I think the general opinion in decorating forums tends to be that you'd like some contrast between floors and cabinets in the kitchen (where there are so many cabinets). If the wood will go into the kitchen, that'd be the thing I'd look at to try to coordinate what looks good. I think hickory would look great, but that's just my opinion. It's nice and hard and will stand up pretty well. It'll get scratched a bit, as any wood will, but hickory has such nice color variation that it hides scratches really well. It starts out looking "rustic" a bit with knots and huge color variations, so scratches won't be noticeable. IMHO, wood floors get scratched, and I'm OK with that. We put natural oak (mixed plank widths, 4, 5, and 6 inch) in my entire house (except bathrooms and laundry rooms) recently, and I love it. It looks great with the medium dark cherry kitchen and dining cabinetry, and it looks fine against the medium maple cabinetry in the 2nd kitchen (long story, lol). I think the contrast with the darker kitchen cabinets looks awesome. Where it is against the closer-in-color maple cabinets in the 2nd kitchen looks fine, but not as beautiful as the contrast to the darker cherry, IMHO. Dark colors on floors are a nightmare of dust and hair and reflections of scratches. Don't go there. Choose something (oak or hickory) that has lots of grain and pattern, to hide the inevitable scratches. Real solid wood can't go on a slab, so if you are on a slab, you need something else. If you really want scratch-proof, a "laminate" wood floor will (very high quality only, so price comparable to real wood) will hold up better, but is impossible to refinish or repair and is more vulnerable to serious damage, IMHO. Alternatively, if you don't mind the hardness and/or are on a slab to which you are willing/able to add radiant heat, you can do wood-look porcelain tile. Done right, it is as permanent and lovely a floor as you can get. Will look great for decades and is actually impervious to dogs, moisture, etc. Radiant floor heat is great, but pricey. If i were building on a slab, I'd definitely look at it as an option -- adding area carpets for snuggle factor (TV room floor, for instance.) For my house, I like real wood. To me, wood floors = home. The houses I grew up in all had wood floors. It feels right to me, so that's what i did. I like the fact that in 10-20 years, when we have fewer dogs and fewer kids, we can refinish it and it'll be as perfect as new. You can do that several times with wood, so you can get 100++ years out of wood. Same cannot be said for any other wood-look floors. Plus, I like the look of old wood floors. Although the first few scratches and imperfections irritated me, I think it looks fine, and it'll look even better in 5-10 years when there are more uniformly distributed scratches, lol. You can also do a quick "screen and re-coat" that doesn't eat into the wood at all significantly, just makes a mess of very light sanding and then a new coat of polyurethane . . . for a less expensive and less reduction in the life-time of the floor. You can do this every couple/few years if you have the patience for the mess and don't mind the expense. (I don't!)

Yes, that is illegal. That is renting. If you LIE about the cash (or non cash) by calling it "gifts", then you can get away with it. But, that doesn't make it legal. It's illegal. Try telling that story to the judge about the cash gifts and it being a favor, and see what they say. Then you are committing perjury, too. Not good. I am a landlord in two states . . . I have read and re-read the laws. The senior neighbor is breaking the law. She should be paying taxes as a landlord, not as an owner-occupied residence. In fact, her mortgage (if she still has one) could likely (theoretically) be called due if she tells the truth or is caught. Rental property taxes are higher. I know; I pay them. When we recently bought our rental property for college girl to live in (with roommates), there were three ways I could have done it. As a second home (a lie I could get away with), in dd's name (even 1% ownership), or the way reflecting the truth -- as an "investment property". Either of the first two options would have saved us massively on property taxes -- 50% off the top. The first two ways would have also saved us mortgage costs both in required down payment and in interest rate. But, you know what, we did the LEGAL way, even though several banks simply assumed we were going to be lying and calling it a 2nd home "like most parents do". We will pay an extra thousand or two a year over the time we own it because we told the truth . . . So, IMHO, your neighbor, to be legal, should disclose the transformation of her property to a rental and pay appropriate taxes (and other business license fees, etc.)

I did tons of research on this topic last fall, and I bought a pair of the stainless steel (whole body, so nothing to peel) Contigo AutoSeal ones for my coffee-fanatic 16 yo son for a Christmas surprise (so hard to choose surprises for a teen boy) and he LOVES them. What I love is that he can haul his coffee without making a mess. (He doesn't mind the mess, lol). He loves the portability and keeping-warm features. They are awesome.

I just survived a horrific oral (inhaled steroids for asthma to blame) and vaginal (entire body in revolt to blame) yeast infection, so I've done a lot of reading on yeast. I don't think yeast infections typically smell. In fact, that's a distinguisher between yeast and bacterial vaginal infections. Bacterials ones can smell "fishy" but yeast infections don't generally cause an odor. I think this is consistent with my experiences. Sooooo, my guess would be bacteria. If budget isn't a big issue, I'd buy 5 or more new bras and set aside all my old ones. I'd wash the area twice daily with a good soap and washcloth and dry thoroughly. I'd wash my bras nightly (every night, right after washing) in warm water with strong detergent and thoroughly dry (in a machine if the bras can handle it). A vinegar or bleach during washing would be good. If the stink is in your bras, it'll clear up fast. If it doesn't, I'd proceed with more investigations. FWIW, I have some sports bras that are so stink-attracting that they will still stink after multiple hot water washes with strong detergent and multiple drying cycles and months in the closet . . . I think the main problem is that I sometimes let them sit for days before washing. That bacteria just goes mad and digs in to the fibers. If the stink spread to my books . . . I'd throw them out (even though they are my favorites).

