Let me preface this by saying I'm an adult with adhd who specifically works with kids who have adhd.
First of all, a car isn't a small thing. This has severely limited Casey's mobility. She worked hard to be able to drive a car she wanted and be mobile.
Alana's adhd is no excuse in this situation, if I'm honest. If the adhd was why she crashed the car, she shouldn't be driving yet. But no one in thr real word will take adhd as an excuse for not paying rent or what is owed. You don't get disability benefits for it. And for a many adhders, work is easier than school. Schools are uniquely horrible environments for adhders since the learning is not set up for an interest based nervous system and lecturing isn't a good way for us to learn. Nor is being forced to sit still.
If they were adults, Casey could just report her for destruction of property and get the money for the car that way. Alana's adhd would not be seen as a mitigating circumstance, but might end up with her licence revoked. Even as a minor, she could still technically do that. Though she'd be taking you to court, not Alana, since Alana is also a minor you're legally responsible for.
Casey didn’t accept our apology, and has been basically avoiding us, skipping family dinners, and pretty much pretending that her mom, Alana, and I don’t exist and only talks to us if she needs a form signed for her school.
What were you expecting? From Casey's perspective Alana destroyed her property and got off scottfree. From Casey's perspective not only is it unfair, it's unjust as well. Especially if you as the parents were why she "allowed" Alana to drive the car in the first place.
Most siblings wouldn't want to share something they worked that hard for with a sibling. Let alone one with adhd. It makes us hard on property, as much as I wish it didn't. I don't borrow things from other people for this reason. The impulsivity and hyperactivity aren't conducive to returning things in the same state you were given them in. And from the language youve used, I'd be willing to bet that "allowing" Alana to drive her car wasn't entirely volontary on Casey's part. And if it wasn't, then Casey holds you responsible, as she should.
From Casey's perspective you're using Alana's adhd as an excuse to let her get away with poor behaviour. And doing both Casey and Alana a disservice in the process. The real world won't care about Alana's adhd if she's financially or legally responsible for something. And you're teaching Casey that she's secondary to Alana. Look up glass children if you haven't come across the term before.
The issue is that Alana has severe ADHD, and already has trouble managing her school work. I’m worried that making her work to earn the money will harm her grades and have significant ramifications for her future.
So would a court case for an adult who destroyed someone's property. Alana isn't an adult, but you as her parents are the legally respsibile for the damages she incurs. Even if it's against her sibling. You seem to be forgetting that destruction of property is still a crime, even if accidental, if the person refuses to pay the damages.
My wife agrees with me that we need to stand firm on our position, but is also genuinely afraid of Casey never speaking to her ever again. I understand that her car was ruined, but I as a parent I need to look out for all my children, not just one
Yes, you do. And you're not looking out for Casey here. At all.
She's got a year left and then she can go be NC with you. She just might
From Casey’s perspective not only is it unfair, it’s unjust as well. Especially if you as the parents were why she “allowed” Alana to drive the car in the first place.
Without OP outlining the specific circumstances that led to this loan of the car, i am struggling to believe it didn’t involve pressure from the parents.
Especially since (most likely) the parents had her under their insurance, otherwise how could they keep the money paid out for the totaled car to use for medical bills instead. I still can't understand why the car insurance would not pay both, the only thing I can think of is a cap on the total amount paid out for everything, and it must have been low.
The only thing I can think of is that the parents have just flat out kept the money. If a car is totaled and the compensation isn’t coving replacement you can negotiate that. You can essentially show comps of what the market price is for the vehicle and get that amount back. I had a friend do that on his older bmw.
I’d also hope they had medical insurance as a matter of course to cover anything not paid for as far as the medical bills go.
Well, frequently if a MVA is involved, the medical insurance will deny for the third-party liability (the med pay portion from the auto insurance). However, if there is no med-pay or the med-pay is exhausted before the bills are covered, it can then go to the medical plan and get paid (but OP still would be on the hook if deductible wasn't met yet or for whatever co-insurance there might be). I work in insurance follow up for a hospital, so that's what I've seen.
It does sound like OP used the payout for the totaled car in addition to any med-pay that may/may not have been part of the coverage. Probably has one of those plans with a high deductible. OP is still TA.
Yes, because why wouldn’t they have used just some of the pay out for this supposed high deductible? I personally don’t choose insurance deductibles I’d be unable to pay…
This. I have bad ADHD, and a brother with even worse ADHD. I wouldn’t ever let him drive my car, unless its to take me to the ER and only bc that’d save time changing what car my wheelchair and meds and stuff is in.
Alana sounds like the kinda kid about at the same level my brother was at that age. Which is not at all. At 16 I wouldn’t have even let him take me to the ER in my car I would have called an ambulance.
Kids don’t work hard for expensive shit like nice computers or cars, and willingly let less responsible siblings borrow it.
“Asked to drive Casey’s car” isn’t the same as “asked Casey to drive her car”.
The former (which is how OP worded it) could just as easily mean that she asked her parents to borrow her sister’s car. The fact that the next sentence is “Casey allowed it” kinda reinforces this.
There's this cool thing parents do where they don't directly tell you you don't have a choice, but you don't have a choice
My parents asked me to loan my videogame systems to my sisters when we were young. I never wanted to say yes, but my parents would come to me and ask and my options were say yes and keep them, or say no and have them taken from me as punishment. Considering OPs wording in their explanation, I'd be willing to believe it's akin to that. It wasn't consent, it was coercion
Casey paid for her car. So she is owed it. But keep this energy for when your kids stop speaking to you because you're not owed communication after the age of 18!
10.7k
u/Cool_Relative7359 5d ago edited 5d ago
YTA.
Let me preface this by saying I'm an adult with adhd who specifically works with kids who have adhd.
First of all, a car isn't a small thing. This has severely limited Casey's mobility. She worked hard to be able to drive a car she wanted and be mobile.
Alana's adhd is no excuse in this situation, if I'm honest. If the adhd was why she crashed the car, she shouldn't be driving yet. But no one in thr real word will take adhd as an excuse for not paying rent or what is owed. You don't get disability benefits for it. And for a many adhders, work is easier than school. Schools are uniquely horrible environments for adhders since the learning is not set up for an interest based nervous system and lecturing isn't a good way for us to learn. Nor is being forced to sit still.
If they were adults, Casey could just report her for destruction of property and get the money for the car that way. Alana's adhd would not be seen as a mitigating circumstance, but might end up with her licence revoked. Even as a minor, she could still technically do that. Though she'd be taking you to court, not Alana, since Alana is also a minor you're legally responsible for.
What were you expecting? From Casey's perspective Alana destroyed her property and got off scottfree. From Casey's perspective not only is it unfair, it's unjust as well. Especially if you as the parents were why she "allowed" Alana to drive the car in the first place.
Most siblings wouldn't want to share something they worked that hard for with a sibling. Let alone one with adhd. It makes us hard on property, as much as I wish it didn't. I don't borrow things from other people for this reason. The impulsivity and hyperactivity aren't conducive to returning things in the same state you were given them in. And from the language youve used, I'd be willing to bet that "allowing" Alana to drive her car wasn't entirely volontary on Casey's part. And if it wasn't, then Casey holds you responsible, as she should.
From Casey's perspective you're using Alana's adhd as an excuse to let her get away with poor behaviour. And doing both Casey and Alana a disservice in the process. The real world won't care about Alana's adhd if she's financially or legally responsible for something. And you're teaching Casey that she's secondary to Alana. Look up glass children if you haven't come across the term before.
So would a court case for an adult who destroyed someone's property. Alana isn't an adult, but you as her parents are the legally respsibile for the damages she incurs. Even if it's against her sibling. You seem to be forgetting that destruction of property is still a crime, even if accidental, if the person refuses to pay the damages.
Yes, you do. And you're not looking out for Casey here. At all.
She's got a year left and then she can go be NC with you. She just might