Ep. 3.19: Beautiful Little Fool

[Disasterfreak]

Actually I was about to argue the same thing V said (sucking up here, V ;D)... only she did it with much more back up than I could have. Neglect, at least around here, is both legally and socially considered a form of child abuse and a reason to make the child a ward of the state.

[boxman]

Hi, V! Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed reply. Are you ready for mine?? I think it was a great idea for you to have brought up the legal definition for child abuse, because it greatly helps to make this highly emotional discussion rational and quantitative.

After reading your post, I'm not convinced that Lilly's situation meets the legal definition of child abuse as defined by the State of Pennsylvania. Although you have pointed out the necessity of a person to have "failure to act", this condition also has two stipulations attached to it. One stipulation is that the failure to act has to lead to "nonaccidental serious [physical or mental] injury". The other stipulation is that the failure to act must be committed "by (the) perpetrator" that causes the injury to the child.

Yes, I agree and do not argue that Lilly's jaw injury was a horrific incident. This was definitely a "nonaccidental" incident that caused "serious physical injury". However, the incident clearly fails to meet the requirements of child abuse because the "perpetrator" of the injury was someone other than Ellen Rush--the injury was caused by someone on the street, if I understand the incident correctly. (I did not see the episode this was revealed in.)

The PA Code also has two other definitions for "Child Abuse":

(iii) A recent act, failure to act or series of the acts or failures to act by a perpetrator which creates an imminent risk of serious physical injury to or sexual abuse or exploitation of a child.

(iv) Serious physical neglect by a perpetrator constituting prolonged or repeated lack of supervision or the failure to provide the essentials of life, including adequate medical care, which endangers a child’s life or development or impairs the child’s functioning.

However, since you have already stated that you feel the long-term neglect "did not necessarily cause any serious mental or physical injury", I take it that you don't feel that Lilly's situation meets definitions 3 and 4 either??

Beyond state codes, the federal government does have broader definitions for both abuse and neglect that I believe can be used to protect a child when state codes do not adequately cover a situation. A summary can be found here.

I want to make it clear that I am rather surprised that I'm making the kind of conclusions that I am about Ellen and Lilly. I really thought myself that Ellen was abusive before the episode aired. But having seen the interactions between the two, and considering the fact that Lilly actually met the mom in the coffee shop, the bar, and also showed up at the wedding, the accusations that Ellen was abusive just does not "pass the smell test" with me.

Again, I haven't seen the episode that detailed Lilly's jaw injury, so maybe you can fill me in with the facts. What I need to be explained about, is why young Lilly (and Christina) wasn't taken from their mom and protected by the Department of Human Services?? Surely a broken jaw would have triggered investigations by the police, the DHS, or even a good samaritan at the hospital. Why was Lilly allowed to go back home, and not placed into foster care?

I also have three adult friends who have been victims of child abuse. They are all either in their late-twenties, or early thirties like Lilly. One had a single-mother who was a heroin addict and got the person (as a six-year old) to go out begging for money. This person was adopted by a family friend of the mother and to this day refuses to speak to their mother. Another person was one of two siblings. When their parents divorced, the siblings were split to live with each parent. Upon one visitation, the parent of one noticed that in their absence, their other child was being physically abused. The abusing parent lost custody of the child; and again, to this day, that person does not speak to that parent that abused them. One of my first girlfriends was born in another country and came to the US along with an older sibling to live with their uncle and aunt. When they got home from school, their uncle (an alcoholic), would take them into the basement, make them stand on their knees, and demanded that they continuously thank him for supporting them. By the time the older sibling was sixteen, that person started waiting tables, moved out, and found an apartment of their own. A year later, that sibling was making enough money to bring the younger sibling to live with them and finish high school. They never made contact again with their abusive uncle.

I am fortunate enough to not have parents like that and experienced such abuse. Knowing my friends' experiences, though, really makes me question how badly Lilly was treated when she apparently does not have the same kind of anger, frustration and animosity to her parent that my friends have (even the ones who weren't physically broken like Lilly was). So again, watching the interactions between Ellen and Lilly just does not make me believe that Lilly was abused--and understand, that this is surprising even to me. There seems to be an "other side" to the picture than what was revealed so far.

[V]

Hi boxman! Thanks for your lengthy response. I enjoy having an intelligent discussion on this issue. And you make excellent points (and if you were Ellen's defense attorney, those would be the arguments, among others, you'd be making in court), but again I'm going to have to disagree with you. And I think you are misinterpreting the statute a bit.

