- 4 - Conrail counterclaimed against Theresa, and she then counterclaimed against Conrail. Spurring the litigation from Clyde and Theresa’s perspective were several problems that they faced. First, they needed enough money to meet their moral (and statutory) duty to provide for the ordinary expenses of their minor children.3 Clyde had been specially recognized by the Probate Court as Kimberly’s guardian for “custody and maintenance,” and so had a specific duty in that capacity to provide suitable maintenance for her care.4 According to the entirely credible testimony of Theresa Hicks, Kimberly’s physical injuries had not damaged her mind, and as she grew to school age she was able, within the limits of her paralysis, to be as lively a little girl as her friends. The estimates of her expected lifespan after the accident varied widely, but one prepared by an insurance company at the request of the Hickses’ lawyer suggested it was quite likely that she would live into adulthood. This meant that Clyde’s guardianship (and its related duties) would also likely last until she reached the age of majority. This raised a second problem. Kimberly obviously faced heavy medical expenses. At the time of the accident, the Hickses 3 Section 3103.03(A) of the Ohio Code states: “The biological or adoptive parent of a minor child must support the parent’s minor children out of the parent’s property or by the parent’s labor.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 3103.03(A) (Anderson 2003). 4 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 2111.13(A) (2007).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007