Topics

Here I thought that when SS graduated and got married, DH and I were done with this kind of crap.  Now my granddaughter is caught in the middle between DS and GD's BM.  I've had concerns about her since practically Day 1.  A couple months after GD was born, BM had to be hospitalized because she thought she might hurt GD.  Just a hospital stay for a week, no follow-up, no other intervention.

It's an incredibly long story, but suffice it to say that on Father's Day, she refused to allow DS to see his daughter.  My brother and SIL are involved and they shouldn't be, as BM is playing DH and I against them because my brother has a grudge against DS for something DS did when he was TWELVE. (Convoluted, huh?)  Needless to say, the BM threw our whole family under the bus Sat. night.  And she's either deleted her FB page or unfriended everyone in connection to DS.  DH is absolutely livid, partly because of all the problems he had with SS's BM in the past and partly because GD's BM lied to him once before and he told her that was her only chance.  He now says he's through with her.

And we're supposed to have her this weekend....she got a no contact order on DS a year ago and a temp. custody order was included for EOW.  And there's a court date next Tuesday because she wants to extend it (even tho she and DS have had NO contact except for a phone conversation regarding GD's ear tube surgery).  DH and I facilitate the exchanges.  I don't know if that's going to happen tomorrow night, but all I can do is pray.  God, how I love that little girl!

MB:  I'm keeping this off my FB page. 

Found this on Facebook...thought it might be valuable here....

Here's a chance to give your input on new FEDERAL CS guidelines!

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/component/content/article/16-latest-news/22137-how-you-can-lower-your-child-support-with-a-click

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/component/content/article/16-latest-news/21785-how-to-change-a-child-support-order (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/component/content/article/16-latest-news/21785-how-to-change-a-child-support-order)

It includes state-by-state guidelines.

Great read!
http://abcnews.go.com/Sponsored/JohnsonandJohnson/writing-societal-stereotypes-daddy-blog-time/story?id=23982607 (http://abcnews.go.com/Sponsored/JohnsonandJohnson/writing-societal-stereotypes-daddy-blog-time/story?id=23982607)

Just found this out from National Parents Organization:
http://divorcecorp.com/ (http://divorcecorp.com/)

This is a new documentary highlighting how corrupt the divorce industry has become.  There are select screenings across the country and a book about it.  You can also request to have a screening.  If anyone lives in any of the screening areas, please try to see it.  NPO also has a 'label' that you can print off and wear to the screening:
https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/component/content/article/16-latest-news/21432-divorce-corp-your-struggle-is-now-a-movie (https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/component/content/article/16-latest-news/21432-divorce-corp-your-struggle-is-now-a-movie)

If anyone does see this in its entirety, I would appreciate any feedback here....I live in rural Midwest and probably won't get a chance to see it.   

A letter in Dear Abby's column today just pi$$ed me off.  The writer got it right, but it was Abby's response that was seriously lacking:

DEAR ABBY: I don't understand divorced women and the restrictions they put on their exes about what they can and can't do with their children. ("You can't let him go to the pool party; he might drown"; "She can't visit with your mother; she has a cat"; "Don't make him rake leaves; that's your job!") Instead, they should be grateful these fathers are active parts of their children's lives. Too many fathers simply walk away. Unless the dad is actively harming the child, they have no right to dictate what their ex does with his kids on his time.
Remember, ladies, you made a baby with him. He is their dad and he has every right to parent as he sees fit, even if it differs from your own philosophy. And dads, don't let your ex try to tell you that you are a bad parent because you let your kid go roller skating and she broke her arm. It is not your fault. Things like that happen all the time, even to kids whose parents are still together. So stand up for your right to be a real dad! -- UNSYMPATHETIC MOM IN PENNSYLVANIA
DEAR MOM: If I were you, I'd keep my head down and not get caught in the crossfire. It's not that you lack sympathy, but you obviously don't relate to the women you hear complain. While some of them may seem controlling or hyper-protective, others may have valid concerns about their children's safety while they're with Dad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seriously, Abby??  'Some' of them may seem controlling or hyper-protective?  It made me mad enough to fire back a response to her:

Dear Abby,

I am appalled at your response to 'Unsympathetic Mom', who complained about women who try to control what their exes do with the children.  If you only knew what the atmosphere is regarding post-divorce child-rearing, you would never have said that.WAY too many women try to dictate and control what the fathers do with the kids.  Proof of that is when she says 'MY kids'...it should be 'OUR kids'.

I am a step-mother of a 19 y.o. and have been in his life since he was 3.  And his mother tried to control almost everything we did with him during the FOUR minimal days a month we had him when he was little.  Believe it or not, we only lived 2 blocks away in a very rural town, but since that was the minimum the court would allow, that was the MAXIMUM she would allow.  She tried to control the holidays we spent with him, she even tried to control how we CLOTHED him!  And she's not the only 'neurotic' parent out there...I am a moderator on a web forum for non-custodial parents and the stories I've seen there would curl your hair.

I'm happy to echo Unsympathetic Mom's sentiments:  Ladies, if you were willing to get in bed and/or marry this guy and have kids with him (and you cannot PROVE he has abused them), you have no choice but to allow him to parent as he sees fit.  You will be co-parenting with him until that child reaches the age of majority, so it is in the best interest of the child that you make an effort to get along.

My step-son's mother is now 'reaping the rewards' of her interference.  He still loves his mother, but he tries to have as little to do with her as possible.  He remembers what happened and she's tried to control his life, too.  So she only has herself to blame if she doesn't have the relationship with him now that she'd like to have.  More's the pity and from what I've seen on the forum I moderate, my stepson is just one of many this has happened to.

Been there, seen that...wished I hadn't

DH and I will be gaining a daughter-in-law!!!!  SS came by just as I was leaving for a meeting last night and told me he HAD to show me something, then opened up a box to show me a beautiful engagement ring!  He looked at me and said 'L, I love her!'  I told him 'I know you do and you know we love her, too!'  SS and her have been together since SS was a sophomore and he turned 19 in Feb.  They broke up for a while last year but DH talked SS into getting back together with her and they are SO much happier!

My future DIL is a wonderful girl, I've known her parents for a long time and they are wonderful, too.    I told SS that they shouldn't be in any hurry to get married, to just take their time.  It's just wonderful to see him so happy!

When I got home last night, I mentioned to DH about wondering what BM's reaction would be and he said that SS was going to see her after he told us.  That made me feel good, too!  I just pray that she doesn't try to stick her nose into their plans....I have a feeling that after all that has happened, both SS and FDIL will be telling her to butt out!   

