Anonymous wrote:I'm so confused about why a family that is so wealthy was taking money from the movie at all - why didn't they ensure it all went to him? I could see if they were average people who might have needed it to get by, but that wasn't the case.

Also, separate from the Tuohys, the more insane issue seems to me to be that a court appointed a conservatorship for a perfectly competent black man, and then allowed it to continue past the age that it was supposed to, with no accounting from the conservators.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they picked a conservatorship over an adoption is so suspect. Why would they need to go that route, if not for money?

Because he was over 18

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

Their statement claims they received legal advice against adoption. This is a lie; there is nothing prohibiting adult adoption in their state. They also claim the profit from the book and film was small, and he received a share. Seems that will be easy to prove in court one way or the other. But given they're lying out of the gate, I'm not inclined to buy what they're selling.

Wait. They were advised not to adopt, or they were advised that it was not possible to adopt? You claim the first one, but then accuse them of lying. But it’s not a lie in your own telling so I’m confused.

Sean Tuohy: “Michael was obviously living with us for a long time, and the NCAA didn’t like that,” Tuohy told the Daily Memphian. “They said the only way Michael could go to Ole Miss was if he was actually part of the family. I sat Michael down and told him, ‘If you’re planning to go to Ole Miss — or even considering Ole Miss — we think you have to be part of the family. This would do that, legally.’ We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn’t adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court.”


This is NOT TRUE. He then stated he finds the allegation he would "profit off any of his children...insulting" and that they would continue to "love Michael" now like they did when he was a teenager (though they chose not to adopt him but merely to control his financial affairs to their benefit). Does ANY of this pass the sniff test?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

Not true. Many articles say “legal guardians”.

Yes, true. Rewatch the movie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

Not true. Many articles say “legal guardians”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Clearly he has spent all his money.

What would make you think that? I think a desire to promote his new book plus lingering bad feelings are likely the cause. It seems like he has been estranged from them for a while.

No doubt he is flat out if cash. His nfl pension will pay a ton but not until age 55.

Anonymous wrote:Can we all just accept the fact there was no money from the film. It is verifiable.

So what is this about. I don’t believe he just learned he wasn’t adopted. I thought he said he was smart and the movie making him look dumb is wrong.

He didn’t just learn it.

He clearly is pissed at the narrative the family spun about saving him. I don’t blame him. But it is not a lawsuit. You don’t shake them down for 15m

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.

I’ve seen the movie several times. Sandra Bullock says specifically that due to his age, adoption makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without the family who took Michael Oher into their home, Mr. Oher may have never played pro football. His gpa was way too low for NCAA requirement and the family got him 20 hours of tutoring per week. Oher took correspondence courses from BYU to raise his gpa and allow him to play NCAA football at Ole Miss.

Not trying to praise or criticize anyone, but there is always at least two sides to every story.

Also, many ex football players experience depression as a result of having suffered multiple concussions. I wonder if this is a factor in this matter.

This is all set out in the Michael Lewis book that the movie is based on. The family let Michael stay at their house. It grew from that. I have no idea if they adopted him. He now says they did not but we will have to wait and see. Maybe it was just the conservatorship. That would be easier to do than an adoption. That may be why they did it. Also Michael was a bit crazy in his actions unlike in the movie. They may not have wanted the liability. Remember they were quite wealthy. What does not make sense is to me is that Michael was over 18 when the book came out and well over 18 when the movie was in production and made. I don't know why the conservatorship would still be on or if he really did get no money -- how that was possible. The movie would have had to pay someone to use Michael's name and story. No production company would rely on a conservatorship for a dude already in the NFL who was over 18. They would want Michael's signature as well. And did he not notice he had received nothing?

This story is not at all adding up at the moment and I am a bit suspect of Michael.

The ESPN article on this story is more clear than the Yahoo one linked on the first page. There's a legal distinction between adoption and conservatorship in terms of the financial piece:

"If Oher had been adopted by the Tuohys, he would have been a legal member of their family, and he would have retained power to handle his own financial affairs. Under the conservatorship, Oher surrendered that authority to the Tuohys, even though he was a legal adult with no known physical or psychological disabilities."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38190720/blind-side-subject-michael-oher-alleges-adoption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We literally just watched this movie two weeks ago and they never said they adopted him at all..... I'm not saying they didn't tell him in the person that he was adopted but that was never part of their story in the movie at all.

She describes herself as "mother of three" on her Insta!

Every single article about the movie says “adopted”.