Common law and children questions??

[candygirl]

Can anybody enlighten me about children's rights and common law?.
When does a child have a voice if they wish to be a freeman-on-the-land ?.
I have found out in a common law union the children can ask the non resident parent for child support payments. (We are just not told this by the lawyers).

My two wish to know the answers to this question and wish to know their rights as human beings.
I am the responsiable adult careing for my children of course but they want to know do they have the same voice as an adult say for example being questioned by a peace officer as they are home educated.
In common law is there an age of majority or is that just under commercial law as we are all considered wards of the state?

I thank you for any replies to my questions.

CG

[rob menard]

At 13 generally they were started to be granted responsibilities and what not. By 16 they were considered fully responsible for their actions and free to make decisions. They could be kicked out of the house and not have the right to demand anything. Smart ones were halfway through an apprenticeship by 16 usually.

Rob

[candygirl]

At 13 generally they were started to be granted responsibilities and what not. By 16 they were considered fully responsible for their actions and free to make decisions. They could be kicked out of the house and not have the right to demand anything. Smart ones were halfway through an apprenticeship by 16 usually.

Rob thank you for reply. am i their voice in the mean time? they do want the the right to say "yes" or "No" they are not 13 as of yet but feel it grossley unfair they are dictated to about when and if they have to see their father for example.(who i might add is not the best person).

They also feel it is unjust that they were signed up for the nanny state and did not have a choice. I have apologised to them that i registered their births and have said "Well we could un-register can't we". I replied "Now i know better and know the truth i am sure you can". They also want to know when they can access their "Birth Bond" or Live Trustand what age? I have said that perhaps i acsess it for them until age of majority?. as the system owns them under statute law they do not want this either and have said if they can acsess birth bond state would not have to own them.
I
am writing this now for them as their voice and educator. I
t's also intrestresting that they have the same questions i had when i was their age.
I was just told "It's the law and it just is!". well that was never a good enough answer for me and my two would never just accept that load of rubbish.
Another question is when they have their claim of right? do i do this on their behalf?
Thank you

CG

[candygirl]

At 13 generally they were started to be granted responsibilities and what not. By 16 they were considered fully responsible for their actions and free to make decisions. They could be kicked out of the house and not have the right to demand anything. Smart ones were halfway through an apprenticeship by 16 usually.

Rob thank you for reply. am i their voice in the mean time? they do want the the right to say "yes" or "No" they are not 13 as of yet but feel it grossley unfair they are dictated to about when and if they have to see their father for example.(who i might add is not the best person).

They also feel it is unjust that they were signed up for the nanny state and did not have a choice. I have apologised to them that i registered their births and have said "Well we could un-register can't we". I replied "Now i know better and know the truth i am sure you can". They also want to know when they can access their "Birth Bond" or Live Trustand what age? I have said that perhaps i acsess it for them until age of majority?. as the system owns them under statute law they do not want this either and have said if they can acsess birth bond state would not have to own them.

I am writing this now for them as their voice and educator. I
t's also intrestresting that they have the same questions i had when i was their age.
I was just told "It's the law and it just is!". well that was never a good enough answer for me and my two would never just accept that load of rubbish.
Another question is when they have their claim of right? do i do this on their behalf?

This is not me shirking my responsabilities as their mother not at all and my two are not responsable enough yet for certain things of course they need me to guide and educate them and care for them. As their guide i will find out information for them as they ask as this is part of their education stuff we were and are not taught at school.

Thank you

CG

[candygirl]

sorry it posted my reply twice

[tien an]

Are you in Canada, candygirl?

I suppose since our laws are similar, the same may apply as here in the UK...

You can (legally), make a another human being at 16.

I've always found it interesting that the only contracts that a 16-17yr-old can be held to are those for a mortgage/rent agreement, and sundry utility bills. All other contracts with a person under the age of 18 are illegal.
This, of course, excludes all but significant purchases.

Her Majesty's Forces will accept you into their warm bosom at the tender age of 16, and will send you to a conflict area (but not a war zone), at the age of 17 1/2.
You have the privilege of dying (legally) for your country at the age of 18.

You now have to be 18 (and look 25, which you probably will), to legally purchase both alcohol and tobacco with which to calm your nerves.

