Loving: Ferguson, Mike Brown, Darren Wilson


, , , , , , , , , ,

This video, Patrick Speaks, is what life is really about! Humans are beautifully complex animals who want to love and be loved, accepted for who they are, and simply want and need equality. What outlet do those have that can’t be or won’t be heard, or don’t have the ability to communicate and have others understand them?

This touching story about Patrick proves that God is good all the time! In the same vein, as Americans are experiencing throbbing emotions on both sides from the decision in Ferguson last night, culminating from the underlying years of oppression or privilege, we simply want and need the same thing that Patrick does – to love and be loved, to be accepted for who we are, and to expect nothing less than equality. But what if some don’t have the ability communicate their frustration, or what if their words have been falling on deaf ears? I am feeling a great sense of love for humanity at this time, because that’s what God wants from us.

I stand with Ferguson. I stand with the Brown family. I stand with Darren Wilson. Peel away the labels, the badges, the colors, the socioeconomic status… we are human and we need to be loved, just like everybody else does.

“They still don’t care. They’re never gonna care. I’ve been here my whole life.” – Leslie McSpadden


We Don’t Need Family Law Reform!


, , , , ,

Over the past few years I have voiced my opinion that we need family law reform, we need equality in family courts, but most of all we need to take our divorces OUT of family law courts. However, today is the day that I change course. Instead, I say NO we do NOT need Family Law Reform!


We need to spend as much time, energy, and resources into strengthening families as we spend helping families to break apart. NO. We need to put in MORE time, MORE energy, and MORE resources to strengthening families.

I have been deeply immersed in the Parental Alienation community for a few years and I have had the pleasure of meeting some absolutely wonderful parents who have gotten the raw end of the deal in their marriage, in their divorce, such that their lives are forever altered and what they believed was a strong foundation crumbled like ashes under their feet leaving them broken, lonely, and desperate.

I have always wondered if this was a symptom of something much larger than Parental Alienation strategies. I wonder if some Parental Alienation strategies come out of two people having power in a divorce and doing their damnedest to hold onto what is naturally theirs; the children being the most natural result of a productive marriage or relationship. I mean, when you really think about it, divorce (with children) is so UNNATURAL. It’s contrived. It’s life altering process that affects not just one life but three or more.

Save for reasons of abuse, infidelity, addiction, etc…




November 29, 2013 at 9:25am

Disclosure: I have no idea how this information was gathered, but it can be found as a comment to a post by visiting this link: http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ca-sperm-donor-rights-bill-605059#comment-1015713565



If you’ve been watching morning television, daytime talk shows, or evening news magazine shows lately, you may have seen Jason Patric in several guest appearances talking about how he has been separated from “his son” by the actions of the child’s mother, his former girlfriend.

His story is an attempt to appeal to the natural instinct of most people to support someone who is a victim. Who wouldn’t want to support a person who claims that their child has been suddenly, inexplicably taken from them? The problem with Patric’s story is that, with the exception of being the biological father of a child born to his former girlfriend, it is untrue. Not only is it untrue, the truth is the exact opposite of what he claims.

Patric finds himself in the position of not being a legal parent to his former girlfriend’s child not because of an accident of circumstance or arbitrary application of a poorly drafted law. Rather, Patric is not the legal parent of his former girlfriend’s child because those were exactly the conditions he imposed when he donated his sperm to her four years ago so that she could become a mother on her own.

That these were Patric’s conditions was reflected in a handwritten, 20-page letter that he wrote to her at the time in which he said he was not ready to be a father but that she had “his blessing” if she wanted to use his sperm. The letter made clear that Patric was not to have any responsibilities for the child – financial, legal, or otherwise – and imposed yet another condition: The fact of his donation had to be maintained in the strictest confidence by his former girlfriend. Consistent with these conditions, he demanded that he not be listed on the birth certificate and that the child not have his surname.

These were conditions with which his former girlfriend, Danielle Schreiber, readily agreed. She was ready to become a mother and did not want to depend on a romantic relationship to do so. She also wanted the autonomy – both legal and practical – of being a single parent and was prepared to meet its challenges.

