Westie

I think this story has a number of "themes" that intersect with the title "paternity"... - Wade becomes a father - Wade's blossoming relationship and forgiveness of his own father - Wade taking a leadership role (traditionally associated with the male) within his family - Will and his relationship with his father - Will's assumption of independence, and the loss of Paternal authority - Will's relationship with Robbie, and how the "multiple dads" dynamic works - Will taking control of his destiny - Male disempowerment (and reempowerment) - feelings I'm sure all dads feel.... And this is done while reminding us that life in the wider Crampton/Schluter/Danfield world continues.... I think it's masterfully done.... And that last chapter... I don't think I've ever enjoyed a "Will" chapter so much. Very well done to Mr A.

Well, in this case, We know that the grantor of the trust was Raleigh (grandfather), because we know that when Roscoe came out, he decided that the trusts for the younger siblings should have different conditions than those in Wade's trust. We also know from this that the trusts are irrevocable, because otherwise, Raleigh would have changed the terms of Wade's trust to match his new-found feelings. This tells us that Wade's mother's contention that he could lose half of his own trust cannot be true. She is obviously desperate. If Wade's trust was unduly enriched by the master trust, then there is a legal consequence for the trustee of the master trust, who is personally liable. This is why I asked my question, because if Wade's grandmother is able to remove elizabeth's power of attorney, she can also sue for misuse of the master trust, no? All I'm saying is that potentially, Elizabeth could lose everything here.... her family, her power, her money (and indeed the husband who I suspect is about to divorce her)....

But thats my understanding. Because her power of attorney would allow her to act AS and ON BEHALF of her Mother, any action that the grandmother can potentially do, Wade's mother can too. That's why I think it unlikely she can do anything about taking back half of Wade's trust - becuase if it were possible it would already have been done. I think that when she asked if Wade was willing to lose half his trust, she was using a stupid ploy to try and win him over. I don't think Wade's money is at risk at all - I think that at the end of it all, Wade would be the only one with any money left, and that Elizabeth would be destitute, the cost of legal action having absorbed her own wealth back into her mother's?

Quick Question - and it's probably Private Tim who can answer this best.... In the UK, if a trust was divested to the control of its owner, then that would be irreversible. I don't know how it would be in the US, but for me, Wade's grandmother would NOT be able to recover half of Wade's trust from him - she would have a cause of action against the previous trustee(s) however for mismanagement of the fund.... I don't know if this would be the case in the US though?? IF this was the case in the US too, then it's all the more dangerous for Wade's mother. I'm only asking this because it seems that if Wade's mother held power of attorney over her mother, she could recover half of Wade's trust anyway using the same legal process as his Grandmother could potentially use? It seems to me that she would have already done so given how mad she was that Wade had gained control in the first place? West

So I guess.... England Scotland Northern Ireland Republic of Ireland Wales..... (So that's the Uk and Ireland then...) France USA (Florida and Bangor, Maine) Czech Republic (does it count any extra that I went 12 times?) Austria Serbia (Belgrade) And that's it.... Oh, except technically, the principality of SeaLand - the worlds most successful micro-nation!

Ok, I need to clarify here. Yes, the comment was quite snippy, and possibly even rude. But I'm not going to apologise for it. I've never made a secret about the parts of CAP I enjoy and the bits I don't. The one thing I always think is that regardless of topic, each chapter is especially well written. However, I think there are times when everyone in this forum has come up with "I didn't like the part where..." Type of comments. When I say this was teen soap opera-ish, it's nothing against a soap. More that the constant teen angst as a subject matter is for me a turn off. When you write about Wade's half of this story, I'm gonna be completely thrilled. It's a question of personal taste... I don't want to demotivate you in any way, but at the same time I'm not going to shy away from expressing a harsh view. So to rephrase what I said into a more constructive comment - I thought that although the chapter was well written, it's content seemed laboured, a filler, and so much of the same. At the same time, because I think you're awesome as a writer, I will say that your skill really shows through in the latest chapters of Bridgemont. I really couldn't be happier that you are back writing. I do get the sense though that this latest chapter was written in haste to assuage your impatient fans? If I'm wrong in any way, I will stand corrected, but while the writing was great, the content/story quality was sub-mark-arbour (in my view) and my suspicion is that is because you wrote more to give your group a fix, than to write for the sake of the story or your own pleasure?? (Ps, so glad the "neg" system has gone now, I'd so be a gonner!)

