Archive | Daddies RSS feed for this section

Men’s Activists Say Divorce Courts Are Biased Against Fathers. They’re wrong? No, Hanna Rosin. They’re right. Let’s do the math.

14 May

 

barbie-math1

 

Here’s another laughable piece from Hanna Rosin – surely you remember her – the lady sitting in her comfortable home designed, built, sourced, maintained, heated and powered by men – wondering if men have become obsolete.

 

I don’t know why I even bother with this delusional witch, but let’s look at her new article about how father’s totally don’t get fucked in family courts even though mothers get equal or superior custody arrangements 91.1% of the time.  When you’re looking at percentages in the 90 range, you know you’re dealing with equality.  #feministequality.  Lean In, ladies!  How is it that you are allowing those sneaky bastard men to prevent you from getting equal or better custody arrangements 100% of the time?

 

Last week the actor Jason Patric went to court to “fight ’til I’m dead,” as he put it, to see his 4-year-old son. Patric and his girlfriend conceived the child through in vitro fertilization, and a judge earlier denied Patric any paternal rights. Since then, Patric has become a hero to frustrated fathers everywhere who are alienated from their ex-wives and girlfriends. Patric is part of a movement of vigilante fathers who challenge the assumption that mothers should have any more rights than they do. Skier Bode Miller famously challenged a girlfriend’s right to move to New York after she got pregnant with his child, and earlier this year a group of Utah fathers sued the state over a law allowing mothers to give up their babies for adoption without their consent. The courts, argued one of the Utah plaintiffs, treat men “like they’re scum—like they don’t have rights at all as far as having a relationship with their children.”

 

A few comments here.  First of all, vigilante means a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

 

Fighting for parental rights through the court system is the exact opposite of vigilante.

 

Secondly, the fact that Patric didn’t literally fuck his son’s mother, and used IVF instead has little bearing beyond legal loopholing in this particular case.  Patric is not only the child’s biological father, he was present in his son’s life from birth up until the courts decided that his failure to actually put his penis in his child’s mother and ejaculate to cause her pregnancy invalidates his right to be his child’s father. Patric presented plenty of evidence to demonstrate his involvement in his little boy’s life.  His son calls him “Dada”. Case fucking closed, in my opinion.

 

It used to be that women had to worry about men disappearing after they got pregnant or divorced. Now, some women have the opposite problem.

 

 

The opposite problem?  Problem?  Fathers wanting to be in their children’s lives in a meaningful way is a fucking problem?  So basically,  Hanna, children are the personal property of women and any attempt by fathers to define their own relationships is a problem needing to be addressed?

 

A growing fathers’ rights movement is aggressively challenging what it sees as the courts’ assumption that the mother is the only real parent.  Men’s rights activists air their grievances about unfair child custody laws on sites such as A Voice for Men and on subreddits like Men’s Rights and The Red Pill. Last year, Ken Cuccinelli was tied to a men’s rights group advocating for divorced fathers. “Men are angry at losing their kids in the divorce court and taking their dream of raising them and reducing it to a child support payment and every other weekend,” writes one men’s rights blogger quoted in Michael Kimmel’s 2013 book Angry White Men. And that view is shared by the broader public. One recent study showed that people are generally in favor of joint custody, but they believe that divorce courts are seriously slanted toward mothers.

 

….aggressively

….grievances

….unfair

….angry

….white

….men

No axe to grind here, Hanna, right?  You’re just being objective and looking at the facts?  No engagement of any caricatures or stereotypes at all.  Nothing to see here, move along.

 

It’s so cute how hoi polloi think they understand the world they live in.  Darling little plebes who actually believe they are capable of parsing and comprehending the reality around them.  Oh broader public, you’re so adorable. Shush now and let the smart ladies tell you how things really are.

 

But is this actually true? “There’s a real perception—even women share it—that courts are unfair to fathers,” says Ira Ellman, a custody expert at Arizona State University. But in fact the great revolution in family court over the past 40 years or so has been the movement away from the presumption that mothers should be the main, or even sole, caretakers for their children. Individual cases like Patric’s may raise novel legal issues, but on the whole, courts are fair to men, particularly men who can afford a decent lawyer.