Danielle had already taken steps to pursue motherhood on her own, including purchasing a home with a work studio so she could remain close to home once she had the child. She had also researched and purchased anonymous donor sperm and preserved it at a California fertility center. On the eve of her planned procedure to conceive with the anonymous donor sperm, Patric offered her his sperm. After carefully considering the pros and cons of using anonymous versus known donor sperm, she chose to use the known donor sperm.

Danielle conceived in early 2009 through in vitro fertility procedures that she arranged and paid for. Patric did not attend or pay for any of these procedures. She experienced pregnancy and all of its rites – prenatal visits, birthing and newborn classes, buying baby clothes and preparing for the baby’s arrival – all on her own, supported by family and some close friends. She assembled all of the baby’s furniture and set up the baby’s nursery – in her home where she lived alone – by herself. She set up a baby registry and selected registry items all on her own. Patric did not participate in, pay for, or help pay for any of these items or activities.

When the baby came, Danielle delivered on her own at Cedars Sinai in LA after a nearly two-day labor and delivery with complications, aided by a mid-wife and doula. Patric, who was several years into a long-term romantic relationship with another person at the time, was in New York on the baby’s due date with his then girlfriend, with whom he had just spent the Thanksgiving holiday. This former girlfriend subsequently provided a sworn statement that at no time during their nearly three year relationship – which spanned Danielle’s entire pregnancy and the first year of her child’s life – did Patric ever tell her that he was about to become or was a biological father.

Danielle announced her baby’s birth to a list of family and friends. Patric was not mentioned in the announcement or even copied on the email. Patric – obviously – did not announce the birth. Nor did he tell anyone. Danielle’s sister drove her and her baby home from the hospital. Danielle hired a baby nurse to assist her for the first several weeks with midnight feedings and diaper changes. Patric did not contribute to or pay for any of these costs: Not the costs of Danielle’s prenatal, labor, or delivery medical care, not the costs associated with any of the preparations for the baby’s arrival, and not the costs related to the baby nurse.

Throughout Danielle’s pregnancy, including on the eve of her due date, Patric reiterated to her the conditions of his handwritten letter, including in an email shortly before her delivery instructing her to “reread my [20-page] letter.” He continued to remind Schreiber of these conditions after the baby was born and well into the third year of his life.

For the first year and a half of Danielle’s son’s life, Patric had sporadic contact with Danielle and her son when Patric would occasionally stop by Danielle’s house. These visits were infrequent because the first year of the baby’s life, Patric was out of town at least 50% of the time. On none of the occasions when he did visit did Patric ever change a diaper, prepare food, bathe the baby, or give the baby a bottle. More significant, on none of those occasions did he ever refer to himself as the baby’s father or to the baby as his son, or tell anyone that he was the baby’s biological father. To the contrary, on one occasion when another visitor mistakenly asked Patric if he was the baby’s father, Patric denied it, saying he was “just a friend.” Patric also continued to insist that Schreiber maintain his status as the sperm donor in strict confidence, even to her own family.

Because Patric never lived with Danielle or her son, he also never participated in another basic rite of early parenthood: waking up in the middle of the night to provide a feeding or change a diaper.

In 2011, when Danielle son was nearly a year and a half old, she and Patric rekindled their relationship. During this time, Patric still spent extensive periods of time outside LA (in fact, 70% of that year), but had more contact with Danielle’s son as an incident of spending time with Danielle. Even then, however, Patric did not function in the role of a parent. He did not prepare meals, change a diaper, bathe or put the child down for a nap or bed. He did not arrange, pay for, or participate any of the child’s activities or day care, or take him to any pediatrician check-ups. He did not exercise decision-making responsibilities with respect to the child and did not pay child support. On the occasions when he was present, he acted mostly as a spectator, while Danielle or a designated caretaker took care of her son. Indeed, Patric never spent any time with Danielle’s son outside of the context of his relationship with her and, with the eventual exception of a half hour here or there so that Danielle could run a quick errand, was never left alone with the child not in the presence of Danielle or her designated caretaker.

