Showing posts with label Shared Parenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shared Parenting. Show all posts
Stop The Responsible Fatherhood Bill
Until recently, there were few groups that were advocating for children and far too many groups advocating for such forced contact. "Pro Contact" culture is really just being polite. "Contact No Matter what" Cult, is more appropriate considering the facts that there is no limit as to who they wish children to have contact with.
Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media. -Wikipedia
Bizarre punishments against mothers are initiated by the courts if they do not comply without consideration for the impact that the children suffer.
Some of these punishments include:
"Isolating The Child From The Protective Parent"
"Orders inhibiting the Child From access to Counseling"
"Removal of The Mothers Passport'
In cases where the parent has a mental health condition that is one of the leading causes of homicide, the protective action is often minimal. Some orders are for the parent to take their medication and see their doctor, but left entirely to the device of the patient and the potential victims are left restricted by the court order and helpless to what might come about. The Court evaluators who make the decisions that the judges often solely rely on are often untrained for these cases, but overtrained in the area of "pro - contact' and too well understand the terms of "maternal gatekeeping" "Alienation" and "False Memory Syndrome". They believe that the child is not unsafe in relationships with sex offenders if they "just accept it" without the interference from mothers.
This is due to the fact that in the early 80s, Dr Richard Gardner coined the term, "Parent Alienation Syndrome" and travelled the world with the help of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC). Many conferences were held indoctrinating lawyers, psychologists and judges into the belief that children are better off with abusive parents. This belief was also supported by the international Child Emancipation, a lobby group for pedophiles.
Cases where there is not enough evidence to support Family Violence are often referred to as, "False Allegations" and in most cases the victim is required to pay costs to the alleged perpetrator. This goes against studies that support the notion that in 95% of child abuse cases are true. Clearly it is the interference that the victims receive during the court processes that leads to the lack of evidence that is able to be provided.
Like the German Lebensborn organization, they said, "Best Interests" but the intention was to reintroduce laws that tie women to men and diminish any concerns regarding child abuse and violence against women. The current family law regime reduces the value of children and mothers compared to men and promotes the cycle of violence continuing through to another generation. Like a genetic disease, our children have been infected with family violence.
The German Lebensborn organization was similarly cruel in its time. In the context of the German welfare system, it was considered that it was the "best interests" of the child to be German. By abducting babies of other origins for German families, "Best Interests of the child" was created to serve the purposes of racial intolerance. Today in the context of Family Law, "best interests of the child" refers to the amount of time spent with a parent no matter how abusive they may be.
Although there have been more efforts to protect mothers and children affected by family violence with the Violence Against Women Act and the introduction of the Protective Parent Bill, PAS is still alive in the US court system and have progressed to a point where they are supporting it through the "Responsible Fatherhood Bill". Like best Interests, it is aimed at enforcing contact with fathers regardless of the rise to epidemic proportions of murder suicides. In sect 2, "Findings" it states that the reason to provide fathers with billions of dollars in funding is due to:
6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact--
(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;
(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;
(C) twice as likely to commit crime;
(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;
(E) more likely to commit suicide;
(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and
(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.
Children were economically abused by the fathers and the state for withdrawal of financial support of children. It is in fact written in the convention on The Rights Of The Child:
Article 26
1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.
2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.
The "Violent males who grew up without fathers", were in fact infected prior to the separation by witnessing the actual violence. According to Amy Coha:
- Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to batter their female partners as adults than boys raised in nonviolent homes. Of the children who witness domestic abuse, 60% of the boys eventually become batterers.
- Sixty-three percent of boys age 11-20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. In 50% of the time, if the wife (mother) is being physically abused, so are the children.
Teenage pregnancy is an old sexist phrase that draws the need to look at the pregnant women as the problem. Contraceptives apart from the condom are directed at her as entirely responsible for the pregnancy. According to Rape Abuse and Incest Network(RAIN):
Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.
Victims of sexual assault are:7
3 times more likely to suffer from depression.
6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.
26 times more likely to abuse drugs.
4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.
