Rebuttal

When I read the article about the lawsuit filed by the Sotos and the

Wieners I took a deep breath and my heart grew heavy again for the

Wieners and Sotos. I feared as I read the headline that the criticism was

soon to follow. Sheryl Hawkinson and Steve Smith were the first to jump

on an all too familiar bandwagon, only to be followed by an unsigned

Pilot editorial. Shame on all involved in this attack.

As for Sheryl Hawkinson’s statement that she “just wants this to end,”

it reflects her lack of ability to understand the Sotos or the Wieners or

their loss. To paraphrase William Shakespeare, “those who believe you can

get over grief have not known grief.” Sheryl Hawkinson, as most others,

is blessed not to have a child die. Her distress is nothing in comparison

to the ongoing hurt, turmoil and suffering of the Sotos and the Wieners.

It never will be. The Wieners and Sotos should be free from the

additional pressure of the hurt feelings of so-called friends as they

walk through the shadow of the death related to the death of their

precious children.

Steve Smith reflects that the sum sought by the Sotos and the Wieners

probably “has a lot of zeros” and the law suit “is too much.” He claims

to be “mystified” by this lawsuit. The editorial claims lawsuits are

“filed for one motive -- monetary gain.” The reasons for the lawsuit by

the Wieners and the Sotos are their own, and if they so choose, they

should remain that way. However, if the reasons are similar to the dozens

of bereaved parents that continue to help me through my own grief, their

reasons have everything to do with not wanting to see another family

suffer as they have and/or a need to know about the circumstances related

to the death of their child.

Sadly, and too frequently, the only way for a family to understand and

get the facts surrounding the death of a child is to file a lawsuit.

Often, those involved may be reluctant or scared to share what they know

with a bereaved family. In a lawsuit, they are compelled to tell all that

they know about a situation under oath. In this case, Mr. Abrams may even

have to explain himself to the parents of those he “allegedly” killed.

It is a myth that when and if there is a financial settlement the

grieving parents are out buying new furniture and jewelry. There is a

sacred trust associated with any judgment related to the death of a

child. I venture that the reasons for the Wiener’s and the Soto’s lawsuit

have nothing to do with money, however the reasons for the criticism

seems to have everything to do with money. Sheryl Hawkinson does not want

to be out any money. Steve Smith is concerned that money he raised is

being used to fund a lawsuit. A lawsuit may not be the right decision for

all involved in a tragic situation, but it is the right decision for

some.

It is too much to ask that we as a community not add to the burden of

a grieving family by refraining from criticism of something that we do

not know the outcome of? And why is it that those who have professed

sympathy or offered assistance believe that they then have a right to

tell the Wieners and Sotos what to do. True giving comes from the heart

and without any expectations in return.

Before one decides that this is a “public relations” debacle,

remember, the fact that a lawsuit is brought does not mean that all that

are named in the litigation will be paying money. That was true in the

Irvine crash that killed my son, Donny. In that case, there was public

condemnation which apparently still lingers despite a settlement that did

not involve payment by the taxpayers. Can’t we, this time, reserve

judgment and be compassionate until we see what happens?

Vickie Bridgman

Newport Beach