At no time before or after Patric started dating Danielle again did he ever live with her or her son or ever seek to. Nor did he ever ask to have Danielle or her son live with him or even stay at his house. In fact, Patric never childproofed his home, had a crib there, or kept any toys or other items in his home that would evidence being the parent of a small child or that would make it comfortable for a child. Moreover, on the handful of occasions when Danielle asked Patric if she and her son could stay there (on one occasion her house was heat treated for an infestation and reached uncomfortably warm temperatures), he declined. He explained that he had another houseguest at the time and how would he explain to her the presence of Danielle and her son?

Indeed, it was not until after Patric sued Danielle last summer seeking legal and physical custody of her son – almost three years old by then — that Patric first purchased a crib for his home and a car seat for his car, in an obvious attempt to window dress after the fact for his litigation. In the same vein, in one of Patric’s recent television appearances he has spoken wistfully of his son’s “room” at his home. This “room” never existed – Danielle’s son never had a place to stay at Patric’s home or was welcomed there – until after he sued Danielle.

The twelve months during 2011 when Danielle and Patric were dating again, Patric was out of town for nearly 70% of the time and was living in New York, where he has a home and was performing in a play. By the latter part of that year, Danielle was increasingly uncomfortable in the relationship. While Patric continued to deny he had a child, including not acknowledging it under circumstances where to do so operates as a denial, he was increasingly controlling and dominating of Danielle and her son in private. He had also begun to threaten Danielle that he was going to “take” her son from her and that she and her family “would never see him again.” While knowing that Patric was not legally her child’s father and had never conducted himself that way, these threats were still impactful for Danielle.

By the spring of 2012, Danielle had decided the relationship was untenable. Patric’s behavior was controlling, verbally abusive, and physically threatening and menacing to her. He was also increasingly heavy handed in his interactions with her son. Patric, who did not live with Danielle, often showed up at her house late at night or early in the morning unannounced and uninvited and banged on doors and windows demanding to be let in. Once inside, he physically boxed Danielle in and restricted her freedom of movement with his body. He cursed at her and yelled vulgarities, including anti-Semitic slurs, often in front of her son.

Throughout this time, Patric continued to threaten Danielle that he would take her son from her and, for the first time, threatened to sue her for custody. While Danielle was skeptical that he would be able to do so – after all, he had donated his sperm, demanded in writing that he have no responsibilities and had never assumed any, was not listed on the birth certificate and had never asked to be, and had not taken any steps to legally assume parentage (including, for example, through a voluntary declaration of paternity or adoption) – Danielle was still frightened and sought to appease him. Against her better judgment, she permitted Patric more access to herself and her son even though she was uncomfortable doing so.

By May of 2012, Danielle finally mustered up the courage to end the relationship. She explained to Patric that while their relationship was ending, she would permit him see her son on a regular basis if he wanted to. She asked that Patric adhere to a schedule and that he not show up at her house unannounced and just walk in.

Shortly thereafter, Patric sued Danielle. In a letter from his lawyer, he threatened to seek full legal and physical custody of her son and to take him from her completely.

Even after being served with Patric’s suit, Danielle continued to permit Patric contact with her son, even capitulating to his demands to increase visitation to levels he had never experienced before suing her.

Over the next several months, Danielle attempted to defend herself against Patric’s onslaught of litigation. He hired – and fired, when too moderate – high powered lawyers and filed numerous emergency motions and ex parte applications, losing all of them. In parallel, he continued his campaign of harassment against Danielle, repeatedly sending her threatening, taunting, and vulgar emails and texts. When he came to her home to pick up or drop off her son, he was physically menacing and hostile towards her, to the point that her son once admonished him “not to yell” at Danielle.

