Sign up for the Dr. Phil Newsletter
Twitter Facebook YouTube

2010 Shows

 
It’s a five-letter word that can come between loved ones and divide families forever: M-O-N-E-Y! Dr. Phil speaks with guests battling over inheritances and prenuptial agreements. Kathy says her father, Ed, betrayed her by losing close to a million dollars, which should’ve been her inheritance. Ed says he invested the money with his son, which didn’t turn out the way he planned and admits he wasn’t honest with his family about his financial decisions. Kathy says some of that money was meant for her children’s college funds, and she’s not sure she can ever forgive him. And, Stacy wants to know if she divorces her husband, will she be owed more than what her prenuptial agreement stipulates given her unique circumstances? Legal analyst Lisa Bloom weighs in on these money matters.

Find out what happened on the show.
Comments
Replied By: gddiii on Jan 28, 2015, 2:52PM
It is remarkable to me as an attorney that Dr. Phil and his legal analyst subordinated emotional considerations to legal concepts in assessing the daughter’s alienation of her father. Sure it's dad's property. He can select one child arbitrarily for gifts during his lifetime or upon his death and cut out the other. That is his legal right. No doubt about it. So what?

Barring some exceptional circumstance for one child combined inter vivos and testamentary parental transfers of substantial property to their children ought to be as equal as possible. Exceptions to this principle exist, e.g., a major disability or catastrophe in life ruining one child’s income possibility; a child who, figuratively or literally has won the lottery and is financially set for life relative to struggling siblings; or a child whose demonstrated behavioral history suggests that a bequest would be squandered.

This dad, perhaps inadvertently, has irrevocably preselected his son for favored treatment with respect to his estate. That was not just a mistake in judgment. He undertook a series of actions secretly from his wife and daughter to give his son, to the exclusion of his daughter, a financial leg up. Dad needs to own up to that and do what he can, limited though that may be in monetary terms, to make it up to his daughter.

Dr. Phil and his lawyer-consultant let pass dad's description of his payments to his son as "investments." They ignored the significance of the daughter's contrary specifics, such as dad paying his son's child support and to effectively paying him $50K annually for years as an income supplement. While this was going on, dad drained children's college funds designated for her three children while preserving the son's child's funds. Dad refused to loan her $1K for legal fees in the same month he paid $17K to her brother (it does not matter what the$17K was for). There was no suggestion that the son was disabled or disadvantaged relative to his sister or that some other justification explains the unequal generosity. If dad was "investing," why was that a secret from his wife and daughter?

It is not that the daughter has a sense of entitlement to dad's money. Dr. Phil, his legal analysts and several commenters here do not grasp that. What she has a sense of entitlement to his EQUAL AFFECTION for her and her brother AS DEMONSTRATED BY the way he dealt with them financially. Dad disbursed what was admittedly dad's own money liberally to her brother only. That darn sure looks and feels like brother was loved and respected more, at least during the time that the father’s assets were being secretly dissipated. Actions speak louder than words.

Being treated as the lesser child at any age is harmful and hurtful. Darn tootin' the daughter was jealous, resentful and angry, and she was entitled to feel that way. Telling her in essence to “get over it because the money is gone and dad says he’s sorry” was unhelpful and, I suspect, compounded her pain. Statements of regret and are good, but insufficient. The father needs to voluntarily, openly to both siblings, and without prodding by his wounded daughter, demonstrate that tangibly. That will include a disclosed commitment in a new will or other testamentary instruments that what little he may have left upon his death will be allocated overwhelmingly to his daughter up to some amount (probably unattainable) that would substantially “balance the books.”

I wish Dr. Phil and the lawyer would have helped the daughter articulate what she was obviously trying to say. If dad had never had more than two nickels to pass along to his children, that would have been fine with her, but in that event dad should have tried to see that each child got as close to 5 cents as possible, barring some justification for an unequal division.

Having pre-allocated inheritance to his son and wound up financially depleted, it is impossible for dad to make it all up to his daughter in dollar terms. That's not the point. He at least should do what he can. The son is the one who should be told to suck it up as his sister gets essentially all of the financial gifts from here on.

The token dollars dad has left to give, if any, now represent love units that he should allocate to his heretofore slighted child. She cannot ask him for “her share” of the money or of the remnant, because that is financially impossible. It’s about her father validating her correct sense that he discriminated against her emotionally by making the brother his favorite in financial gifts in the past.

If the daughter has to demand or beg for money from him going forward, then he denies her that fore which she longs: validation. Dad has to figure it out and offer (and ultimately deliver) disproportionately to the daughter whatever funds and other property are left at the end of his life. Dad’s real legacy to her then will not be an impossible equalizing of the financial value given to each sibling, but a tangible acknowledgement that he recognizes what he did as harmful to his daughter emotionally and that in the end he has done all that he can to try to make up for it. If he does that, then she will hopefully be able to tangibly forgive him by restoring the family relationship between her, her children and her father. Without that effort by him to atone, she doesn’t need to continue to re-live what he did to her and to stuff her resentment inside. She just needs to try to forget about him.
 
Replied By: myersmel on Jan 3, 2015, 2:47PM
If kathy is resentful of her brother, it's because her father set up that situation. From the little bit of background she was able to give without being dismissed, it seems that she spent a LOT of time supporting her father, being his sounding board, and during all that time, he was doing unethical things with his marital assets behind his wife's back. He seems cold, and very impatient that "hey, i apologized, why arent you over it and friendly to me again?" BUT, I dont sense any true remorse, especially since she mentions he is continuing to fight over providing money for his wife's care. How do you forgive someone whose apology is just lip service, and their behavior is continuing?

I would have liked to hear the status if his relationship with his son right now. I'm betting previous posters were right, and since he's out of money, he's out in the cold there. And daughter has SONS he wants access to. 

I'd tell kathy to just let him go. He'll never be the dad you deserve. He never was. He was just able to fake it for a long time...
 
Replied By: birger on Jul 15, 2014, 8:07PM
I know this is late, I am commenting after a repeat showing, but I was so frustrated that I felt like I needed to say what I thought, more to vent than anything.  

What in the world makes Kathy think that she has any right to say what, when, how, where or to whom his money goes to.  What is wrong with people that they feel so entitled?  Grow up and fend for yourself.  When my dad died my heart was broken.  I never, ever thought that I was entitled to a single thing that he owned.  I am sickened by this women's thoughts and actions, especially that she spewed her venom to her children and they now have a twisted sense of entitlement as well.

As for the college funds for your children, that is not his responsibility, it is yours.  It is ridiculous that you expect him to pay for your kids college.  Grow up and take care of your own responsibilities.   

Thank you for letting me vent my frustrations about this show.  
 
Replied By: tiag12 on Jun 7, 2011, 7:02PM
Dear Dr. Phil,

Dated now some years in the past may not be worth mentioning now but I'll go ahead anyway may be some one else can protect them selves from Family disputes when Adoption comes to play.

In the mid 1920's my mother was adopted by a couple I grew up to know as Grandpa and Grandma. My Grandfather was from Greece, Grandmother from Russia; they had no children of their own. When my mothers parents died, her mom at age 3, her dad when she was 13 the Harbas's (my Grand parents) agreed on a handshake to care for my mom and her other siblingswho were pretty much to old to be adopted. My Grandfathers family was never happy about my mom nor us being in the family,  was told once: "You wish you were one of us don't you John?" I already was my Grandfather told me once he loved me most of all; I was good!

Before my Grandfathers death in 1984/85 his Niece convenced him that no one loved him and that we all left, I was told he signed over everything to his relative; we lost out on family heirlooms we grew up with. I am not sure about the money amount if any was left but the furniture which we all loved is still around just not in our homes.

I have three other siblings and a step brother who wasn't apart of our family when we knew our Grandparents. His relationship and theirs did exist except for the stories we told.

My question would be I guess if I can conjure one up would be, is there anything we can do about a contested Will now so many years later?

If you should get this, Thanks a lot in advance.

Sincerely,

John Edwards (the other John Edwards)
 
Replied By: mrsmac01 on Aug 10, 2010, 6:54PM
and now it is my turn to work hard for my children's future.

I don't expect my parents to help financially support  my children's education, that's MY job.

 Yes the dad did some really stupid and selfish stuff, but a lot of that is between the mother and father. a I know she's trying to protect her mother, but, she seemed to create more conflict and drama than she could handle. Maybe they both need to own up to their own faults. Only you are responsible for your reactions and perceptions Kathy

(and yes, I realise this is a late comment but the show is only airing here in NZ today).
 
Replied By: mazzad on May 9, 2010, 10:05PM - In reply to sabot12
G'day, I'm watching too from Melbourne. He told her that he was paying for her sons to go to college, so she didn't save up to pay for it, he shouldn't have told her he would pay (and when he changed his mind he should have told her so she would know without finding out like she did). He didn't take the money from his SONS child's college fund., yet he took it from his daughter's children What kind of father tells their daughter to get a MAN to help them do mathematics and takes money from his wife? A man stuck in the gender biased early 1900's that's who, they don't believe in telling women anything either (it might bother their "pretty heads"). Seems he thinks women are beneath him and the only reason he wants back in with his daughter is because his son (the favourite) most likely wants nothing to do with him now the money is gone and she has BOYS. Men like him think their daughters are good enough to look after them in old age, but good for nothing else. Very disappointed Dr Phil din't ask him those "hard questions".
 
Replied By: mazzad on May 9, 2010, 10:03PM - In reply to sabot12
G'day, I'm watching too from Melbourne. He told her that he was paying for her sons to go to college, so she didn't save up to pay for it, he shouldn't have told her he would pay (and when he changed his mind he should have told her so she would know without finding out like she did). He didn't take the money from his SONS child's college fund., yet he took it from his daughter's children What kind of father tells their daughter to get a MAN to help them do mathematics and takes money from his wife? A man stuck in the gender biased early 1900's that's who, they don't believe in telling women anything either (it might bother their "pretty heads"). Seems he thinks women are beneath him and the only reason he wants back in with his daughter is because his son (the favourite) most likely wants nothing to do with him now the money is gone and she has BOYS. Men like him think their daughters are good enough to look after them in old age, but good for nothing else. Very disappointed Dr Phil din't ask him those "hard questions".
 
Replied By: sabot12 on May 9, 2010, 7:50PM
I know I am late with this show, but we are only just watching it today May 10, 2010 here in Australia.

It is obvious that the daughter is angry, and she is going on and on, about the money that she thinks she is entitled to.  I agree wholeheartedly with the Lawyer.  The money is Ed's to do with what he wants in his lifetime. 

Why in this day and age, where children earn way in excess of their parent's income, do some still expect to inherit ?  Here in Australia a lot of Baby boomers are selling their assets and buying a Winnebago or the like and travelling the world or Australia.  Spending the kids inheritance - I reckon thats great !!.
 
I am sorry, but I have no sympathy for her, she  has no right to kep her children from their grandfather, because Ed  and her brother were doing business deals.  She is jealous, and she is using this show to make Ed feel worse than he already is.  His money is not her business, not while he is living.  The man did not rape her or physically abuse her, well not that we know off !.

She can say its not the money, until the cows come home, but it couldn't be more obvious.  Dr Phil you got this one right.
 
Replied By: love_ya on Mar 23, 2010, 9:19AM - In reply to grandmawonder
Thanks for taking your time to respond.  I pride myself in being honest and not to live my life with regret. It will turn out..
 
Replied By: grandmawonder on Mar 22, 2010, 4:38PM - In reply to love_ya
All I know from living my life is that the best decisions were made by being honest to those I care about. It sounds like you have a conscience and are hurting as well. I don't know if you are close to your siblings or not? But wouldn't they sympathize that you are having your father stay and live with you? And for how long? And will you care for him at the time he passes? These are a lot of responsibilities. Also, your father sounds like he is manipulating (rationally or not) what has happened (which is not totally clear?) So yes, I do think you should tell your siblings. It's like the big white elephant in the room that nobody is talking about. One thing is for sure - your siblings will find out. And when they do (which may even come from your father as a manipulation) you will be "guilty" too, since you were not telling the truth by omission. Maybe the show that started this blog will prove to have good come of it (at the suffering of Kathy) if just one person having watched it tells the truth to the people they are suppossed to love and care about. Clearly, this father had no conscience to the daughter or her mother - you seem to - so good for you!

Take care of yourself. Also, I would encourage you to seek some form of therapy for advice- this show is entertainment purposes and brings up a lot of feelings in people as do these blogs, but no one here is a doctor.
 
Showing 1-10 of total 463 Comments