SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (14708)4/25/1998 11:46:00 AM
From: Janice Shell  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20981
 
You don't think a ten-year-old deserves to feel he has a home? Or was that how he was supposed to feel about boarding school?



To: jlallen who wrote (14708)4/25/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Grainne  Respond to of 20981
 
<Not having a room in a house where you do not live hardly qualifies as the height of cruelty.>

Really? It certainly strikes me as the height of cruelty!! Every child needs a place that is the center of their universe, where their little treasures and collections are, a sanctuary which is theirs. A child coming home periodically from boarding school would especially need this place as a retreat, and since Michael was adopted, he had obviously already been rejected once and would feel this most keenly.

One of the most agreed-upon rules for children of divorce is that they need their own, reliably private space at the home of the parent they don't live with, so that when they visit their non-custodial parent they feel safe and secure and everything is familiar. Children are very conservative by nature, not liking or thriving on change. To dump a child who is already obviously hurting into what is essentially a camping situation on visits home from boarding school strikes me as almost sadistic. Certainly, it shows that he was not a priority to his parents, and children need to feel very important to their parents in order to grow up emotionally healthy.