All the while, Danielle continued to permit Patric’s voluntary visitation with her son. This changed, however, when Danielle suspected that Patric was using his contact with her son to attempt to alienate him from her and their home. On several occasions, her son came home from a visit with Patric and said that Patric told him that his home with Danielle, where he had lived since the day he was brought home from the hospital, was not his home but the house where Patric lived was now his home. Another time he came home from a visit and said that Patric had told him that Danielle was not “mama” but was “Danielle.” Another time he returned home and said that Patric had told him to say that “I don’t like mama,” and that “mama scares me.” In addition to Danielle’s concerns about her son witnessing the continued physical hostility from Patric, Danielle now reasonably feared that these visits were causing her son confusion, mistrust, and worse. Concerned for her son’s well-being, she determined that for the time being, she would not continue to expose him to these conditions.

Patric lost his lawsuit earlier this year after a three-day trial in which both he and Danielle testified. Patric presented at trial all of the arguments and fabrications he is now presenting to the media and to the California Legislature. The trial court agreed with Danielle’s version of the facts and ruled against Patric.

Patric’s next step was to lobby the California Legislature, based on the same deceptions and lies, to change the law so that it would retroactively reverse the trial court ruling in Danielle’s favor. The law that he and his high powered lobbyists seek to change has been part of the California Family Code for 26 years and protects women who have used sperm donors, including known donors, from claims of parentage after the fact. It permits a single exception, when the donor and the mother have agreed in writing prior to the child’s conception that the donor will have parental rights.

There was no such agreement in this case. In fact, there is Patric’s contemporaneous letter saying just the opposite. So Patric, not one to be deterred by the truth, has argued that the boilerplate medical consent forms presented separately to him and Danielle by the fertility center that performed her fertility treatment were “an agreement” by him and her that he would have parental rights. He cites the fact that the pre-printed medical consent forms contain the words “intended parent” by the signature line indicating where the patient should provide their signature. The trial court earlier rejected this attempt by Patric to fashion evidence after the fact, finding that the forms had no bearing on the question whether Patric intended to be a parent or agreed with Danielle that he would be.

The facts of this case illustrate precisely why this law, California Family Code 7613(b) is needed and should be preserved in its current form. There may be many reasons why mothers who rely on known donor sperm may want their children to have contact with their biological fathers; indeed, that may even be one reason for selecting known donor sperm over anonymous sperm. But this does not mean that those mothers acquiesce in the granting of legal custody to the donors, which would permit interference in all manner of parenting decisions, including where the child is educated, what doctor he sees and whether he does or doesn’t take antibiotics, what activities he participates in, where the family can live, and even what religion the child is or what last name he has. Without this law, donors who have agreed not to be fathers, who have had minimal contact with the child or contact entirely incidental to their relationship with the mother, and who have borne none of the risks or responsibilities of parenthood, could, years after the fact, change their minds and sue for legal and physical custody. This would be a devastating result for mothers and families and is terrible public policy. (In the case of an unmarried couple that intends to jointly conceive and raise a child together, they can simply agree in writing prior to the procedure that the man will have parental rights.)

As part of his effort to subvert the law in California and the trial court result, Patric has taken his lies to a national audience, appearing on multiple daytime and evening talk shows falsely claiming that he “parented” Danielle’s son with her “since birth” — including the preposterous claim that he was there “every day” of her son’s life — and maliciously accusing Danielle of having “stolen” his son from him. He has written and had others write op-eds and columns in national publications that similarly falsely characterize Danielle and the facts and history of this case. He further laments that he has not seen Danielle’s son in several months but disingenuously fails to mention that Danielle’s father contacted him months earlier after his trial court defeat to suggest they meet to discuss a path forward. Patric failed to reply for three months and when he did, it was in an offensive email in which he called Danielle’s father slurs. Nowhere in his reply did he mention wanting to see Danielle’s son or requesting a discussion of that matter.