Too... Soap opera-ish... Yeah I'm switching off for a while I think. Teen drama ain't my thing, or I'd be watching gossip girl, 90210 etc. but we have Jeremy for that ;-) (joke guys)

Happy Birthday Milacku! :* :*:*:* I should have made a thread earlier, but somehow we keep forgetting about GA ! I hope your day is MAGIC!

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that Paternity just became the most reviewed story ever at GA?

Just a few points; the first being that mental illness can and does manifest at any time in life. There are a million possible diagnosis' of which schizophrenia is only one... But she doesn't in my view fit with the profile for that illness. You should also remember that Brad had nothing to do with the original hiring of Jeanine. She was hired by Marie and if she at least had not done a background check, I'm very sure JP would have done at the time. I think you are creating drama here where none (needs to) exist. Mental health issues are bad enough without having to have dark secrets lurking in the background. It is entirely possible that a 14 year history of undiagnosed mental illness (I would assume starting with post partum depression after having Will), has escalated through to some obsessive disorder (hence her pushy behaviour with JJ's career). I think her treatment of will is probably more due to her obsessive need for JJ to succeed at all costs, and her mis-perception that JJ has to be "happy" all the time in order to succeed.

Don't be fooled by one chapter. At the end of Will's Hawaiian adventure he was back and "everyone's happy" - that didn't last long. When you are trying to build bridges and mend fences (and mix metaphors) you make a concerted effort. That doesn't last long. As for jeanine - I think there would be more drama in the story if she wasn't angry. She is no match for Will and I hate to see a one sided fight - there might be more mileage (and lets face it, comedy value) if she feels ashamed of what she has done and tries to rebuild a relationship with Will. I'd love to see his reaction to his mother spending quality time with him suddenly ;-)

Not sure I'm reminded of Paya... But there again I have other things to remind me of him ;-)

Billy got the same parenting as Ace, Brad and Claire. I'm not sure what you mean by "never works" as from the evidence, "that kind" of parenting works in 3/4 cases. I say "that kind" because I think your categorisation of JP as overly permissive with Billy is off base. Those kids got a lot of freedom, but it was with the expectations of responsibility. Privilege was granted only through living up to those expectations. An example of this was when Brad got a car, but Ace didn't because his grades weren't good enough. The "rewards and remedy" technique is recognised as a highly successful form of behaviour management and is used both with children and animals the world over.

Nice try. But I didn't say any of that. I am uncomfortable with jeff and tony having sex with a minor. To what extent the law tolerates CONSENSUAL sex with a minor is something I couldn't speak to, but I think there is a clear difference between covering for actual abuse and covering for consensual acts between two people. You are comparing Jeff and Tony - who have sex with a minor who nonetheless has an appearance of an adult - with Michael who took and stored pictures of Will (a minor) AND of JJ (a minor who very much looks the part of a minor). I would have thought that as a lawyer you would understand that intent plays a major part and is a major differentiator in such cases. As I say, I cannot comment on how a US jurisdiction would handle it. I can say though that a consensual relationship between someone over the age of 14 and someone under the age of 21 would not necessarily be prosecuted in the UK.

Tim, this isn't the soapbox. I gave my opinion and then you gave yours. I didn't feel the need to go any further on the discussion because I'm not going to convince you. I did however choose a specific of what you said, and expand on it. This isnt a "new tangent" - I said Brad is an unfit father, you said he wasn't, and so I expanded on my reasoning. Like I said, this isn't the soapbox, dont get all upset and cry like a girl just because I didn't argue about what you wanted to argue about. Edit to add here: the very fact that YOU are trying to call me out on this, given your MO in the soapbox, is hypocritical in the extreme. And to answer your question - yes Michael is a full blown peadophile. He took pictures at the request of Janine to be sure - but she didn't want pictures of JJ. How do you explain those? And how do you explain the guys predisposition towards doing the task for Janine in the first place. Someone who creates indecent or sexual images of minors is a peadophile. I don't care about the circumstances. That guy should be in jail, and people covering for them should be punished too.