But I'm being flippant...

What I'd like to suggest is that the age of 16 must be an important age in the scheme of things.

National Insurance numbers (NINO's) are issued at 16.

[candygirl]

I am in the UK btw.
I agree an all your points yes now my question is all that you have mentioned is leagally under commercial/maritime law now how do they compare to common law? do they?.
Or is this another case of playing around with words to suit the 'legal' system not lawful.
As far as i can remember Queen Victoria pushed through legal laws to protect children (quite rightly so) now the system has gone too far in protecting the child as child is now the property of the state. (leagally not lawfully).
Do we have to go back through time and see where children stood in their rights as human beings before all this strawman started? children were convicted in courts of law and sent on the death ships to oz weren't they? so by thinking about this i am wondering about the state of play?
Forced adoptions are now rife custody battles are lineing the legal system pockets making people poorer and them richer. Children are being medicated and vaccinated soon to be chipped i think the question about common law and children needs to be addressed, they are now offering to chip the baby in the womb!.

My children do ask a lot of questions as children do and they can see something wrong with the picture.
Any answers?
CG

[tracker]

Can anybody enlighten me about children's rights and common law?.
When does a child have a voice if they wish to be a freeman-on-the-land ?.
I have found out in a common law union the children can ask the non resident parent for child support payments. (We are just not told this by the lawyers).

My two wish to know the answers to this question and wish to know their rights as human beings.
I am the responsiable adult careing for my children of course but they want to know do they have the same voice as an adult say for example being questioned by a peace officer as they are home educated.
In common law is there an age of majority or is that just under commercial law as we are all considered wards of the state?

I thank you for any replies to my questions.

CG

young children do not have a voice , they dont have rights !

granted -------adults say that they do , but thats the adult speeking for them .

how many children can say ---------I dont want to be forced to go to school ?

I dont want your education proccess ?

I dont want your drugs dr ?

NONE !

children do not have personal rights ! they do not have their own voice --------because adults know better --------------------------apparently .:cool:

[malvern]

looked everywhere still not found ref common law ......still looking but just thourght i would share :)

http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30196.html

Human rights are standards that recognize and protect the dignity of all human beings. Human rights govern how individual human beings live in society and with each other, as well as their relationship with governments and the obligations that governments have towards them.

Human rights law obliges governments to do some things, and prevents them from doing others. Individuals also have responsibilities: in using their human rights, they must respect the rights of others. No government, group or individual person has the right to do anything that violates another’s rights.

Inherent, inalienable and universal

Human rights are inherent; we are simply born with them and they belong to each of us as a result of our common humanity. Human rights are not owned by select people or given as a gift. They are inalienable; individuals cannot give them up and they cannot be taken away — even if governments do not recognize or protect them. They are universal; they are held by all people, everywhere – regardless of age, sex, race, religion, nationality, income level or any other status or condition in life. Human rights belong to each and every one of us equally.





regardless of age, sex, race, religion, nationality, income level or any other status or condition in life. Human rights belong to each and every one of us equally. . . .



also found this ref uk

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/uk.php

Within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England and Wales is the component nation in which largely English law prevails. This report does not address children’s rights in Scotland or Northern Ireland, although a number of the provisions discussed in the paper may also apply to them. The common law in England and Wales provides that the responsibility for the care and protection of children is with their parents “as guardians by the law of nature, and on the Crown as parens patriae,”[1] with the powers of a child’s parents somewhat limited in certain areas by law. There are a number of substantive pieces of legislation affecting children and their rights in a number of different areas. The most substantive piece affecting children and their basic rights to a secure and safe environment is the Children Act 1989. This Act introduces the term ‘parental responsibility’ rather than the common law concept of custody. Parental responsibility is defined as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent has in relation to the child and his property.”[2]

The age of majority for children in England and Wales varies; there are many age related rules that distinguish between children of different ages for different purposes. The age of majority typically ranges from between sixteen years of age (in which school no longer becomes mandatory) to eighteen years of age (for voting rights and the consumption of alcohol).