Patric’s fabrications are too numerous to attempt to rebut here. But one might ask how he squares the false narrative of his fatherhood with the fact that he did not tell his own mother and brother, as well as most everyone else in his life, that he had a biological son until after he sued Danielle last summer. His narrative is also hard to square with the fact that when Danielle’s son fell gravely ill and was hospitalized for nearly a week in March 2011, and Danielle’s father flew on an emergency basis from NY to LA to assist Danielle while she stayed overnight in the hospital with him, Patric, who was aware of the child’s condition, not only did not come to the hospital to see him, but was photographed at the same time partying in a bar on St. Patrick’s Day with his tongue in a woman’s ear.

The most accurate picture of Mr. Patric is reflected in the candid interview he gave New York Magazine around the same time, in March 2011, where, in a revealing and highly personal conversation about his father and grandfather, the legacy of his father’s work, his past romantic relationships, his mixed breed dog and his penchant for old New York bars, he did not once mention that he was a biological father and, in fact, said that he was not ready to settle down and give up his “artistic freedom” for the sake of marriage and children. Danielle’s son was a year and a half old at the time.

I am Danielle’s sister. Danielle’s son, Gus, is my nephew. He is beloved by our entire family – his family – and has been since the day he was born. I, and the rest of our family, have watched in horror as Patric has repeatedly violated his privacy – that of a three-year old boy – by repeatedly publishing unblurred images of him online and over national print and television media and by publicly broadcasting his and his mother’s full names, to garner media attention for himself. It is only because Danielle’s counsel has contacted each media outlet – each time – to threaten legal action that they have blurred or removed these images.

Danielle and our family have slowly but firmly concluded that Patric does not care about the resolution of this case. He is much more enamored of the fight, which gives him publicity you cannot buy and in which he can style himself a victim and a martyr, which, if you know anything about him, is a perfect fit. As he himself acknowledges, he is not eager to give up this role any time soon.

For Danielle’s part, she would ask Patric, respectfully, to 1) stop lying, 2), recant the lies he has already told, and 3) if he is genuinely interested in mending the bridges burned, to reach out from a place of genuine conciliation and remorse for the damage done.

Dr. Phil’s Episode 11/01- Parental Alienation: Who’s To Blame?


, , ,

Well, if you missed it, here it is. Sara Hassman, founder of Parental Alienation Solutions didn’t have such a good run on the Dr. Phil show. In fact, it was really uncomfortable to watch and cringe-worthy. She claims her ex-husband alienated their children from her, yet her actions may make the viewer think twice.

Even if Sara Hassman was alienated from her children by her husband, Sara sets a very good example for other target parents to learn what NOT to do. Everything she did on the show, everything that was documented, discussed, disputed, whatever-DON’T DO IT!

But, above all, don’t treat your child the way Sara Hassman treated her daughter! If your child is willing to meet with you and opens up: DON’T ROLL YOUR EYES; DON’T MAKES CONTORTED FACES AT THEIR STATEMENTS; DON’T IGNORE OR BELITTLE THEIR FEELINGS; DON’T TALK OVER YOUR CHILD; DON’T TELL THE CHILD WHAT THEY FEEL IS NOT THE TRUTH!

It’s unfortunate that I have to go against someone in my own community, but let’s be real here. Even though I give much leeway to target families to “act crazy”, I think Sara’s behavior goes above and beyond. Even if she has been alienated, this is not the way to build a better relationship with your children.

This episode aired in November and I hope that there has been progress in Sara and her children’s relationship. I have the deepest desire for Sara and her children to find peace and solace. Fingers crossed.

IMHO: How to Have a Relationship with Older Children (Alienated or Not)


, , , , , ,

Image     How old are your alienated children? Do you have adult children and are wondering how to have a relationship with them? As for myself, by the age of 16, I was pretty much on my own and made up my own mind about who, what, when, where, etc. No one could tell me what to do.
    A little background: Essentially, I was completely alienated with no contact with my dad from the age of 7 thru the age of 18 when I reunited with him. I was 18 and independent. I was in the process of moving out and finding a place on my own to live. I had a steady boyfriend (which was an interesting five years of an abusive relationship), and when I reunited with my dad he still saw me as a little girl; seven years old. Frankly, I didn’t have time for that. I did enjoy watching childhood home movies and revisiting some fond childhood places and memories with him in the beginning, but at this point I was an adult and I was living in the present, while my dad was still attempting to come to terms with the past and the amount of time that lapsed in our relationship.
   At the age of 18, I was partying, getting into trouble, being rowdy and disrespectful, and so full of myself with my new-found “confidence” that came with meeting the high school crowd of really cool people (degenerates, drop outs, thugs, addicts, etc.). My dad wanted to make up for the years that he lost, but I had nothing to give and yet I took freely and without much of a thanks. I didn’t think about it much at that time as I was self-absorbed and still very mentally immature, not realizing the “issues” I had until a few years later.
    So, from the years 18, 19, 20, and a few months into my 21st year, I was really involved with having fun, enjoying life, and being with my boyfriend and friends that I really did not have much time for my father. I would see him maybe once a month, but it was as if I had to pretend to be someone I was not; a good girl who made my dad proud. It’s awful to say, but I couldn’t be myself as I feared I would disappoint my dad’s image of me that he held onto since he last saw me at the age of 7.
    At the age of 21 I met my future husband and I was going to college, and I had stabilized my life and settled into some more conservative ways of living. At the age of 24 I had my first child; three months after my son was born my dad passed away. We had 6 awkward years together after our reunification, and because of my age and his old age we really couldn’t make the best out of those years, but it was all I could give and it is what it is.
    My dad was a very passive and gentle soul. He gave freely and really didn’t expect much in return (even if he did, he never made it known). He never uttered a negative word to me and always lifted my spirits up (especially during my year-long bout with depression from age 18-19). If my dad would have pushed more (for a better relationship, to use authority over me, etc.) I simply would have pushed back. I see many alienated parents almost strong-arming their way into their children’s lives; either by publishing really private matters all over the Internet as a way to prove their love, or by dragging the issue in court for years, or begging, pleading, crying, yelling, etc. Personally, that would not have helped me at all. I was rebellious (and still am), and I would rebel even further if someone attempted to tell me what to do. I think some of that is in my genes (I was born stubborn), and some of it is due to having to essentially raise myself (my mom did what little she could but I basically did a lot on my own for my own self-care) and no one was going to tell me what I should do or what I should think or how to live my life.
    At the age of 24, when my first son was born, I was finally settled down into a family setting that allowed me to look back on my life and sort out right from wrong and give back. However, I never had the chance to do this with my dad.
   In the end, I think your job as targeted fathers and mothers is to love your children unconditionally and be there for them as they need you. You may not be able to spend the time with them that you thought you might, but as long as you are a positive presence in their life and support them as any father or mother would support their grown children, you’ll hopefully find that it is much easier to live your own life.  Just love them, support them, and remind them that you are there for them when they need you. Take them out to lunch or dinner every now and then and treat them as adult children.
    That’s all you can do, and that’s all you can ask for.
    God bless you and your family.

Divorce Corp: What The Heck?


, , , , , , ,


I was for it before I was against it, or maybe I’m against before I’m for it….. Meh.

I was very interested and excited about the upcoming documentary, Divorce Corp, but after deeper investigation I am not all that sure I can support their agenda, simply because they don’t appear to value stay-at-home-mothers, stay-at-home-fathers, or caregivers. That’s a huge issue for me. With supporters such as Gloria Allred and Dr. Drew, it’s difficult to believe that they would support devaluing the work that caregivers and stay-at-home-parents provide. Following is a short correspondence I had with them today:

Divorce Corp:

“We are saying take the money out of custody battles and let the parents coming up with a sharing arrangement that is (not financially motivated) that really is best of the children. When money is out of the equation, parents act more rationally towards their children’s interests. If there is an accusation of abuse or neglect, it should be tried in criminal court. But absent such accusations, if the parents cannot agree on a custody schedule, then it should be 50:50. Thanks. 