The fact that in some states, the perpetrator can apply to the Family Court to stop the abortion and continue these attacks on her suggests that women and girls are considered by the state as objects rather than human beings. If such a bill were to pass, it would be a greater violation to the already eroded human rights of women and children.
Natural Biological Parents
They say that they are safer with natural biological parents and we cannot go wrong with laws like the ones they suggest. LIke many children born into a home rampant with family violence, these children are forgotten from the minds of these groups including the recent seven year old who was starved to death in the North of NSW. They say that it is a child's rights to be care for by both parents. Even if it kills them? Is this a childs right? Is it really in their best interests to die in the hands of their biological parents just because its traditional and against feminism? The father in the article below, blamed his wife for the death of their seven year old. Yet the domineering nature of this particular father suggests that he plays the stereotype of the head of the family and thus his decisions should warrant the same level of accountability. Unlike the groups above, I neither sympathize nor support the mother involved in the trial at this stage unless some facts come to light that prove that she was not responsible for such an act. This is an example of how children are not always safe with their natural biological parents and it is stupidity to think that by attracting laws based upon bias research would simply "make everything better". It should also be noted that hitler also had similar ideologies and believed that the women's place was in the home.
May 27, 2009
A man pointed to his wife and said "it was her, all her fault'' after being arrested over the starvation death of their daughter, a jury has been told.
The seven-year-old girl was found dead in the family's Hawks Nest home, north of Newcastle, on November 3, 2007.
Her parents, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, were arrested a fortnight later on the NSW south coast after warrants were issued for their capture.
Sergeant Michael Moulds, then a senior constable, told a NSW Supreme Court jury on Wednesday he arrested the couple at Albion Park railway station on November 17.
He said he had police printouts of the couple relating to their outstanding warrants and also recognised them from media coverage of the girl's death.
They were taken to Port Kembla police station, where Constable Paul Hewitson said the father blamed his wife for their predicament.
Crown prosecutor Peter Barnett SC asked him what was said.
'''It was her, all her fault'. And he pointed back to the dock area where the female accused was,'' Const Hewitson told the court.
He said a search of two bags found with the parents found items including three mobile phones, four Centrelink health cards, four Centrelink pensioner concession cards, 14 prescriptions in the names of the parents, a large quantity of prescription and non-prescription drugs, new clothes, toiletries and the couple's framed wedding certificate.
Earlier on Wednesday, a paediatrician who had treated the girl told the jury the state of the child's body after her death was so extreme she could not describe it.
Dr Dimitri Tzioumi treated the girl at Sydney Children's Hospital in Randwick in 2002 and said the girl had periods of significant growth during her early years, coinciding with visits to paediatricians.
If the girl had continued growing in line with the growth percentile scale she would have weighed 26 kilograms in November 2007, she said.
The court has previously heard the girl weighed only nine kilograms when she died.
Dr Tzioumi said she had seen a video of the girl taken at the morgue in Newcastle after her death.
"She was severely wasted, or emaciated,'' she said.
''(There was) no likeness of the child I knew.
"This was extreme, so extreme I can't describe it.''
The trial before Justice Robert Allan Hulme, sitting in East Maitland, continues.
Fathers4Equality Continue Their Attacks On Journalists
Below, the Fathers4Equality are planning to destroy a journalists career, because she dared to provide material that was opposed to shared parenting. This is an example of the bullying behavior that has been constant from these groups. To the press councils credit, they have complained to F4E for the large number of submissions that they received. if only the Attorney General have exorcised the same wisdom.
---- Forwarded Message ----
From: PhilM <punter@internode.on.net>
To: fathers4equality@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 11:22:40 AM
Subject: Re: [fathers4equality] Disturbing letter from Australian Press Council
I'd suggest you pinpoint the biggest advertisers in The Australian and get
your concerns to them. It works for me many years ago when The Advertiser in
South Australia went in a similar direction, to a point where I was
threatened with legal action by one of the sub-editors. Just be careful how
it's worded, always putting lots of "In my/our opinion.... " into your
arguements. Especially go for those companies that more likely get sales
from men than women. The newspapers are fully aware though of what gender
has the most control of the purse-strings and it's why they will be so
biased in their articles, but I think they also need to remember that men
have sisters, mothers, new partners, etc that all see how bad the situation
is for any father and the kids these days when the parents split.