Children’s rights are provided by a large number of laws – some that specifically were enacted to protect children, and others that contain just a few sections that pertain to children but provide them with essential rights. There are numerous pieces of legislation that provide children with rights in the areas of education, medicine, employment and the justice system. Given the volume and complexity of these laws, this report provides a necessarily broad overview of the substantive pieces of legislation as they affect children’s rights in these areas.



that last link is worth a look if you are a mum or dad in the UK.




as i feel that we are all born free and eaqual is this a trick question





freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[tracker]

children do not have any rights OF THEIR OWN ,

if a child said
"right mum and dad , I no longer want to go to school for the crap education you all make me go through , i want to be a dancer , so tomorrow I am not going to school anymore , Im going to be a profesional dancer .

will any adult respect that ?
will any adult listen to them ?
will any adult make sure that their wishes are met ?

NO ! no they wont !

what will happen is that other adults will MAKE them go to school .

whilst on the other hand , an adult can refuse to be in a dead end job and go for dancing lessons to make a career .

same with drs drugs etc etc .

children are not born with rights , no one is !

we are born as slaves
we made to accept some one elses mind ( what they call education )
we are made to conform within other peoples system from birth .


children dont have rights !
adults defend hyperhtetical rights of children ---yes !

children do not have their own leagal voice .
adults speek for them !

children are not even leagally allowed their own mind --------which is why adults MAKE them , go through --------some other adults idea of eduacting knowledge - ( education ) to which actually does not educate ,

it dictates - incriminates ------and exterminates --- all free will and chioces of every child born in that system .

children do not have THEIR OWN rights , they only have adults that defends their rights for them .
children do not have a leagal voice of their own , which is why adults do their thinking and talking for them .

they dont have PERSONALL rights .

I would love to see a law that states ---
a child has their own rights to their own education chioces etc etc .

why ?

because it will never happen --------you wont find it . it doesnt exist because


they have no personal voice and do not have their own leagal rights of their own upon them self .

adults make them do ----what adults want them to do --------and it doesnt get simpler than that .

[malvern]

There is a differance for loving and caring for children and not allowing children rights, so if my child says NO, it's not ok to kick the shit out of him as his father and an adult.....maybe the way we treat our children might bring issue of direct conflict with them ..... they trust us in doing the right things for them .......do we or do we do what others say are the right things .Do we talk enough to them so that we can understand thier views and put across are own.




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[tracker]

There is a differance for loving and caring for children and not allowing children rights, so if my child says NO, it's not ok to kick the shit out of him as his father and an adult.....maybe the way we treat our children might bring issue of direct conflict with them ..... they trust us in doing the right things for them .......do we or do we do what others say are the right things .Do we talk enough to them so that we can understand thier views and put across are own.




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers


this is not dabating weather they have rights .

leagally -------adults do their thinking , adults deside when and what they do and there for the actions of adults not allowing them to have their own chioces dictates the fact that children have no rights .

this is not about if or when an adult hurts a child , its about rights .

making a child go through over 12 years of systematic mind control that some call education ---------to which hardly any of it is used when they leave , is not a childs wish --------it is the wishes on the adults that they go there and do it .




children have no rights !

if your child said ---------well i dont want religiouse education at school , and i dont want false history placed in my mind , i dont want to colour in pictures ---------i want to learn machanics .

will any adult see the light that learning machanics will teach them maths and english at the same time as well as giving them basic scientific princicples and actually help them to go to these classes instead ?

NO ! no they wont ! they wont because no child has --------a CHOICE !
they have no chioce , becausr they dont have THE RIGHT to that chioce .

they dont have rights !




that children do not have personal rights to freedom or anything else !:cool:

[candygirl]

young children do not have a voice , they dont have rights !

granted -------adults say that they do , but thats the adult speeking for them .

how many children can say ---------I dont want to be forced to go to school ?

I dont want your education proccess ?

I dont want your drugs dr ?