We believe that for all marriages going forward (not people already married) alimony should be governed by a support agreement between the couple. In other words, discuss it before getting married, or even during marriage, and work out the roles. But if one party or the other does not agree to a dependent / provider relationship and refuses to put it in writing (again for all marriages going forward, not retroactive) then no alimony. As for child support, we believe there should be a minimal amount for the basic needs of the children, not a windfall for the non-custodial parent. Again, if the couple wishes to supplement that in a dependent support agreement, fine. But the government-specified amount should be the minimum for necessities and should not change with parental income or with % time awarded. This will stop 99% of the fighting. Thanks.”

My Response:  That is very disappointing to hear. My reason is this, because you yourself include in the trailers that pre-nups don’t work. Essentially, what you are saying is that the couple should decide alimony before getting married, but yet your documentary states that “even the best contracts can’t stand up against the court system”. In essence, you are also against family values since you believe both couples should remain in the paid workforce, while the babies spend their days in the hands of strangers. I’m not saying anything is wrong with this, however, for some families this is not an option. You are completely against a stay-at-home-parent caring for the needs of the family. I support alimony reform, but you go far and beyond (alimony reform) with your staunch views. Hmmmm. Something to consider.  I also cannot deny that it hits home for me, as a SAHM, who is a strong advocate for mothers and caregivers rights. The work we do has value, and you want to devalue it. I have a problem with that.

So long, 2013! Welcome, 2014!


, , , , , ,


2013 was a year of growth as well as a year of great loss. Although my loss was great, my personal growth was even greater. I’m sad to see 2013 go because it means a distance is growing between now and the time my mother was last here on Earth in April. That’s difficult for me, however, I remained strong as she was dying. Although, when my step-mom, Valerie was dying in the hospital in September and her exploiter, Herbert Williams, stood next to her bed with a smirk I had no more strength to give. The evil that stood at my side didn’t break me, but it sure slowed me down. Then in October, when my favorite aunt died (the last of my father’s siblings from my childhood), I simply shrugged and shed a single tear, as I had no more tears left to weep.

Nonetheless, I look back on 2013 and embrace every moment of it and am thankful for the ability to experience and embrace the sadness, which is an essential component to the great strides I’ve made in my personal growth. 2014 is going to be absolutely amazing. So, live life, love God, love your family, and be grateful at every turn. Considering these losses, I couldn’t have asked for a better year, because it’s all a part of life, and God asks each one of us to embrace this life He has given.

I love my amazing husband who sacrificed so much this year for our family. My husband is a man of good character and I am proud to be his wife. My children, who are astonishingly naive and innocent fill my life with so much joy I can’t even put it in words. My in-laws, who are ever present to care for my family have taught me the importance of being interdependent. My dear sisters, who I learned from and leaned on throughout this year deserve great praise. My nephews and nieces and cousins have all gained a new importance in my life. My friends, both young and old I love you and thank you for being there for me. May God bless you all greatly in 2014. Let’s all make plans to be with each other more often. Love more often. Live more often. Be present and embrace life more often.

Here’s to a very Happy New Year!

Love & Hip Hop, Peter Gunz, Men & The Coolige Effect


, , , , , , , , , ,

Wait for it…  I have a lot to say about this topic, but first I have to go pick up my kids from school, take them to the dentist, then to Cub Scouts, and then to our local sports shop to buy 2 new basketballs (please don’t support Walmart, thanks).  But seriously, when I get a moment this is a very passionate subject for me because back in 1998 I was so in love with Peter Gunz and everything he represented, which was in general, scumbaggery; That was the type of guy I was into. However, in 2000 I decided to make a huge change in my life for the better.  Now I am a mini-van driving soccer (er, basketball) mom of suburbia who is an advocate for families, marriage, love and positive psychology and I love my husband, my children, and my life. Get ready because these thoughts have been simmering for years about love, marriage, men, jerk, good guys, crazy women, scumbaggery, and the war that is brewing among humanity. Yes, I’m going to tie this together somehow…just you wait.  Grrrrr.   😉

Not my usual topic but I’m going to take it on…