PhilM
----- Original Message -----
From: ashvani_patil
To: fathers4equality@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: [fathers4equality] Disturbing letter from Australian Press Council
Folks,
I have received a disturbing letter from the Australian Press Council.
They have 'complained' to F4E that they have received over 60 submissions
about Caroline Overington's recent anti-shared care
articles.
It seems from the sub-text that the APC is not interested in reviewing these
complaints, as they are asking that I instead write to the Editor of the
Australian myself, and they are asking this in a less than respectful tone.
Given that they know that I had already written to the editor but received
no response, I am somewhat bemused by this request.
I can understand their desire to treat all the complaints about Overington
as one submission, but they seem not to be interested in the issue itself,
and are trying to wash their hands of it.
Well, I don't think this is good enough.
Before I complain to them however I want some private correspondence from
you all on the following matter.
I will indeed write to the editor one more time, with a list of DEMANDS from
us. Given the damage done by Overington, we need to come up with a list of
demands of equal weighting. Lets be creative here. Just email me at this email address with your ideas.
Shared Parenting Disaster: The Clean up
Family Law Experts have understated the impact that the shared parenting laws have on children and their mothers. Howard's Shared Parenting Bill, further undermined victims of domestic violence and child abuse that already lacked many protections for them. With the Family laws psychological community following the american trends of a pro pedophile philosophy movement headed by Dr Richard Gardner, children were handed on a platter to the abusive parent if the parent became protective during the proceedings. This movement immigrated to Australia in the 1980s promoting the idea that every parent(mostly the mother) who raised concerns about child abuse or violence against them were mentally ill and the best way to treat them was to reverse the custody to the alleged abuser. Over the past twenty nine years, the practice of punishing children for speaking out against abuse has become a widely accepted practice. Because of Dr Richard Gardner has been exposed by family violence advocates for making statements that support pedophilia, professionals have been using the work of his followers that have made modest promotion of Parent Alienation as a syndrome. What has been quite disturbing is the international trends in Family Courts that reflect his original suggestions in resolving the pseudo syndrome. Richard Gardner is starred on pedophile rights sites who support his work and his syndrome. It may be quite a shock for many who do not work in the area to know how many professionals are involved in attempting to overturn laws that protect our children.
The Shared Parenting Bill exacerbated an ongoing crisis for intimate partner violence and child abuse victims to an intolerable position. Before shared parenting, some had hope in being able to present evidence to the court on child abuse and family violence. Some victims were able to place their children on protection orders and fewer services had incentive to support abusers. Post shared Parenting campaigns, there are more services claiming to be for fathers but offer assistance in undoing the few protections made available for victims such as intervention orders that don't leave a criminal record. Regardless of how violent he has been in the past, the court is concerned about "looking forward to the future" and accepts any course relating to parenting as a guarantee of safety. The constant exposure to ongoing psychological trauma for both the parent and the child is deplorable enough. As a result of the clause, "reasonable" when describing the definition of intimate partner terrorism, every victim has been mentally assessed and what has been found is used against them. The laws also exclude outside professionals that might have been working with the children or the parent and contempt is held against the parent who seeks them out. The review of allegations in the family court revealed that regardless of the level of evidence provided, children had some unsupervised contact with the alleged perpetrator. Shared Parenting is so far away from where these families are at and to simply enforced this kind of regime on parents is cruel to say the least. None of the successful shared parenting couples that are trophied on websites were forced by law to reach such an amicable separation. For those who are so determined to impose this on separated couples and achieved some sense of bible satisfaction on the damage it has done on the divorce community, are the ones that need to let go and better reserve such improvements upon themselves.