Going off of your interpretation of the statute and breaking it down into 2 elements: 1) The act or failure to act has to lead to nonaccidental serious (physical or mental) injury -- Ellen allowed her young child out of the house, in a bad neighborhood, at night to get drugs or alcohol for her. 2) The act or failure to act must be committed by the perpetrator "that" causes the injury to the child.

The actual language of the statute reads "which" not "that." Meaning, "which" is intended to qualify the action -- the act or failure to act ... "which causes." Not the "perpetrator that causes." I totally see what you're saying, boxman, and I can see where this could be confusing (interpretation of the law can be very tricky), but you are incorrect. Ellen is the perpetrator and her actions or failure to act caused injury to the child. That does not mean that the perpetrator directly has to cause injury to the child (here, somebody else caused the actual injury). In our case, Ellen's action -- sending her child out in the middle of the night for a drug run -- caused harm to the child. One could argue that it was reasonably foreseeable that something could happen to the child, especially since they lived in a bad neighborhood and it was at night. It was reasonably foreseeable that she might be attacked. The attacker would obviously be prosecuted under different statutes.

It's basically a negligence argument here -- duty, breach, causation, harm. Ellen had a duty to care for and protect her child; she breached that duty by sending Lilly out in the middle of the night to fetch drugs; this action caused reasonably foreseeable harm to Lilly (nighttime, bad neighborhood, etc.). If Ellen had sent Lilly across the street in heavy traffic and Lilly had been hit by a car, Ellen would most likely be at fault, not the driver (if driver was going normal speed, etc.). The driver would have directly caused the injury, but Ellen proximately caused the injury; that is, it was foreseeable that sending her child across the street in heavy traffic would cause Lilly to be hit. I'm talking in a vacuum here, but you get my point.

Further, to interpret the third section of the PA statute you quoted (A recent act, failure to act or series of the acts or failures to act by a perpetrator which creates an imminent risk of serious physical injury to or sexual abuse or exploitation of a child.), one could argue that Ellen's action fit that description as well. Ellen's act (sending her child out of the house for the sole purpose to satisfy Ellen's fix for drugs or alcohol) created an imminent risk of serious physical injury. The statute cannot be any clearer than that, although we could argue over the definition of "imminent risk." I would argue that, given the circumstances as we know them, there was an imminent risk of serious physical injury.

You and I can go 'round and 'round on this issue, so we can agree to disagree. But I don't think you would win your argument in court.

As far as your question about DHS or CPS is concerned, I don't have the answer to that. Good question, though. In the real world, Lilly and Christina would hopefully have been taken away. But this is obviously a TV show. And let's say, for argument's sake, that Lilly went home after she was attacked, told her mom what had happened, mom blew it off in her drunken state and just made up excuses the next day that Lilly had fallen down or something. Of course, in the real and ideal world, any adult (like Lilly's teacher) would have probably questioned Lilly and an investigation would have been launched. But again, TV show. So many questions remain unanswered ... on so many issues.

I hope you don't take offense, boxman. I enjoy discussing this with you. I'm sorry for ranting...

[frenchfan]

V, Boxman

I allow myself to involve me in your conversation (of legal formation in France I know only the general lines of your legislation and your legal discussion is very interesting for me ) I thus have a related question, finally 2 (on the assumption that the case would be real and if an investigation had been correctly carried out, of course ).
1) On the assumption that Ellen would be recognized guilty. What sanctions, prison, measurements of detoxication, loss of the parental authority....
2) manager of grocer which sold alcohol and which thus knew that Lilly walked late the evening, can he be condemned for complicity of negligence ? (or perhaps there is another infringement, I suppose that he could have been condemned for sale of alcohol to a minor).

I really appreciated your conversation.Your two contradictory points of view could involve a beautiful pleading.

[TVFan]

In "Fly Away," Lilly said that her mother did have a case file with DFACS when she and Scotty were there looking up Toya's record and found that Toya's mother was a victim of abuse. She said "Ellen Rush: Two dependants." So it seems that DFACS was involved to some extent, but these cases can be difficult.

Also, Lilly must have filed a report about the jaw incident since George knew about it. Wouldn't her mother have known what happened then? She would have been with her when she filed it, right? I can't imagine a 10-year old filing her own police report, even if that 10-year old is Lilly Rush. I wonder why her mother didn't get in trouble at that point, unless they left the part out about Lilly going to get alcohol for her mother, which is very possible considering the fact that she conveniently left it out the other night as well.