Then the law is completely inadequate. Whatever you say legally, brad is now an unfit father. To say he's been bad "this year" but because he has been good in other years he can get away with it is completely off the wall. Brad has covered up for a peadophile in this story. I wonder if we went over to the soapbox whether we would see you have a different attitude to people covering up pedophilia when it applies in the catholic church? What Brad has done here is exactly the same - he covered up a terrible crime in order to save his own reputation. That the victims were two of his children makes this even sicker. So yes, even everything else aside, not only is Brad an unfit father, but he is a criminal who should be in jail. We, as readers, also know that he is a murderer. That doesn't help Will in the story, but we have the benefit of arguing outside the story. Brad had committed murder. I'm not certain about the US, but certainly in the UK some of his actions in millennium - manipulating the stock price of omega - would certainly have been criminal. He sees fit to hire staff to look after his kids without checking their backgrounds and evidently without getting to know them - all Because those kids are second priority in his life after business and his own ego. This man is not a fit father by any stretch. Personally for me at this point, Brad cannot even be redeemed. It's gone past that.

Dude, it don't work that way. I'm gay, but in my relationship, Paya is always right. You can't win PS - nobody tell him I said this, be cool, huh?

Tim, Sharon was merely pointing out that a 14 year old can be mature enough to live alone. You take her personal experience and try to nail it to Will, in order to make her stance look ridiculous - and while that may help you in a courtroom when you argue, it doesn't actually help your case. I know you cannot comprehend the idea that a son would question the rights of his father - I know the army teaches you to follow orders blindly and without thinking - but in almost every other sphere of life an independent mind is actually an asset. You make no allowances for the possibility that Will was suffering from PTSD while in Rome. You blame Will for wanting to go to Rome, yet fail to question why after such trauma Brad didn't stay with him. You blindly assume that the father (or should I say fuhrer in this case) is correct, and that even if he isn't he shouldn't be questioned. You blame Will for the property destruction as he ran away to Hawaii - but fail to take into account that there were extreme mitigating circumstances for his anger. Blinded by temporary insanity perhaps? That said, I happen to agree with you that Will is not fit for emancipation. While he is in control when he is calm - he is rarely that. At the same time, Brad is without doubt an unfit father at this point. Neither should be in a position of control. At this point I think there are only two healthy options. The first would be to place Will in the care of either JP or Claire - but I feel that would leave him in a still damaging psychological environment. Actually I now believe the best solution all round would be to put him into a more "normal" environment. The only environment I see that would fit that bill right now is with Wally and Clara, as a favour to to JP.

Forgive me Tim, but you talk only in terms of the law and what the law permits. But this is not the whole extent of a child's power. A parent can "decide" in a legal sense, but without some measure of cooperation and agreement from teenager, this can become very difficult. Especially when it turns out the parent has failed (twice) in their duty to protect their offspring. For example, a parent might "decide" that a kid is grounded, but that doesn't mean the kid has to cooperate with that... He can sneak out. You seem to have a slight "blinker" when it comes to legal framework...

I don't think father-son incest was ever on the cards. He and Brad, however, did nearly go there. I can understand why Matt sides with Robbie; he feels like Robbie is the only reason he belongs there at all. However, Matt of all people would have understood and applauded Will's sluttiness in Norway.

Unless you went to a prep and then public school, in which case Prep was from 7-13 and then Public (i.e. Private) school was from 13-18.

Re: bagpipes. Don't forget that Kingsdale is an IRISH peer. The instrument we most commonly associate with the word "bagpipe" is the Great Highland Bagpipe. However, bagpipes were a form of instrument known and used all over Europe. The various models of Irish pipe for example had a sweeter sound (similar to a lower pitched clarinet) than their highland counterparts. They also had a lower volume. It's unlikely that those of you who "love the bagpipe" would be hearing the same sounds as you are used to. By the way... When bagpipes are wet, they sound atrocious. I hope they don't get too many stormy seas.

I agree with Tim to a point. Maturity is gained often as a result of experiences. Recent experiences aside (which were the result of emotional derailment anyway), how mature can a kid who grew up getting whatever he wants be?

New chapter was great. And I think Wade's father is about to provide a very interesting distraction for his mother. Wade may not have too many problems dealing with her.

whether its JP or Claire that rides in to resolve this, I think, depends on the outcome that Mark wants us to be left with. If its JP, it's for the good of the family - the patriarch is doing his duty. Brad will be apoplectic with rage, but he will understand and eventually accept. If it's Claire, it's one sibling challenging another. Not only that, the one being challenged is the Alpha Male. And the challenger will be getting the approval of JP. I think this will tear Brad - and the family - apart.