Go fund me and child cancer donations what is your opnion on this story

[hollydolly]

This young family live only 15 minutes drive from me .. so it's a local story as well as National one which is dividing opinions... what's your take on the story?


Tragic parents who lost their son aged nine to cancer before learning his younger sister is also terminally ill are now suing a charity over donations worth £100,000.

Craig Evison and Victoria Morrison, whose son Kyle died in 2020 from an incurable brain cancer, want to take his sister Ruby-Rose to Disney World - but have been told they cannot access previous cash pledges because she has a different disease.

Before Kyle's death, wellwishers had donated thousands to pay for treatment in the US and 'memory making' experiences for the family - but Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions intervened and he never travelled.



Tragic parents who lost their son aged nine to cancer before learning his younger sister is also terminally ill are now suing a charity over donations worth £100,000.
Craig Evison and Victoria Morrison, whose son Kyle died in 2020 from an incurable brain cancer, want to take his sister Ruby-Rose to Disney World - but have been told they cannot access previous cash pledges because she has a different disease.
Before Kyle's death, wellwishers had donated thousands to pay for treatment in the US and 'memory making' experiences for the family - but Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions intervened and he never travelled.



The couple went on to have a daughter Ruby-Rose, now two, but were devastated to learn that she too was seriously ill with a genetic metabolic disease and was unlikely to live beyond this summer.
They began a GoFundMe page - under the name 'Ruby-Rose's Making Memories Fund' - in an attempt to take her to Disney in Florida to meet her favourite character Minnie Mouse.
But when they tried to claim almost £100,000 left from appeal money earlier donated for Kyle, they were told it would not be paid, London's High Court was told.
The reason given was said to be Ruby-Rose not having cancer but instead a different albeit equally devastating condition.
The parents, are now battling the charity Gold Geese that holds the money, saying it should be handed over to benefit their daughter.


however...to cut a very long story short.. the couple are in court suing for the money to be given to their terminlly ill daughter citing the fact thta the money was intially paid for their son.... but the Barrister for the charity so no... because this money was donated by 1300 difeerent donations specifically for the late child's benefit, and the daughter was not born at the time.. ..and has altho' a devastating fatal illness...not got cancer...


Gold Geese is a cancer charity - it's on its logo.



He also told of a contract the couple agreed stating that, if the money was not spent on their son's treatment before he died, it would go to another DIPG trial or the cause of a child in a 'similar' position.


However, the couple insisted the contract should permit money to be spent for Ruby-Rose's benefit, since they believe she falls into the definition of a 'similar' case.

And they said that, although they had agreed the contract, the situation changed when their daughter was also diagnosed with a life-limiting illness.

Full story here if you can get past the Paywall Parents raising £100K for cancer death son sue charity over donations



So what is your opinion..... should they get access to the money or... was it specifically meant for their son who has now passed?

 

[StarSong]

I'm sorry for this couple's devastating losses, but agree that the money raised was intended for their son, not their daughter. The funds should be returned to the donors or distributed according to the terms of the agreement the parents made at least five years ago.

 

[CallMeKate]

He also told of a contract the couple agreed stating that, if the money was not spent on their son's treatment before he died, it would go to another DIPG trial or the cause of a child in a 'similar' position.

I'm siding with the charity's Barrister... they signed the contract and that's the bottom line. Trying to back out of a legal contract to go to Disney World shouldn't be an option. Money was raised for the son's treatments and the daughter hadn't even been born yet.

 

[Naturally]

Sounds complicated and for the courts.

The couple should have appealed directly to the charity for their son's benefit, since that is what the charity is for. Sounds like any moneys collected by the charity is the charity's money to do as they see fit. More or less like a common resource rather than money collected for specific individuals.

But the couple went through a facebook entity that passed the donated funds onto the charity supposedly on behalf of the couple and their son. I'm a little confused as to why the facebook entity passed the moneys to the charity instead of directly to the couple.

The fact 1,300 payers donated on behalf of the couple's son clearly indicates their intentions. If the money wasn't used by the couple for their son, the money should have been refunded to those who donated.

The charity only deals with cases of children with cancer. The daughter who wasn't even born at the time of the son's illness, has a different disease, not cancer. So by their charter, the charity is not in a position to assist the couple's daughter.

The couple should seek donations for their daughter as a case of her own. And hopefully through an entity or organization that will provide the donations collected specifically for the daughter, to the couple.

It's complicated and I may not have all the facts or have some wires crossed. Regardless, this is for the courts. That said and based on what I SEEM to know, I think the charity will prevail when going by the letter of the law.

 

[Disgustedman]

I may sound heartless but I would not give them five cents. The reason is is that how many of us remember anything of when we were 2 years old? Even if this child was to somehow miraculously live she would never remember this trip.

I'm more of in the opinion that this trip is for the parents to have a good time. They could go to Paris Disney but for some reason they see they think they've got to go to Disney World.

Plus I did a quick check and on average it's about $4,000 per week per person on a Disney World trip from England by the way that includes airfare. So what are they going to spend like 10 weeks there?

I remember the same thing was done, it's been about 10 to 15 years ago that a family has their 19-month-old baby dying and they tried to raise money so the family could go on a long vacation to several sites with the baby.

It's like they did it for themselves not for the baby that's why I so disagree with them getting the money or raising any.

 

[hollydolly]

Altho' my heart bleeds for this couple... I have to say with a heavy heart that I agree with the Charity's Barrister...

I haven't read it but I presume that when Donors donated they donated knowing that their money if not used for the child to whom they were donating, agreed that the money could go to any other suffering child... so therefore the money would not have been refunded


However that leads me to another question... what is the ''Gold Geese Cancer charity''.. (a charity I've never heard of tbh ) doing with money that's been donated...who are they giving it to?

They say it's given to another child with cancer.. but what child ?... there's hundreds nay thousands of children with cancer.. who are they giving it too... if the premise is that the money is used for those who started a gofundme.. for a specific child then where is the money eg.. the £100,000 in this instance going ?

 

[CallMeKate]

They sound like a good charity. Gold Geese | Supporting Children with Cancer The webpage/mission is very clear that they help children with cancer and not sick kids with other illnesses. I don't see anything that says the fundraising is for one particular child to get all the money that people donated for their treatment. If they no longer are in need of treatment the money raised is used for another child they have vetted and accepted as a recipient.

 

[Knight]

I could see the couple's point IF the request was to care for & possibly cure the two year old of her illness.

But

Craig Evison and Victoria Morrison, whose son Kyle died in 2020 from an incurable brain cancer, want to take his sister Ruby-Rose to Disney World - but have been told they cannot access previous cash pledges because she has a different disease.

I'm a practical man. While a trip to Disney World to sounds like something the two year old would enjoy, why don't the parent's foot the cost?

 

[hollydolly]

I could see the couple's point IF the request was to care for & possibly cure the two year old of her illness.

But

Craig Evison and Victoria Morrison, whose son Kyle died in 2020 from an incurable brain cancer, want to take his sister Ruby-Rose to Disney World - but have been told they cannot access previous cash pledges because she has a different disease.

I'm a practical man. While a trip to Disney World to sounds like something the two year old would enjoy, why don't the parent's foot the cost?

..because they feel that the £100,000 which was raised for their terminally ill son to enjoy Disneyworld .. was never used due to the Covid lockdown, and the boy has since died. They feel that , the money should then be used to benefit their now 2 year old terminally ill daughter as initially it was raised for their child.....however this charity is for cancer sufferers only, and the little girl albeit teminal doesn't have cancer, plus she wasn't even born when the money was donated

 

[Knight]

..because they feel that the £100,000 which was raised for their terminally ill son to enjoy Disneyworld .. was never used due to the Covid lockdown, and the boy has since died. They feel that , the money should then be used to benefit their now 2 year old terminally ill daughter as initially it was raised for their child.....however this charity is for cancer sufferers only, and the little girl albeit teminal doesn't have cancer, plus she wasn't even born when the money was donated

From post #1.

Before Kyle's death, well wishers had donated thousands to pay for treatment in the US and 'memory making' experiences for the family - but Covid-19 pandemic lockdown restrictions intervened and he never travelled.


Thousands for treatment for an inoperable cancer sounds like the donors were really compassionate. I could understand the parents request if there was wording in the contract to set aside as an amount for 'memory making' experiences for the family.

Other than that I think the barrister is right in denying use.

 

[Aunt Bea]

I’m not sure that a two year old would even know about Disney World unless they had been coached.

I also question the timing of a second made to order child appearing several years later to claim her brother’s donations.

The whole thing is a bit odd and creepy to me.

I say refund the original donations and create a new page for donations for this child or throw her a little Magic Kingdom party with a rented mouse and a cake.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

I may sound heartless but I would not give them five cents. The reason is is that how many of us remember anything of when we were 2 years old? Even if this child was to somehow miraculously live she would never remember this trip.

I have to agree. Somehow, I just can't see the daughter pining away for a trip to Disney World since she was one and a half. Plus, the couple wants $100, 000. That does seem like a more cash needed for a 10 minute visit from someone in a Minnie suit even at Disney World.
Also, hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit probably costs the same as a trip to Orlando.

 

[hollydolly]

I’m not sure that a two year old would even know about Disney World unless they had been coached.

I also question the timing of a second made to order child appearing several years later to claim her brother’s donations.

The whole thing is a bit odd and creepy to me.

