Local_Historian wrote: Well done, CB. You enhanced both their lives and his, while making it not a burden on either.
What was interesting in these visits, is that a lot of the residents that were there, both physically and mentally, thoroughly enjoyed have my kids there. And my kids interacted with the residents--though they didn't understand some of the comments the residents made in their dementia...but, my boys brought a ray of sunlight to residents that otherwise probably wouldn't have had any interaction with younger people. And this taught my kids to enjoy our elderly and what they have to give to us all if we will only listen and pay attention.
Note, this was just a bonus to visiting my dad...but it worked even if not planned.
Kind of playing devil's advocate here: for all of you who just automatically judged the ex-husband, I'd like to point out that this article was written from the parent's bias, and y'all bought right into the emotional impact. Consider this:
A year later her husband, believing she would never recover, divorced her and is raising their children at his Los Angeles home.
Maybe they had talked to each other about what to do if a situation like this ever happened and she had told him to move on. I've already told my hubby that if my living will isn't honored and I'm a vegetable and some idiot refuses to pull the plug on me, then I absolutely want him to divorce me and move on. My children deserve a loving mother in their lives, and if it can't be me then I want someone else who loves him and them.
Until a four-day visit last December, Dan Dorn had not done so.
Maybe she had been his whole life and it was too hard for him to see her?
Both sides agreed in court last week that the visit went well and the children would like to see their mother again.
So he's not being totally belligerent and unreasonable.
But their father wants to limit their interaction to avoid traumatizing them. He noted that his ex-wife can't speak and he believes she isn't aware of her surroundings.
It sounds like he can't face the reality of the situation, possibly due to his grief - he says he doesn't want to traumatize the children - it sounds like transference to me - he's actually the one who is traumatized by seeing her in that state and can't face it. Who knows? The fact is, this article doesn't present his point of view at all, just the parents so it's written in such a way as to make him sound like an evil asshole. I'd guess that if she truly is responsive like her mother and the LA Times reporter say in the story, that continued visits with her, and getting some counseling, might change his mind, and he would encourage visits with the children. I don't know any of this for sure, I'm just saying that there are more sides to this story and I encourage you to consider that before making hasty judgements (SC's speech of the day on dispassionate critical thinking, take from it, or not, what you like. Back to your regularly scheduled programming!).
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