[sonny]

tvfan said:

In "Fly Away," Lilly said that her mother did have a case file with DFACS when she and Scotty were there looking up Toya's record and found that Toya's mother was a victim of abuse. She said "Ellen Rush: Two dependants." So it seems that DFACS was involved to some extent, but these cases can be difficult.

Also, Lilly must have filed a report about the jaw incident since George knew about it. Wouldn't her mother have known what happened then? She would have been with her when she filed it, right? I can't imagine a 10-year old filing her own police report, even if that 10-year old is Lilly Rush. I wonder why her mother didn't get in trouble at that point, unless they left the part out about Lilly going to get alcohol for her mother, which is very possible considering the fact that she conveniently left it out the other night as well.

I expect out of Lilly's earshot Ellen told the cops making the report the same thing she said to Jackie; that she ran out at night. Probably to save her own a$$.

As for Lilly and Christina not being taken away; believe me a takes a hell of a lot for a child to be taken away from their parent. Believe me I know! Especially back them when services for children were very much segregated and never conversed on anything. I wouldn't be suprised if the report made to the cops never made it to child services. It's happened so much here in the UK that new Government policy called 'Every Child Matters' had been devised which requires all services that deal with children share imformation. It was sparked by a case where a girl who was so badly abused died from her injuries because the information bretween the school, police and social services was never shared.

Sorry, a bit off topic here, but I just wanted to emphasise that when Lilly was young information reguarding incidents probably never made it to the right people. Besides being the kind of person Lilly is she probably kept her mouth shut and just got on with it. She obviously loved her mother from what she said in Revenge so probably didn't want to get her in trouble. Also remember what she said to sean in Maternal Insticts about being too proud to ask for help for way too long. If Lilly wasn't willing to talk then child services would have even less reason to take them away.

[wildflower]

Wow you all have me so impatient to see this episode now. I always liked Kite so maybe he'll come back.

[boxman]

Hey, V! Thank's for the discussion--it's helping to clear up the questions I have about Ellen and Lilly. And thanks, TVFan, for bringing up the facts surrounding Ellen's record at the DFACS; and Sonny, for pointing out the pattern in Ellen's behaviour. Remember, everyone, that I don't know anything about Lilly's jaw incident. I just hear it popping up now and then on this board and I haven't seen the episode its brought up in. Its only been four months that I started watching this show, which means I only have seen season three from "8 Years" until now, and whatever re-runs that have been played on TNT and CBS Saturday nights. And again, its also from having real-world friends that were abused that I'm having difficulty in interpreting Ellen and Lilly's interaction in this episode as indicating an earlier abusive relationship.

So, V, back to your "rebuttal":
I can accept your interpretation of the statute's wording, as well as the applicability of the third definition also. Still, I have questions about the facts surrounding Lilly's jaw incident that leaves me unconvinced about abuse.

If you can tell me with certainty that Ellen sent Lilly out for drugs or alcohol, then I'd easily switch my view. Right now, it seems that even you are uncertain if her mom may have sent Lilly out to get a cup of sugar from the neighbors! Is that correct?? The record at DFACS does indicate that the proper authorities were aware of Ellen and her children. But it seems at some point, a decision was made that they do not need to intervene. I'm having difficulty accepting Sonny's explanation that the department didn't have enough information or authority to remove Lilly from the household. Philly is both very politically-left and filled with lawyers, which leads to strong inclinations to remove children even at the slightest hint of abuse. I don't see how it could ever be a problem to yank little Lilly and Christina from nasty old Ellen if need be.

As far as living in a "bad neighborhood", that is also up for question too. The show has revealed in season one's "Churchgoing People", that Lilly grew up in Kensington. The family in that episode was visibly well-to-do and maintained a good outer appearance, in spite of the decay along Kensington Avenue. We also know the neighborhood was once filled with good, hard-working families as portrayed in season two's "Kensington", which was another episode that showed the people living there weren't always poor. They may have been blue-collar workers, but they also brought home generous union wages. Lilly's jaw incident happened at age ten, correct?? We had surveyed in the chatroom before about her age and we all agreed that Lilly is in her thirties, but could not agree exactly where. This would put the jaw incident somewhere between 1976 to 1986. So the older Lilly is, the less likely the neighborhoods were bad--the mills in the area would have still been running and employment would be much higher. To back this up, according to "Chuchgoing People", the neighborhood's vice and narcotics problem peaked in 1990. This is far later if Lilly's in her late thirties and the incident occured in 1976, but perhaps a growing problem in the neighborhood if Lilly is in her early thirties and the incident occured in the mid-80s. I think that while the neighborhood may have been 'rough' because of the blue-collar families, there's also ample evidence provided by the show that it may not have been 'bad' at the time of the incident.

