Recently
Jumping the Relationship Gun
Dear Annie: Last month, an old boyfriend contacted me. I hadn't seen "Bud" in 30 years. We had a wonderful conversation. I visited him at his home. He even sent me a large sum of money to help pay off a mortgage bill. We now talk at least …Read more.
Trusting Cheaters
Dear Annie: I'm in my early 20s and have been dating "Aidan" for a year. He attends college two hours away. He doesn't socialize much and stresses a lot about his grades. His only real friend is "Cara," a girl we went to high …Read more.
Bare Naked Mommies
Dear Annie: I am becoming excessively annoyed by a new trend I'm seeing with my friends who have recently become parents — the "naked mommy."
I'm 27 and have not yet had children. Several of my friends are having their second or …Read more.
The Long Trip to Tenuous
Dear Annie: My father and I have never had the best relationship. He was domineering, controlling and verbally abusive to me as a teenager, and as a result, I rebelled and did things specifically to irritate him. Several times, he kicked me out of …Read more.
more articles
|
When Other People's Kids Need Your Help
Dear Annie: Last January, a couple moved to our town, and their two daughters began attending school with my 11-year-old daughter. The older girl is the same age as mine, and they became friends.
Throughout the summer, the girls played at our house and theirs, but recently, some things have begun to disturb me. Three months ago, the girls' father apparently told the mother to get a job. When she didn't, he cut off their cellphone service. When that didn't convince her to find employment, he cut off their landline, the cable and their Internet service. The girls said he told their mother he wasn't going to pay for any of these things, and that if she wanted them, she'd better pay for them herself. So far, the mother hasn't attempted to look for work.
I've had both girls over to my house as much as possible so they can use the computer to play games and watch our TV. Last weekend, both girls began crying, saying their father wouldn't give their mother any money for Christmas, and that he plans to cut off the electricity at the end of the week. The mother told him that if he did that, she would leave — without the girls.
I feel terribly sorry for these children, but don't know either of the parents very well. I've considered going to their home and telling them what this conflict is doing to their children, but I'm not sure what to say. Is this something to call Child Protective Services about? My heart is breaking to see these two darling little girls scared and crying all the time. — Distraught Neighbor
Dear Distraught: Kids can live without cable and Internet access, but shutting off the electricity and watching their mother walk out is something else entirely. Of course, unless you knock on their door, you will have no idea what is really going on. Please do not go alone. If the situation is as bad as it seems, anything could happen and you should indeed call the authorities. You also can discuss it with the school counselor, who should be aware of the students' home situation.
Dear Annie: My son will be graduating in June. His microwave oven needed replacing, so my Dad offered to purchase the microwave, adding, "That's your graduation present."
When my brother needed a new tire, Dad bought it, saying, "That's your birthday present," even though his birthday was not for another six months. When I needed auto repair work in August, Dad said, "That's your Christmas present."
He keeps a tally of his gifts and shows up at birthday parties and Christmas gatherings empty-handed, and then reminds you, very publicly, of what he did for you. We appreciate his generosity, but these gift consolidations feel more like business transactions with no connection to the occasion. Are we missing something? — Not Ungrateful
Dear Not: Dad has a finite amount to spend on gifts. When he sees that you need something, he wants to help, but doesn't have the means or desire to then purchase an additional gift for your special occasions. He reminds you at the parties because he worries you won't remember that he already gave you something. It's a harmless quirk, but if you'd prefer a birthday gift, simply refuse his offers to repair your car.
Dear Annie: Thank you for pointing out to "Mad Mom of the Bride" that gifts might still be arriving at a later date.
When I married, I received few gifts before the actual wedding, except from those who lived out of town and couldn't attend. The rest were brought to the reception or arrived weeks after. — Just My Two Cents
Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please e-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@comcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Ste. 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
58 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
LW1 - You are getting all this from the girls so don't make any decisions yet. Even at that age, kids can be manipulative, or may simply misunderstand the situation. There are a lot of nuts in the world so by all means follow up, and keep opening your home to them.
LW2 - You sound ungrateful... You're an adult, you shouldn't be expecting anything more than token gifts from your parents anyway. Whether your dad has a finite amount to spend is not the issue; he can spend his money as he pleases. Next time your dad offers to pay for something, just say "thanks for the offer dad, but I'll pay for my own car repairs; I'd rather have a gift to unwrap on my birthday!"
Although what I really suspect you're asking is how to get dad to pay your car repairs AND buy you birthday and Christmas presents. I have no suggestions for you there other than pitching a fit at Toys R Us.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Jan 4, 2012 9:15 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1-
"Is this something to call Child Protective Services about? "
YES! As fast as your dialling finger can go!
And Annies, "Don't go alone"? What the hell could you be thinking to be doling out such asinine, dangerous advice? Put the woman in harm's way, why don't you! It's not "don't go alone", it's DON'T GO AT ALL! I don't know what his problem is, but a man who threatens to cut off electricity on his entire family because his wife won't go look for a job is very unbalanced and could VERY WELL be insane enough to be dangerous, and towards more than one person at a time - ever heard of a shotgun? In your mamby-pamby, nicey-nice-nice-nice, rosy little fantasy world, do you REALLY think that a man THAT unreasonablke can possibly be open to argument and reason? If you do, you're as bad as he is!
P.S.: The holidays are over, LAY OFF THE SAUCE! Oye vey.
LW2-
When the father sees a dire need, he feels the need to help right away when the urgent need is, but it pre-empts his gift budget. These things happen. That doesn't make it a business transaction, but the father is somewhat lacking in diplomatic skills.
My father used to do a version of the same but, at the actual time when the gift would have been expected, he would give me a token gift like a box of chocolates, along with a nice card featuring a star mention of the gift I had already received. I recommend the same approach.
@Zoe
Even if kids that age can be manipulative and total drama queens, there is a chance the situation is as they state. There ARE people who are that crazy and controlling and, unless they're true-blue sociopaths, the fact that they're crying all the time would hint towards a real situation. I would call CPS and let THEM sort it out.
