0 Comments

The father’s estimation of the prevailing dynamic between the mother and child at point A is outside the domain of the evidence on hand and, thus, will not be used to further any claims herein.

Nevertheless, at point B the mother continues to make wild accusations of fault – literally insisting that “it’s your fault” – without backing anything up with any evidence. She then specifies what she means, in that the father is at fault because the child “didn’t go to Kumon.” Is she seriously suggesting that the child missing one extracurricular ‘achievement’ class warrants this level of belligerence and police involvement? In other words, she had the police ‘investigating’ the father’s return flight ticket over a Kumon class?

PREV | NEXT

Related Posts

Page 5

A: Given the undercurrent of manipulation in the mother’s tactics…

Page 10

A: One of the prevailing ironies of this exchange emerges…

Page 11

A: The father reiterates that taking the child to the…