NONE !

children do not have personal rights ! they do not have their own voice --------because adults know better --------------------------apparently .:cool:
I totally agree with you on these points you have made and this is eactly my children's argument. They say there must be another way.
cg

[candygirl]

looked everywhere still not found ref common law ......still looking but just thourght i would share :)

http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30196.html





regardless of age, sex, race, religion, nationality, income level or any other status or condition in life. Human rights belong to each and every one of us equally. . . .



also found this ref uk

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/child-rights/uk.php




that last link is worth a look if you are a mum or dad in the UK.




as i feel that we are all born free and eaqual is this a trick question





freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers I also feel that we are all born free and equal as do my two we just wanted to know how much the rights of children have been swallowed up by the nanny state and therfore the rights of parents within common law.
As it is unlawful to cause harm to another well surely that covers the protection of the child and prevents a child to be harmed in any way.
I just wanted clarity with all this mine field out there.
cg

[malvern]

i am a dad, so i live these points you both make myself so i do know where you both are coming from and this does open a whole can of worms ..

like ..
At what age can a child be charge for say murder and put through the court system?
some where in my mind i think it's ten...but do not take it as fact ( i am getting on..)

so would this be the legal age the system see as fit.



i will carry on digging....



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[malvern]

I just wanted clarity with all this mine field out there.

this is the only part of the minefield you talk about....just with my question









Juvenile Justice

A number of Acts, dating back to 1933, provide for the system of juvenile justice in England and Wales and attempt to ensure that a fair trial and fair treatment is given to children accused of crimes. The minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is currently ten years old.[94] Those below this age are considered doli incapax and thus incapable of forming criminal intent.[95]

Children arrested for crimes in England and Wales and held in custody must be separated from the adult population of the jail. Their guardians must be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and informed of the charges brought against the child and the child’s place of detention.[96] During any court proceedings involving the child under the age of sixteen the law requires the attendance of the child’s guardian during all proceedings, unless this is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.[97] The general principle for children charged with crimes is that they should not be held in police custody but instead taken care of by social services in Local Authority accommodations. The principle is considered to be of such importance that police custody officers have a statutory duty to release juveniles to local authority accommodations unless they can certify that specific circumstances make it impracticable for this to occur, or for children aged twelve or over no secure accommodation is available, and no other local authority accommodation is adequate to protect the public from the serious harm posed by the child.[98]

The principal aim of the juvenile justice system is to “prevent offending by children and young people.”[99] To achieve this aim, the juvenile justice system in England and Wales progresses through a series of steps.[100] The first two, which apply only to less serious crimes, aim at preventing the child from entering the juvenile justice system through a series of behavioral contracts and other methods designed to correct the child’s behavior to prevent him or her from re-offending or committing a serious offense.[101] For example, a system of cautioning has been developed for young offenders through reprimands and warnings that are given to those who admit guilt to the police for their crimes and for whom there is sufficient evidence that any prosecution for the offence would be successful.[102] Upon receiving the reprimand or warning the young offender is then referred to the Youth Justice Board who arranges for the youth’s participation in a rehabilitation programme.

For children to whom these preventive methods do not apply, for example, due to the seriousness of the offense, or who have exhausted them, the juvenile justice system then operates in the form of a Youth Court, which hears cases of ten to eighteen year olds.[103] This youth court was established to prevent children and young people from entering into contact or associating with adult suspects during any phase of a trial.[104] The public are excluded from these courts; further, reporting restrictions may be placed on what the media may publish from these proceedings. There are also laws that protect the anonymity of children appearing before the court.[105] The Youth Court is a specialized magistrates’ court that is comprised of justices of the peace, with three normally present for each case.[106] The court has a range of different sentences for young offenders;[107] for example, supervision orders[108] that can have a variety of conditions attached to them or an Action Plan Order, an intensive, three month long community-based programme.[109] More serious custodial methods of punishment are detention and training orders.[110] These orders are normally given to children representing a “high level of risk [to the public], have a significant offending history or are persistent offenders and where no other sentence will manage their risks effectively.”[111] They apply for a minimum period of four months to a maximum period of two years, with half of the sentence being served in custody and the remainder in the community supervised by a “youth offending” team.[112] Only those offenders over the age of fifteen may be sentenced to detention in a young offenders’ institution, although this latter restriction does not apply to children aged ten and over convicted of murder.[113]