Part of the damage that has already been done is from those who perhaps believe that they can solve violence against women with coercive control tactics are a danger to the community and possibly to themselves. The sentiments with "sharing" needs to be also applied with more thought and insight that we are indeed sharing a legal structure with others that we cannot possibly know what they endure behind those closed doors. "Sharing" is also about respecting others needs and understanding that it is not one particular group that owns a space but merely a particle of a whirlwind of many different people from all walks of life. From most family court professionals, it is not the ignorance itself that harms the children and parents, but the lack of intent to prevent harm that causes most of the damage.
For couples who are not experiencing violence/abuse but high conflict need time out to reflect and heal. The current laws encourage a rush when people are not ready. It does not hurt children to spend time with one parent in the mean time as children have a new opportunity to know one of their parents without the conflict and diversion of attention onto the other parent. All of a sudden, that parent is able to be more child focused and spend more time with them than during the relationship. The other parent has time out to build upon themselves and return into the child's life with more energy than they might have had during the relationship.
In relationships where intimate partner terrorism exists, the only way that the terrorizer can reform is through choice and choice only. They must start the difficult journey of learning to let go of control and divert that control towards themselves. They can't do this whilst being exposed to circumstances where they are able to continue their reign. Its like putting a pedophile next to a kindergarten. The few who have managed to genuinely reform from intimate partner terrorism have taken years to overcome such behaviors and groups that reinforce and assist them in furthering their means for control is like giving a packet of cigarettes to a reformed smoker and saying, "Its ok now, It doesn't cause lung cancer". In the sense of the Shared Parenting Bill, its campaigners and those who have exploited its provisions has opened the floodgates to perpetuating more violence than ever before. I just hope that the children and women have been able to find some sort of comfort in this dark time. Lets hope that those in charge have a bit more compassion and drive for understanding for what has taken place here and what truly needs change.
A fathers Experience On Shared Parenting
As one of the few custodial fathers in this nation I have to say that child abuse by the mother, and for that fact also the father of the children, does not end when you are finally living in separate households. What remains is what is supposed to be shared parenting that not always works and should have never been in place in the first place.
To try and make this past history short I will start out by telling that I have had custody for 6 years now. Prior to this for most of the time I was working many hours a week with tons of overtime and many times out of town. During these times of having to be away from home the mother of my children was abusing both my son and daughter and them minimizing what was happening concerning discipline when I was away. She went so far as to tell me my daughter lied about anything and my son was her angel. Not so according to a journal I found of hers. In this she detailed what, how, and when she abused these kids in so many ways. From pinning a child on the ground and punching, pulling hair, and then kicking the child as they tried to get up, to spitting in their faces, cursing them in front of their friends, and having them spy on neighbors. You should get the picture here. It did get a lot worse.
I also had incidents of her abusing me physically, emotionally, and financially. And when I said for her to get a job she would accuse me of being abusive among other irrational accusations. I then one day told her that she is to hard to love and if she were to stay any longer that she would have to go to counseling for everything she was doing, stop abusing the kids, and get a job. She immediately replied she was moving out and did so a day later.
Before any court order she was allowed to visit with the kids and take them to her new place. I then would get phone calls of her complaining our daughter was not going into the pool or associate outside of her new apartment. She then ordered me to tell out daughter to get out and have a good time. How crazy is this? And at that time she wanted the kids every weekend and no weekdays because she didn't want to get up and take them to school. I told her "hell no." Her attitude on this remained after we went to court and the lawyers seen fit for this shared parenting plan that had the children here every other weekend and back and forth during the week. Now that is crazy also. But before you knew it the mother had a new social life and was hardly even calling by phone much less wanting visitation. Plus, in between then and now, she has 2 more children that she can't no way afford, and negates paying child support on the 2 she abandoned here.
Splitting Parenting After the Split
Splitting parenting after the split
Photo: Quentin Jones
Adele Horin
November 15, 2008Australia has embarked on an experiment in dividing the care of children between separated parents. Adele Horin reports.
No one said raising children after divorce would be easy. But for Barbara Strand* it became harder once the Family Court ordered her a year ago to share the care of her three children with her former husband. He was verbally abusive, drank, gambled and had trouble holding down a job. He told his partner he wanted shared care - the 50-50 arrangement - so he would never have to pay her child support.
