Florida - An article published in the Daytona Beach News Journal (May 6, 2007) titled “Foster teens turning 18 face tough road” were fabricated lies that the Publisher didn’t check her facts. My daughter (18 years old) was interviewed and told them lies that she was abandoned and living at FUMCH and the State removed her from her parents when in actuality we had problems with her being incorrigible at home and placed her at FUMCH under private placement. As well as other fabricated lies in the article. Even though my name wasn’t written, my daughter’s full name was and I would like to know if I have any legal recourse against Daytona Beach News Journal for defamation since they didn't verify all the facts before publishing the article?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Would this be considered defamation?
- Thread starter TeresaYo
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
>Charlotte<
Lurker
Did the paper say you abandoned her and she was removed by the State, or did the paper say that's what your daughter said? Because that's true. That is what your daughter said.
Write a rebuttal via the editorial page.
Let me just go ahead and anticipate your response to me by saying this: nobody is going to tell you you can't sue them. You can sue anybody you want for anything you want. The process will take at least a couple of years, and will cost you a lot of money.
Write a rebuttal via the editorial page.
Let me just go ahead and anticipate your response to me by saying this: nobody is going to tell you you can't sue them. You can sue anybody you want for anything you want. The process will take at least a couple of years, and will cost you a lot of money.
Last edited:
>Charlotte<
Lurker
You're welcome, but don't go away. Others may respond, and most of them have much more legal knowledge than I.
quincy
Senior Member
TeresaYo -
Most journalists are educated to know that the news stories which generate the most libel suits are minor stories, and the suits are usually based on factual error or inexact language. Birth and death announcements, perhaps because they are read so closely by people with an intimate knowledge of the facts, are the ones editors tend to check most thoroughly to avoid any chance of error. There is nothing more important to newspapers than accuracy - which is why they have fact checkers and editors.
When accusations are made against someone, newspapers try for a balancing comment. I am really surprised that this newspaper did not contact you to verify your daughter's story. I can only surmise that it was an oversight on their part or, perhaps from something your daughter said, they figured you could not be contacted.
Libel cases are expensive to bring and take a lot of time, but if you can be identified in this newspaper article and can prove that what was written is false, then you have the start of a libel suit. Two factors that may be difficult for you in any suit, however, are that you must show injury - a loss of reputation or a monetary loss - and it was your daughter who was quoted in the story. Libel suits against family members are nearly impossible to bring and to win (the courts would be horribly clogged with cases between brothers and sisters, and teenagers and parents, otherwise).
A personal letter to the editor is a great start. Perhaps instead of a "rebuttal", they would do another feature story, this time from the parents' perspective.
Most journalists are educated to know that the news stories which generate the most libel suits are minor stories, and the suits are usually based on factual error or inexact language. Birth and death announcements, perhaps because they are read so closely by people with an intimate knowledge of the facts, are the ones editors tend to check most thoroughly to avoid any chance of error. There is nothing more important to newspapers than accuracy - which is why they have fact checkers and editors.
When accusations are made against someone, newspapers try for a balancing comment. I am really surprised that this newspaper did not contact you to verify your daughter's story. I can only surmise that it was an oversight on their part or, perhaps from something your daughter said, they figured you could not be contacted.
Libel cases are expensive to bring and take a lot of time, but if you can be identified in this newspaper article and can prove that what was written is false, then you have the start of a libel suit. Two factors that may be difficult for you in any suit, however, are that you must show injury - a loss of reputation or a monetary loss - and it was your daughter who was quoted in the story. Libel suits against family members are nearly impossible to bring and to win (the courts would be horribly clogged with cases between brothers and sisters, and teenagers and parents, otherwise).
A personal letter to the editor is a great start. Perhaps instead of a "rebuttal", they would do another feature story, this time from the parents' perspective.
Thank you quincy. Hopefully the editor will read my response and publish my side of the story. The sad thing is when people read the newspaper, they believe what is written and there wasn't a stitch of truth to that article. I do have things to back it up. It's just sad that my daughter hates me so much she'd have things like that printed up. Again, thank you all for taking the time to respond. I truly appreciate it.
quincy
Senior Member
Quaere - It's called the Family Immunity Doctrine and is designed to preserve family harmony, to preserve family assets and to preserve parents' authority over their children, as well as to prevent against defrauding insurance companies from collusion between parent and child. Over the last 40 years or so, states have developed exceptions - usually in wrongful death suits or sexual abuse cases - but many states retain the Doctrine in one form or another. The Doctrine was first adopted in Illinois in 1895 (or Mississippi, depending on sources).