"Pitching a fit at Toys R Us.", hee hee hee!
Comment: #2
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Jan 4, 2012 10:32 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - the father who threatened his wife with financial penalties if she didn't get a job, and the wife who threatened to abandon her kids if he didn't pay all her bills, both sound like nuts. (He threatens to cut off the electricity in the house he's living in, if she doesn't go to work?! She threatens, in front of the little ones, to abandon them if he doesn't shut up?! What a couple of fruitcakes!) No wonder the little girls are coming to you crying.
In any case, my advice would be, don't get involved in their drama. You can't fix this crazy couple, and as other have pointed out, it could be dangerous to try. Do keep your home open to their little girls to visit (but don't let your daughter visit at their house). Do tell them that adults say weird things when they're upset, and reassure them they're always welcome to visit. What they need in their lives is a stable adult who can be a friend, and is not as crazy as the ones "raising" them.
Comment: #3
Posted by: sarah morrow
Wed Jan 4, 2012 10:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: sarah morrow
My first question, is does the father actually live with them ? Is there something missing from this letter ? Basically, if he lives there, he is giving up a whole lot, and if he is willing to go without power, something is seriously wrong...
I'm actually wondering if he is even buying food or clothing for these kids.....
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mookster
Wed Jan 4, 2012 11:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Mookster
Mookster, that occurred to me too; I may have dismissed it too soon.
If the father has moved out and is paying child support, he may be drawing a line and saying he won't or can't pay the household expenses beyond that. In that case his position would be somewhat reasonable (though forcing it to a crisis in front of the children would not be.) Or it may be, as you say, that he's stopped paying for everything, even food. Hard to know or say from the letter.
If he has moved out it's strange that the letter didn't mention that, but it could be that parts were edited out before publication.
Still I think the main thing the LW can do is try to provide a stable, sane adult contact for the children.
Comment: #5
Posted by: sarah morrow
Wed Jan 4, 2012 11:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette "Is this something to call Child Protective Services about? " YES! As fast as your dialling finger can go!
Not necessarily. We have 2 girls -- step-grandchildren -- living with us. Some of the things they have told people:
They are not allowed to wash because it wastes water
Their step-mother (my daughter) wouldn't get out of bed so they had to take care of the (1 month old) baby
They didn't have lunch because no one would make them one. On the same day, no one was home to watch them in the morning before school and they weren't allowed to have breakfast.
They had to live with us because Dad wanted to move away and kids aren't allowed.
They didn't have any winter coats or boots
Clearly, none of these things are true but they did get the girls the attention they wanted -- from the school, who called Children's Aid, who came to our house to investigate, taking time away from those clients to really do need their services. This mother should first get to know the girls' mother, invite her over for coffee, invite her and the girls out for lunch -- talk to her!
Comment: #6
Posted by: Lynn
Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:04 AM
|
|
|
|
First off, we don't really know what the financial situation is with the family in the LW1's complaint. I know that children in that age group are often manipulative as was already pointed out. But in these tough economic times drastic measures maybe called for. My father is coming to me yet again for a loan, because my step-mom is still spending like it is pre-economic melt-down 2008. My father is working for a third less in pay, his company asked for wage concessions to avoid lay-offs or possibly shutting down after a bankruptcy. I told my father this is the last loan period; he has already cut off her ATM/debit card - so he is there when she makes all these purchases. I told him that it is the last time because he is paying for two iPhones, internet access for the iPhones and two iPads on his AT&T bill, digital cable, cable internet service, and a landline service. He is set to retire after his birthday in June. His income is going to be cut in half. He flat out cannot afford all this and has already gone through bankruptcy because my step-mom has refused to work since they moved from Ohio to Michigan. She had a stroke this last summer is no longer authorized to drive, yet he still pays insurance and car payment for her vehicle. He doesn't want to hear her cry. Well though, they can't afford it. I had to get to the point of tough love; because I am not going to continue to sacrifice for their irresponsibility. Internet access is not a necessity, cell phones are not a necessity. All of the things originally cut off unless she got a job. We all survived just fine before they were invented. Those girls will be fine. The whole idea of cutting off electricity sounds kooky but if the mother cannot or will not wake up to their new economic reality the father may be feeling desperate to wake her up to that reality. Considering their is no other source of this information except the kids, I like the advice to talk to the parents first. Find out what is truly going on. Child protective services is only for abusive situations, no cellphone and internet service is not abuse. There are a lot of poor families who do without it every day in the U.S. She isn't talking about her children's friends bruised and beaten children, they just miss the things they had before tough. There wasn't enough money for Xmas presents; maybe that is because they didn't have any left over after living beyond their means again. That mother sound pretty selfish if her only answer to this is I am leaving without the kids. But hey maybe with one less mouth to feed the father might be able to afford to pay the electric bill.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Paula
Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:30 AM
|
|
|
|
@Lynn
Generally (not ALWAYS of course, as in your case), professionals are trained to be able to see through the attention-getting machinations of children and teenagers and can tell the difference between those and actual red flags of abuse. It is better to leave it to them, rather than to put yourself into a possibly dangerous situation by confronting the parents and/or mother, OR to have the father refuse to allow the girls to go to your house again. If that happens and the girls' allegations are true, they will have no save haven at all. Let the professionals make the determination and do their job. If the girls are actually being abused, they will be protected, and if they find the situation not to be as the girls describe it, then you will know you can discount some of their complaints.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Kitty
Thu Jan 5, 2012 2:35 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - When I was reading the beginning of the letter and saw that the father cut the Internet and cable, I figured the mother was very lazy and doing nothing all day. How many times have we read letters on here from women who say their husbands won't get jobs and just sit in front of the TV all day and we tell them to stop paying the cable bill? But then when I read about cutting the electricity, I saw red flags. If what these girls are saying is true, the authorities should be called if the electricity does indeed get cut.
But I also think others on here made good points about making sure what the girls are saying is true. I knew kids when I was that age who made stuff up just to get attention. I think the LW should get a hold of their mother to have a cup of coffee and a chat...just start it off with, "Oh, I'm so glad our daughters are such good friends!"
LW2 - It sounds to me like all of you are always running to your father when someone needs something. How would he know you needed your car repaired unless you told him? How would he know about your brother's tire unless he told him? If you don't want these items as birthday and Christmas gifts, then stop running to him every time you need something and instead, get it fixed and pay for it yourself. If you can't afford to pay for it yourself, then graciously accept that as your gift.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Michelle
Thu Jan 5, 2012 3:21 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1--"We've had both girls over to my house as much as possible so they can use the computer to play games and watch our TV." Because watching television and surfing the Internet are soooooo vital to a child's safety and well-being. First of all, while you're well meaning, obviously, you need to put things into perspective. An eleven year old is not a reliable source for what's going on in the home. It's an easy leap for a child who thinks it's the end of the world when she can no longer watch MTV or gossip on FaceBook to paint her Father as a mean old monster whose next step is cutting off food and power. The likely story is that there's marital problems that stem from the mother's wanting to live a champaign lifestyle on a beer budget. She probably has an aversion to work and the father's become fed up. It's very possible he WANTS his wife to walk out the door and then he'll set about raising the girls. In any case, all you have is hearsay and not from a very reliable source at that. How the father raises is girls is not your concern. What's happening in this family's home is absolutely none of your business. Unless you observe bruises or see other signs of abuse which you would be obligated to report to the authorities, steer clear of this mess. Showing up on their front doorstep with a posse of "concerned" adults or running to the school counselor is going to land you 'Nosy Neighbor of the Year' award and possibly find you staring down the barrel of a shotgun.
LW2--"We appreciate his generosity, but these gift consolidations feel more like business transactions with no connection to the occasion. Are we missing something?" A brain apparently. Once again, I feel the need to clarify the definition of a gift. A "gift" is something given voluntarily without payment in return, as to show favor toward someone, honor an occasion, or make a gesture of assistance. Your father's generosity satisfies this definition to a "T" so what's the problem? Try showing a little gratitude.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Chris
Thu Jan 5, 2012 3:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Hey, Not Grateful - those ARE GREAT birthday/Christmas presents! You should feel lucky. :)
Comment: #11
Posted by: Amy
Thu Jan 5, 2012 4:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: LW1 - In this day and age when searching for a job, just about everybody uses the internet, so canceling the internet seems to be counter-productive if the husband wants his wife to find a job. And of course, once you find a job and apply for same, the prospective employer has to call you, so you will need a phone (either cell or landline) for that to set interviews. In other words, none of this makes any sense. Maybe the parents fight a lot, the kids are taking things out of context, and they prefer being at your house to theirs.
Comment: #12
Posted by: j
Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:17 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 sounds like a power struggle between the parents in which neither is considering the well-being of the children. Regardlless of the reason, Dad seems to want Mom to get a job and she is either unable or unwilling to do so. I agree that cutting off the internet and the phone service seem to be counterproductive as any job higher than retail or fast food is going to require submission by internet and a phone interview.
However, cutting off the internet and cable, as the Annies have pointed out, is not abusive. What concerns me is the lack of electricity. We do not know how that home is powered or where the family lives; cutting off the power could affect everything from the ability to cook food to having heat during the winter. It sounds to me like this power struggle is getting out of hand. I understand that children can make a situation sound worse than it is, but I also believe an 11-year old is capable of giving an accurate assessment of the situation. The best way to find out what is and is not true is to ask the parents, as the Annies suggested, with another person present.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Wordsworth
Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:30 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1: Yeah, it would be so unlike 11 year-old girls to stretch the truth. And LW1 sounds like she may be stretching the truth a bit herself. "My heart is breaking to see these two darling little girls scared and crying all the time"....really? Back in the day when the reall Annie was around she'd have told LW1 to MYOB until she actually sees that there are no lights on in the house.
My thought...if things were really as bad as portrayed the girls' mother would have started looking for work by now.
LW2: Like the others said, your tag line says you're not ungrateful. But you certainly sound that way.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Gerhardt
Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lynn
Did child services take away your granddaughters when they were making up things? You didn't mention they did, so I'll assume they did not. Like Kitty said, generally, they are trained to make the difference between a real situation and attention-seeking devices, so and it would be preferable to leave any professional assessment to them, rather than put oneself in possible harm's way. Because if the situation IS as described, these people are both coo-coo for the coco puff, and who knows what people that crazy can do?
Crazy people do exist, otherwise tabloids would have very little to talk about. There is a chance the girls are not making it up. In which case yes, it is extremely urgent that CPS be notified and the LW should just get out of the way. She doesn't have what it takes to correctly assess the situation even if she did manage to get the mother in for coffee. CPS does.
And Chris, yes, an 11 year-old is not an infallible source of information, precisely because some of them will exaggerate and outright lie. But to take for granted that they all do 100% of the time takes us back 50+ years, when so many children were being abused for years on end because nobody ever believed them. And there are other forms of abuse besides what shows with a bruise, so just waiting for something visible to appear is kind of simplistic.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:29 AM
|
|
|
|
A few notes on LW1:
1) Cutting Cable, landline, cell phone and Internet isn't abusive -- In theory, I agree. All of these things can be lived without. And if the father is still in the house and is equally sharing in the deprivation, then I guess it's fine, but I can't help wondering if he's not there and still has all those little luxuries while his wife (or ex-wife) AND HIS CHILDREN must do without. I get that the father is trying to implement consequences for the mother's inaction, but the penalties are also being meted out to the children through no fault of their own. No, this doesn't rise to the level of abuse, per se, but as he continues to "streamline" their household, he is also cutting them off from the outside. What happens if there's some sort of emergency at the house and they can't call 911? By the time they find a neighbor at home who can call EMS for them, it may be too late.
2) Manipulative kids -- oh, yes, kids DO say the darndest things, and sometimes, they are COACHED by mommy or daddy to do so! My nieces and nephew frequently tell us (and anyone who will listen) that mommy says they are poor and that daddy refuses to give them any money. Reality: mommy and daddy are engaged in a custody battle. Mommy drives a Land Rover (that daddy pays for. Daddy drives a Jaguar. Daddy pays HANDSOME child support every month. He did, however, cut off one check -- the one that used to pay for mommy's mom's car and condo. Mommy tells them these things because she WANTS those kids to repeat it. Regulars at the BTL know I'm no fan of my BIL (Daddy, whom I consider to be a total @$$), but I will at least give him credit for financially providing WELL for his children.
3) Calling CPS or trying to chat with the mother -- this one's a toss-up for me. On the one hand, I am in favor of the whole "let the professionals sort it out," as that IS their job, and if either of these parents is psycho, then that's the safe bet. On the other hand, CPS is generally underfunded and understaffed, and even if there is real emotional/psychological abuse going on in that home (and I would argue that if what the kids are saying is true, there is), that type of abuse is almost impossible to prove. The sad thing about that is, while there may be no bruises or broken bones, the broken hearts and minds are actually a whole lot harder to mend and are much more likely to be overlooked in the absence of any obvious physical abuse.
With all that in mind, I would start by contacting the school counselor and/or the girls' teachers. They may well have some knowledge about what is really going on in that home, and if they don't, alerting them about what MIGHT be happening in the home can allow them to keep a trained eye on those girls. The more caring adults that are aware of this situation, the better. Are there other opportunities for you to interact with the parents? Picking up or dropping off the girls at school, for example? Picking up or dropping them off for play dates? Start making a point of trying to interact with one or both parents, preferably in public settings. Frankly, ALL parents should make a point of getting to know the parents of their children's friends.
Comment: #16
Posted by: Lisa
Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Good heavens, anyone who says to call CPS and let the professionals sort it out doesn't have a clue how the system works. Once someone is reported, even if NO evidence of wrongdoing is found, that person is branded for life. There are certain jobs he can never have, there are certain applications that it must be listed on preventing him from a variety of things. It could cripple an adoption, foster care, etc. In my state you wouldn't even be allowed to coach a little league or football team....even if CPS investigated and found that you'd done nothing wrong. Unless there is a HELLUVA LOT MORE evidence than this the LW has no basis to get CPS involved.
The letter is flimsy to begin with and smells of meddling.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Gerhardt
Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:59 AM
|
|
|
|
LW2 -- you're getting good advice here. You don't want to sound ungrateful (sorry, but you do) -- just as your father doesn't want to look like he doesn't do anything for you. You can preempt your father's need to publicly remind you of what he did for you by publicly thanking him profusely (on your birthday) for what he did for you months ago. Alternatively, as others have noted, you can tell your dad you'd prefer a gift on the actual occasion, and refuse the gifts he's offering in advance.
LW3 -- I didn't see the original letter, but you are, of course, right that many gifts come on the actual day or well after. My aunt and uncle didn't give me anything before my wedding or on the day of the wedding. In fact, it was TWO YEARS before I received anything from them. Then right around our second wedding anniversary, we received a card and a very generous check. In the card, my uncle explained that they have long had a tradition of giving money two years after a wedding because that's when a young couple really figures out what they still need and want. They even go so far as to purchase the card in advance and write the message in advance. In this particular instance, it was extra special -- because my uncle had died in the interim, and he was the one who wrote the message and signed the card. My aunt added a P.S. noting that she had been saving the card, as was their tradition, and that it gladdened her heart to know that we would be thinking of my uncle that day. I was so touched by this, I decided to take up the tradition myself (though we usually only wait one year instead of two). I don't always remember exactly who bought me which place setting -- but every time I look at the artwork we bought with the check that came two years later, I think of my aunt and uncle.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Lisa
Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Gerhardt
I agree with both of your posts today. Honestly, LW1 sounds like she wants to be the saviour. Check out the lingo:
"I've had both girls over to my house as much as possible so they can use the computer to play games and watch our TV."
She's painting herself as benevolently welcoming the kids into her house so they can have access to the things their family is making them do without - TV and internet games.
"My heart is breaking to see these two darling little girls scared and crying all the time."
That's an exaggeration if I ever heard one. Are they watching tv and playing games, or are they scared and crying? You can't do both.
And this is why I am leaning toward the girls "embellishing" the truth:
"their father wouldn't give their mother any money for Christmas"
Okay, so what? My parents didn't give each other money for Christmas gifts when I was a kid. If that parent was broke I got cheap gifts from them, end of story.
"The girls said he told their mother he wasn't going to pay for any of these things, and that if she wanted them, she'd better pay for them herself. So far, the mother hasn't attempted to look for work."
Would two girls, the oldest being 11, really "get" this? When I was that age I couldn't have told you if my mother was looking for work.
It IS entirely possible that the girls' parents are lunatics but I think it is MORE likely that:
a) the parents are poor, so unable to afford all of these things
b) the mother is UNABLE to find work and is making do without luxuries
c) the little girls are misunderstanding and exaggerating their situation to gain attention and pity
d) LW1 WANTS to see these girls as wide-eyed neglected puppies to be rescued
Instead of rounding up an angry mob and going over there, invite the mother (or both parents if they are together) over for lunch and meet them. She clearly has almost no first hand information about them so she could easily say "our girls are getting along so well, I can't believe we haven't had lunch together yet!" She could even go over there to deliver the invitation (verbal) in person and scope out the home.
My whole point is that I don't think she should "decide" that they are awful parents based on the words of young children. It could be true but it could also NOT be true. Calling CPS is a waste of time and resources at this point. If she goes over there with the intention of judging them it will show even if she pretends to be nice. If, however, she goes over there with an open mind and a desire to learn about the family, there is no reason she won't be welcome. And she will be free to make her own assessment, and THEN call CPS if she is TRULY concerned based on more than the words of little girls who got their cell phones and internet and christmas gifts cut off. And if she sees something else entirely, she will be comfortable knowing these girls are doing just fine and can stop giving in to what may well be emotional manipulation on their part.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Zoe
Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:18 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 -- I should have made this clear -- talk to school teachers/counselor and/or try to get to know the parents in a public setting FIRST. You will be in a better position to determine whether CPS needs to be called in or not after you've taken those steps.