I say refund the original donations and create a new page for donations for this child or throw her a little Magic Kingdom party with a rented mouse and a cake.

no that's unfair..there's no way this couple would have known that a new baby after their first child died, would have a terminal illness...

 

[hollydolly]

I have to agree. Somehow, I just can't see the daughter pining away for a trip to Disney World since she was one and a half. Plus, the couple wants $100, 000. That does seem like a more cash needed for a 10 minute visit from someone in a Minnie suit even at Disney World.
Also, hiring a lawyer and filing a lawsuit probably costs the same as a trip to Orlando.

They are self funding, they're not paying for a lawyer theiy're defending themselves...

 

[Aunt Bea]

no that's unfair..there's no way this couple would have known that a new baby after their first child died, would have a terminal illness...

So if the child had been healthy they wouldn’t have tried to claim 100,000 pounds, I’m not so sure about that.

 

[hollydolly]

So if the child had been healthy they wouldn’t have tried to claim 100,000 pounds, I’m not so sure about that.

of course they wouldn't. They are after all claiming money that was donated for their first terminally ill child.. why would they be claiming money for a healthy child from a cancer charity?

 

[Aunt Bea]

of course they wouldn't. They are after all claiming money that was donated for their first terminally ill child.. why would they be claiming money for a healthy child from a cancer charity?

Have it your way, it was my mistake for offering my opinion as requested.

 

[CallMeKate]

One of the comments made on the article sums up what I was thinking, too...
"Unbelievably sad. Why spend time fighting over this if your daughter will not survive the summer. Memories can be made anywhere, home, your local park, zoo, with friends etc. I wouldn't want to be taking her on an overseas trip with everything involved."

 

[hollydolly]

One of the comments made on the article sums up what I was thinking, too...
"Unbelievably sad. Why spend time fighting over this if your daughter will not survive the summer. Memories can be made anywhere, home, your local park, zoo, with friends etc. I wouldn't want to be taking her on an overseas trip with everything involved."

I agree with that.. but of course there's a lot involved. I suspect when you're going through the death of yet a second child in just a few short years... then you'd want to give them everything you could.... you may not be thinking normally as one would otherwise.. and also as they believed the intial money was raised for their son and them as a family , they probably thought that they could use it for the benefit of this little girl in her short time left.

None of us who have not gone through something like this can imagine what they thought for sure... but they certainly would have been thinking of their little girl

if the court decides against it which I'm sure they will.. because it would open floodgates for futures demands from the charity and the gofundme... I suspect thy will give the little girl the best they can give her, at home..

 

[fuzzybuddy]

The charity, Golden Goose, raised money for children with cancer. People donated to the charity, not to any one child. The Morrisons agreed that if funds allotted to Kyle were not spent, at his death, they would revert back to the charity. The fact they have another child dying of a different illness does not change those conditions.
And to be brutally frank, a two year old can be made to feel loved, ,carried for and have memories in her home without spending a $100,000 for a trip to Orlando.
Even if the daughter did qualify for the charity, $10,000 is quite adequate for a decent visit to the Mouse.

 

[Been There]

Kind of sounds like the parents want to go on vacation.

 

[Sunny]

I agree. The amount of money is ridiculous, and nothing would be accomplished beyond making the Disney Corp. even richer.

 

[Knight]

if the court decides against it which I'm sure they will.. because it would open floodgates for futures demands from the charity and the gofundme... I suspect thy will give the little girl the best they can give her, at home..

Maybe the court will find in favor of the parents or at least enough to fund a trip to Disney. Reading the 1st. post I think there could be room for that consideration.

The money for the 1st. child clearly was intended to fund the trip. To remove inoperable brain cancer was not the intent of trip. Like with their son the parents want to have 'memory making' experiences for the family. The truly sad part is the memories will only be for the parents.

IMO the parents should go on the trip, pay for the trip now & argue the original point of funding was for a trip for their son. Then seek payment for the actual total expense after returning, not the entire 100,000.

BTW the couple looks like they are not poverty level or at least the pics seem to show some degree of financial stability.

 

[CallMeKate]

Kind of sounds like the parents want to go on vacation.

It really does, yes. I did some research to find out exactly what the little girl's syndrome involves.

Progressive neurological deterioration: Individuals experience a decline in neurological function over time.
Intellectual disability: Affected individuals do not develop speech and have intellectual disability.
Severity of symptoms: The extent of neurological impairment and other complications impact survival and quality of life.

All that factored in, I have a hard time believing that this dream trip is much about Ruby-Rose. I know the parents may not be thinking "clearly" after facing all this devastation, but they would do better to plan some things for her that she *can* enjoy and not an airplane flight to a whole other country.

 

[Pepper]

I'm just so shocked and saddened about the fate of the two children of this unfortunate, so very unfortunate couple. Blows my mind, suffering that way.

That's all I have to say.