 

Hold up, now.  Men who can afford a decent lawyer is not most men.  And the very fact that a good lawyer is needed strongly implies the laws are anything but fair.  If they were fair, and applied with true equality and generosity, why would a fancy lawyer be needed?  And how is it that women can manage to face the courts over custody matters and not need a good lawyer?

 

Perhaps because the courts are biased in the women’s favor?  Just think for one goddamn second about what you are saying, Hanna.  Black defendants get treated very fairly by the courts if they can afford a good lawyer.  Therefore systemic discrimination against blacks in the courts doesn’t exist?

 

Cases like Patric’s and Miller’s, which involve fathers who never married the mothers, are relatively new to the courts, but divorce courts have a long history of trying to keep up with changing gender dynamics. In the 1970s, family courts began to move away from assuming a model of breadwinner husband and dependent wife. Instead, courts assumed interdependence, meaning that husband and wife shared assets and domestic duties. Pretty rapidly, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone explain in their new book, Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family, the rules became more “gender neutral.” As the image of an abandoned, innocent wife faded, alimony declined. The maternal presumption that mothers should automatically get custody of children in the “tender years”—meaning younger than 7—also faded. And the vast majority of states moved toward an assumption of joint custody. In 2000, for example, a new law in Wisconsin directed courts to maximize the time children spent with both parents.

 

The “rules” may be more gender neutral, but nice dodge, Hanna.  We are not talking about the “rules”.  We are talking about how they are applied.  Rules mean jack shit if they are not actually being enforced.

 

Men’s rights activists complain that despite the legal changes, mother preference still lingers, and studies have shown that through the 1980s sole mother custody still prevailed. But more recently judges have been catching up to the law.

….complain

 

Yeah, just shut up already all you fathers who actually love and want to be with your children.  Mommy has spoken. The children are hers.  Stop complaining.

 

According to one of the most thorough surveys of child custody outcomes, which looked at Wisconsin between 1996 and 2007, the percentage of divorce cases in which the mother got sole custody dropped from 60.4 to 45.7 percent while the percentage of equal shared custody cases, in just that decade, doubled from 15.8 to 30.5. And a recent survey by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers shows a rapid increase in mothers paying child support.

 

Oh dear, Barbie.  Here comes the math, from the actual study.

 

 

Sole custody goes to the mother 45.7% of the time

Primary custody goes to the mother 13.0% of the time

Shared custody is agreed to 32.4% of the time

45.7 + 13 = 58.7

58.7% of the time, mothers are awarded sole or primary custody

45.7 + 13 + 32.4 = 91.1

91.1% of the time, mothers are awarded equal or more custody

 

Sole custody goes to the father 7.0% of the time

Primary custody goes to the father 1.9% of the time

Shared custody is the same as women, obviously – 32.4% of the time

7 + 1.9 = 8.9

So fathers are the sole or primary custodians of their children in 8.9% of all cases, versus 58.7% of the time for women.

7 + 1.9 + 32.4 = 41.3

Fathers get equal or better custody 41.3% of the time, compared to 91.1% for mothers.

8.9% vs 58.7%

41.3% vs 91.1%

Not only are fathers nowhere close to equal treatment, they are not even halfway.

I’m beginning to think my joke about #feministequality isn’t a joke at all.

Berkeley law professor Mary Ann Mason tracked the changing priorities of divorce courts over three decades. The biggest recent change, she writes, is the courts’ preference for the “friendly parent,” meaning the one who can get along with the other parent. Mothers who get in the way of a father’s involvement can in fact be penalized by the courts. In their book, Cahn and Carbone tell the story of the Renauds, a divorcing Vermont couple whose case was resolved in 2004. Before the divorce, the couple shared child care. The mother took Fridays off to be with the children, and the father took them to and from day care and was an involved dad. The marriage ended when the father told the mother that he was having an affair with a colleague. In another era, the mother would have gotten sole custody of the children and alimony, but not much child support. Now, “the mother’s ability to retain custody depends on her willingness to support the father’s involvement,” Cahn and Carbone write. In this case, the mother accused the father of abuse and neglect. When the investigators could not confirm the charges, the court awarded the father 50 percent custody and made the mother’s custody contingent on her working to repair the relationship with the father.

