MovieChat Forums > Beaches (1989) Discussion > Innacuracies: Hillary's kid would of be...

Innacuracies: Hillary's kid would of been taken by DCFS after collapse

posted 14 years ago by stevepmarco1971
13 replies | jump to latest

There is an innacuracy of the plot. In reality, after Hillary collapsed from the heart ailment, you know that DCFS would of been all over that little girl, and would of been taken into adoptive custody because Hillary was not attentive enough anyway. Also: why didn't Michael come back into Hillary's life when she was on deathbed. You know for the sake of the kid, Michael would of been there, but instead there was CC. (unbelievable)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mtaylor-54 14 years ago

For all we know Hillary (being a lawyer & everything) had things legally drawn up to have CC be her daughter's guardian after her death. At least that is what I assumed.

My mother passed when I was almost five and my grandparents (her parents) ended up being my guardian. My father gave up his parental rights (parents divorced right after I was born).

So it's not far-fetched for this sort of thing to occur by either making a legal arrangement with or without the father (and in the movie, I doubt Michael would have cared. He was married to another woman & wouldn't want to have his pre-teen daughter from another marriage disrupting his new life).

[–] df4205 14 years ago

It seems unlikely that DCFS would snatch up a child simply because they're parent was sick/dying. The child had other adults around, Aunt Vesta for one. Also, snatching up the child of someone who once worked for the ACLU would have been an invitation for disaster. Especially considering that her best friend was now a well known celebrity who could command a whole horde of lawyers to entangle DCFS in legalities and loopholes until the kid was in her 20's. Also, someone would have to report child endangerment, I don't know of anyone who's going to make that call just because your sick. I mean a blind person could hardly take care of a child in the same way a sighted person could, should we snatch them up as well? Children of deaf people? People that have AIDS and come with an attached expiration date?

To serve man. It's a cookbook!!!!

[–] andromache3 14 years ago

The OP is an idiot. Typing "would of" instead of "would have" or "would've" is a clear example of this. But the fact of the matter is a terminally ill person would make arrangements to provide for their child once they're gone. Certainly Hillary would have done this.

"When we make mistakes, it's evil. When God makes mistakes, it's nature."

[–] monique79-1 14 years ago

Unfortunately many men abandon their kids or have no interest in being a father to them, not far fetched, cruel, but realistic.

Hillary knew she was sick and loved Victoria very much, by that time she more than likely had her will and last testament drawn up naming CC. For that fact DCFS would not have been called.

When Hillary collapsed, I am assuming there was help staff in the house as it was a large house and people with money, large houses, and a scene earlier showed there would be a maid or a cook helping out.

[–] Joan_Ferguson 14 years ago

Very true.

[–] randydidit 12 years ago

why are you people 'assuming' that she had a will etc when it is CLEARLY said that she did! CC tells victoria that she was going through hillary's papers and her will says she wants cc to be her guardian. case closed

[–] bagelboi 11 years ago

Because rich people never get their way.

[–] movieperson113 11 years ago

Well maybe there's more definitive proof in the book. But when C.C. and Hilary make up she clearly states Michael does NOT WANT THE BABY because he's in love and marrying another woman.

Later after Hilary dies Victoria says she's seen her father on the street "TWICE". But there is ZERO mention that he ever talked to her or wanted to ever see her.

But a woman who is a Lawyer would certainly make the proper provisions for her only child.

By the way the movie clearly shows Hilary was there for Victoria. Sick or not.

[–] pypsqweek 11 years ago

They wouldn't have taken Hillary away because she was not in any imminent danger. She was a very wealthy little girl who was well taken care of. She also had like 3 possible guardians, her father included even if he was not involved. If those guardians had fallen through then she would have been placed in foster care. Technically at the time her guardian was her aunt, a blood relative so they wouldn't have taken her away.

[–] mmarshall8 9 years ago

You are correct and she *Hilary* did. She even states it during the scene with Victoria on her bed after the funeral

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nancy-mitrione 9 years ago

Hillary's Ex never attempted to meet or see his Daughter. The kid stated she "saw him from a distance one time". Not so unbelievable; there are some parents that abandon their children.