"I wouldn't mind if he had a hippy, relaxed style of parenting," she said, admitting her own style is strong on routine. "But his approach is 'I don't-give-a damn' … The school calls me to bail the kids out because he hasn't given them lunch, and he doesn't believe homework is essential so I'm constantly having to play catch-up."
Symbolic of his lackadaisical approach, in her eye, is his refusal to let the children play afternoon sport. He won't take the girls to ballet lessons, either. The girls don't want to spend alternating weeks with their father although the son is happy enough to comply. Now communication between the parents is nearly non-existent; even email, the divorced parent's best friend, is proving too provocative.
"I tell the children what the court told me - it's the law and I must abide by it," she said. "The court psychologist told me his verbal violence towards me has nothing to do with his parenting skills. But sharing my children with a man who is mentally, emotionally and verbally abusive is not a good thing."
Australia is embarking on a grand experiment with its children. Increasing numbers of them are spending equal time with each of their separated parents, hauling suitcases, sport uniforms, tennis racquets, laptops and sometimes their "communication" books with parents' instructions to each other, from one home to the other.
It is not a new arrangement. But the 2006 amendments to the Family Law Act - the most significant in 30 years - provided the impetus to transform the culture of post-separation parenting. The numbers of divorced parents with equal - or near-equal - time is steadily rising. Of all new cases registered with the Child Support Agency in the year to June, 17 per cent were shared or near-equal time arrangements. In the year to June 2003, by comparison, of all new cases registered only 9 per cent were in that category.
More "father time" was what many children and fathers craved. It was what many worn-out solo mothers - contrary to stereotype - also wanted, research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies has shown. The cultural shift towards shared care should be cause for celebration. But some experts still hold serious reservations. In the past, parents who pioneered shared care had co-operative and egalitarian values. Many were well-educated, dual-career couples. But it is unknown how many highly conflicted parents are now trying shared care, and what price their children are paying.
"I'm worried a group of conflicted families is being drawn into shared care for all the wrong reasons," says Zoe Rathus, a family law expert from Griffith University. "And I'm worried kids feel they are carrying the burden of making divorce fair for their parents."
Last week preliminary results from the first major study of shared care, involving 5000 separated and divorced parents with various child residence arrangements, were released. They showed overall that children in shared care are no worse off - and no better off - than those who see the non-resident parent every second weekend. If the results did not fulfil the hopes of the boosters of shared care, nor did they confirm the fears of the shared care detractors. The survey - by Bruce Smyth and Bryan Rodgers, of the Australian National University - also showed children whose parents are locked in conflict have more problems than those with co-operative parents, regardless of the arrangement.
It was concern about "father absence" that propelled the Howard government to put more focus on shared parenting in family law and in the child support system. About one in four children under 18 from separated families virtually never sees their non-resident parent, according to the Bureau of Statistics.
"Far too many young boys are growing up without proper male role models," the former prime minister John Howard said in 2003. "They are not infrequently in the overwhelming care and custody of their mothers."
Now that the reforms he set in train have been in place for more than two years, some experts are worried the response to "father absence" may have gone too far. Associate Professor Bruce Smyth says the reforms have encouraged an over-focus on numbers - 50-50, 70-30, 80-20 - turning parents into petty time accountants. "Separated parents can lose sight of what is most important to their children: spending time in a broad spectrum of activities and experiences with their parents," he said.
Overseas research by Carol Smart, the British sociologist who interviewed children, has shown the unsuccessful cases of shared parenting involved children who felt they were "living lives that were basically parent-oriented". They felt the arrangement was agreed upon to satisfy their parents' needs or, if parents could not agree, to strike a compromise for the adults.
In Australia, Jennifer McIntosh, a psychologist, admits she sees the "bad news" kids. "I see the train wrecks." Her research into shared care among a small sample of high-conflict families has made her particularly concerned about pre-school-aged children shuttling between parents fighting hot or cold wars. And she has more general concerns about making shared care prescriptive in legislation when its success appears to depend on so many individual factors.
"Children benefit demonstrably from time with parents who are warm and available," she said. "But they are seriously strained by too much time with a mother or father who is not. I see kids subject to such a lot of strain and tension. They expend so much energy 'reading the climate', learning what is OK to say, having to be vigilant. And over the years I think it takes a toll." Her hope is that family mediators, lawyers and judges will put more effort into distinguishing families ready or approaching readiness for shared care from those who will never be.
When Deborah Arnold first sent her children to their father for the agreed three days a week, they had to be dragged screaming. It broke her heart. Eight years later, with the girls aged 13 and 10, they go with resignation. "He is a bullying, controlling, dominant man and I just gave in," said Deborah. "I think they are as intimidated as I am. I have tried several times to change the arrangement because the girls want extra time with me. But he won't agree. If I go to court I'm scared I'll end up in a worse scenario with him getting more time. I have to endure and they have to as well." The older daughter, barely a teenager, has been diagnosed with depression.
The new Family Law Act is often misunderstood. Equal time is not the prescribed starting point for negotiations over children's arrangements; rather the changes introduced a presumption of "shared parental responsibility" for major long-term decisions in a child's life. But then the judge or lawyer or adviser must favourably consider whether spending "equal, or substantial and significant time" with each parent will be practicable and in the best interests of the child. The law also emphasises protection of children from family violence.
In the community, and in lawyers' chambers, the distinction between shared "responsibility" and shared "time" has blurred. All the talk about shared care dramatically raised some parents' expectations, say family law lawyers.
Within the Family Court there is surprising evidence from McIntosh's studies, based on small samples, that highly conflicted parents who go to court are more likely to end up with shared care than do parents who settle children's matters themselves.
One Family Court judge in Brisbane, Tim Carmody, resigned from the bench after five years, citing the "failure" of the new system as a factor. Judges were required to apply a presumption of shared responsibility to the most hostile of couples - the 5 per cent who end up before a judge - and then consider giving them equal time with their children, he said. "It created a real crisis for me; I just couldn't keep doing it."
A much-anticipated Family Court study of the outcomes of litigated parenting matters since July 2006 is yet to be released.
Despite its trail of forgotten school shoes and misplaced homework, shared care is proving successful for many parents. Indeed parents, in particular, seem to be the beneficiaries, according to the study of 5000 parents. They are happier in themselves and with the arrangement than those in other arrangements.
Karen and Robert Finch are typical. They separated seven years ago, and it "felt like a slap in the face" to Karen when he wanted the children 60 per cent of the time. They ended up in court and eventually settled on a 50-50 arrangement. The court experience was a "wake-up call … horrible and stupid", Karen says. It made them both realise "at the core, it's about the children". She acknowledges that Robert is "a good dad" who has a strong relationship with his sons. "I have never thought the typical arrangement of every second weekend with dad was in their best interests."
So the boys spend half the week with her, half with him and each parent is responsible for the same extracurricular activities every week. Email and text messages are the parents' main mode of communication with an occasional family breakfast for big discussions. The secret to successful co-parenting is to control anger, and to let go on issues that aren't important, she says. "We put a lot of effort into having a united front and being consistent in the way we parent."
Between overt hostility and co-operation are people like Paul, locked in a cold war with his former partner. "As the children became older, there's been more disagreement over parenting issues," he says. He disapproves of his former wife's lax parenting style. So the couple engage in parallel parenting. They never talk or see each other, and he finds it "easier to duplicate than negotiate" over items such as the forgotten school shoes. "I don't have to like the person to make the arrangement work," he says. "But it's not ideal."
As more fathers become involved in child rearing, shared care will continue to rise when relationships break up. Even when parents, such as Marilyn and Guido, have amicably negotiated the shoals of shared parenting for 10 years, doubts linger about the effect on the children. Of sons 16 and 19, Marilyn says: "It's hard on them. They hated moving and packing all the time; different routines, different meal times. As they get older, there is a sense of duty. Two weeks ago my 16-year-old decided to live with me. He'd had enough. But it was good, too. They had two homes, they were loved by both parents, their father didn't have to be a weekend sugar daddy. We did our best."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