That’s nice, Hanna.  You cherry picked a single court case in which the mother’s custody is contingent on her being a decent fucking human being to her children’s father. Go back to the very beginning and look at Jason Patric again.  His child’s mother, supported by courts that give not one single fuck about either the father or the child, is denying him any access to his son at all.  Do you have any idea how much that vindictive shrew is hurting her own child?  Where does he think Daddy went?  Is Daddy dead?  Why can’t I see my Daddy anymore.

The real inequality in family courts these days is not based on gender, but on income. Wealthy men have successfully fought against proposed reforms that would have forced them to pay more child support. With elite, college educated men, “it’s outrageous how little they can end up paying in child support in some cases,” says Ellman, the Arizona State professor. But poor men are in a different predicament. Welfare reform in the 1990s included an effort to track down fathers who weren’t paying child support. As the economy sank, those fathers fell behind on their payments and often wound up in jail or permanent debt, as Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute has documented.

How dare those wealthy men refuse to shell out to their gold-digging ex-wives?  The bastards!  Of course, if the wives were truly concerned about the welfare of their children, wanting to provide them with all the resources their wealthy father offers, they would have stayed married.

Poor men put in jail because they were dumb enough to become unemployed?  Yeah, let’s throw them in jail and make them beholden to the women who gave birth to their children for the rest of their natural lives.  Make sure those sorry bastards turn every penny over to the children mother.

Rock.  Hard place.  Pick one, please, but only if you’re male.

 

A father who never married the mother of his child has a much shakier legal status. Petitioning the courts for paternal rights as a father who had a child out of wedlock is complicated to do and much less likely to be successful. A legal system that has evolved to recognize equal, interdependent parents doesn’t really apply. As Cahn and Carbone have written, in this social class the women are generally better off and choose not to marry the fathers, precisely because they want to avoid future legal disputes over children. If that father is Jason Patric or Bode Miller, he can probably afford a lawyer and get sympathetic publicity. But if he’s not, the best a poor father can hope for if he wants to impact his child is to be a steady paycheck.

So, the moral of the whole story is that courts are totally fair to men as long as they are rich and married. Unmarried men have virtually no chance of obtaining custody of their own children and women would be wise to never get married because …duh…then no man will ever be ever take her personal property children.

…the best a poor father can hope for if he wants to impact his child is to be a steady paycheck.

 

This sentence is why the MHRM exists in the first place.

 

Keep talking, Hanna.  You make our work easier with every stupid word you write.

 

So thanks?

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

Dating single fathers? Just say YES! A note for all the single ladies.

4 Apr

singledad

 

My just say no to dating single mothers post remains one of the most popular on this blog, with over 50K views and 3K+ Facebook shares.  I probably trash about 75% of the comments that post generates, since they all tend to be along the lines of “oh my god you’re so judgy and such a bitch and even though other single mothers are total slags like you say, I’m not and you should just die already”.  Yeah, yeah.  Whatever.  It always amuses me when commenters get outraged at what a judgy bitch I am.  Uhm, you clicked on a website called JudgyBitch!  What the fuck were you expecting?

 

Another frequent comment I get is “oh yeah, well what about all the single dads?  What about them, huh?”, so let’s talk about them.

 

Single fathers have all the virtues single mothers do not, and they should definitely be on your radar screen if you are looking for some solid, husband material.  Let’s talk about why.

 

First and foremost, every single mother chooses parenthood, as she is legally entitled to do.  Facing a positive pregnancy test, she has the option of evicting Junior from her womb long before any need to buy itty bitty shoes arises.  And even after Junior arrives, she still has at least two options in front of her:  She can refuse to identify the father and place the child for adoption, or she can surrender the child under safe haven laws and walk away from all financial, social, legal and ethical responsibilities.

 

The argument that women should be able to choose parenthood because only women get pregnant is nullified by the fact that even after a baby is born,  a woman still gets to decide if she will assume responsibility for that child.  She does not need to have any reason whatsoever for refusing that responsibility.  If she doesn’t want the baby, she doesn’t have to keep it.

 

Men have no such rights.  Men cannot force women to have abortions, nor should they be able to.  They cannot surrender their paternal rights.  They cannot refuse to assume responsibility for the child. They will, in fact, be imprisoned, if they cannot pay the woman whatever sum the courts have determined is appropriate. and let’s not forget that for some women, tricking a man into a pregnancy is just “normal“.