Comment: #20
Posted by: Lisa
Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Gerhardt
Are you serious? Just getting oneself reported to and investigated by CPS is the equivalent of ending up on the sex-offender registry? I didn't know it was USSR and the KGB here.
If it really is that bad, then something rotten smells in Denmark and people should get together and start lobbying loudly and aggressively. This is ridiculous. In a country where you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, you're certainy not supposed to be guilty after being found innocent!
Surely to God that would be a GOOD use of all these pro-rata lawyers looking for someone with a lawsuit in the making!
Comment: #21
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jan 5, 2012 7:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lisa (post 18)
SUCH a wonderful idea that your uncle and aunt had!!! And what a great post. Thank you for sharing that story.
Comment: #22
Posted by: nanchan
Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
LW2:
I am probably that Dad who is tired of bailing your ass out and then, somehow, someway, there is that expectation of entitlement that you seem to think you have.
Many writers already have stolen my thunder so the best way to "solve" this is by cleaning or fixing your own messes and not even DREAM about putting pressure on ol' dad that he owes you "more". Get a life.
Comment: #23
Posted by: Patrick Turner
Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:44 AM
|
|
|
|
re LW1 - Oh good Lord... I ACTUALLY agree with Chris on a topic where children are involved. So far, the father of these two girls has not made these children do without any necessities that the LW mentioned. I am sure that if the girls were coming to her hungry and dirty, she wouldn't be talking about how she let the poor dears use the computer to play games and watch TV... hopefully, she would feed them and allow them to bathe.
I am not denying that there is a possibility that the father is unstable and this is emotional abuse, but the letter as presented does not provide a lot of strong evidence in that regard. I think the girls parents are in a power struggle which 1) has escalated out of control and 2) they have very mistakenly let their children witness. Children have very keen imaginations and they may not even be intentionally exaggerating. An 11 y.o. can easily hear Dad say, "we can't afford the power bill if you don't get a job" and Mom could retort, "well, you'll be on your own because I'll leave!" Both of them are speaking in anger and being facetious, but the child over-hearing will think, "OMG!!!! Dad is gonna have the power cut off!!! Mom is GONNA LEAVE US!!!" Parents fighting can bring out the worst fears in children. The family does need help, and if LW1 can kindly speak to the mother over coffee, she may be able to shed some light on the exaggerations. If the situation is really as dire as the girls portray, then she can help the girl's mother to find resources to get herself and the girls out of harms way. At the very least a gentle conversation may wake the mother up to the fact that she should not be talking like this in front of her children simply by knowing that kids are prone to repeat what they hear.
Comment: #24
Posted by: sharnee
Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:47 AM
|
|
|
|
**** Off topic: I'm an O/T machine these days. But I have a question for you guys... Do you think those little phone number strips on posters that you wear away are antiquated? Does everyone have a cell phone to punch stuff into these days?
Oh Patrick, you sound BITTER! Cut off the freeloaders if it aggravates you so. I wouldn't want to bail people out of their own messes, either.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Zoe
Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:48 AM
|
|
|
|
I frequently grab those little phone number strips from bulletin boards in the grocery store or library when they offer a service that I need. I found my hairdresser that way when I first moved to the area where I live now. But if you go that route, I would also post on the internet as well. The last time I listed something for sale on craig's list, I posted around 10 PM and started getting calls by 8 AM the next morning. The item was payed for and picked up by noon.
Comment: #26
Posted by: sharnee
Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise Brouillette
Yes, I'm serious. The registry itself is similar. That's why I cringe every time I read a response where an advise columnist tells someone to call CPS or even contact the school. Another thing about our state, if the school has reason to even suspect neglect or abuse they are required to report it to CPS, so when someone contacts the school to report what they suspect it also gets CPS involved and the parents are branded for life. Like I said, that then bars the parents from certain jobs and certain activities.
Back in my college days I volunteered for a shelter for abused and neglected children. Over time I became friends with the house parents. I knew that the husband and his ex-wife were constantly bickering. I was there the morning the director came in and said she had no choice but to terminate their employment. His ex had filed a complaint that he had abused their son several years prior. The investigation was later closed with no evidence of any wrong doing but it didn't matter. They can never work in that capacity again and he can never do as much as coach a little league team.
I'm absolutely not saying no one should ever be reported. But there really needs to be more evidence than this before it gets reported.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Gerhardt
Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
yes, I know. "advice columnist".
Comment: #28
Posted by: Gerhardt
Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:10 AM
|
|
|
|
@ Lise Brouillette
"And there are other forms of abuse besides what shows with a bruise, so just waiting for something visible to appear is kind of simplistic."
Simplistic, perhaps and legal! Just because you suspect something, doesn't make it true. Poking your nose into other people's business or making knee-jerk calls to CPS in the hopes of turning up a five alarm fire because you THINK you caught a whiff of smoke from the inconsistent and unreliable ramblings of an 11 year old is exactly the WRONG way to proceed. As another poster so eloquently put it, the time to act is when the lights are actually shut off in the child's home. You need EVIDENCE of neglect or abuse before you can act. Why is that so difficult for people to understand? It's not our sworn duty in life to protect people from what MIGHT occur. Shutting off the Internet and taking away the video games doesn't constitute neglect or abuse. Either does two nit-wit parents who can't get along for the sake of their children. Anything going on in that home is pure speculation and therefore you should MYOB. If you play with fire, you're going to get burned.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Chris
Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:17 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: LW1:
A few too many unknowns here, as others have pointed out. The two girls may not know the whole story. I think calling Chilld Protective Services is a little extreme at this point. Just sounds like two people on their way to a divorce which can lead to all types of things being said. I think it's a terrible idea to go to the house at all, whether alone or with someone. The only thing I agree with is to go to the school counselor and let him/her look into this further, and decide whether the authorities need to get involved.
***
LW2: you sound ungrateful to me too.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Dave Galino
Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: j
That caught my attention too. Most jobs are not in the paper anymore. A computer is needed. Most unemployment offices let you use their computers to job search, and you can do it at the library as well. So cutting the internet is not necessarily a red flag. However, you are correct about needing a phone for a potential employer to contact you. It's very difficult to get a job if you can't be contacted by phone for an interview.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Kelle
Thu Jan 5, 2012 10:08 AM
|
|
|
|
How fantastic that the father of grown adults still wants to help with life's unexpected little expenses! Practical gifts are the best in the world IMO! Quit being selfish!
Comment: #32
Posted by: farrar sanchez
Thu Jan 5, 2012 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
@Gerhardt
I'm curious as to what state you live in. This sounded kind of extreme for just an investigation, so I tried Googling for more info. The only state I can find that comes close that came up was PA, but if there were no convictions, you could still get a clearance certificate to coach, do child care, etc. Kind of hard to come up with well worded search, so maybe this is the situation in a lot of places and is just hard to search for.
However, it seems in these situations, word of mouth and local gossip seem to always focus on the fact that is a person is investigated, and either ignores the fact that they are cleared, or thinks they "got away with it". That is probably harder to undo than any legal record.
Comment: #33
Posted by: C Meier
Thu Jan 5, 2012 10:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Gerhardt
Nothing you have said is true. No one can access an "unfounded" CPS report but CPS.
Comment: #34
Posted by: farrar sanchez
Thu Jan 5, 2012 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Gerhardt
Frankly, Gerhardt, I find it hard to believe that there isn't a legitimate lawsuit for slander and wrongful termination in there - especially in the planetary centre of the frivolous lawsuit.
@Chris
I seem to recall there are times when someone can be charged with non-assistance to someone in danger of dying if they do nothing, not to mention the numerous places where you can be charged for not reporting what may look like abuse. So yes, occasionally, it IS "our sworn duty in life to protect people".
No, disconnecting the Internet and the phone don't constitute abuse, although it would seem a little illogical in punishment for not looking for a job, since you can hardly apply for one with out either these days... Turning off the electricity is another matter. And when it comes to children's welfare, I would tend to err on the side of caution.
Providing, of course, that Gerhardt is not having great good fun trying to pull a fast one - I find it hard to believe that what he says could be true, as it goes against every right on the individual, legal and otherwise, supposedly upheld by the USA. It doesn't make a lick of sense.
Comment: #35
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lise B.
I don't know much about CPS or how being reported to them can affect a person's life in the US, but they are hardly good at protecting people's rights. Someone can be labeled a sex offender along with the worst pedophiles and rapists for urinating in a public park, dating a 15 year old girl at 18, or soliciting a prostitute. They are far from perfect at any rate.
Comment: #36
Posted by: Zoe
Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:35 AM
|
|
|
|
@Lise B. - re post #35 - Chris did not say that people are not obligated to project each other from actual danger. He said that are not obligated to protect someone from something that MIGHT occur. If you see a blind man walking toward a fire - definitely get him out of harms way. If you see him walking toward someone who is lighting a cigarette, MYOB. Sure, he could get burned but most likely the observer is over-reacting and projecting a fear that is not necessarily eminent.
Also, while disconnection all of the phones is extremely it is hardly abusive. Most landlines still have access to 911 after being disconnected. If she is a person who does nothing but talk on the telephone, watch TV, ans surf the net all day, and the father needs assistance paying the bills, he very well may feel justified in no longer paying for her sources of entertainment if for no other reason than to bore her into doing SOMETHING. Who really knows? But this is simply a person refusing to pay for luxury items at best and semi-necessities at worst. She has food, shelter, clothing, running water, and for the time being at least, electricity. The chldren's physical needs are being met, not too sure about their emotional needs - but this falls in to the range of parenting missteps more than outright abuse.
Comment: #37
Posted by: sharnee
Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:52 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1: solutions offered are not ONE SIZE FITS ALL. What are listed as examples may be in your neck of the woods. Being noted forever to CPS is not the same as getting them into the system for help. A more metro community might not have the personal issues covered and you become a number in the system. Where I live, the population is not as dense, and those numbers have faces, names and local addresses.
I would not hesitate to respond to CPS/Human Services. I have been in those same situations before and when you feel helpless, the very least you can do for a child is make sure someone else knows. Choosing not to get involved when it concerns adults is one thing, but a child has no voice.
If the children (as examples attested to) were bogus in their information, this too, would be a learning tool for them. But they also would need to know they would be part of the situation--not just getting someone in trouble by what they say.
There are too many cases in our bountiful country to toss aside even 1 child.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To the gift counter's family. Your father grew up in the times where you picked the penny up off the sidewalk. Every single one counted.
And if your father lets you know that the tires you got WHEN YOU NEEDED THEM---were indeed for your birthday. As mentioned above, if you have issues with gifts given like this, then pay for your own repairs and bills and don't tell grandpa that BOY I SURE NEED---and he can just put a $5 bill in a card and let it go from there.
You appear to be rather gift counting yourself--He is only helping you where you state your need is.
Do you want the tally sheet kept differently? So, where is the money to be paid back when you had to have tires? Yep. Empty. And so on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LW3: Acceptable explaination. And as was discussed--an invitation to a wedding does not demand a gift as the key to the door. If so, the invitation should have stated NO GIFTIE NO PARTY.