Soooo, I'm still leaning towards Ellen as "innocent until proven guilty"... unless if someone can provide more convincing evidence!

Another irony is that they cast Meredith Baxter for the part. I remember her most for her roles in "Family Ties" and "Family", two shows that hardly make me think of child abuse!! Elsewhere in cyberspace, someone also pointed out that June Lockhart (Caroline Bartleby-2006) also played a very strong and decent mother character in another wholesome TV show, "Lassie". Was the casting of actresses that played good, role-model mothers just coincidental? Or is this yet another hint that there's more to Ellen and Lilly's relationship that has been revealed so far???

The whole thing about these unanswered questions is that I think this is even more torturous than the whole Lilly and McRay relationship that was brought up in "Dog Day Afternoons". On one hand, if Ellen was an abusive parent, then why is Lilly having anything to do with her? To the best of my knowledge, my friends have always barred even the slightest amount of contact between themselves and their abusive parent. To them, it seems as if it was a finished chapter in their lives that they like to keep closed. I don't understand Lilly's much more accepting behaviour; its very uncharacteristic of someone who was abused. Additionally, Ellen's demeanor (that we actually have seen so far) is hardly abusive. Yet, on the other hand, if Ellen wasn't an abusive parent, then was Lilly over-dramatizing her past all this time? Has Ellen not only influenced Lilly to have poor control over alcohol, but also influenced Lilly to misrepresent her past, as how Ellen does too?? We do know from the premiere, "Look Again", that Lilly has no problem with telling "white lies". Is she an even bigger liar than what we've known about her?? So either way this plays out, there are still more difficult and unanswered questions ahead of us!!!
... ...

[sonny]

I don't see why Lilly would want to dramatise anything that happened to her as a child. What would be the point? She obviously had a painful past because I think it is so reflected in her character now.

[V]

My understanding from "The Woods" episode (I've only seen it once) is that Lilly was sent out for either drugs or alcohol, but I think it was the latter. And I don't know if it happened more than once either. I "know" of the one incident where she was attacked and had her jaw broken.

And boxman, as far as your comment is concerned about why Lilly would have anything to do with her mother if she was in fact abused, I don't think you can look at it quite so black and white. I've had friends who were abused and each one of them has a different relationship with the abuser now (whether it be a parent, a relative or a friend). One of my friends was sexually abused and she has an OK relationship with that parent now.

My point is that each person is different in how they deal with issues from their past. Some may get over it and forgive the parent(s), some may cut off all ties with the parent(s), some become abusers themselves, etc. There are obviously a huge range of psychological and physical consequences to childhood trauma. Obviously, Lilly's relationship with her mother has been very shaky over the years and she is just getting around to trying to be close to her again. And I agree with sonny in that I don't think that Lilly would dramatize what happened to her as a child. Yes, what would be the point?!

Edit: boxman, in my previous posts I don't think I made any indication that Ellen only sent Lilly to the neighbors for a cup of sugar. I just wasn't sure if she got sent out for drugs or alcohol.

[Disasterfreak]

Just 'shoving my silly oar in here' for a bit...

Obviously I can't discuss with propriety about the legal aspects, but from a medical standpoint, I can pretty safely say V is correct. Children who are abused, physically, psychologically, sexually or by neglect--all tend to react in different ways, and it mostly depends on: temperament, whether the parent changes or not, and what psychological support they get at the time. Lilly obviously has a great deal of affection for her mom, sort of a 'gut love', in spite of all the crap she's had to put up with from her all these years. That doesn't necessarily mean Ellen "wasn't so bad"--it just means Lilly's a good person, who probably hopes for the best and WANTS to believe in her mom, though she's been proven wrong and disappointed time after time. By now she's been betrayed so many times she probably wants to break free, and detach herself, but she can't, because the 'gut love' is still there. Sometimes you don't WANNA love them, but hell, they gave birth to you--and that kinda counts for something. Besides, life isn't all black and white, and no matter how manipulative Ellen might be, we could see she had as much love for Lilly as could be expected, within her warped values. A--any child, I think--child would hang on to that.

[boxman]

LOL! V, of course, you understand I was just joking about the cup of sugar?? I haven't seen the season two finale, "The Woods", so I'll take your word about the run for drugs or alcohol, and therefore agree that Ellen has abused Lilly...with certain reservations. I still don't understand why they weren't taken from Ellen, since the city seems to have looked into it. It would be sooo easy--the simple stroke of a pen--for the writers to say that little Lilly and Christina were in foster care at some point. They could even have added a small line in this episode that went something like, "But mom, that broken jaw is why we ended up in foster care, remember??" So why isn't this the case?? It would've made everything so clear-cut and we wouldn't need to have this discussion!!! Arggggh!!! Also, was Ellen married at that time? I seem to recall somewhere that her dad didn't leave the family until Lilly's late teens; though which episode I pick this up from, I'm not sure.


About the possibility that Lilly has over-dramatized their past, it comes from me knowing certain individuals who have had difficulties in their childhood. Over the years, I have met a small number of individuals who have a lot of resentment towards their parents, usually due to the difficulties that lead to and arise from divorce. I'm not happy to say this, but with some of them, I have come to the conclusion that the resentment stems from a selfish and self-centered core in their personality. These individuals feel that they were 'ripped-off' of something in their childhood that their peers weren't, and are more than happy to place blame on one or both parents. They go through life playing the victim, because that adds to their self-esteem and self-righteousness. These individuals seem to enjoy picking at the lack of moral character in their parents, yet won't balance their views with the possiblity of understanding that their parents were simply caught in some sort of bad situation. (Financial problems, bad personality matches, mis-matched expectations of marriage, etc.) Perhaps you know people like this as well? Anyway, I've seen streaks of this kind of selfishness in Lilly too. It's not huge, but there were several times where she seems to put herself and her inner needs above the person she was with. To me, the level of resentment Lilly has for Ellen seems to be more at the level I see in people who have divorced parents (which is also true in Ellen's case), and not to the larger level of people who were abused. Yes, this is a personal observation, though I still think its valid in interpreting Ellen and Lilly's relationship.....

Your turn!

[boxman]

frenchfan said:

V, Boxman

I allow myself to involve me in your conversation (of legal formation in France I know only the general lines of your legislation and your legal discussion is very interesting for me ) I thus have a related question, finally 2 (on the assumption that the case would be real and if an investigation had been correctly carried out, of course ).
1) On the assumption that Ellen would be recognized guilty. What sanctions, prison, measurements of detoxication, loss of the parental authority....
2) manager of grocer which sold alcohol and which thus knew that Lilly walked late the evening, can he be condemned for complicity of negligence ? (or perhaps there is another infringement, I suppose that he could have been condemned for sale of alcohol to a minor).

I really appreciated your conversation.Your two contradictory points of view could involve a beautiful pleading.

Hmm. For (1), I think you're on the right track. Ellen would probably serve some time not in prison, but rather in alcohol rehabilitation, and she would loose custody of all children. For (2), I think any sane grocer wouldn't allow a ten-year old to buy alcohol. If they did, they'd likely pay a hefty fine and have their license to sell alcohol revoked. I don't see the possibility of jail time, even if the child was attacked. That would go back to Ellen and the attacker; the grocer has no responsibility for a youth being out. I hope this helps??

[Disasterfreak]

Hmmm, Boxman, I must say--you DO have kind of a point there. There ARE people like the ones you describe, and they do tend to pick on their parents' faults and over-dramatize their past to play the victim. I don't for one minute think this could be Lilly's case, though--but that's mostly because the thought had never occurred to me. I admit it COULD be true. I don't think it is, but that's just because I'm on Lilly's side. Objectively, there's no reason why she SHOULDN'T just be a resentful, selfish teenager, flipped out at her mom for not keeping it together with her dad.

Things that seem to prove she isn't, though: her jaw injury, the fact Ellen had a welfare file, the way Christina's turned out (though I guess lots of people turn out like her regardless of their past), the fact Ellen's on her FOURTH marriage...

EDIT: Maybe alcohol laws about selling to minors weren't so strict back then? Also... lots of grocery store owners, particularly in shady areas of town, kinda "look the other way" when there's money involved.

[V]

boxman said:

frenchfan said:

V, Boxman

I allow myself to involve me in your conversation (of legal formation in France I know only the general lines of your legislation and your legal discussion is very interesting for me ) I thus have a related question, finally 2 (on the assumption that the case would be real and if an investigation had been correctly carried out, of course ).
1) On the assumption that Ellen would be recognized guilty. What sanctions, prison, measurements of detoxication, loss of the parental authority....
2) manager of grocer which sold alcohol and which thus knew that Lilly walked late the evening, can he be condemned for complicity of negligence ? (or perhaps there is another infringement, I suppose that he could have been condemned for sale of alcohol to a minor).

I really appreciated your conversation.Your two contradictory points of view could involve a beautiful pleading.

Hmm. For (1), I think you're on the right track. Ellen would probably serve some time not in prison, but rather in alcohol rehabilitation, and she would loose custody of all children. For (2), I think any sane grocer wouldn't allow a ten-year old to buy alcohol. If they did, they'd likely pay a hefty fine and have their license to sell alcohol revoked. I don't see the possibility of jail time, even if the child was attacked. That would go back to Ellen and the attacker; the grocer has no responsibility for a youth being out. I hope this helps??

Thanks for answering that, boxman. The grocer could get some time in jail though. Selling liquor to minors carries a max 1 year sentence in PA and up to $2,500 fine. The same max sentence applies to any person who induces or requests a minor to buy liquor. <cough> Ellen...

[V]

boxman said:

LOL! V, of course, you understand I was just joking about the cup of sugar?? I haven't seen the season two finale, "The Woods", so I'll take your word about the run for drugs or alcohol, and therefore agree that Ellen has abused Lilly...with certain reservations. I still don't understand why they weren't taken from Ellen, since the city seems to have looked into it. It would be sooo easy--the simple stroke of a pen--for the writers to say that little Lilly and Christina were in foster care at some point. They could even have added a small line in this episode that went something like, "But mom, that broken jaw is why we ended up in foster care, remember??" So why isn't this the case?? It would've made everything so clear-cut and we wouldn't need to have this discussion!!! Arggggh!!! Also, was Ellen married at that time? I seem to recall somewhere that her dad didn't leave the family until Lilly's late teens; though which episode I pick this up from, I'm not sure.

You're funny, boxman. Well, you know, if we (people on this board) were the writers ...

[boxman]

v said:

boxman said:

Hmm. For (1), I think you're on the right track. Ellen would probably serve some time not in prison, but rather in alcohol rehabilitation, and she would loose custody of all children. For (2), I think any sane grocer wouldn't allow a ten-year old to buy alcohol. If they did, they'd likely pay a hefty fine and have their license to sell alcohol revoked. I don't see the possibility of jail time, even if the child was attacked. That would go back to Ellen and the attacker; the grocer has no responsibility for a youth being out. I hope this helps??

Thanks for answering that, boxman. The grocer could get some time in jail though. Selling liquor to minors carries a max 1 year sentence in PA and up to $2,500 fine. The same max sentence applies to any person who induces or requests a minor to buy liquor. <cough> Ellen...

Ewww..... You must be a lawyer.... :smile6:
Ha ha ha! ;D ;D ;D
Just kidding!!

[boxman]

disasterfreak said:

...I admit it COULD be true. I don't think it is, but that's just because I'm on Lilly's side....

Tsk, tsk....
Such a "Lilly Ho"!!!!! ;D

v said:

Well, you know, if we (people on this board) were the writers ...

Yeah... let's see... Lilly and Scotty would be engaged, McRay served time in Graterford Prison, Kite is married (but starting to have an affair with Vera), and Lilly would have done her musical by now! (In her cheerleading outfit!) Ha ha ha!!!

[V]

boxman said:

Yeah... let's see... Lilly and Scotty would be engaged, McRay served time in Graterford Prison, Kite is married (but starting to have an affair with Vera), and Lilly would have done her musical by now! (In her cheerleading outfit!) Ha ha ha!!!

Bad, boxman, bad!!! :smile44:

[ecooper516]

HI BOXMAN,
I CANNOT believe you equated what Lilly went through as a child to your friends feelings. I know of people who were abused-neglected and they are definatley not selfish and self-centered. As a matter of fact in some ways they feel guilty for what happened to them and for the feelings of anger/resentment they have toward those involved. You can't "play" a victim when you are actually one. Don't you think Lilly was "ripped off"(at least her jaw was) by not having parents who are there for you. As you know, I am a parent and it my desire to have the best for my children, which is what every parent's vow should be.