 

Men are not allowed to choose parenthood.

 

It is therefore safe to assume that a single father had fatherhood thrust upon him.  Single mothers make a conscious, deliberate choice to make the one decision most likely to guarantee their children live in poverty with little chance of escaping.  Single fathers have not made that choice because they are not legally entitled to do so.

 

Single fathers are the exact opposite of single mothers:  they are the embodiment of responsibility.  A man raising his children alone has assumed full responsibility for someone else’s choice (the choice to have a baby), and even if the decision to have a child was nominally mutual, in actual fact, he had no say.  Mutual agreement to have a child is merely pleasant conversation to disguise the fact that men have no reproductive choices, other than complete celibacy or permanent sterilization, choices we would never accept as the only birth control options for women.  And rightly so.

 

Single fathers are also a good financial bet for potential relationships because even though they bear the brunt of the cost of raising their children, they are unlikely to be paying out alimony to the mother’s child, and obviously are not paying child support.  They are unlikely to be receiving child support, either, and it behooves any women considering a single father to consider the fact that women are far more likely to be delinquent in paying child support than men are.  Don’t count on the baby mama kicking in any cash.  It’s highly improbable. And don’t count on the courts sending the woman to jail for failure to pay.  Ha!  Yeah, right. Even without support from the other parent, single fathers still tend not to be poor because they have made entirely different life choices than single mothers.

 

Dating a single father is also an excellent test of a woman’s own personality.  Can you deal with the fact that a child will always supersede you in his father’s affections?  I think women who don’t have children are taken by surprise when confronted with this reality, because they don’t understand that children almost always take priority over adults and adults are expected to be mature, self-assured and accommodating of the needs of others.

 

Mature?

Self-assured?

Accommodating?

 

You can see why this is a problem for some women.  Check out these letter to Dear Prudence, in which delightful Princesses of The Special Snowflake begrudge their partner’s love for their children.  I’m so confused about that whole wicked stepmother trope!  It’s just patriarchy, right?

 

Dear Prudie,  I’ll be spending New Year with my boyfriend of two and a half years. While this would normally be lovely, I’m not looking forward to it. I feel bummed out by it. We’ll be at his parent’s, which is out in the sticks and he has visitation with his daughter for the holidays first time since she was a baby. I’m conflicted. On one hand this should be about the time he spends with his daughter and she with her grandparents. On the other hand I cannot stand the way he rewards/gives in to her tantrums and end up angry and isolating myself. I’m also 27 and feeling a little resentful that for the second year in a row my New Years, which should be fun and carefree, is dictated by his family plans. Even if I did ditch them, which is essentially what I’d be doing, that also feels terrible and it’s not like I have many other friends or options. I’m not sure what to do or how to manage conflicting feelings of guilt & resentment. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.  -Conflicted.

 

I’ve been married for a little over a year. I met my husband several years ago when we were neighbors; he was married at the time and had a young son. He moved away, got divorced, and I didn’t see him for several years. Then we reconnected, dated, and got married very quickly. His son is now 10 and I’m having a really hard time getting to like the boy. This might sound mean, but I can’t stand him sometimes. I know he’s a child, and that he gets his bad manners from his psycho mother, but everything about him just grosses me out: the way he eats; the way his mother dresses him (like a little rapper); that he’s too lazy to even clean his room. I try so hard to hide my feelings, but my husband senses it sometimes. I take his son to buy school clothes or toys, but he can’t behave and it’s driving me insane. I really don’t know what to do, especially now that we have him every weekend. I asked my husband if he can give me “me” time at least once a month, but his excuse is that he hates leaving his son with his ex-wife. I really can’t take sharing my husband with his son. What should I do?

 

Ugh.  Completely horrid women.

 

Single fathers are clearly capable of accepting responsibilities, even when they had no say in creating those responsibilities, and they will always have priorities over and above the women they partner with.  I can imagine the snarls and contemptuous huffing coming from those women who cannot abide, for one second, that a mere child will take precedence over her, and those are just the women you want to avoid like the plague.

 

If you are one of those women, then steer clear of the single dads.  They really don’t need another child. But if you are looking for a man willing to commit to something greater than the sum of individual parts, and that is what marriage is, then a single father might be just the man you’re looking for.