Comment: #38
Posted by: Joyce/MN
Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:59 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with most - the situation LW1 presents for this other household is odd. But we are only reading part of the story. First, the story is coming from children - the situation can be erroneous in many ways. The children may even by lying as they get some benefit from it. Another alternative is that there are issues with the husband & wife, but in a different sense. It may be a case where the husband does all the work, while the wife barely lifts a finger. She's a "stay at home mom" but doesn't even do that well. The husband may feel he has a free-loader of a spouse and wants her to do something - ANYTHING other than sit around all day enjoying TV and computers and whatnot. The husband sacrfices his own TV and computer usage at first be removing cable. This was an attempt to get his wife going with "tough love". When that didn't work, he may have threatened to cut off power. He might not have done it, but it was with a hope to get his wife to do something. Instead, she called his bluff. At this point, the husband might have to ask himself the famous question - is he better off with her or without her? If his kids are spending the bulk of their time at a neighbor's home and the wife does nothing (and who knows what the house looks like), maybe there's a reason for this crazy talk. Either way, I hope it is resolved. A call to Child Services might get something going.
Comment: #39
Posted by: JJH
Thu Jan 5, 2012 11:59 AM
|
|
|
|
LW1 - What Chris said.
LW2 - Same thing
LW3 - If there was a 3 it would probably be the same thing too.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Rick
Thu Jan 5, 2012 12:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: farrar sanchez
Kind of a bold (and false) statement to make since the laws vary from state to state. But I can state with 100% confidence that your statement is not completely accurate in my state. You are correct that the reports are not released but checks are run w/ CPS and while the report itself isn't released, a "hit" for anyone investigated by CPS for abuse/neglect is returned. If you're on the register there are a lot of supervision-of-minor activities that you are not allowed to participate in.
Once you're investigated, even if you've done nothing wrong, you're on the register.
Comment: #41
Posted by: Gerhardt
Thu Jan 5, 2012 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
@Chris -- I agree that, from what we're given in the letter, it's premature to call CPS. In fact, I also agree that the LW sounds a bit like a drama queen herself, so not only is the info suspect due to the primary source being young children, but it's rendered doubly suspect by the fact that we're getting it after it's been filtered by the drama queen. That's why I suggested the LW needs to do some more homework before reporting the family to CPS.
Having said all of that, however, in subsequent posts you (and others) have brought out the old MYOB mantra. I think MYOB is a time-honored strategy that we all should stick to more often than not -- when we are dealing with adults and we have no reason to believe there is any imminent danger. When children are involved, we need to be ready to step up to the plate.
But we also need to think long and hard about what constitutes "imminent danger." As I said in my previous post, the easiest form of abuse to identify and prove is physical (and even that can be difficult -- abusers can be very clever about making sure bruises are covered by clothing, etc.). In nearly all cases of emotional/psychological abuse, it is difficult to identify and all but impossible to prove. That doesn't, however, make emotional/psychological abuse less of a danger than physical abuse. Like I said before, in some ways, emotional/psychological abuse is also a whole lot harder to resolve. Bruises fade. Broken bones knit themselves back together. But mending a broken heart, a broken mind, a broken soul is not so simple.
MYOB sounds like a great idea...right up until an abused child dies (perhaps by his own hand to end the abuse) or lashes out and hurts or kills someone else. Then we all read the headlines, shake our heads and say, "my God, surely SOMEONE knew what was going on, why didn't anyone DO something to stop this?"
Again, I doubt that's the case in today's letter. But the answer isn't necessarily for the LW to put her head in the sand. The answer is for her to keep her eyes and ears open, try to get better information and then act accordingly -- and keep in mind that "acting accordingly" may well end up being MYOB.
Comment: #42
Posted by: Lisa
Thu Jan 5, 2012 12:42 PM
|
|
|
|
@Lisa - Your points are all very valid. There is a fine line between knowing when to intervene and when to MYOB. In my opinion, unless a child is making clear statements of abuse - "mommy said she wishes I were never born" or "daddy won't let mommy feed us"; people should be able to run their households as they see fit - even if we strongly disagree with what they are doing. Every single parent past, present, and future has or will cause harm to their child's psyche in some way. The vast majority of these missteps will be purely unintentional and more often then not will be the result of a well-intentioned action taken by the parent that was perceived poorly by the child. This is not to trivialize emotional abuse - it is very real and very damaging. But I guess what I am saying is that an ocassional lapse in judgement is not the same as an established and consistent pattern of abuse. So where do we draw the line? I have no intention of being in my neighbor's business and I certainly don't want them in mine. That is why I suggested a gentle chat with the mother over coffee. The LW should give her a clue about the things she is hearing from the children and offer assistance if it is needed. Then, unless there are clear signs of abuse or neglect, MYOB.
Comment: #43
Posted by: sharnee
Thu Jan 5, 2012 1:31 PM
|
|
|
|
@ Lisa
"MYOB sounds like a great idea...right up until an abused child dies (perhaps by his own hand to end the abuse) or lashes out and hurts or kills someone else. Then we all read the headlines, shake our heads and say, "my God, surely SOMEONE knew what was going on, why didn't anyone DO something to stop this?"
You make some excellent points in your post. But, let me clarify my stance again. One must act within the law. Otherwise, one must MYOB. There are basically two situations that are often confused:
(1). Someone knows about or sees evidence of the law being broken (e.g., abuse, neglect, etc.) but chooses to look the other way because he or she doesn't want to get involved.
(2). Someone merely suspects, without any evidence whatsoever that the law is being broken for whatever reasons and then blindly acts in order to raise the alarm.
In the the first case, one has a moral (and possibly legal) obligation to act. To "MYOB" in that case would be wrong. In the second case acting in any capacity is wrong because there is no justification to do so. See where I'm going with this? People confuse these two situations all the time. It's simple, really. If you have evidence act; if you don't have evidence MYOB. This board has seen all sorts of situations in which people have advocated taking legal actions without any substantiating evidence whatsoever. Or worse, some advocate taking the law into their own hands "to protect the innocent." That's where I draw the line.
