Problem Pages

[sexobon]

... I don’t find their behaviour a problem. This is a view supported by both sets of grandparents. ...

Yet there's no mention of either set of grandparents speaking to the husband about this even though the husband's behavior may be possibly criminal, even falling under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, “cruelty to persons under 16”. I hear a forked tongue.

The response completely ignores the possibility that the husband may be using the children to modify the wife's behavior: if she doesn't like his responses to the children, then she can help raise them to accommodate each parent's boundaries and not just her own.

Of course we don't hear the husband's side of the story; or, from two sets of grandparents who don't get to speak for themselves. We only hear from a wife who's chosen a public venue that provides a one sided presentation designed to garner support for doing things her way. The letter is even structured to elicit a knee jerk reaction supporting her POV.

Too many red flags to consider the wife's story credible even concerning the circumstances of her husband's alleged actions. The responder, considering the glaring omission of another rationale I pointed out for a contrarian husband, was either duped into taking the wife at face value; or, looking for a soapbox. Funny how the unimpressive seem to find each other. Meh.