Foley v. Foley, 61 Ill. App.577,580 (1895)
Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill. 2d. 76, 91,619, N.E.2d715 (1993)
Commerce Bank v. Augsberger, 1997 WL298000
Chicago Title and Trust v. Brescia
Cullotta v. Cullota, 678 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1997)
Doe v. McKay, No 2-96-0532 (2d Dist 1997)
Rebekah L. Spears and Reuben Spears v. Barbara Spears, Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1999
et al
Foley v. Foley, 61 Ill. App.577,580 (1895)
Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill. 2d. 76, 91,619, N.E.2d715 (1993)
Commerce Bank v. Augsberger, 1997 WL298000
Chicago Title and Trust v. Brescia
Cullotta v. Cullota, 678 N.E.2d 717 (1st Dist. 1997)
Doe v. McKay, No 2-96-0532 (2d Dist 1997)
Rebekah L. Spears and Reuben Spears v. Barbara Spears, Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1999
et al
Last edited:
Quincy: I understand how you may believe the Family Immunity Doctrine might apply in a defamation claim, but I can assure you that such an application does not exist.
If you look at the VERY FEW defenses to defamation, you will see that none of them include the, “But your Honor, she is my sister so I can say whatever I want about her” defense.
No one has immunity from liability for defamation. Everyone in our society has a duty to take care in what they say about others. If anyone DID have such immunity, they would be free to deliberately trash someone’s reputation.
In fact, in many cases a defamation suit against a relative would be easier to prosecute than a case against a non-relative. This is because we generally assume that someone who has known the victim all his life, is more likely to have accurate and intimate knowledge of the victim’s actions.
Thus, if one of John’s mere acquaintances alleges that when John was fourteen he raped the neighbor’s daughter, it is unlikely to carry the same weight as the same accusation made by John’s brother.
BTW, I love your name.
If you look at the VERY FEW defenses to defamation, you will see that none of them include the, “But your Honor, she is my sister so I can say whatever I want about her” defense.
No one has immunity from liability for defamation. Everyone in our society has a duty to take care in what they say about others. If anyone DID have such immunity, they would be free to deliberately trash someone’s reputation.
In fact, in many cases a defamation suit against a relative would be easier to prosecute than a case against a non-relative. This is because we generally assume that someone who has known the victim all his life, is more likely to have accurate and intimate knowledge of the victim’s actions.
Thus, if one of John’s mere acquaintances alleges that when John was fourteen he raped the neighbor’s daughter, it is unlikely to carry the same weight as the same accusation made by John’s brother.
BTW, I love your name.
quincy
Senior Member
Quaere -
It is BECAUSE family members tend to know each other so well that defamation suits are DIFFICULT to bring and are RARELY brought successfully. "Your Honor, my son called me a liar and a thief and I would like to sue him for defamation." "You ARE a liar and a thief, Dad. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy...all lies. And what did you do with my I-Pod?" The history in a family makes proof of defamation difficult because there is usually some truth behind what is said and both parties know it.
Sister/sister suits, Father/daughter suits, Mother/son suits - locate defamation suits where any of these have been brought successfullly. Courts treat defamation suits between family members as slurs, insults or spats, and they will usually settle long before they ever get to court. Attorneys will discourage them and judges don't want to hear them.
The Family Immunity Doctrine is used, by the way, in the PO's state, and it is used to PREVENT the filing of a suit....not as a defense against a suit (although it's been used as that, too).
You mentioned that no one is immune from liability for defamation. Have you ever been in a court room where ex-spouses are duking it out? Lots of defamation there, and they have complete immunity. Defenses to defamation - truth, fair comment and criticism, opinion, privilege - are allowed, so people are defamed all the time and the defamers have immunity from prosecution. Dead people are defamed. Celebrities are defamed. Public officials are defamed. But the defamation is not always actionable, which means the defamers are pretty much immune from liability. They can be sued, sure, but the suit against them will not be successful.
And as for Johnny's rape and the brother's testifying against Johnny - well, yeah, rape is SO totally different than defamation. I did NOT say family members cannot take each other to court....of course they can, and in murder, rape, theft, and other crimes, they do. But it is just not real likely in a defamation suit. And THAT is what I told TeresaYo.
I like your name, too.
It is BECAUSE family members tend to know each other so well that defamation suits are DIFFICULT to bring and are RARELY brought successfully. "Your Honor, my son called me a liar and a thief and I would like to sue him for defamation." "You ARE a liar and a thief, Dad. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy...all lies. And what did you do with my I-Pod?" The history in a family makes proof of defamation difficult because there is usually some truth behind what is said and both parties know it.
Sister/sister suits, Father/daughter suits, Mother/son suits - locate defamation suits where any of these have been brought successfullly. Courts treat defamation suits between family members as slurs, insults or spats, and they will usually settle long before they ever get to court. Attorneys will discourage them and judges don't want to hear them.
The Family Immunity Doctrine is used, by the way, in the PO's state, and it is used to PREVENT the filing of a suit....not as a defense against a suit (although it's been used as that, too).
You mentioned that no one is immune from liability for defamation. Have you ever been in a court room where ex-spouses are duking it out? Lots of defamation there, and they have complete immunity. Defenses to defamation - truth, fair comment and criticism, opinion, privilege - are allowed, so people are defamed all the time and the defamers have immunity from prosecution. Dead people are defamed. Celebrities are defamed. Public officials are defamed. But the defamation is not always actionable, which means the defamers are pretty much immune from liability. They can be sued, sure, but the suit against them will not be successful.
And as for Johnny's rape and the brother's testifying against Johnny - well, yeah, rape is SO totally different than defamation. I did NOT say family members cannot take each other to court....of course they can, and in murder, rape, theft, and other crimes, they do. But it is just not real likely in a defamation suit. And THAT is what I told TeresaYo.
I like your name, too.
Last edited:
I don’t know what you are basing the second half of that statement on. I’ve seen any number of defamation suits between family members and the fact that they are related has no bearing on the claim.
In the above example, if the son told a third party that his father is a thief and he cannot PROVE his father is a thief, the son is liable for damages of defamation per se.
The same can be said of ANY defamation.
Father Hughes v. Brother Hughes.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/b168913.pdf
Dad lost the suit but not because the sons were IMMUNE under the Family Immunity Doctrine. If the doctrine had applied, the suit would have been dismissed before trial.
Eminem’s mother sued him for defamation. She ended up settling out of court. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000813/ai_n10619222
I could go on and on but I think now you should find me something that says a defamation suit is affected by the relationship of the parties involved.
Huh? Courts treat suits between family members as warranted by the merits. Is there any difference in criminal law if the crime was between family members? Of course not. Why would someone be able to commit a civil wrong against a family member and be immune from suit then?
Do you have any idea how many family members end up opposing one another in bankruptcy court? If my sister owes me $10,000 and she files for bankruptcy, do you think the bk court will tell me I can’t object to discharge because the debtor is my sister?
None of these things have anything to do with the legality of a claim within a family.
You have to read the doctrine (which has been repealed in most states) and understand it’s limitations.
I should qualify that. There is a presumption of immunity in some professional situations BUT in all such cases, if the speaker ABUSES his position or privilege, he CAN be held liable for defamation.
They do not have immunity. The speech is considered privileged and therefore it is not actionable. ALL privileges can be abused and therefore waived. In the case of defamation, an intentional lie that is spoken in court can be actionable. Thus it is not a good idea to deliberately toss out the baseless accusation that your ex is a pedophile and expect the fact that you said it in a courtroom to protect you.
They are not immune, they have a meritorious DEFENSE.
And, people are defamed and win great big judgments for it too. None of this has anything to do with the assertion that a family connection creates a defense to defamation.
I see. So we have a law that is unenforceable?
Whoa, you misunderstood the example. What I said was, if John’s brother goes around telling others that John is a rapist, and if that is a LIE, John’s brother is liable for defamation.
I can see you don’t understand the most basic aspects of defamation law. There are articles all over the Net that explain the claim. Go forth and read!
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">