However, the facts seem to be in dispute, as this article says the mother has had sole custody since long before we all started talking about this. Just because my facts don't match yours doesn't mean I didn't check them, so kindly at least give me that much credit. All the same, sorry for the mix-up regardless of whose it is.
To me, it's all about the injury to the child. I feel that as far as the pledge goes there is none, whereas as far as this legal battle goes there is much more. I think he's hurting his child in the name of helping her. To me, whether his intentions are good or bad won't change the negative effect on the girl that this will have.
The phrase should go. Should never have been there to begin with. I just feel this is a lousy way to go about it. |