For very serious offenses, children are prosecuted in the Crown Court. A practice direction issued by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales in respect to Crown Court prosecutions of children requires that the “trial process should not itself expose the young defendant to avoidable intimidation, humiliation or distress. All possible steps should be taken to assist the young defendant to understand and participate in the proceedings. The ordinary trial process should so far as necessary be adapted to meet those ends.”[114] The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 requires that the welfare of the defendant should be regarded during any criminal proceedings,[115] and the practice direction requires that breaks be frequently taken, that the formal court attire of robes and wigs not be worn, and that there be no recognizable police presence in court without good cause.[116] The Crown Court is the only court that is permitted to follow these rules for sentencing children between ten and eighteen years old that have committed an offense that is punishable by fourteen or more years’ imprisonment for adult offenders, children that have committed murder, or certain sexual offenses, may be sentenced for up to the adult maximum for the same offense.[117] The young offenders are not placed in prisons alongside adults, but can be placed in secure training centers, secure children’s homes, or young offenders’ institutions.[118]





Overall, the legal regime applying to children’s rights in England and Wales is voluminous and complex, with a large number of Acts providing varying rights for children. As an industrialized Western nation, children do have relatively extensive rights regarding both their protection in areas such as the criminal justice system and their entitlement regarding heath and education








freedom is the grandchildren this caretaker got some reading to do.

[tien an]

I am in the UK btw.
I agree an all your points yes now my question is all that you have mentioned is leagally under commercial/maritime law now how do they compare to common law? do they?.
Or is this another case of playing around with words to suit the 'legal' system not lawful.
As far as i can remember Queen Victoria pushed through legal laws to protect children (quite rightly so) now the system has gone too far in protecting the child as child is now the property of the state. (leagally not lawfully).
Do we have to go back through time and see where children stood in their rights as human beings before all this strawman started? children were convicted in courts of law and sent on the death ships to oz weren't they? so by thinking about this i am wondering about the state of play?
Forced adoptions are now rife custody battles are lineing the legal system pockets making people poorer and them richer. Children are being medicated and vaccinated soon to be chipped i think the question about common law and children needs to be addressed, they are now offering to chip the baby in the womb!.

My children do ask a lot of questions as children do and they can see something wrong with the picture.
Any answers?
CG

Ah; I wish I could really help you...I'm afraid I'm just describing the different (tangled) threads that I have in my hands...where they lead, I don't know yet.

I hope my daughter grows up to be as inquisitive as your kids.

All the best,
tien an.

[the worm that turned]

National Insurance numbers (NINO's) are issued at 16.

It is OFFERED to the child at 16. BIG difference.

You can always send it back and say thanks, but no thanks!

[candygirl]

Thank you for all your replies yes it is a can of worms.
If a child is held crimmanally responsable age 10 then surely it's the case they have almost most legal rights to a point then?. that's the way i see it any ideas?
I suppose before the strawman came into being children had very little protection from abuse and lack of care from society.
So under common Law we are all born equal and cannot cause harm to others lawfully the child cannot be owned by anybody i.e Goverment. as adults cannot be owned by the state either when we become soverigns.
So (please correct me if i am on the wrong path) a child has rights to apply common law if harmed in any way. They do have a voice under Common law??? They have as much rights as an adult. They could serve Notice if capable perhaps?
I am not suggesting children should do as they please not at all and perhaps the Ten conmandments should be reffered to as common law is based on the Ten commandments? i.e Honour thy mother and thy Father?.
I feel this issue regarding children could be delved into deeper as the children are our future and are being subjected to the unfair commercial/maritime system/strawman. They are taken into the care system and given medication like lab rats soon they will be chipped which in my view is horrorific. The final straw for me is the chipping of babies in the womb. How far are 'they' prepared to go to totally control the human race and destroy? I suppose get the humans before their born before the childs parent even realises the baby they have created is actually owned by the bank cartel.
Yes children need protecting and love they do not need to be owned by crooks and swindlers who do not cherish human life. At least common law is the common sense approach for our children.
Thank you
CG

[wildhorse]

candygirl...I hear ya...

its boggling and believe me, I lost my baby to these bastard goverment moguls Known as the SS. I was frog marched to the registry office while they held my newborn captive in care, they vaccinated her against my consent...of course the false reports say otherwise

the whole system is evil, destructive, slavish and i only wish i knew this freeman / common law stuff back then. It is funny, I would say even then "I answer to God and His laws, not yours"

Your children are bright and wonderful and are asking the right questions. THEY do have rights, it saddens me to think they have not. I was described as a free spirit by an RE teacher at 14, and he was right. I knew my heart and my directions and my goals and yet the 'law' said I was a minor. I never forget the feelings of frustration from my teenage years.

I hope your kids demand their rights back. How many times are we force fed that children and babies have rights when cases like baby P and Shannon Matthews are allowed to slip through the net? Suddenly, when it fits THEIR agenda, kids have rights. Work with this...take 'em up on it....

I am babbling but an earlier post highlighted unicefs human rights 'bill'.

We need mothers like you and kids like yours in this world, now and always...

[candygirl]

Hi wildhorse,
My kids are most certainly demanding their rights back.
Who am i to stop them? sorry to hear about what the s.s did to you shocking.
We do need to start to educate the children from an early age before the slavish system gets their teeth and claws into them. Maybe the new mums need educating or even when the mums go to antenatal classes!. Like a hospital would allow that!.
We all have to start somewhere i suppose.
best wishes
CG

[tracker]

I totally agree with you on these points you have made and this is eactly my children's argument. They say there must be another way.
cg

we can only hope that every adult will respect the fact that the only time a child has rights is when the all and powerfull foolish adults allow them to have some .

children only have rights when adults grant them or defend for them , otherwise children are totally helpless with out other adults defending for them .

unfortuantely it is true .

A book I am writing states this fact .
Its all about waking up to the nightmare of true reality .


:cool:

[malvern]

children do have rights .....

maybe they do not understand them totally and need some guildance....as for

A book I am writing states this fact


a book you are writting , truths and facts from your pen, form your standing .. for you to keep stating children have no rights reflex on the care and understanding that the child is given ...... so for children not to have rights we most be the ones to remove them and enforce that removement .....love does not hold barriers of rights for love is all giving and some action maybe the child will not understand fully but if we do things with thier saftey and care in mind, not your own or others we are caring for thier rights .



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[tien an]

It is OFFERED to the child at 16. BIG difference.

You can always send it back and say thanks, but no thanks!

*stands corrected.

(bloody words!)

tien an.

[the worm that turned]

*stands corrected.

(bloody words!)

tien an.

Re-reading that post it sounds very condescending from me and I can promise it wasn't meant to be! :)

[tracker]

edited .

reason

trackers fantastic fkups as usuall .

[malvern]

i do undertsand the point you too wish to make ....

As you seem to undretsand that we have a duty to the child our action have created and that i agree that this world and it's fucked up system of greed do not allow them the honour and respect to carry out these duties of that child's right to love, shelter, food and care .... some of us are lucky and we can have achance with our children ... but if we say that children have no rights we give up any chance they have and then we have ...it's the understanding of these rights which are so important . The system offers out benifets in this country to hook families in to thier traps ..as we are aware in some parts of the world they will bomb them to do what they want ...

BUT MINE DO -------------- AND I GIVE THEM ALL I CAN !


this was not an attack on you or your methods , but my defence of my sons rights and all other children of the world as a caretaker, and as your quote say "CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS............WE ALL DO !" and in our actions we keep them alife ..

Freedom is THE GRANDCHILDREN we are the Caretakers

[tracker]

i do undertsand the point you too wish to make ....

As you seem to undretsand that we have a duty to the child our action have created and that i agree that this world and it's fucked up system of greed do not allow them the honour and respect to carry out these duties of that child's right to love, shelter, food and care .... some of us are lucky and we can have achance with our children ... but if we say that children have no rights we give up any chance they have and then we have ...it's the understanding of these rights which are so important . The system offers out benifets in this country to hook families in to thier traps ..as we are aware in some parts of the world they will bomb them to do what they want ...



this was not an attack on you or your methods , but my defence of my sons rights and all other children of the world as a caretaker, and as your quote say "CHILDREN HAVE RIGHTS............WE ALL DO !" and in our actions lets keep them alife ..

Freedom is THE GRANDCHILDREN we are the Caretakers

i apologise with all my heart and will edit now !

yes -- for some reason i took it wrong .

the tracker mucksup big time again .

welcome ---meet tracker -- the forum womble .:rolleyes:

[malvern]

there was no need..... in sharing our feelings and views we can look at things in many ways and learn .
i found your post great for they brought out the love in me for my family and made me think ...and i thank you for that .

peace

mark

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers