"i've Picked My Job Over My Kids"

aribell

formerly nicola.kirwan
Op-Ed at the NY Times by a woman talking about her choice to prioritize her career over her children:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/opinion/sunday/ive-picked-my-job-over-my-kids.html

I’ve Picked My Job Over My Kids
I love them beyond all reason. But sometimes my clients need me more.

By Lara Bazelon

Ms. Bazelon is a law professor.

  • June 29, 2019
Image Credit: Golden Cosmos


I am a lawyer, a law professor and a writer. I am also a divorced mother of two young children. I’m often asked some version of: “How do you excel at work and be the best mother you can be?”

Every working mother gets this question, which presupposes that a “work-life balance” is achievable. It’s not. The term traps women in an endless cycle of shame and self-recrimination.

Like many women, I often prioritize my job. I do this because, as the head of a single-parent household, I’m the sole breadwinner. My ex-husband, who has joint custody, is an amazing father and my life would be impossible without him. Neither of us pays the other support.

My choice is more than a financial imperative. I prioritize my work because I’m ambitious and because I believe it’s important. If I didn’t write and teach and litigate, a part of me would feel empty.

At the time, my son was 4 and my daughter was 2. One month before the retrial started, I moved from San Francisco to a tiny apartment close to the courthouse in Los Angeles. I went long stretches without seeing my children. They were lovingly cared for by their father, their grandmother, my son’s preschool teacher and my daughter’s babysitter. When I would fly home, I was often not fully present. My client needed me more than my children did. So he got more of me. A lot more.

During these months, my son had a lot of questions. “Why are you gone so much?” “Why are you always on the phone talking about that guy with the funny name?” I explained what was at stake. The good guys are fighting the bad guys. If we lose, it means racism won and a man’s life was destroyed.

“Are you going to win?” he wanted to know.

“That’s my job,” I said.

I have missed meetings to take my kids to the park or a museum, and picked them up early to go to karate class. Recently, I turned down an offer to teach an extra class for a significant amount of money because I didn’t want to lose that time with them.

But there is always another client to defend, story to write or struggling student who just can’t wait. Here are things I have missed: my daughter’s seventh birthday, my son’s 10th birthday party, two family vacations, three Halloweens, every school camping trip. I have never chaperoned, coached or organized a school event.

Sometimes my choices make me sad. My daughter’s seventh birthday was the worst. She cried, and I did everything I could not to. I felt sick to my stomach. But I had a trial starting the next day, six hours away.

I had picked the date, not the judge, because I knew that the other side wasn’t ready. Delaying even a few days would have meant losing a crucial advantage. I wasn’t going to risk it knowing what was on the line for my client.

Of course, I sometimes feel doubt, shame and fear. I know I’m not a “normal” mom, because my kids tell me so. I remind myself that this does not make me a “bad mom.” I also remind myself that if I were a dad, I would be getting accolades for all the times I scheduled a doctor’s appointment or arranged a play date.

I am proud of what I have accomplished. I am prouder that I can support myself and my children. But sometimes I wonder if my choices will damage them.

In 2017, my son’s third-grade class had a midday Thanksgiving potluck. Driving back from court, I dashed into the Whole Foods, bought the first thing I saw — a loaf of lemon poppy seed poundcake — and rushed over to school. The room was full of mothers with a smattering of dads. I was the only person in a suit. I put the lemon poppy seed loaf on a table, next to another mother’s homemade stew. My son looked over at me and winced.

After the meal, it was time for presentations. Each child had been given a piece of orange paper shaped like a leaf with prompts to answer: “I appreciate my parents because” and “this helps me to.”

One by one, the children stood up and read what they had written. Many of them talked about how much they loved their moms, because they made them delicious food or gave them a safe place to live.

I grew uncomfortable as I listened, my smile frozen on my face. What on earth was my son going to say when it was his turn? That he lived in two different houses and routinely ate boiled hot dogs and chicken fingers while his mother told true crime stories? That he had once told me, politely, as we sat down to dinner, “Mom, I think you forgot the vegetable”?

My son was one of the last children to speak. He stood up and, in a clear voice, said: “I appreciate my parents for being lawyers because they get people out of jail. This really helps me reflect, do the right thing and have positive role models.”

He looked over at me, the barest hint of a smile on his face. I wanted to leap out of my pint-size chair, raise my fists in the air and yell, “That’s my boy.” I have his orange leaf on the wall in my office. Sometimes I look over at it when I’m working late at night.

I hope my kids get it. I think they do. I love them beyond all reason, and their existence gives my life profound meaning. And I have the same feelings about my job.

@larabazelon), a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, is the author of, most recently, “Rectify: The Power of Restorative Justice After Wrongful Conviction.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
 

awhyley

Well-Known Member
I like her honesty. If you read the article then you’ll see that the title is just to grab atrention

Oh I read the article, and her struggle to keep it all in balance. Knowing that she had to make strategic work decisions, which negatively impact her kids, (and that if she were a man, people wouldn't bat an eye at her missing the birthday parties and camping trips), is a tough pill to swallow.
 

Lylddlebit

Well-Known Member
It's good that there are stories like this.
I agree.


A lot of women place jobs, men, themselves over their kids.
A lot of women have children they regret.
A lot of women abort children then consider themselves excellent mothers based on the kids they keep or consider themselves childfree based the absence of children they never had.
I am not saying this as an attack. I am saying this to encourage you all to consider the full picture.

When I look at the larger picture, the issue isn't that she is admitting this. The truth remains the truth even when we don't like it or talk about it. I wish there could be more transparent discussions on why people get pregnant in the first place, not just magnify outrage to the natural consequences of decisions made that often accompanies these discussions. This woman prioritized her career long before she got married or had kids. A change would have been the surprise. Her continuing things as they had always been isn't surprising at all. There is a difference between wanting children and acquiescing to having them. There is a difference between planning pregnancy and making the best out of pregnancy. There is a difference between wanting to be mom and parenthood being in the best interest of your child, yourself and your man. There is a difference prioritizing your family and being capable of creating one. We have to stop believing that parenthood modifies people's priorities people because that scenario is the exception not the rule.

For the record I would quit my job today if I believed it would negatively impact my personal life. It's just a job to me no matter how good I am at it. I work only so I can enjoy the things I enjoy when I am not working and that is the only reason why I work. I want to be my daughter's mother and my husband's wife for the rest of my life but that is based on how I have invested in and built my home life. If I hit the lottery tomorrow or got a good settlement I would stop working and monetize a hobby. It's a good idea for people to be honest with themselves for how they invest in and build up their own personal lives. Not for judgment, moreso, that others don't feel negatively impacted by you just being yourself.

I know parents can be villainized when they prioritize other things over their kids. However, what I really hope is that we can consider the truth of why people have kids in the first place because is not typically because they want to sacrifice all they are for their kids. This is a good topic. I hope we can discuss the complexities of this topic in this thread.
 
Last edited:

LeftRightRepeat

Well-Known Member
Oh I read the article, and her struggle to keep it all in balance. Knowing that she had to make strategic work decisions, which negatively impact her kids, (and that if she were a man, people wouldn't bat an eye at her missing the birthday parties and camping trips), is a tough pill to swallow.
Then I def think honesty is the best policy. There are other women struggling with the same issues and it’s great when at least some women are willing to talk about it, and admit that they don’t always feel the guilt that society thinks they should.
 

Alta Angel

Well-Known Member
Succeed at home first. No job, title, promotion, or accolade is worth my personal family relationships because I can be replaced without hesitation. There are times when my daughters see me study, grade papers, and work at, in between, and on the way to their games. But they are my focus at home and during their activities. DH and I work as a team to make sure we are there during our kids special moments. They are only young for a second...
 

Theresamonet

Well-Known Member
I’ve been binge watching Intervention and there are a lot of crack/heroin/opioid/meth addicts with these types of parents. She said she has to teach, write, and litigate or she’ll feel empty, but I’m sure her kids feel empty without their mother. The message she is sending them is that they aren’t important. But I guess all that matters is that their existence gives her life some meaning. She’s one selfish lady.
 

FoxxyLocs

Well-Known Member
I try not to judge her too harshly. Her job is important and she enjoys it. I don't think both parents have to be present at every single function and they have their father and other family members involved.

I personally wouldn't want to be away so much, but people do it all the time. Her children aren't being neglected. I would feel differently of she didn't have a good support system and was just leaving the kids with a babysitter.
 

dicapr

Well-Known Member
I try not to judge her too harshly. Her job is important and she enjoys it. I don't think both parents have to be present at every single function and they have their father and other family members involved.

I personally wouldn't want to be away so much, but people do it all the time. Her children aren't being neglected. I would feel differently of she didn't have a good support system and was just leaving the kids with a babysitter.


I wonder if the reason her justification is acceptable is because her job is important. What if she was a manager at grocery store? Would her justifications still work?

To me the real issue is that to get ahead at work you have to basically give up your life outside of work. She really shouldn’t have to choose between being present in her life and advancement in her career. As for the choices she made if she is at peace there is nothing more to say.
 

Zuleika

-
Staff member
There is an unspoken agreement among many parts of society that motherhood is the ultimate goal for a woman, something that can and will fulfil every woman. A natural extension of this is the belief that simply getting pregnant (or in some extreme thought groups, being able to get pregnant) is an imperative that cannot be argued, ergo abortion is an act that goes against motherhood and therefore the purpose and existence of womenkind. I love that this article shows the other side.

It is a simple argument to put that women are born mothers and that this should be the pinnacle of their life, with all other facets of their existence (excepting for many caring for a man)falling to obscurity behind. I use simple with it’s dual meaning - it is an easily made argument, but it is also facile and lacks depth. To claim that a woman is simply an incubator and child rearer is to overstate the bestial nature of humanity. A cow is an incubator and child rearer, because she is incapable of anything else. She is a beast and knows only to breed and to nourish (herself and her calf). The argument for motherhood above all reduces a woman to her biological function and robs her of her humanity; a hard won humanity.

I object to insinuations that aborting a child that is unwanted, or unaffordable, makes one a bad mother, or a bad person. I would argue quite the opposite, utilitarianism would very much agree that the cost of a non-life (by many if not most belief systems) is beneficial when weighed against the potential (and statistically predictable) societal outcomes of an underfunded and/or underloved child: delinquency, underachievement, violence. A child born into lack (financial and emotional) has a greater chance of causing damage to society; there will be counter arguments putting forth that certain individuals belie this, Beethoven is always touted, but these are exceptions not rules. They shine bright but only because we do not look at the sheer volume of their failed contemporaries. :look:

To have a child should be a choice made by an informed individual who has the resources to provide care and support. The author of the article clearly believes that she is providing both of those things. She’s doing it in a way that absolutely challenges the assumption that women must be chained to the sink; she uses her husband to provide emotional care (revolutionary in some designated survivor backwards communities), she works a high powered and societally important job , and she chooses these two things over being the “traditional” mother. Her choice can be easily panned by those who are tied to the belief that a woman should be nothing more than a breeding machine, but it cannot be accurately derided. She has chosen well for herself and her children.
 

dicapr

Well-Known Member
There is an unspoken agreement among many parts of society that motherhood is the ultimate goal for a woman, something that can and will fulfil every woman. A natural extension of this is the belief that simply getting pregnant (or in some extreme thought groups, being able to get pregnant) is an imperative that cannot be argued, ergo abortion is an act that goes against motherhood and therefore the purpose and existence of womenkind. I love that this article shows the other side.

It is a simple argument to put that women are born mothers and that this should be the pinnacle of their life, with all other facets of their existence (excepting for many caring for a man)falling to obscurity behind. I use simple with it’s dual meaning - it is an easily made argument, but it is also facile and lacks depth. To claim that a woman is simply an incubator and child rearer is to overstate the bestial nature of humanity. A cow is an incubator and child rearer, because she is incapable of anything else. She is a beast and knows only to breed and to nourish (herself and her calf). The argument for motherhood above all reduces a woman to her biological function and robs her of her humanity; a hard won humanity.

I object to insinuations that aborting a child that is unwanted, or unaffordable, makes one a bad mother, or a bad person. I would argue quite the opposite, utilitarianism would very much agree that the cost of a non-life (by many if not most belief systems) is beneficial when weighed against the potential (and statistically predictable) societal outcomes of an underfunded and/or underloved child: delinquency, underachievement, violence. A child born into lack (financial and emotional) has a greater chance of causing damage to society; there will be counter arguments putting forth that certain individuals belie this, Beethoven is always touted, but these are exceptions not rules. They shine bright but only because we do not look at the sheer volume of their failed contemporaries. :look:

To have a child should be a choice made by an informed individual who has the resources to provide care and support. The author of the article clearly believes that she is providing both of those things. She’s doing it in a way that absolutely challenges the assumption that women must be chained to the sink; she uses her husband to provide emotional care (revolutionary in some designated survivor backwards communities), she works a high powered and societally important job , and she chooses these two things over being the “traditional” mother. Her choice can be easily panned by those who are tied to the belief that a woman should be nothing more than a breeding machine, but it cannot be accurately derided. She has chosen well for herself and her children.