I’m reminded of a Rita Rudner joke that I always find quite amusing:

“I think men who have a pierced ear are better prepared for marriage. They’ve experienced pain and bought jewelry.”

We can spin it a bit and say:

“I think men who are sole parents are better prepared for marriage.  They’ve experienced powerlessness and accepted responsibility”.

 

Now the real question is why the hell would a single father ever want to complicate his life and open himself up to even more exploitation by taking on a wife? Or another wife?

 

What’s in it for him?

 

Until men have the legal right to choose parenthood, not much.  Just more responsibility. How fascinating that it’s mostly feminists who demand the right to choose parenthood for themselves, but refuse that right to men.

 

 

Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.

Sigmund Freud

 

Is that because responsibility is the natural consequence of freedom? As long as men are not free to do something as fundamental as choose parenthood, they can be forced into assuming responsibilities.  And let’s be clear, the responsibility single fathers have assumed is not for the children.

 

It’s for a woman’s choice.

 

If feminists really wanted to tackle women’s oppression, they would insist that men and women are equally free to accept or reject responsibility for their life choices. But that’s not what they want at all.  They want the right to shift the burden accountability of onto men (how oppressive!), many of whom accept that treatment willingly. Like single fathers.

 

Why do they accept the burden?

 

Because they have no choice.  And because they put the needs of their children first.

 

Exactly what single mothers refuse to do.

 

Single mothers?  Just say no.  Single fathers?  Hell, yeah!

 

Those are men worth working for.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

A Christmas Letter for Fathers Alienated from their Children

23 Dec

Kate Winslet

Kate Winslet has been in the news lately, threatening to sue Fathers4Justice over an ad campaign criticizing comments she made in the media indicating she does not believe in shared parenting.

None of this 50/50 time with the mums and dads – my children live with me; that is it.

The comments appeared in Vogue magazine, and Ms. Winslet does not deny that she uttered them.

Winslet, who has three children by three different fathers, may or may not be handling her family dynamics well, ensuring that her children continue to enjoy the undeniable benefits of a continued relationship with their fathers. That is a moot point. Winslet’s personal circumstances are irrelevant. What IS relevant is her assertion that shared parenting, this “50/50 time with mums and dads” – is negative and detrimental to children’s well-being.

“Oh, my God! Those poor children! They must have gone through so much”.

Says who? They’ve always been with me. They don’t go from pillar to post; they’re not flown here and there with nannies.

Winslet’s first husband, Jim Threapleton, agrees with Fathers4Justice, and said he went months without seeing their daughter, Mia, but even so, the point is not how Winslet is managing her own circumstances – the point is that as a public figure, she is explicitly encouraging custodial parents to reject shared parenting.

And for that, she deserves to be called out.

Winslet makes her living as a public figure. Her words were not taken from a private conversation she had with friends. She made her statement in Vogue magazine, which she clearly understands will be read by millions of magazine subscribers and buyers. Total average circulation for Vogue magazine is 1.2 million, which only includes direct purchases. The number of shared reads (you read my copy) increases the circulation number even further. Indeed, that is the point of appearing in Vogue: it keeps her in the public eye and bolsters her value as a performer and public figure, allowing her to charge high prices for her services.

No one cast Winslet as a vindictive, alienating shrew. She did it to herself, so crying foul now is a bit rich.

The simple fact is that divorce, and separation from children is a critical public health issue. Divorced men are 39% more likely to commit suicide when they are separated from their children. The complete article is behind a paywall, but here is the citation:

Daniel S. Felix, W. David Robinson, and Kimberly J. Jarzynka. The Influence of Divorce on Men’s Health Journal of Men’s Health. September 2013, 10(1): 3-7. doi:10.1016/j.jomh.2012.09.002.

It is unconscionable that Winslet would promote separation as being good for her children, or good for her ex-husbands. She deserves every ounce of opprobrium she has generated.

I am the adult survivor of parental alienation following divorce, and I would like to spend the rest of this article addressing fathers who find themselves in this terrible situation. You can read the story of how the alienation played out here.

Christmas was always the worst time of year. My father was rarely a full participant in the celebrations, but he would drop off gifts, or have them mailed to us, and then be on his way. We had no idea at the time that he was in violation of court orders when he showed up, and that my mother would only permit him to stay for a few minutes. He considered himself lucky to have even that.