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-adopted-baby-returned-soldier-dad/story?id=17877671 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-adopted-baby-returned-soldier-dad/story?id=17877671)

I was stunned when I read this article....not just that court ruled that a child should be returned to her father after an illegal adoption, but that it happened in Utah, of all places!  The quotes from the judge are priceless!  But it sounds like the only story the adoptive parents were listening to was the birth mother.  I'm sorry, but if the father is in the military and gets transferred from TX to SC, the mother would have had options through the military if she would have had limited resources. In my opinion, her story of having no other option but to give the child up doesn't fly with me!

Some of you 'oldtimers' might remember another fellow Iowan on this forum...he went by 'Hawkeye'.  I just learned that he passed away on Monday.  I hadn't heard from him personally for quite a few months and I don't know the details.  I do know that his son, whom he was so devoted to, is either graduated or a junior or senior.  He must be so lost right now...

I guess this is hitting me hard because I had another dear friend pass away suddenly last week.  Starting to feel my mortality very keenly.....

[visitation enforcement]

Fantastic article about new changes to visitation enforcement in Illinois.  What amazes me is that it passed both House and Senate unanimously!

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/13/illinois-leg-puts-teeth-into-visitation-law/ (http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/13/illinois-leg-puts-teeth-into-visitation-law/)

Now, the trick is to see if it gets used.....but if more people know about it, they can push to have it enforced.  And it looks like the Illinois Bar Assoc. couldn't come up with a valid reason as to why they thought it was 'unconstitutional'...once the point was made that child support sanctions are even stronger and those aren't considered unconstitutional, I guess they didn't have a leg to stand on.

I have a problem with only one word:

'(c)  After hearing all of the evidence, the court may order one or more of the following:'

I think it should be shall........

The Iowa Supreme Court got it RIGHT....this is a recent article from Fathers and Families:
Iowa Supreme Court: Duped Man May Sue for Paternity Fraud 
June 4th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The Supreme Court of Iowa has recognized a cause of action for paternity fraud by unmarried men.  Read about it here (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120602/NEWS/306020026/-1/SPORTS12/Paternity-fraud-lawsuits-OK-d?nclick_check=1) (Des Moines Register, 6/1/12).

Although the article isn't clear, here's what appears to have happened:  Joseph Dier and Cassandra Peters had a relationship in about 2008.  They were never married, but she had a son in 2009 and Dier paid her child support, believing the boy was his.  At some point, Dier decided the child would be better off with him and moved for custody.  Peters, suspecting the boy had not been fathered by Dier, asked the family court for genetic testing that proved Dier was not the father.

I suppose Peters was pleased with that outcome since it meant Dier was out of the custody picture.  What she didn't count on was his lawsuit against her for paternity fraud claiming all monies he'd paid her in child support plus the cost of litigation.  The trial court dismissed his suit, ruling correctly that, under Iowa law, she'd done nothing wrong.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, establishing a new civil cause of action for damages, saying Dier can sue Peters.

I've dealt extensively with paternity fraud cases over the years and, put simply, those who claim that defrauded men should have no legal recourse, don't have a single valid argument.  For example, there's the claim that "public policy" requires that men be the ones to bear the consequences of women's wrongdoing. 

"The 24-page opinion notes that "courts in other jurisdictions are divided as to whether to recognize paternity fraud claims. Courts disallowing such claims have relied heavily on considerations of public policy and child welfare" when refusing to carve tricked, married fathers out of their families."

Public policy?  Child welfare?  What public policy refuses to punish fraud?  What public policy allows a woman to choose which of two or more men she wants to act as father irrespective of his actual paternity? What public policy denies a child the vital information about his/her paternity with all the medical consequences that might entail?  How does that promote a child's welfare?  What public policy is served by a mother's tricking one man who's not the father into believing that he is so he'll invest love, care, emotion, time and money into being that parent?  What public policy allows a mother to trick the man who is the father into believing he's not so he'll have no opportunity to invest the love, care, emotion, time and money into being that father?  What public policy allows a mother to convince a child that one man's his/her father when he isn't and destroy that child's world when her lie is revealed and the real father comes into the picture?  Public policy?  Child welfare?  No.  Paternity fraud serves neither and it's high time a court of law admitted the fact.


Then there's the argument that, however wrong her actions may have been, we can't allow her to be sued because that would take money away from her and therefore the child.  The obvious answer to that is that we do that nowhere else in American jurisprudence, so why would we do it with paternity fraud?  If Mom runs a stop sign and hits a pedestrian, can she defend herself in court by saying "Hey, I'm a mother; if I have to pay a judgment, it'll take money away from my child?"  What about if she sticks up a convenience store and shoots the clerk?  Can she keep out of jail because going there would adversely affect her child?  Is motherhood just a Get-Out-Of-All-Legal-Responsibility card?  Not yet.  The Iowa Supreme Court agreed.

"It is true that Dier's success in the litigation could diminish the resources that Peters has available in the future to support (the child), but this would be true of any lawsuit against Peters," justices ruled. "We have never afforded parents a general defense from tort liability on the ground they need all their money to raise their children."  (Bravo!)

So those who argue that all cases of paternity fraud by mothers should be given a pass, while two men and one child suffer the consequences, don't have a leg to stand on.


Meanwhile, there's nothing about paternity fraud that's any different from other kinds of fraud that typically occur in a commercial setting.  It's a lie on which the other person relies by spending money.  That's what fraud is, and it should be treated the same way.  And, speaking of public policy, by ruling that there are consequences to paternity fraud, the Supreme Court voiced one of its own.

"Also, we need to consider the public policy implications of an opposite ruling," the court said. "We recognize fraud as a cause of action partly to deter lying. One good reason to allow fraud claims to go forward in the area of paternity fraud is to avoid the situation that has allegedly arisen here."

In other words, if the state lets lying go unpunished, it encourages lying; if it punishes lying, it deters it.  Maybe the next mother who feels the urge to defraud one man into paternity and another out of it will think twice.  And if she does, everyone will be better off.


As I've said many times before, only one person knows with whom a woman has had sex – her.  That means she and only she has the information about who may be the father if she becomes pregnant.  And if there's more than one man who may be the father, she has a moral obligation to all possible fathers and her unborn child to tell each man that he may be the father.  From there, they can all figure out who the dad is, he can take up his parental rights and obligations, and everyone else can go on about their lives.  That's a moral obligation that the vast majority of women have no problem complying with.


But there are always some for whom moral strictures aren't enough, and for them we create legal ones.  That's what the Supreme Court of Iowa just did, and it's high time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if anyone is in the process or considering a paternity fraud case, this case should certainly help!  Makes me VERY proud to be an Iowan!

A local TV station is sponsoring a forum called 'Fractured Families', to discuss why the state of Iowa has such a high rate of children being removed from their homes and put into foster care.  They say that there will be 'local officials' (not exactly sure who) present to answer questions...what do you want to bet the main topic will be a push for more foster families?

They will skirt the real issues and have little regard for the children affected.  I really would like to go, but I have a class that day about 60 miles away, so I don't know if I will have time (or the gas money!) to get there.  But if I do, I will certainly report back!

SS has decided to move in with us...this weekend.  He came over last night and talked to both DH and I at length about it.  The poor kid was crying....which made me want to go over to BM's house and just bang her head against a wall!  He's so worried about her being alone and him not being there to do things for her.  Never mind that he's been nothing but a go-fer and slave for her for the past 4-6 years.  But that's how badly she's brain-washed him over the years.

She's afraid of being alone, plain and simple.  She can't keep a man in her life...she might be able to reel them in, but once she starts seeing them, she treats them like crap or tries to change them and they bail.  But DH explained to SS over and over that BM is an adult and she can deal with her own life.  SS talked about fixing things for her and DH told him that he can certainly see her any time he wants and also can go over and help her with little things....but to NOT drop everything just to run for her every time she hollers.  DH also explained that any time SS goes over there, she will probably try to guilt him even more, so he needs to be prepared for that.

SS was also worried about his half-brother, that BM could do the same thing to him.  I told SS that it is very possible, but since there's 50/50 custody with him, HB's dad is really involved.  If Dad sees or senses something going on, he will certainly act on it....he's done it before.

SS askd DH if he should tell BM first and DH said no, not until the actual move.  Any forewarning and she will come out with the guilt guns blazing.  I reminded SS that he has no control over how others act or respond, so he should not take that into consideration.  Let's just say that if she goes a little nuts about this, I wouldn't be surprised.

DH also told SS that he believes some time with us will help him gain some perspective and help clear somethings up...that over time he will be able to look at the situation in a whole new way.  I truely believe that, too.  Considering SS is now an adult, I really don't think that what we all discussed last night was out of line at all.  But if anyone (especially those who know more about our situation) has any further ideas, I'm all ears!

[whichever comes first]

DH just got confirmation today....CS is OVER!!!!!!!      He called CSRU to verify and even asked them if CS was supposed to continue until SS graduated, so the lady looked up the order and told DH it states that CS ends 'when child turns 18, graduates, gets married, or joins the military....whichever comes first!'  His employer already has the order to cease and his paycheck next week will be almost $200 richer!
What's really funny is that BM's dad is the one who wrote up most of the wording in the custody and CS orders, so when (not if!) BM complains, DH will tell her she can thank her daddy for that, LOL!   
DH made the call from home (he's off today and I'm at work), then told me he was dancing around the house and had the cat worried he was crazy, LOL!  DH said he's getting drunk tonight...think I'll join him!   

DH received a notification from CSRU yesterday...I think it's the beginning of the end.  I'm not completely fluent in legalese, but the jist of it says the CS order is adjudged.  It is possible that the BM may try to tell them that SS is going to college in the fall, is staying with her and she wants the CS increased.  First, SS is not going to college or tech school in the fall.  Second, even tho he has NOT moved in with us since he turned 18 last month, at the very latest it will be when he graduates.  She's laying the guilt trip on him pretty thick, but SS has already told DH that if she requests an extention and increase in CS while he's still living with her, he said he would move out in a heartbeat.In the state of Iowa, CS can continue after HS graduation ONLY if the child goes to a post-secondary school and is still living with the primary parent.  BUT there are conditions:  the child must maintain a certain GPA (not sure what it is off the top of my head) AND the CS goes directly to the child.  Knowing BM like we do and if it transpired this way, we know that BM would demand room and board money in the amount of the CS that SS would get.  But that is entirely a hypothetical situation and I seriously doubt it would happen.So we're hoping that this notification is just to inform DH that the process to stop the CS has begun and that the last payment will be made in May.  I think this originated with CSRU because of SS turning 18 last month.  But it surprises me that they would take the initiative to start the process.....has anyone ever heard of that?

The light at the end of the CS tunnel is growing brighter every day!  SS will be 18 next month and graduates in May!  He really wants to move out of BM's when he turns 18....can't say I blame him, as she shows him absolutely no respect and treats him like her personal go-fer and babysitter.  So DH wants to start the PW to get CS stopped.  Unfortunately, this has to be done through CSRU and it IS possible to file to suspend or end an order through them...except that both parties have to agree to it.      Do you honestly think that BM would willingly say goodbye to $450 a month?  Hell no!  So that means filing the petition and going back to court, so I am bracing myself for the enormous frustration DH will be dealing with over the next few months.

Eventually, she has no choice....and we have plans for that money, LOL!   

DH was just told about an incident that happened at our local mechanic's shop.  He goes there quite often, as the owner is a close friend, and both he and SS have been there a few times recently while working on SS's truck that DH bought for him.

BM also has her car serviced there and she apparently told the office manager recently that, when she found out that SS wanted to sell the truck, she lambasted him for it, telling him that he should be grateful for everything DH has done for him regarding that truck and apparently was praising DH to the skies for all the money and work DH has put into that truck.  The office manager told this to DH and also said that, in all the years she's dealt with BM, this is the FIRST time she's ever heard BM not only say something nice about DH but to praise him, too!  All she's every heard from BM is nothing but hatred for DH up until now!

When DH told me this today, my jaw practically dropped to the floor!  I tried to close it, but it kept dropping open!   

Maybe she finally realizes that, since it's SS's senior year now, not only will she need our help with senior expenses, but she probably has an inkling that SS wants to move out when he turns 18 in Feb. and wants to butter DH up so that he won't ask for CS from her!  At least I wouldn't put it past her...she's not the sharpest crayon in the box....   

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a more comical note......the current tropical storm in the Caribbean has the same name as DH's ex!  What is really funny is that both DH's and his ex's name are on the same year name list with the Nat. Hurricane Center!  When I told DH that, and that if a hurricane is severe enough, they will retire the name and pick a new one for that year list (it goes in 6 year cycles), DH said no way....that ex's named storm will never be strong enough, because she wants to do just enough damage to be a nuisance and come back every 6 years, LOL!

Just saw this on the 'Ask Amy' column:

Dear Amy: I have a heart-wrenching decision to make about giving the love of my life a second chance.

He will not be honest with his two children about our relationship. His 16-year-old daughter and son (age 20) have told him that if he marries me, they will cut him out of their lives and never speak to him again. His ex-wife is fueling this and has so far been successful in making his children think they have the right to make this ultimatum.

This is emotional extortion. He is currently serving in Iraq. He and I have been living together stateside. His children and his ex-wife find this unacceptable.

During a visit home recently he asked his son to help him move some personal belongings out of our apartment to put them in storage. This was a sham gesture to make the son think we are not together.

I was so upset I ended the relationship. I am humiliated and devastated that my significant other cannot be honest. I think he is spineless and unable to establish healthy boundaries.

We spoke by phone today, and he said, "I will be honest with my children about us," but I've heard this for more than two years, and I don't have any reason to believe him now.

Should I give him a second chance?

— Devastated

Dear Devastated: All the most important people in your guy's life are pressuring him, and he is reacting by scurrying for cover.

Because he has essentially moved out of your home, your "second chance" could be to dial back your relationship and calmly continue to assert your choice to live authentically.

A good parent models appropriate and mature behavior. Allowing his kids to jerk him around isn't good for him — but it is really not good for the kids. His ex is training them in the art of emotional extortion, but he is participating by permitting it.

When he comes home, if you two want to be together permanently, you can decide to get married (living together without marriage creates doubt about your relationship).

If he is honest, patient, happy and in charge of his own life, his kids should come around.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It amazes me to believe that Amy honestly thinks that the father 'is participating by permitting it'.  He's afraid of losing his kids, for God's sake!  And if she honestly thinks that if he takes charge of his life that they will automatically come around, she's in for a big surprise.  I've witnessed severe PAS with a personal friend, who's ex was so vindictive, she poisoned his DD so bad that not only did she refuse to allow him to walk her down the aisle when she got married (she didn't want some blind guy escorting her), she wouldn't even send him an invitation.  Now she's had a son and refuses to allow him to have ANY information about the child, let alone see him.  Children CAN be poisoned for life from PAS..........something Amy fails to realize.......

This time it was today's column in 'Dear Abby'.

DEAR ABBY: My daughter, "Alana," has a 7-year-old son my husband and I have helped to raise while she got her life together and pursued her lucrative career. "Tristan" excels in school and is a great little man. The problem is, every time Alana gets a new boyfriend, she rushes to make the boyfriend Tristan's "daddy."

The men my daughter chooses are crude, rude and, without fail, feel a need to "straighten out" Tristan. My grandson does not need straightening out because he is polite, engaging and a good soul. The newest guy in Alana's life, "Jeff," told me point blank that if Alana doesn't stop babying her son, Tristan will grow up to be a girl! This man is homophobic, sexist, racist and controlling. (http://<a)

Alana claims she's "in love" and fails to see the potential harm this guy could inflict on Tristan. We do not employ corporal punishment, but Jeff has already said (several times) he would "beat his butt"! What should we do? -- FEARFUL NANA IN GEORGIA

DEAR NANA: Where is your daughter meeting these people? It appears her taste in men is atrocious, and she has serious self-esteem issues. You and your husband need to get across to her how harmful it is for her to repeatedly introduce men to her son as "daddies." Parents should wait until they know their prospective mates well enough to be assured they won't injure the child physically or psychologically.

If Alana insists on marrying Jeff, offer to take Tristan to live with you. If that's not acceptable, the next time Jeff says he'll "beat Tristan's butt" respond point blank that if he lays a hand on your grandson, you'll report him to Child Protective Services.
You could also point out to your daughter that now that she has her life together and a "lucrative career," the last thing she would need is a scandal because she tolerated such a thing happening to her son. And while you're at it, make it plain that trying to "toughen up" a 7-year-old the way this man is suggesting would not only be counterproductive, it could damage him in ways she can't imagine.


Here's my response:

Abby,
I strongly disagree with the advice you gave to 'Fearful Nana', who's daughter was choosing questionable partners and insisting her son view them as dad.

You said 'You and your husband need to get across to her how harmful it is for her to repeatedly introduce men to her son as "daddies." Parents should wait until they know their prospective mates well enough to be assured they won't injure the child physically or psychologically.'

Parents should wait?  Should wait for what?  Wait to get to know the guy before insisting the child view him as 'Dad'?  The thing is, the child should NEVER imply or call anyone who isn't legally a parent (either by birth or adoption) Dad or Mom.  I don't know where the father is in this case, but unless the guy is a convict or proven to be a danger to the child, the child NEEDS to have a relationship with his biological father.

This child could suffer from severe psychological damage by being forced to view so many men 'Dad'.  The meaning of the word could change for him and how he might see himself when he is old enough to be a father himself.  The mother needs to cease and desist the practice NOW, before she does further damage.

But as for the lastest 'father replacement' choice of the mother, you're advice was spot on.  Any suspicion of abuse needs to be reported immediately, especially if there is bruising or injury of any kind.  If the grandparents see the child often, they need to check the child frequently and report anything abusive they might find.

I highly recommend the website of SPARC (Separated Parents Access and Resource Center) at www.deltabravo.net (http://www.deltabravo.net).  It will be an eye-opener for you in regards to non-custodial parents and especially how the improper actions of separated parents can severely impact a child's life.

Bio- AND Step-Mom

I just read this letter in the 'Ask Amy' column to day and could not resist the urge to respond:


Dear Amy: I am trying to settle a conflict between an ex-lover and myself.
I am 25 years older than she.
She claims she is pregnant with my child.
That may be true, and I am OK with that until a DNA test can be done.
I do not have a problem in providing support to her — both financially and also being a part-time father to the child. However, she does not want me to tell her parents or anyone else that I am the father.
She claims she is too embarrassed to let her parents know and wants to tell them that the father "just took off" and left her.
I cannot live this lie. What would I tell the child as he/she got older — "I'm your dad, but please don't tell your grandparents?"
I refuse to offer any support until she can admit to her parents that I am the father of her child and I am free to tell anyone that I am a "proud father."
Am I asking too much?
— Frustrated in Oregon
Dear Frustrated: First things first: DNA test, followed by the truth.
You can assume that your ex is panicking. Don't take her bizarre plan too seriously.
Give her some time to figure out how she feels and what she intends to do.
If you are this baby's father, then you have every right to disclose this news to whomever you wish.
I applaud your willingness to step up, financially and otherwise, which makes me wonder if you might be the best parent to raise this child. You sound more mature and perhaps better-prepared than the child's mother. She might do better as the "part-time" parent.

My response:

Dear Amy,
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>I am appalled at your response to 'Frustrated', who wanted to announce he is the father of an ex-lover's unborn child, against the current wishes of the ex-lover.<o:p> </o:p>
I absolutely agree that DNA testing must be done first, as soon as the baby is born.  In this day and age, paternity fraud is is not uncommon, with many men paying child support for children that aren't even theirs.<o:p> </o:p>
But your comments about 'part-time parents' are and can be extremely detrimental to the child.  If you do the research, it is proven that children with separated/unmarried parents do much better when they have as close to equal access as possible to both parents.  The father is just as important in a child's life as the mother, just in different ways.  A child NEEDS both of those influences in order to grow well-rounded and balanced.
<o:p> </o:p>Now, it may be very possible that, in this particular case, the would-be father is more mature and stable to handle raising a child, but it doesn't change the fact that, barring any issues of abuse, the mother should have as close to equal access to the child as possible.  And vice versa, of course.  Problem is, today's family court system does not view the father as important to the mother in a child's life, but only as the financial support.  And there are thousand's of fathers out there who are begging to spend time with their children who are not allowed to by biased courts and vindictive mothers.
<o:p> </o:p>I would have thought you, a knowledgeable, divorced parent, would understand that.  Apparently I was wrong.
<o:p> </o:p>Bio-Mom and Step-Mom, Seen Both Sides
<o:p> </o:p>PS:  Amy, if you are interested in learning more about the trials and tribulations of non-custodial parents, I highly recommend the website of Separated Parents Resource and Action Center (SPARC) at www.deltabravo.net.  I have been on this site for the past 12+ years and been a moderator on the forums for many of those.  I think you would find the website an eyeopener.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now we'll see if she prints it but, to be honest with you, even if all she does is read it and actually comes here to learn more, that would be sufficient to me.

This Amber Alert was just issued today:

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED
CHILD ABDUCTION EMERGENCY
KENTUCKY STATE POLICE FRANKFORT KY
RELAYED BY NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOUISVILLE KY
1257 PM EDT WED APR 6 2011

AT THE REQUEST OF THE KENTUCKY STATE POLICE...THE KENTUCKY
EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM IS ACTIVATED TO ASSIST IN THE BROADCAST OF
AN AMBER ALERT.

AN AMBER ALERT HAS BEEN DECLARED...REPEATING...AN AMBER ALERT HAS
BEEN DECLARED.

A CHILD WAS TAKEN FROM THE RIOVESTA APARTMENT COMMUNITY IN LOYALL
KENTUCKY...HARLAN COUNTY...ON TUESDAY APRIL 5TH AT APPROXIMATELY 445
PM EDT. THE NAME OF THE CHILD IS SHELLY BAILEY. SHE IS WHITE...SIX
YEARS OLD...HAS BROWN EYES AND SANDY COLORED HAIR...AND IS
APPROXIMATELY 48 POUNDS AND 40 INCHES TALL. THE CHILD WAS AT HER
AUNT/S APARTMENT AWAITING CHILD SERVICES PICK UP WHEN A MALE
SUBJECT...WHO IS LISTED ON HER BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS HER
FATHER...TOOK THE CHILD FROM HER AUNT. THE MALE SUSPECT/S NAME IS
LARRY BAILEY. HE IS A WHITE MALE...51 YEARS OLD...HAS BLUE EYES AND
BROWN HAIR...AND IS APPROXIMATELY 168 POUNDS AND 5 FEET 8 INCHES
TALL. HE ALSO HAS A MUSTACHE.

LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS HAD CONTACT WITH THE SUSPECT VIA CELLULAR PHONE.
SUSPECT ADVISED THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO LET THE CHILD GO INTO
FOSTER CARE AND WOULD LET THE STATE OF ARKANSAS FIGHT OVER THE
CUSTODY OF THE CHILD. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASKED HIM TO RETURN THE CHILD.
THE SUSPECT MADE THREATS IN REFERENCE TO HARMING THE CHILD AND
REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. SUSPECT LIVES IN
ARKANSAS...AND MAY BE RETURNING TO ARKANSAS AFTER COMMENTS MADE TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT. HOWEVER THE ROUTE IS UNKNOWN.

THE VEHICLE DETAILS ARE FEW...BUT THE SUSPECT IS DRIVING A WHITE
VEHICLE WITH AN ARKANSAS LICENSE PLATE.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Granted, we don't know the whole story here.  But one sentence really jumped out at me:

SUSPECT ADVISED THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO LET THE CHILD TO INTO FOSTER CARE
AND WOULD LET THE STATE OF ARKANSAS FIGHT OVER THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD.

Really curious about 'the rest of the story'..........

Just need clarification..........if a husband and wife file a federal tax return as 'married filing separate', and a garnishment is ordered on only one of them, will the IRS ONLY take the refund of the spouse with the garnishment?  I am assuming they will, since the returns are filed separately?

SS turns 17 today........the countdown starts! 

I'm positive that BM will force DH to pay CS until SS graduates in May 2012..........but I can guarantee you that she will have to tie SS down to keep him from walking out of her house for good a year from today!   

[Jan. 6, 2010—]

(http://abcnews.go.com/)
Where is Baby Gabriel? Arizona Woman Refuses to Help Police Find Missing SonInfant Caught in Bizarre Custody Dispute; Mother Claims She Gave Baby to Couple in a ParkBy ANDREA CANNING, SARAH NETTER and ELISA ROUPENIAN
Jan. 6, 2010—
Two sets of parents caught up in a bizarre custody dispute (http://abcnews.go.com/US/lisa-miller-fails-hand-daughter-isabella-lesbian-partner/story?id=9462217) are frantic with worry about a missing 8-month-old baby and are begging his mother to tell police the truth about what she did with him.
Gabriel Johnson's biological father, Logan McQueary, said he fears Elizabeth Johnson may have killed their son, despite the lack evidence. But a couple who had been in talks to adopt the baby (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/International/china-tackles-baby-trafficking-problem/story?id=8973540) are sticking by the Arizona mother, saying she hid Gabriel to protect him.
Tammi and Jack Smith told "Good Morning America" today that Johnson gave her baby to an unknown couple while on the run (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/mom-babysitter-charged-disappearance-florida-infant/story?id=9003873) in San Antonio, Texas.
Johnson, 23, of Tempe, Ariz., disappeared before Christmas after McQueary refused to let her adopt out their son. She had lost custody (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/goldman-custody-battle-grandmother-vows-fight-boy/story?id=9447000) of Gabriel after failing to appear at a Dec. 28 court hearing.
She was arrested Dec. 29 in Miami Beach for interfering with custody -- without Gabriel.
"What she is telling us is that she met a family, a Caucasian man and woman with no child -- young," Tammi Smith told "Good Morning America."
"And she met them in the park. And she was crying and distraught and they came up to her and said, 'How can we help you?'"
When pressed for details about the couple, Smith said Johnson didn't remember much despite having spent three days with them, just that the woman's first name was "Cheryl." Tammi Smith said Johnson told her she purposely tried not to focus on their car or last names so she wouldn't be tempted to change her mind and get her son back.
"She believed she was doing a closed adoption," Tammi Smith said.
In a jailhouse interview Tuesday with a Phoenix CBS affiliate, Johnson reiterated her claim that she had given Gabriel to a couple she met at a San Antonio Park.
"I made a hasty decision and I thought it was OK," she said. "They approached me. I was out alone with the baby at the park. I trusted them, I believe in my heart they are good people."
Johnson is scheduled to be extradited to Arizona this week.
Police have also questioned the Smiths and searched their home but found no clues to indicate where Gabriel might be.
Authorities have said witnesses last saw the child in San Antonio.
The FBI found Johnson's car in a San Antonio motel parking lot Tuesday night. According to ABC affiliate KNXV, investigators were combing the car for evidence but said there were no obvious signs of violence.
<!-- page -->
Father of Missing Baby Gabriel Fears Mother Killed Son
The Smiths have said she fled to keep the baby from McQueary.
McQueary, 25, said his fears for his son's life stem from a series of text messages he received from Johnson.
"She basically said, 'There is no way in hell you will see your son again,'" he said at a recent news conference. "She put in the text, 'I killed him."
Johnson has been interviewed at length by investigators but police said she refuses to tell them what happened to her child.
"She was confronted, arrested and interviewed exhaustively about the whereabouts of the child," Miami Beach Police Sgt. Wayne Jones said. "All we know at this point is Gabriel can be anywhere between San Antonio and Miami Beach."
McQueary said he last saw his son days before what would have been the baby's first Christmas.
"I gave him a kiss and put him in his bed and that was the last time I saw him," he said.
Tammi and Jack Smith said Johnson's story about the couple in the park sounds very similar to how they met her.
"We met in an airport. I saw her distraught and crying with a newborn baby," Tammi Smith said. "And that doesn't look like a mother that wants to be a mother."
Jack Smith admitted he thought the entire adoption process with Johnson "felt strange," but that they all lived nearby and they had bonded with the baby after keeping him for a couple of weeks in December.
McQueary has charged that the Smiths pressured him into giving up the rights to his child.
"When Gabriel disappeared they said, basically, 'You know, if you care about your son and you want him back, you will sign the paperwork and she will bring him back to us and you will know that he is safe,'" McQueary said.
The Smiths deny the accusation and said they were simply passing on that message from Johnson and that they told McQueary they knew such papers wouldn't hold up because he signed them under duress, though it might bring the baby back.
"The father and Jack and I were in constant contact when we found out Elizabeth fled with the baby," Tammi Smith said. "When we finally got to speak to Elizabeth, she was so angry with the whole situation and told me, 'I have one message to give to Logan.'"
That message, Smith said, was sign the papers and the baby will be brought back.
Anyone with information about Gabriel Johnson is asked to call the Tempe Police Department at 480-350-8311.


Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Talk about bribery........telling the father that she will produce the child once he gives up his rights??  I hope this piece-of-work BM geos away for a very long time and is never allowed to procreate ever again.  Even if post-partum depression were involved, if the Smith's were honest, they would have contacted authorities immediately to warn them of what she was trying to pull.  Sounds like the Smith's know a whole lot more then they are letting on....




<!-- SiteCatalyst code version: H.15.1 Copyright 1997-2007 Omniture, Inc. More info available at http://www.omniture.com -->var s_account = "wdgnewabcnews,wdgasec";<!--s_omni.pageName = "abcn:fn_print"; //content names_omni.pageURL = ""; //content urls_omni.pageType = ""; //page types_omni.server = window.document.location.hostname; //reporting domains_omni.prop4 = "story_print"; //content types_omni.prop1  = "abcn"; //site names_omni.channel = "abcn:"; //level1s_omni.prop5  = ""; //level2s_omni.prop6  = ""; //content alternate sections_omni.prop13 = "by andrea canning, sarah netter and elisa roupenian"; //columnists_omni.prop16 = ""; //sources_omni.prop18 = "9489263:gma_babygabriel_100106"; //content id:content names_omni.prop24 = "9489263" //top storys_omni.prop25 = ""; //top videos_omni.prop26 = ""; //top slideshows_omni.hier1 = "abcn"; //directory structures_omni.eVar16 = s_omni.pageName; //content name conversions_omni.eVar17 = s_omni.prop4+":"+s_omni.channel;var s_code=s_omni.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//--><!-- End SiteCatalyst code version: H.15.1 -->

[June 16, 2009 —]

For those of you who have been following the David/Sean Goldman case for the past dew years:

(http://abcnews.go.com/)
Brazil Court Awards David Goldman Custody of Son After 5 Year FightSean Goldman Was Taken to Brazil By His Mother in 2004By SARAH NETTER and KATIE ESCHERICH
June 16, 2009 —
New Jersey father David Goldman (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7790766&page=1) received a holiday gift from a Brazilian court today. After waiting more than five years, he will regain custody of his son Sean Goldman, who had been held in Brazil (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7848050&page=1) by his mother.
A court in Rio de Janeiro ruled 3-0 in a closed session that nine-year-old Sean should be handed over to his father on Friday, the Associated Press reported. David Goldman has been told to be in Brazil in 48 hours to pick up his son at a U.S. Embassy.
Sean has been living with his stepfather since the 2008 death of his mother Bruna Bianchi, who took her then-four-year-old son to her native Brazil on vacation in 2004 and never returned. She divorced Goldman while in Brazil and married Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, a Rio de Janeiro lawyer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I bet he can't get to Brazil fast enough!  Congratulations, Sean!!!  You got the BEST Christmas present of all.........your Daddy!

[Dec. 16, 2009—]

Just in time for Christmas, a story to warm your heart: (http://abcnews.go.com/)
Bringing Pietro Home: One Dad's Epic Custody FightBrandon Henry Was Told His Child Was Dead. To Get the Truth He Headed to Italy.By MIGUEL SANCHO and CHRIS CUOMO
Dec. 16, 2009—
Any parent who has gone through a custody battle (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ChrisCuomo/fighting-liam-fathers-custody-battle-continues/story?id=8543194) is bound to have a story to tell. But the story of Brandon Henry's fight to win custody (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8545958) of his son -- with angry parents, a secret pregnancy and a cast of Italian nuns -- is one only Hollywood could make up, if it weren't true.
The story culminated in an emotional mission to Florence, Italy (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/AmandaKnox/amanda-knoxs-prison-cell/story?id=9329773), where Henry moved into his lawyer's nearby villa and began a long struggle with the local court system.
The story began the day he met Stephanie Chavarria.
"I met Stephanie in about, say, 2004," said Henry. "She's a real people person, a wonderful smile. And an amazing laugh. We just had so much in common. We just clicked."
Henry, 28, was an Army vet and an aspiring DJ in Dallas. He thought Chavarria was going to be the love of his life (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ChrisCuomo/story?id=8307939&page=1). There was just one problem. Well, actually two.
Watch the full story Friday on "20/20" at 10 p.m. ET
"Her parents are extremely controlling," said Henry. "They want to control who she's friends with, who she sees, who she spends time with."
Henry said Carmen and Lazaro Chavarria, two dentists in the Houston area, wanted their daughter to have nothing to do with him.
"They prejudged me," said Henry. "They felt she should be with a lawyer or doctor."
Carmen and Lazaro Chavarria did not respond to repeated attempts to contact them by phone.
Chavarria continued to date Henry against her parents' wishes.
"Our relationship was kinda weird, because every time we'd go out or do something she was constantly lying to her family," said Henry.
Then one day, Henry's mother, Sherrye Andrews, noticed something.
"Brandon actually showed me a picture," said Andrews. "He said, 'Mom, look at this.' And I said, 'Um, she's pregnant.'"
"We always talked about having a child together," Henry laughed. "I just didn't know it'd come so soon. I was looking forward to it. And, you know, at the time, she was too. She was really happy about it."
But Henry was completely unaware of what was coming next.
"Everything changed," he said. "Everything fell apart."
<!-- page -->
'She Hid the Pregnancy'
As the months slid by, Henry said, Chavarria kept putting off telling her parents about the pregnancy.
"She was really, really afraid to tell her family that she was pregnant," said Henry. "She didn't know how they'd react. She hid the pregnancy by wearing baggy clothes."
Andrews said that "obviously there were deep issues there. I didn't know all of the issues, but obviously there were some problems there."
"I began to worry because she continued to put it off, put it off -- and then she ended up leaving town," said Henry.
"Brandon told me that Stephanie was leaving to go to Mexico," said Andrews. "That's when red flags went up."
Chavarria told Henry that her doctor had approved a short trip to visit grandparents in Mexico City. But the trip turned out not to be short.
"Five days became two-and-a-half weeks," said Henry. "I hadn't heard anything from her. Yet, I still continued to call. Then the ring changed on her phone."
"I continued to call," he said. "And finally, I got a recording saying 'The person you're trying to reach may have their phone turned off' -- in Italian. So then I really began to grow concerned."
Henry said Chavarria finally called him just days before her due date. She had returned to the United States. She said she was fine, but she avoided him, remaining behind the gates of her parents' house. Then the due date passed.
"She told me she was returning to the doctor because she didn't feel any movement," said Henry. "She wouldn't see me."
In the following days, Henry grew increasingly desperate for news. Then, he got some.
"She told me that she went back to the doctor and we had lost a child due to the umbilical cord being tied around the baby's neck," he said. "I was really hurt. I didn't know what to think."
For a moment, Henry thought it was all over. But in fact his ordeal was just beginning. Something told him Chavarria wasn't telling the truth.
"[She] did not answer my questions," he said. "She kept hanging up on me, saying, 'Oh, I need to call you back. I'm really busy.' Excuses, excuses, excuses. And then I start questioning everything."
Henry called Methodist Sugar Land Hospital where Chavarria said she'd miscarried.
"They told me that she'd never been a patient there -- she had never been to that hospital. I'm freaking out, because I have no idea what's going on."
Henry finally got Chavarria's parents on the phone. The call did not go well.
"They called me sick and crazy, and they told me that if I ever called their house or came to their house, they'd call the police and press harassment charges or trespassing charges, whatever applied," Henry said.
So Henry went to the police himself. They called Chavarria, and got a startling story.
<!-- page -->
'I Walked to a Convent and Left Him'
"She [told police] she'd never been pregnant by me, we'd been broken up for almost a year, and I was doing this just to get back at her," Henry said. "I'm very hurt by this. I was confused. I had no clue as to what was going on."
On top of all that, Henry began to believe that, somewhere out there, he had a child.
And he had proof that Chavarria had been pregnant: photos of her while pregnant, and a sonogram form with her signature. "I showed the officers this, and they said, 'Wow, OK,'" recalled Henry. "'What's really going on?'"
The police called the family in and Chavarria finally spilled the beans.
"She broke down and said, 'I had the baby in Italy while we were on vacation. After having the baby, I walked to a convent and left him there,'" said Henry. "Initially, it was relief. It meant that there was a way I could get my child back."
But Henry had to search on his own. The police only could tell him that Chavarria had left the baby in Florence.
Florence -- birthplace of the Renaissance, home of countless art treasures and dozens of churches. Locating the right one would require a small miracle.
"I sat at my computer, and I found every convent and church in Florence," said Henry. "I called them one by one, and I think, after calling about 30, I found a nun who spoke English. She told me to Google 'neonato abandonato' [abandoned newborn]. And I found all these stories. 'Baby Abandoned in Church in Florence.'"
The article described a baby boy found in a church by an order of nuns, right around the time Chavarria was in Florence. "I knew it was my child," said Henry. "In my heart, everything told me that this was my child."
Chavarria fessed up with additional details after Henry e-mailed her the article. She told Henry she went into labor while staying at a ritzy Florence hotel and gave birth to the baby on the bathroom floor. The next day, she said, she took the baby around the corner to a church and left him there.
"You know, I really don't know what happened there," said Henry. "The story still hasn't come out."
The crisis was far from over. Henry's child was now in the care of Italian social services. The child was about to be put up for adoption.
"I couldn't give up," said Henry. "I couldn't give up on finding my child."
Henry had never been to Italy.
"The best thing I could do was contact an attorney in Italy who spoke English," Henry said.
After emailing every bilingual lawyer he could find, Henry hooked up with attorney Vincent Lualdi, whose expertise was international family law.
<!-- page -->
'It Was Crazy'
Henry had to appear before a Minors' Court in Italy and submit DNA samples to prove he was the child's father. The process dragged from days into weeks -- then a month. Henry took in some of the sights, made friends with the locals and killed time working around Lualdi's house, but he still was not allowed to see his son.
"The process has been slow, there have been bumps in the road, and it's been very expensive," Henry said at the time. "The first time for me to go into the cathedral was to actually go and pray."
Henry's family sent his aunt, Tamara Dattola, for support.
"I have four kids so I definitely have parenting experience," said Dattola upon her arrival in Italy. "Brandon, he's a new father and has no clue -- so I'm here to help him."
After more than a month, Henry was about to have his first visitation with his abandoned son. The baby was in an orphanage in a seaside town called Viareggio.
"It was crazy," said Henry. "My heart just jumped out of my chest. I felt like he knew who I was. This whole struggle and process was very hard. But, at that moment, I knew it was all worth it. I looked at him and I was like, 'That's my life.'"
Over the next week Henry got acquainted with the routines of parenting a four month-old boy: changing diapers, feeding, strolling, and changing more diapers. The nuns had named him Pietro, or Peter.
In the Bible, St. Peter is known as The Rock.
"I must say, he's a very strong boy," said Henry. "I mean, he's gone through more in four months than a lot of people will go through in their entire lives."
"They were so impressed with Brandon," Dattola said of the nuns, "his ability to take care of [Pietro], feed him."
After Henry's family provided the U.S. consulate with all the necessary documents to establish the child's citizenship, father and son seemed poised to go home.
But there was more red tape to cut through. Though Lualdi was told the paperwork was complete, a court order had failed to go through in time for Henry to take exclusive custody of his baby boy.
"I'm very frustrated right now. This has happened over, over, and over again," said Henry. "I think it's very unfair."
The next day brought more delays until Henry and Dattola finally take matters into their own hands, going to the court to demand the order.
"I said the heck with this, we are coming," said Dattola. "We were going to make something happen." In the end, the court order came through and baby Pietro was delivered into Henry's arms.
"It feels excellent. I'm ready to get his passport and head home," said Henry.
After a quick stop by the U.S. consulate, the child had a passport.
But before heading home, it was time for an important reunion.
Henry took the child back to the convent that had saved him.
"It was mind-blowing," he said. "The nuns were so happy that he wasn't going to be left alone in this world. They told me they prayed and prayed and prayed for this child because they felt he was very special."
The next day, baby Pietro arrived in Dallas and met the rest of his family. Andrews, the grandma, saw Pietro for the first time.
"Hi baby!" she cried. "Hi baby, so happy to see you!"
"I cannot even describe it," Andrews said. "For a little baby that nobody wanted. We got him though. We wanted him."
"Family is really the most important thing you can have," said Henry. "And if you do have it, be thankful for it."



Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

<!-- SiteCatalyst code version: H.15.1 Copyright 1997-2007 Omniture, Inc. More info available at http://www.omniture.com -->var s_account = "wdgnewabcnews,wdgasec";<!--s_omni.pageName = "abcn:fn_print"; //content names_omni.pageURL = ""; //content urls_omni.pageType = ""; //page types_omni.server = window.document.location.hostname; //reporting domains_omni.prop4 = "story_print"; //content types_omni.prop1  = "abcn"; //site names_omni.channel = "abcn:"; //level1s_omni.prop5  = ""; //level2s_omni.prop6  = ""; //content alternate sections_omni.prop13 = "by miguel sancho and chris cuomo"; //columnists_omni.prop16 = ""; //sources_omni.prop18 = "9331080:2020_cuomo_brandon_henry_091215"; //content id:content names_omni.prop24 = "9331080" //top storys_omni.prop25 = ""; //top videos_omni.prop26 = ""; //top slideshows_omni.hier1 = "abcn"; //directory structures_omni.eVar16 = s_omni.pageName; //content name conversions_omni.eVar17 = s_omni.prop4+":"+s_omni.channel;var s_code=s_omni.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//--><!-- End SiteCatalyst code version: H.15.1 -->

KCRG-TV9 | Cedar Rapids, Iowa Iowa City Boy Writes Book To Remember His Late Father
Originally printed at http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/70408012.html
Logan Trumbull has a big Thursday planned. Time for a final read-through...
"The cancer makes Dad too tired to go upstairs," Logan said as he ready through his book, "Logan's Story."
In October 2007, Logan was weeks from turning eight. He spent months watching his father, Ray Trumbull, get weaker with late stage gastrointestinal cancer.
Playing flag football was an escape but, when the news came, one practice was cut short.
"Mom speaks softly that Dad died peacefully," Logan said from the book. "We all hug for a long time, especially me."
Logan's Story is a book about his experience: from seeing his father get sick, his death, and all the repressed feelings a seven-year-old had at the time.
Logan will read the book to his class on Thursday.
"When you have a 7-year-old, they don't really know how to communicate their feelings," said his mother, Deanna Trumbull.
But Logan has done exactly that, in words and even in his original drawings. Logan's early sketchings are on the inside cover, both back and front.
Add in a neighbor and illustrator to take Logan's words to a wider audience.
"This story itself was so sad but here was this adorable kid. Let's focus on football," said illustrator Mary Moye-Rowley.
That's what the end product is. A story told through the eyes of a child. Years from now, when Logan is a man -- he will always have these words...and thoughts... Of his dad.
"One day we will be happy again. I think football will always remind me of Dad."

Caught this on abcnews.com:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/2nd-wives-club-angry-tapped-alimony/story?id=9010118 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/2nd-wives-club-angry-tapped-alimony/story?id=9010118)

Normally I would cut-and-paste the whole article, but this one is kinda long.  But completely outrageous!  Bottom line:  do NOT enter into a second marriage with anyone from MA or LA and check the state alimony laws on any other state just to make sure.

[Oct. 30, 2009 —]

Mattel needs to be seriously boycotted:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/barbies-sugar-daddy-ken-doll-raises-eyebrows/story?id=8952641 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/barbies-sugar-daddy-ken-doll-raises-eyebrows/story?id=8952641)

(http://abcnews.go.com/)
'Sugar Daddy Ken' Doll From Barbie Line Raises EyebrowsToymaker Mattel Says the Doll's Name Stems From Pet DogBy ALICE GOMSTYN
ABC NEWS Business Unit
Oct. 30, 2009 —
This year is Barbie's 50th anniversary (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/slideshow?id=6874404), but lately, it's been the iconic doll's companion, Ken, that's been getting all the attention: A new Ken doll called "Sugar's Daddy Ken" is prompting snickers for its suggestive-sounding name.
In fact, several Web sites refer to the doll, which is due to make its official debut next year, by a slightly different name -- "Sugar Daddy Ken."
Dressed in an ornately-patterned, bright green jacket, pink polo shirt and white pants, the doll is part of toy giant Mattel's new Palm Beach doll line, which is geared for adult Barbie collectors and supposed to exemplify classic Palm Beach fashion. (For a full picture of Sugar's Daddy Ken, click here (http://abcnews.go.com/business/slideshow?id=6874404).)
But for some, Ken's fashion is of secondary importance.
"This is like one of those joke Barbies art students do in college to criticize gender roles forced on children by their toys, like Hobo Barbie and Pregnant Trailer Trash Barbie. Except this time Mattel made it. It's official. My world is rocked," wrote a blogger on the Web site Topless Robot (http://www.toplessrobot.com/2009/10/mattel_has_lost_their_minds.php).
Mattel says the doll's name is in reference to Ken's pet -- Sugar, a white West Highland terrier that Ken leads on a pink leash. The dog is included with the doll, along with several accessories, including sandals, sunglasses and swim trunks.
Asked about the possibility that the doll's name may be misinterpreted, a Mattel spokeswoman wasn't fazed.
"At the end of the day, this collection is targeted toward adults," said spokeswoman Michelle Chidoni. "While the name of the doll does refer back to the dog, I think people are going to interpret it as they want to interpret it."<!-- page -->

Barbie Officials 'Proud of Who We Are'
The doll, which won't go on sale until April 2010, is available for early ordering on the Web site Entertainment Earth for $69.99
A decades-old staple of the toy world, Barbie has raised eyebrows before through such products as lingerie-clad dolls and a pregnant doll.
The iconic Barbie doll's body proportions, meanwhile, have been criticized as setting an unrealistic example for young women.
"Barbie's sculpt has changed as women have changed," Richard Dickson, general manager and vice president of Barbie World Wide, told "Good Morning America" (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/story?id=6981778) earlier this year. "She's become more athletic looking when athleticism was part of the trend and she constantly evolves her body.
"But truthfully, when adults put that stereotype on Barbie, it is a distraction for us," he said. "We are a good brand and we inspire girls around the world to do amazing things, and we are very proud of who we are and what we are."



Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Talk about stooping to new lows...........I don't care HOW they paint it, it's still sick!