I don’t think that is what is making people uncomfortable. She chose to have kids but she also chose to put her own desire for success in her career above her children by her own admission. That’s what gives me pause. Not saying she is wrong for what she does but I don’t understand her choice. One reason it has taken me so long to pursue motherhood is because I was not able/didn’t want to make the sacrifice that come along with it.

I don’t believe motherhood is the end all be all for women. I think that the choice to have children is just as valid as the choice not to have children. But I do scratch my head at the idea of having not one but two children and deciding that they come second to your wants and needs.

If someone adopted a dog and explained that they just didn’t not have the time to adequately take care of it would give most people pause. We definitely would question their decision to get a second pet if their job/social life was not conducive to caring for the pet or that for long chunks of time the dog was boarded and cared for by someone else.
 
Last edited:

Evolving78

Well-Known Member
People need to get a clue about why they want to have children in the first place, and stop treating that as something go check off on the “life to do list”. Family comes first once you created it. Men and women included. Kids don’t care about your accolades at work, neither does your spouse. They are happy for you, but it doesn’t replace what they want and need from you.
 

dicapr

Well-Known Member
People need to get a clue about why they want to have children in the first place, and stop treating that as something go check off on the “life to do list”. Family comes first once you created it. Men and women included. Kids don’t care about your accolades at work, neither does your spouse. They are happy for you, but it doesn’t replace what they want and need from you.


Exactly. I feel the same way about men. Don’t take on the responsibility of being a parent if you don’t want to make the sacrifices it takes to be a parent. I am a big proponent of not having kids just because society says you are supposed to. It’s not for everyone and I applaud anyone who has the courage to be honest with themselves enough to say that isn’t something I want for my life.

This is one reason I’m glad I’m fostering first. If I decide parenthood isn’t for me I can decide not to adopt.
 

LeftRightRepeat

Well-Known Member
Her children are not being neglected. She has an equal co-parent in their father.

Believe it or not, even the manager of the local grocery store has to prioritize her job over her children sometimes, if she wants to keep her job e.g. she has to work Saturdays and their dad or grandmother has to take them to soccer or birthday parties .

I don't see the issue. She's not saying that she doesn't want to be a mother or hates her children.
 
Last edited:

Lylddlebit

Well-Known Member
I wonder if the reason her justification is acceptable is because her job is important. What if she was a manager at grocery store? Would her justifications still work?

To me the real issue is that to get ahead at work you have to basically give up your life outside of work. She really shouldn’t have to choose between being present in her life and advancement in her career. As for the choices she made if she is at peace there is nothing more to say.


Okay I like this one because that is what I am talking about. To me the prestige of her job doesn't make a difference to me. If being a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, causes you to need to work hours equivalent to a single mom with multiple jobs or your a single mom so you are working full time and going to school full time what all of these scenarios have in common is that your time is limited in a way that can negatively impacts your family. So no matter if people view what you are doing to take care of business as noble or selfish is the lesser concern to counting the cost. Do you have to capacity to be the type of mother your children deserve? Do you have the capacity to be competitive in your field? Which one is more important to you? Is the hierarchy of importance based on need, relationship, morals, money, prestige, time(and time can be it running out, the time required for a thing, or the time you felt you have already invested into it. No one is entitled to have it all. Pulling off having it all takes extraordinary talent, support, and circumstances. There is sacrifice somewhere but who is paying the cost for your (your used generally of course) decisions.
 

dicapr

Well-Known Member
Her children are not being neglected. She has an equal co-parent in their father.

Believe it or not, even the manager of the local grocery store has to prioritize their job over their children sometimes, if she wants to keep her job e.g. she has to work Saturdays and their dad or grandmother has to take them to soccer or birthday parties .

I don't see the issue. She's not saying that she doesn't want to be a mother or hates her children.

Of course sometimes children are not the priority.

But she seems to have a pattern of putting her children second-that is an issue for me. She states her ex-husband is a good parent. Why not give him primary custody to give the children more stability? She can still be a great mom, involved in their lives, ect. That way she can have a better work/life balance?
 

Bette Davis Eyes

The "OG" Product Junkie
Biggest regret I have is leaving the military early. My oldest son didnt know who I was.

I felt I owed it to him to be present more.

If I had a chance to do it over, I would have tried to make it work. I loved my career but I loved my son more.

I understand it though. We all have to make our decisions based on whats best for you.
 

Evolving78

Well-Known Member
Exactly. I feel the same way about men. Don’t take on the responsibility of being a parent if you don’t want to make the sacrifices it takes to be a parent. I am a big proponent of not having kids just because society says you are supposed to. It’s not for everyone and I applaud anyone who has the courage to be honest with themselves enough to say that isn’t something I want for my life.

This is one reason I’m glad I’m fostering first. If I decide parenthood isn’t for me I can decide not to adopt.
Oh wow! God bless you on your foster parenting journey! That just made me smile!
 

Leeda.the.Paladin

Well-Known Member
That’s a very interesting 3rd grade boy to ask for vegetables and to side eye his mom for what she brings to the potluck. My boys could care less :lol:

It doesn’t seem like the kids are neglected. I do think that she may want to wait to breathe a sigh of relief because you never know what kids internalize. Even parents who are home all the time can have a ticking time bomb.

Children should never think that they are the center of our being. I say this as a parent who homeschools and has mostly been at home. I also say this a mom whose had to miss Christmas Day, Thanksgiving, etc because when I do work, it’s very wonky hours. I tell my kids that I have patients that need someone to look after them even on holidays and that happens to be my job.

Parents also need to stop comparing themselves to other parents so much. I’ve had a few working moms over the years come to me and tell me how bad I make them feel for being at home most of the time. And that they don’t want to homeschool. You’ll kill your kid if you homeschool them? Then by all means, please send them to school :lol: You wish you wanted to spend more time with your kid? Well you don’t. And that’s ok. Just be honest and do the best you can.

There’s no one way to parent. And none of us is perfect, least of all me. I think the mom in the OP is putting forth a lot of effort for her kids,however polarizing the title is trying to be,
 

LeftRightRepeat

Well-Known Member
Of course sometimes children are not the priority.

But she seems to have a pattern of putting her children second-that is an issue for me. She states her ex-husband is a good parent. Why not give him primary custody to give the children more stability? She can still be a great mom, involved in their lives, ect. That way she can have a better work/life balance?

He is also a lawyer and probably also works a lot of hours and possibly travels. The difference is nobody would be shocked by the possibility of him not being there for every parent/teacher conference or birthday party, so there is no article from him detailing these occurrences ( because nobody would read it).
 

Lylddlebit

Well-Known Member
I don’t think that is what is making people uncomfortable. She chose to have kids but she also chose to put her own desire for success in her career above her children by her own admission. That’s what gives me pause. Not saying she is wrong for what she does but I don’t understand her choice. One reason it has taken me so long to pursue motherhood is because I was not able/didn’t want to make the sacrifice that come along with it.

I don’t believe motherhood is the end all be all for women. I think that the choice to have children is just as valid as the choice not to have children. But I do scratch my head at the idea of having not one but two children and deciding that they come second to your wants and needs.

If someone adopted a dog and explained that they just didn’t not have the time to adequately take care of it would give most people pause. We definitely would question their decision to get a second pet if their job/social life was not conducive to caring for the pet or that for long chunks of time the dog was boarded and cared for by someone else.


I am so glad you said this. You articulated this point much better than could have and that is pretty much my story. A guy propositioning unprotected sex without insurance and assurance that proves the act is a combination of responsible, enjoyable and timed correctly is


shocking, insulting and I am sorry that I or society have given you(meaning the dude) reasons to believe that is an option but the answer to that is "no Sir, and I understand if this causes you to peruse other options(women because it won't be me)." He and I aren't making it to the 'what do I do with this pregnancy?' phase. It's a rigid "no" to unprotected sex without the necessary prerequisites because of what pregnancy would cost me in a circumstance that my prerequisites were not met. @Zuleika it really wasn't a "motherhood for all" deal in my case but you bring up a good point society's view. People have to live with what their life becomes whether they get the cosign or condemnation for it that's a harder pill to swallow than public opinion. I fully enjoyed being single and pretty much decided if I couldn't find the type of dude that poured value into my life then I just wasn't going to be married ...if I didn't have my affairs in order and be at a place where the things I wanted to do as a single ran it's course then I was okay with not conceiving children. There is value in enjoying the advantages of each season while you are actually in that season so that once that season runs it's course you don't necessarily need to miss it once it's gone and you also didn't miss out on it while it was in full effect. There is so much value in being able to enjoy being single during the time you are young and single...being able to enjoy your career popping when you can focus on it without distractions and limitations from men or kids and being a mom when you have the capacity to focus on that but sometimes we cheat ourselves out of those advantages by looking to enjoy those things during times where our other priorities outshine them.

Thanks @dicapr for bringing up your perspective of why you have waited to pursue motherhood. It is often overlooked why people who would make good mothers don't conceive children or why a couple who seems great doesn't have children as if it's a negative. I would imagine that the decision to never conceive children would be one of the hardest decisions a woman could make as a good woman, as a good wife or as a good mother when the justification to why some women who would have made excellent mothers never have kids is she wants to give her child(ren) more than just her awesomeness. A lot of people who don't fit the status quo don't fit it based on a cost benefit analysis.
 
Last edited:

HappilyLiberal

Well-Known Member
There is an unspoken agreement among many parts of society that motherhood is the ultimate goal for a woman, something that can and will fulfil every woman. A natural extension of this is the belief that simply getting pregnant (or in some extreme thought groups, being able to get pregnant) is an imperative that cannot be argued, ergo abortion is an act that goes against motherhood and therefore the purpose and existence of womenkind. I love that this article shows the other side.

It is a simple argument to put that women are born mothers and that this should be the pinnacle of their life, with all other facets of their existence (excepting for many caring for a man)falling to obscurity behind. I use simple with it’s dual meaning - it is an easily made argument, but it is also facile and lacks depth. To claim that a woman is simply an incubator and child rearer is to overstate the bestial nature of humanity. A cow is an incubator and child rearer, because she is incapable of anything else. She is a beast and knows only to breed and to nourish (herself and her calf). The argument for motherhood above all reduces a woman to her biological function and robs her of her humanity; a hard won humanity.

I object to insinuations that aborting a child that is unwanted, or unaffordable, makes one a bad mother, or a bad person. I would argue quite the opposite, utilitarianism would very much agree that the cost of a non-life (by many if not most belief systems) is beneficial when weighed against the potential (and statistically predictable) societal outcomes of an underfunded and/or underloved child: delinquency, underachievement, violence. A child born into lack (financial and emotional) has a greater chance of causing damage to society; there will be counter arguments putting forth that certain individuals belie this, Beethoven is always touted, but these are exceptions not rules. They shine bright but only because we do not look at the sheer volume of their failed contemporaries. :look:

To have a child should be a choice made by an informed individual who has the resources to provide care and support. The author of the article clearly believes that she is providing both of those things. She’s doing it in a way that absolutely challenges the assumption that women must be chained to the sink; she uses her husband to provide emotional care (revolutionary in some designated survivor backwards communities), she works a high powered and societally important job , and she chooses these two things over being the “traditional” mother. Her choice can be easily panned by those who are tied to the belief that a woman should be nothing more than a breeding machine, but it cannot be accurately derided. She has chosen well for herself and her children.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 

awhyley

Well-Known Member
To the persons who say that she has a good support system, I'm not really sure whether this is the case, as I feel that it's something people say when they want to make themselves feel better about the decisions that they're making. Her husband is a lawyer as well, so whose to say that he picks up the slack? The fact that her daughter took it so hard when she missed that birthday party spoke volumes, (esp. since she only booked the date to gain a competitive advantage for her case). Also, when her son had to resort to saying that he was proud that she was a lawyer, I felt bad for her as the other children could definitatively point out instances where they saw their mother/parent doing for them, while he could not. Having a 'support system' isn't the same as having your mother there when she's needed/wanted.

Succeed at home first. No job, title, promotion, or accolade is worth my personal family relationships because I can be replaced without hesitation.

#BIGFACTS

If someone adopted a dog and explained that they just didn’t not have the time to adequately take care of it would give most people pause.

Sadly, an incident for a neglected animal would be addressed and handled more swiftly than one for a neglected child, (esp. one from 'successful' parents).
 
Last edited:
Top