Comment: #44
Posted by: Chris
Thu Jan 5, 2012 3:14 PM
|
|
|
|
As someone (Lynn, maybe?) pointed out, there IS an alternative between the extremes of "call CPS" and "MYOB". Inviting the mom to coffee or lunch is a great idea that should give LW a little more insight. Frankly, if the kids are playing at each other's homes this much, I'm surprised that this wouldn't have occurred to LW even before the trouble started -- getting to know the families of your kids' friends, when possible, is Smart Parenting.
I would agree with Sarah Morrow that LW shouldn't try to fix the crazy couple, but I think it's worth assessing whether the kids are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Comment: #45
Posted by: hedgehog
Thu Jan 5, 2012 4:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Interesting comments here, all.
Personally, when I read the letter, I thought that LW is an alarmist and sees abuse where it does not exist. The family may be in dire straits financially, and they all may be stressed, and the parents might be fighting, but I don't think there is enough evidence of abuse of any kind.
To me - and I emphasize that this is a completely personal impression most likely influenced by personal experiences - it seems like mom has been a SAHM for a long time and either does not want to look for a job or is unable to find one. Dad may have lost income (cut hours, cut pay, more of the paycheck is deducted for the benefits, etc., so the internet, cable, and cellphone service had to be given up. The kids, however, interpret it as daddy making them go without TV, internet, and cellphones.
Now, the family is behind on the essential bills and may lose electricity and/or phone service by the end of the month. Note - it's not that the dad will cut off their electricity/landline; it's that the power or phone compnany will, for the non-payment of bills, and the 11yo is misinterpreting "If you don't get a job, we'll lose electricity" as "If you don't get a job, I'll cancel our utilities." Maybe dad feels that the mom, if she IS looking for a job, is not making a sufficient effort. Whether that is true or not, a talk with the parents seems to be a good idea. Or the girls' teachers.
I think this situation is a far cry from calling Child Protective Services.
Comment: #46
Posted by: Ariana
Thu Jan 5, 2012 4:37 PM
|
|
|
|
LW2 - For heaven's sake....grow up! I would have been so happy to have a parent help myself or my child that I probably would have beat him to the punch at the gathering and said, "I already got my gift from Dad. He paid for my repairs back in August so I didn't have to. Thanks, Dad!"
Comment: #47
Posted by: Ras
Thu Jan 5, 2012 4:45 PM
|
|
|
|
LW 2 - For heaven's sake....grow up! I would have been so grateful to have a parent help me or my child that I probably would have beat him to the punch at the gathering and said, "I already got my gift from Dad. He paid for my repairs in August so I didn't have to. Thanks, Dad!".
Comment: #48
Posted by: Ras
Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
In this day and age, with people you don't even know, CPS can figure out the truth. They are trained professionals. My stepmonster used to pull wool over everyone's eyes, including trained professionals. Don't think you're so smart you can tell if the girls are lying or not. Jerkwad parents can fake normality blazingly well when it suits their interests. Call CPS.
Comment: #49
Posted by: wkh
Thu Jan 5, 2012 5:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: j
Maybe you have never heard of the public library. You can access the internet for free and still find a job. People do not need to have internet in the house to access it. They need food, electricity, clothes, and other vital necessities. The internet is a want, a nice to have.
Comment: #50
Posted by: Paula
Thu Jan 5, 2012 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Paula
We've been through this. The opening hours of the library are limited, depending on the affluence there may not be a computer available when YOU are, and... if an employer e-mails you a appointment time for an interview at 6 hours' notice or even less, checking your e-mails three times a week at the library is not gonna cut it. Not to mention that a potential employer may have questions s/he would rather e-mail than ask by phone because it saves time and allows for multi-tasking, and when that happens, they want an answer RIGHT NOW.
Comment: #51
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Jan 5, 2012 8:11 PM
|
|
|
|
@ Lise: Thank you - I could not have said it better myself. :)
Comment: #52
Posted by: j
Fri Jan 6, 2012 5:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Paula
I say don't even help him THIS time. Because you are not helping him. You're "giving a drunk a drink" as Dave Ramsey would say. :) Tell them you'll help them that way only. Perhaps send them through Financial Peace University. Now THAT is helping. NO MORE MONEY FOR THEM!!!!!
Comment: #53
Posted by: Renee
Fri Jan 6, 2012 2:01 PM
|
|
|
|
re: Kitty and Lise
No, the Social Workers did not take my grandchildren away. They did, however, spend a lot of time on this "case", talking to everyone involved -- time that could have been spent working on a legitimate case. Twice.
I would never suggest that we automatically assume a child is lying about things like this. Nor would I ever suggest anyone "confront" a parent they suspect of being neglectful or abusive. I suggested that the LW meet the mother and get to know her and get a better sense of whether or not the girls' stories are true. She should talk to the teacher of the girl in her daughter's class and see if any of this has been told to her/him.
Comment: #54
Posted by: Lynn
Sun Jan 8, 2012 3:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Lynn
Of course. If she can get the mother to sit in front of a coffee, of course.
When CPS are called, they can't tell in advance which cases are going to be real and which cases are unfounded, and that goes for any call, not just the one that sent them to your door. It may seem like a waste of time, but it isn't. It ensures that the calls who ARE founded get the attention they need.
I'm sorry you went through that. And about the attention these kids were seeking, did you get them to a professional? I think they needed one.
Comment: #55
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Mon Jan 9, 2012 6:13 AM
|
|
|
|
I suspect Lise Brouillette is the LAZY unemployed woman described by LW1 who refuses to get a job.
Such a sad sack.
Comment: #56
Posted by: John Dung
Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: John Dung
You also keep claiming no man will touch me, so make up your flippin' mind.
Comment: #57
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:55 PM
|
|
|
|
LW1
While the girls in the other family may be aggrandising their father's unusual encouragement techniques, it is more likely that they would hide the information from embarrassment. So do try to get more information, without rushing headlong into anything that would cause trouble for you or the girls. There does not seem to be any immediate danger. Perhaps get to know the mother and ascertain if the details are anywhere near true and if the children are in any harm.
```
Comment: #58
Posted by: Word A Day Mate
Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
