went back for a second look and just as we were leaving the neighbors pulled up in a van and 10 kids came piling out. The garage door opened & I saw one bay of the garage had been dry walled off and set up as a bedroom for their sons with two sets of bunk beds. The realtor and I smiled and waved at the family and the kids just kind of looked at us. I wound up buying a different house in the same neighborhood and I am so glad I did.

I have since found out that family has lived there since they only had two kids. You would think that once you have 4 children living in the unheated/uncooled garage you would think twice before having anymore- but they have added two new blessings in the last several years. Now I did hear that they do let the boys make down pallets on the floor in the house when it is very hot or cold- but that just still makes me angry. If someone kept a puppy in their garage year roung, the SPCA would get calls left and right, but for some reason doing that with children is okay.

[Born Skeptic]

The Duggars always acted as if it was no big deal-- lots of families have this happen! So I doubt any money changed hands at the time. However if it did, the money would have been given to her parents and there is a case to be made that no one settled with the actual victim. She could say that she never saw any money.

I agree with the other posters that this will all be handled out of court and a non-disclosure agreement signed so that we will never learn the details.

If a parent or guardian sues or enters a legal settlement on behalf of a minor child, the parent waives the child's right to peruse further action when they reach adulthood. (US courts would not entertain a double jeopardy lawsuit.) I doubt there was a settlement years ago, but if there was, and the child did not benefit from the proceeds, her legal case now would be against her parents, not the Duggars.

[justoneoftwo]

If a parent or guardian sues or enters a legal settlement on behalf of a minor child, the parent waives the child's right to peruse further action when they reach adulthood. (US courts would not entertain a double jeopardy lawsuit.) I doubt there was a settlement years ago, but if there was, and the child did not benefit from the proceeds, her legal case now would be against her parents, not the Duggars.

This depends on the state. In many states you are required to have a third party look at a settlement and approve it when minors are involved. In some situations parents are not allowed to wave or settle issues for their children at all. Of course, all of this presumes a written agreement, without which good luck Duggars proving that such an agreement exists and its scope.

Also, yes there are double jeopardy law suits, just not criminal cases. Usually the cases get combined but if they are not filed at the same time there is no reason they need to be.

[Mama Mia]

It's also legal to limit occupancy per bedroom. Common IME is 2 people per bedroom (over 2 yrs) +1. So a 3 BR house could only legally be rented with a total of 7 occupants over 2 yrs old.

The area I live in is insanely overpriced , so occupancy limits are seen more as an ideal, than a mandatory Issue, even by CPS. I would assume it's the same in most areas that are hugely expensive, but have a more diverse population than just a wealthy suburb. Landlords , since there is huge competition for units, will typically rent to the applicant with the most money and the fewest household members.

What I've always found ridiculous with occupancy standards based on number of rooms is that they don't take into account the size of the rooms. A 3 bedroom home with 16 people in 1,000 square feet is hugely different than 16 people in a three bedroom home with 4,000 square feet. And often people can use other areas of the house as a bedroom even if it doesn't strictly fit the definition.

[HarleyQuinn]

I higly doubt JB handed out any money over this. It was just "mild, inappropriate touching" dontcha know.

[DowntownAbbey]

I higly doubt JB handed out any money over this. It was just "mild, inappropriate touching" dontcha know.

So I totally read the "mild inappropriate touching" in Michelle's voice and "dontcha know" in Sarah Palin's voice (or Tina Fey playing Palin, I can't tell the difference anymore). It's a very bad, but hilarious combo.

[ShepherdontheRock]

The area I live in is insanely overpriced , so occupancy limits are seen more as an ideal, than a mandatory Issue, even by CPS. I would assume it's the same in most areas that are hugely expensive, but have a more diverse population than just a wealthy suburb. Landlords , since there is huge competition for units, will typically rent to the applicant with the most money and the fewest household members.

What I've always found ridiculous with occupancy standards based on number of rooms is that they don't take into account the size of the rooms. A 3 bedroom home with 16 people in 1,000 square feet is hugely different than 16 people in a three bedroom home with 4,000 square feet. And often people can use other areas of the house as a bedroom even if it doesn't strictly fit the definition.

Yeah, in the particular area I live in, I think CPS wouldn't remove your kids over overcrowding, unless it was really dramatic. In my state, I think the requirement is more that kids need to have enough sleeping space on something that at least resembles a bed (so kids can't just sleep on bare floor.) So, kids would probably be okay sleeping on the couch in a kitchen-dining-room combo.

[EmmieJ]

If a parent or guardian sues or enters a legal settlement on behalf of a minor child, the parent waives the child's right to peruse further action when they reach adulthood. (US courts would not entertain a double jeopardy lawsuit.) I doubt there was a settlement years ago, but if there was, and the child did not benefit from the proceeds, her legal case now would be against her parents, not the Duggars.

I work in a small civil litigation firm in California. I am not an attorney. I started as a legal secretary and am now a legal assistant and office manager. (Just clarifying that I'm not offering a legal opinion, but an opinion based on over 20 years in civil litigation). What I say now applies to California civil litigation, but I think it is likely also applicable for all states. If a minor has a claim for injury or damages, a lawsuit can be brought on their behalf, after the court appoints a guardian ad litem. In most cases, the GAL is a parent, or other close relative. Once a settlement is reached, the parties then must present a petition to the court to approve the settlement.

In the scenario described by Handmaiden of the Dog, that would have been an informal settlement, without benefit of any lawsuit being filed, or oversight by a judge. If that actually happened, with the 5th victim's parents accepting some money in settlement from JB & Michelle, it would not have been approved by any judge. That would mean the 5th victim could conceivably file an actual lawsuit against Josh, JB and Michelle, and even perhaps her own parents.

While I would like to see Josh, JB & Michelle have to face some real consequences for their actions, I have serious doubts that any young woman raised in the Gothard cult would bring such a lawsuit. It would go against the crap she was told to believe her entire life. It would possibly alienate her from her entire family and group of friends. It would require a great deal of inner strength, self-confidence and determination, all of which is purposely knocked out of any kids raised in this cult. However, I do believe the 5th victim could certainly bring a lawsuit, provided she is within the statute of limitation. Any informal settlement, if indeed there was such a settlement, was not sanctioned by the court and would be deemed invalid.

ETA: Even if a lawsuit has not been filed, and the claim of a minor is settled -- in California, it is the law that the parties must still petition the appropriate court for approval of that settlement.

[Mama Mia]

I work in a small civil litigation firm in California. I am not an attorney. I started as a legal secretary and am now a legal assistant and office manager. (Just clarifying that I'm not offering a legal opinion, but an opinion based on over 20 years in civil litigation). What I say now applies to California civil litigation, but I think it is likely also applicable for all states. If a minor has a claim for injury or damages, a lawsuit can be brought on their behalf, after the court appoints a guardian ad litem. In most cases, the GAL is a parent, or other close relative. Once a settlement is reached, the parties then must present a petition to the court to approve the settlement.

In the scenario described by Handmaiden of the Dog, that would have been an informal settlement, without benefit of any lawsuit being filed, or oversight by a judge. If that actually happened, with the 5th victim's parents accepting some money in settlement from JB & Michelle, it would not have been approved by any judge. That would mean the 5th victim could conceivably file an actual lawsuit against Josh, JB and Michelle, and even perhaps her own parents.

While I would like to see Josh, JB & Michelle have to face some real consequences for their actions, I have serious doubts that any young woman raised in the Gothard cult would bring such a lawsuit. It would go against the crap she was told to believe her entire life. It would possibly alienate her from her entire family and group of friends. It would require a great deal of inner strength, self-confidence and determination, all of which is purposely knocked out of any kids raised in this cult. However, I do believe the 5th victim could certainly bring a lawsuit, provided she is within the statute of limitation. Any informal settlement, if indeed there was such a settlement, was not sanctioned by the court and would be deemed invalid.

ETA: Even if a lawsuit has not been filed, and the claim of a minor is settled -- in California, it is the law that the parties must still petition the appropriate court for approval of that settlement.

I don't know anything about the particulars of this, and I'm not even in the legal profession, but I'm really curious why you would think the law would be the same ( or roughly the same ) in all states?

The laws governing virtually everything that isn't a specific federal mandate seem to vary wildly from state to state. Even the laws that ARE due to federal regulation vary a great deal in the particulars. I'm not going to google all the history, so forgive me if my memory is off on the details - but, For example, the drinking age in all states was raised to 21 due to the federal government tying that age to any state getting any share of highway funds. So they all raised it to 21, but in some states you can still drink at home , just not in public. Or you can serve alcohol, but not drink it. In others anyone under 21 can't drink anywhere, or serve alcohol. And that's a law that was specifically designed to get all states under the same umbrella - not the usual patchwork of laws made at different times under very different circumstances.

I'm just curious as to your reasoning, because my experience in general has been that laws from state to state vary much more than people would expect.

[JenniferJuniper]

I don't know anything about the particulars of this, and I'm not even in the legal profession, but I'm really curious why you would think the law would be the same ( or roughly the same ) in all states?

The laws governing virtually everything that isn't a specific federal mandate seem to vary wildly from state to state. Even the laws that ARE due to federal regulation vary a great deal in the particulars. I'm not going to google all the history, so forgive me if my memory is off on the details - but, For example, the drinking age in all states was raised to 21 due to the federal government tying that age to any state getting any share of highway funds. So they all raised it to 21, but in some states you can still drink at home , just not in public. Or you can serve alcohol, but not drink it. In others anyone under 21 can't drink anywhere, or serve alcohol. And that's a law that was specifically designed to get all states under the same umbrella - not the usual patchwork of laws made at different times under very different circumstances.

I'm just curious as to your reasoning, because my experience in general has been that laws from state to state vary much more than people would expect.

The procedures for minor settlements vary from state to state, particularly with regard to judicial intervention. However, for the most part parents can indeed settle a matter on behalf on their children - goodbye, for keeps, forever - and defendants generally require a specific type of release requiring the parents indemnify them in the event the minor returns as an adult wanting to pursue his or her claim.

Many - probably most - states require that a minor settlement be court approved, although there may be a dollar threshold under which court approval is not required. This appears to be the current rule in Arkansas:

In Arkansas, if the settlement is less than $1,000, the parent may approve the settlement and receive the settlement proceeds. If more than $1,000 and less than $5,000, the court must approve the settlement, and may, but is not required by law to appoint a guardian to the child's estate (usually the parents), approve of the settlement as being in the best interests of the child, and order the funds to be deposited into a trust account for the benefit of the minor. If the settlement is for more than $5,000, the court must approve the settlement and must appoint a guardian to the estate, and order the funds to be deposited into a trust account for the use and benefit of the child.

The burden here would appear to be on the parents, but if the Duggars opted to settle out when V5 was a minor (I personally doubt they did), they could still have tort liability exposure if they didn't take steps to protect themselves from future claims.

[EmmieJ]

Jennifer Jupiter, thank you for providing the info re Arkansas law re minor's settlements. Mama Mia, I said it was likely that most states have some law on the books re settlement of minor's claims because minors being injured in car (or other) accidents is fairly common. Without some basic oversight in place, the potential for a parent to spend their child's money is great. In California, a minor's settlement has to be placed into a blocked trust account. Kid can't get the money until they turn 18.

I doubt there was a financial settlement by the Duggars. I do not believe any insurance policy covers criminal acts, so Jimbob would have to pay out of his own pocket.

[Marissap]

I totally agree with occupancy limits. A house does reach a point where there are just too many people in it. I wouldn't mind living next to a large family that maintains their property- but unfortunately they are just few and far between.

When I bought my first house, I looked at one that was super nice and in a great neighborhood but the yard next door looked pretty grubby. I still loved the house and went back for a second look and just as we were leaving the neighbors pulled up in a van and 10 kids came piling out. The garage door opened & I saw one bay of the garage had been dry walled off and set up as a bedroom for their sons with two sets of bunk beds. The realtor and I smiled and waved at the family and the kids just kind of looked at us. I wound up buying a different house in the same neighborhood and I am so glad I did.

I have since found out that family has lived there since they only had two kids. You would think that once you have 4 children living in the unheated/uncooled garage you would think twice before having anymore- but they have added two new blessings in the last several years. Now I did hear that they do let the boys make down pallets on the floor in the house when it is very hot or cold- but that just still makes me angry. If someone kept a puppy in their garage year roung, the SPCA would get calls left and right, but for some reason doing that with children is okay.

This is horribly sad. And I agree that with a pet there would be more outrage.

It's not my place to pass judgement on the family in your story but man, sure makes you wonder what the hell they are thinking.....

[JenniferJuniper]

Jennifer Jupiter, thank you for providing the info re Arkansas law re minor's settlements. Mama Mia, I said it was likely that most states have some law on the books re settlement of minor's claims because minors being injured in car (or other) accidents is fairly common. Without some basic oversight in place, the potential for a parent to spend their child's money is great. In California, a minor's settlement has to be placed into a blocked trust account. Kid can't get the money until they turn 18.

I doubt there was a financial settlement by the Duggars. I do not believe any insurance policy covers criminal acts, so Jimbob would have to pay out of his own pocket.

Liability insurance (and if the Duggars had a Homeowners or Tenants policy at the time they likely had it) would not cover any criminal acts, that's true. But the claims against Jim Bob and Michelle could very well involve allegations of negligent supervision of their son or negligent infliction of physical injury or emotional distress by failing to warn or otherwise protect the victim if they knew of Josh's propensities. These sorts of allegations could very well be covered by insurance.

Although I can't imagine they ever would have notified their insurance company of the situation at the time.

[Mama Mia]

This is horribly sad. And I agree that with a pet there would be more outrage.

It's not my place to pass judgement on the family in your story but man, sure makes you wonder what the hell they are thinking.....

There's no reason to assume the garage was unheated /had no cooling system. If they put in dry- wall they very likely also put in insulation. You can get baseboard heaters, exactly the same as for inside the house , and a fan , just like inside a house. There is nothing intrinsically " wrong" with using a garage as a bedroom, as long as you make sure there are two exits, ventilation, and there are safe heating/ cooling systems. Especially if it's in an area that has extreme weather variations. You would also , of course, want a carbon monoxide detector and smoke alarm and to make sure the water heater is separately enclosed if it's in the garage. Like I said, I live in an extremely overpriced area. Garage rooms of the type you described rent for around $900 a month here. People do what they need to do. I agree that it isn't a good idea to add more children if they didn't at least make sure the garage room was comfortable and safe.

[DeFrauder]

Yeah, I agree with Mama Mia above.

The people who lived next door to me had 8 kids and they renovated the garage to make a dining room. This was cheaper for them than making an actual addition on the house. It was all done to code.