We hated him for thinking that being a father meant spending some money and then taking off at the earliest opportunity. Whatever presents or gifts he brought, it was never enough. We showed no gratitude. The words “thank you” were never uttered. We glared at him sullenly and perhaps begrudgingly conceded that some presents were “okay”.

We were utterly miserable and angry and ungrateful and terrible to him.

We had no idea that everything my mother had told us was a lie. I feel so wretched now, as an adult, looking back at how my brothers and I behaved towards my father, who, bless his courage and strength, never lashed out at us, and never gave up. I have no idea where he found the heart, but he did.

My father was no angel. He embraced a particularly violent form of Christianity that encouraged, interesting, shall we say, disciplinary techniques. He believed in the value of physical labor, and took that to extremes, sometimes. He believed in the character building value of hardship. He was not always the best father.

From those flaws, my mother built a careful psychological cage around her children and taught us to hate him. Not just dislike, but to actively despise and hate him. And she succeeded. He faced that hatred and never wavered. It is often said that women grow up to marry men who remind them of their fathers, and I have often said in the past that I am so glad I married a man nothing like my father.

The poison runs deep, and bleeding it out takes a long time.

The truth is that I married a man who has all the strength and character and goodness of my father. His cheerfulness is exactly like my father’s unwillingness to ever abandon hope. They are both relentlessly optimistic that things will work out, eventually. I was blind to that for a very long time.

I cannot imagine the pain I have caused my father, and I take some responsibility for that. As I child, I was more or less helpless against the lies my mother told. I could not understand how I was being manipulated, and I therefore could not resist. As an adult, I have fewer excuses. My father was the one who reached out to me. I cannot say if the day would ever have come that I would have looked for him. The truth about my childhood came as a complete shock, and yet, once I knew, it was all so obvious.

This is the hardest part. All across the world, there are countless fathers, facing down a Christmas season with children who hate them. Who resent them. Who are ungrateful, unappreciative, sullen, unpleasant and just generally unlikeable.

Their minds have been poisoned. They have been subjected to a kind of psychological torture called “parental alienation”. It is an extreme form of child abuse and the goal is to deprive both the children and the alienated parent of love.

And it works.

Oh, how it works.

But not forever. Resisting parental alienation as it is happening is incredibly difficult. I wish I could offer some happy solution. Here are a few success stories to consider. And a few more.

It is bitterly unfair that both the alienated parent and the alienated children are condemned to missing one another’s lives while the children are young and being subjected to extreme brainwashing. And the devastating truth is that the effects can last long after childhood.

In most cases of parental alienation, it is fathers and children who are victims of vindictive mothers – women who are fully prepared to destroy their children psychologically for their own twisted desires.

I am by no means suggesting that alienated parents give up the fight to have their children rescued from the psychological abuse that is parental alienation. Absolutely not. This is an issue that must be understood as deeply harmful abuse with long lasting effects.

I’ve lived through both physical and psychological abuse – the psychological was far more difficult to overcome.

And that is the heart of my message. My father was not perfect. And neither was I. I held on to my irrational anger for a long time. Much longer than I should have. I know that. My unwillingness to confront the truth means I lost my father for ten years. Ten years I should have had, but didn’t, because I was not willing to see the truth.

And believe me, this is no attempt to garner sympathy – “oh, no, JB, you were just a child, it isn’t your fault”. That’s bullshit. It violates the central maxim of my life: you don’t get to choose your childhood, but you do get to choose how you respond to it.

I chose badly.

My children have an adoring grandfather, my husband has a father-in-law he loves, my neighbors have a man who can fix almost anything mechanical, my friends have a conduit into my past and the stories that made me who I am, my community has a watcher who keeps an eye on the pets and children – and I have my father back.

Not because of anything I did.

Because my father never gave up hope.

What is Christmas? It is tenderness for the past, courage for the present, hope for the future. It is a fervent wish that every cup may overflow with blessings rich and eternal, and that every path may lead to peace.

Agnes Pharo

To every Daddy without his babies this Christmas season: Our hearts are with you.

stock-footage-father-helping-son-decorate-christmas-tree

May that give you the strength to never lose hope.

Merry Christmas.

All the love,

JB

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,710 other followers

%d bloggers like this: