Parents take 30 year old son to court to evict him from their house

[Anonymous]

If you are a libertarian and pay taxes of course you take the benefits that you are being forced to pay for. The point is you don't want to pay and then you use your money to buy what you earned without the government forcefully confiscating your time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents, grandchild, baby mama, judge should all be extra vigilant. He’s not going to accept losing.

+1

Nailed it. Plus, gun owner.

His Facebook indicates he is a strong libertarian.

Such a strong libertarian that he can’t get a job because he would lose his free legal services.

Like my brother who is has free healthcare for life from the VA and is always posting on FB about how taxation is theft.

If he has health care from the VA it's because he served in the military, not exactly a free ride.

But it’s people's taxes that fund the military and veterans’ healthcare.

Exactly. And if taxes were cut, the VA's bloated budget would be cut as well.

In addition to healthcare, many veterans receive pensions and disability benefits and education benefits and additional other benefits. That's fine if it's necessary. I know several veterans who have 100% disability ratings, yet they have no apparent injury and somehow manage demanding professional careers with big six figure salaries. They're all republicans btw who are quick to judge people on public benefits. The lack of self awareness is befuddling.

Are you implying that they themselves are receiving "public benefits" while at the same time complaining that others shouldn't receive "public benefits"? If so, that seems a bit odd of you to compare the things. Veterans aren't receiving "public benefits" in the same sense as others who are recipients of various social and medical programs that are also funded by tax payers. Veterans actually worked to earn those "public benefits", as you call them, while others haven't done a thing to earn theirs. I don't quite understand how you are comparing the two and saying they lack self awareness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents, grandchild, baby mama, judge should all be extra vigilant. He’s not going to accept losing.

+1

Nailed it. Plus, gun owner.

His Facebook indicates he is a strong libertarian.

Such a strong libertarian that he can’t get a job because he would lose his free legal services.

Like my brother who is has free healthcare for life from the VA and is always posting on FB about how taxation is theft.

If he has health care from the VA it's because he served in the military, not exactly a free ride.

But it’s people's taxes that fund the military and veterans’ healthcare.

Exactly. And if taxes were cut, the VA's bloated budget would be cut as well.

In addition to healthcare, many veterans receive pensions and disability benefits and education benefits and additional other benefits. That's fine if it's necessary. I know several veterans who have 100% disability ratings, yet they have no apparent injury and somehow manage demanding professional careers with big six figure salaries. They're all republicans btw who are quick to judge people on public benefits. The lack of self awareness is befuddling.

Are you implying that they themselves are receiving "public benefits" while at the same time complaining that others shouldn't receive "public benefits"? If so, that seems a bit odd of you to compare the things. Veterans aren't receiving "public benefits" in the same sense as others who are recipients of various social and medical programs that are also funded by tax payers. Veterans actually worked to earn those "public benefits", as you call them, while others haven't done a thing to earn theirs. I don't quite understand how you are comparing the two and saying they lack self awareness.

If they’re claiming 100% disability and they are still capable of earning a good living and playing sports with their kids, etc. then they’re committing fraud. Their disability ratings should be reviewed on a regular basis. We live in an area with lots of retired military and this isn’t uncommon. We know an attorney who gets disability payments after being in a desk job his entire career.

[Anonymous]

Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

Oh man, this story has serious danger written all over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

Oh man, this story has serious danger written all over it.

+1

The "grown" son seems stunted, overly vigilant and unstable - plus, weapons. Bad combination, all around. He is being kept away for good reason.

The poor small child, at least he has his mother and grandparents. The grandparents should find themselves a condo at an undisclosed location. Done. They need to do (essentially) what the mother of his child did - distance themselves. A lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

Oh man, this story has serious danger written all over it.

+1

The "grown" son seems stunted, overly vigilant and unstable - plus, weapons. Bad combination, all around. He is being kept away for good reason.

The poor small child, at least he has his mother and grandparents. The grandparents should find themselves a condo at an undisclosed location. Done. They need to do (essentially) what the mother of his child did - distance themselves. A lot.

To add, the :grown" son seems overly entitled and stunted - another bad combination. But the weapons make distance a must.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

Oh man, this story has serious danger written all over it.

+1

The "grown" son seems stunted, overly vigilant and unstable - plus, weapons. Bad combination, all around. He is being kept away for good reason.

The poor small child, at least he has his mother and grandparents. The grandparents should find themselves a condo at an undisclosed location. Done. They need to do (essentially) what the mother of his child did - distance themselves. A lot.

To add, the :grown" son seems overly entitled and stunted - another bad combination. But the weapons make distance a must.

New article here with some new info:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/30-year-ordered-vacate-parents-home-claims-harassed/story?id=55372570

Rotondo, who plans to appeal the decision, said he stopped speaking to his parents when they "alluded" to wanting him to leave the house in October, just one month after he lost custody and visitation rights of his son.

"I'm not bothering them by living here," Michael Rotondo said in an interview with ABC News' "Good Morning America." "It's little to no cost to them, and considering how much they've harassed me, I think it's the least that they should be required to do, which is just let me hang here a bit longer and use their hot water and electricity."

By the end of October, Michael Rotondo said his parents were demanding he get a full-time job, health insurance and sessions with a therapist, but he said he "didn't need any of those things."

"My parents alluded to the fact that they no longer wanted me living in the house, and I was devastated from the loss, and not seeing my son anymore," Rotondo said. "After that, I was like, 'I’m done with you guys.'"

Mark and Christina Rotondo said they gave their son multiple notices to vacate and even offered him money to help him find a place of his own.

Michael Rotondo admitted that he accepted the money, but used it for "other things."

"I took it but with consideration for my plans, and how my finances interacted with those plans, I did use the money for other things, but I don’t regret that," he said. "I would have preferred to have kept the money and given it back to them ... but I had to use it, and that's just how it is."

"Me and my father recently tried to occupy the same space at the same time ... so I said 'excuse me,' and he said, 'I will not excuse you, Michael,’” he said "He's just trying to stir something up so that he could get me to say something. It's my overwhelming belief that he’s trying to make it so that he could try and call the police or something to support his case."

He said he was shocked by the ruling and that he couldn't believe the judge would "make it so that these people can just throw me out instead of letting me stay here."

I'm afraid this is going to end badly. The parents will likely need protection from him, just like the court deemed his child did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

Oh man, this story has serious danger written all over it.

+1

The "grown" son seems stunted, overly vigilant and unstable - plus, weapons. Bad combination, all around. He is being kept away for good reason.

The poor small child, at least he has his mother and grandparents. The grandparents should find themselves a condo at an undisclosed location. Done. They need to do (essentially) what the mother of his child did - distance themselves. A lot.

To add, the :grown" son seems overly entitled and stunted - another bad combination. But the weapons make distance a must.

New article here with some new info:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/30-year-ordered-vacate-parents-home-claims-harassed/story?id=55372570

Rotondo, who plans to appeal the decision, said he stopped speaking to his parents when they "alluded" to wanting him to leave the house in October, just one month after he lost custody and visitation rights of his son.

"I'm not bothering them by living here," Michael Rotondo said in an interview with ABC News' "Good Morning America." "It's little to no cost to them, and considering how much they've harassed me, I think it's the least that they should be required to do, which is just let me hang here a bit longer and use their hot water and electricity."

By the end of October, Michael Rotondo said his parents were demanding he get a full-time job, health insurance and sessions with a therapist, but he said he "didn't need any of those things."

"My parents alluded to the fact that they no longer wanted me living in the house, and I was devastated from the loss, and not seeing my son anymore," Rotondo said. "After that, I was like, 'I’m done with you guys.'"

Mark and Christina Rotondo said they gave their son multiple notices to vacate and even offered him money to help him find a place of his own.

Michael Rotondo admitted that he accepted the money, but used it for "other things."

"I took it but with consideration for my plans, and how my finances interacted with those plans, I did use the money for other things, but I don’t regret that," he said. "I would have preferred to have kept the money and given it back to them ... but I had to use it, and that's just how it is."

"Me and my father recently tried to occupy the same space at the same time ... so I said 'excuse me,' and he said, 'I will not excuse you, Michael,’” he said "He's just trying to stir something up so that he could get me to say something. It's my overwhelming belief that he’s trying to make it so that he could try and call the police or something to support his case."

He said he was shocked by the ruling and that he couldn't believe the judge would "make it so that these people can just throw me out instead of letting me stay here."

I'm afraid this is going to end badly. The parents will likely need protection from him, just like the court deemed his child did.

There is some sort of psychopathy going on here, no doubt.

[Anonymous]

Seems there could be a personality disorder at play here.

[Anonymous]

He sounds like Kanye.

[Anonymous]

I feel sorry for all parties involved.

[Anonymous]

Dude is seriously delusional. His lawsuit against Best Buy is comical.

https://heavy.com/news/2018/05/michael-rotondo/

[Anonymous]

In another article I read, they stated that the judge also ordered the involvement of adult protective services when he ordered the eviction so I think the judge is also worried about some potential for violence. I think that's why he spent so much time trying to convince the guy to move out before just ordering him out. Less potential for harm if this idiot chooses to leave the home on his own.

But yea, I won't be surprised if this ends up back in the news with him attacking his parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Getting back to the original topic, after reading some new articles, it seems like the reason the parents want the loser son out of their house is so they can have visitation with their grandchild (his child). Apparently, he is not allowed to see his child alone, and can only visit with his child in a "supervised, therapeutic" environment. Therefore, their grandchild cannot come to their house while he is present.

Makes you wonder what the full story is - why he is not allowed unsupervised visits with his kid.

This was my take on it as well. Therapeutic supervised visitation is a different animal from regular supervised visitation, they are done in a controlled setting under the supervision of a mental health professional who typically take an active role in guiding and correcting the parent in their interactions with their child. It's typically are reserved for cases where there the parent has a severe mental illness, or has prior incidents of domestic violence or alleged sexual abuse. His parents were probably denied visitation with their grandchild as long as he was living under their roof because of the risk that visitation would result in him having access to his child outside of the therapeutic context that might endanger his child.

I hope everyone here stays safe.