But, that's just illegal. Your senior neighbor is pulling a scam. Our entire society is based on the honor system, IMHO.

Yep, exactly this has happened this year in WV. As the (deranged) state legislature has refused to deal with budget shortfalls, many critical services are going unfunded. Our county has a SLEW of "levies" (surcharges on our property taxes that will last 5 years) on the primary ballot in May to fund basic services like buses, libraries, rail trail and park maintenance, etc, etc. It's all stuff that used to be funded via regular state budget process, but has been decimated in recent budget failures. The counties ONLY have the ability to impose property taxes (no alternatives such as sin taxes, etc.), so these levies are on the ballot. I sure hope the parks one passes. We happen to own a lot of real estate (business as well as home), so we'll probably have a big hit at tax time. We can handle it, no problem, and I'll vote for all the levies, but folks on a fixed income will be pinched. The state's failure leaves the county no other option, though, as the county's only means to raise funds is through the property tax rates (long term) and levies (5 yr terms -- ideally just for major improvements, etc.). It's so desperate that our county is trying to use the levies just to maintain what we already have . . . I'm guessing this is because the levies can be done quickly whereas raising the base property tax rates is a slower process. But, our legislature just took the year off from doing any constructive work this year, including budgeting . . . So, our county is doing what it can to try not to be destroyed. (Ours is probably one of if not the most affluent in the state, but that isn't saying a lot in WV. Nonetheless, we feed taxes to the rest of the state already.)

Sad to admit, but I'd likely clean up the debris myself, and I'd thank ds for making an effort. :) I, too, have a ds16. . . Sometimes you just have to count your blessings and move on. I'd say that laundry isn't important to ds, but he made a significant effort to comply with your instructions. The details come later. Maybe much later. Maybe never, lol. If I were particularly annoyed, I might ask ds to do another load or two or some other chore to "make it up to me" for not completing the task . . . But, in all honesty, I'd not bother. I'd just be thankful for small progress and move on. And smile. :) In a couple more years, we won't have smelly teen boys around 24/7 messing up the place, and we'll be counting our blessings with each short text or holiday visit . . . Maybe by the time they come home, they'll have learned to clean up after themselves. Or not, lol. But, I bet we won't mind it so much when we only get them holidays and summers . . . and someday, not even that!

FWIW, I think it's important to view SS retirement (and other) benefits as an anti-poverty measure, not as a retirement investment. This is why it's designed in a progressive manner, essentially getting a lot more $$ from high earners and redistributing it to lower earners. That's fine in my book. High earners also have the ability to save in other ways for retirement. Taxing SS income seems perfectly fine to me. The key is to recognize that SS income isn't earned savings/retirement. It's a tax you paid while you were working to help insure you and others in society against being destitute in old age (or when disabled or orphaned or widowed with young children). The system is ideally set up to create a floor of survival for folks without resources, not to set you up for a cushy retirement. The fact that wealthier folks get some benefits (SS benefits) as well is a carrot to keep them (me) invested in keeping the SS tax system in place at all. If you cut off benefits for everyone who earned over 70-100k or whatever, you'd lose support for the system at all. Give them back retirement/etc benefits that are actually a (small) part of their lifetime contributions, and you help maintain their support (and it seems a bit fair anyway). With various exemptions/allowances/etc, presumably low earners will pay little to no federal tax (not all states are progressive this way), with high earners, for whom SS is just one part of their income stream and/or they have big assets to live off, they'll pay some taxes on their SS benefits. Seems fine and fair to me. Personally, I'd be fine with eliminating the 110k/yr salary cap as well, but that'd be unlikely to, in the end, add a huge amount to the system since most folks with very high incomes have ways around endless SS taxes (setting up corporations, etc.), and if you added another 15+% (which is what it is when you are paying both ends of the SS tax as a business owner) to income endlessly just means business owners, etc, would direct income to "non earned" income that is NOT subject to the SS taxes at all. (In fact, many/most business owners already do this to some extent . . . ) Maybe a better route would be to ADD SS taxes to financial transactions/investment income/etc . . . "passive income" . . . 1% on all that could likely eliminate payroll taxes to a large extent. (But, just try to get the investment banks, uber-wealthy, etc., to agree to this!)

Here is one reference. You can go to the .gov pages for official info and official calculators, etc., but this is more read-able for general info. http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2014/10/31/how-big-can-a-social-security-check-be.aspx Essentially, in today's $$ (SS goes up with inflation), $3515/mo is the theoretical max benefit. Your monthly benefit is based on your earnings over time. Someone with a max SS tax contribution (SS taxes are capped at around a salary of 110k/yr at this time) for the max number of years/quarters (30 years now??) who waits to age 70 to take their SS, would get this theoretical max. If they'd retired at 66 (67 for us younger folks), they'd be just getting 2663/mo. (Spousal benefit of 50% is based only on the "standard" amount -- so max of 50% of 2663/mo or about 1330/mo max for spousal benefit.) Note that SS benefits are based on earnings, but not linearly. Essentially, it is "progressive" in that low earners get relatively bigger bang for their SS tax buck, and higher earners get relatively lower bang for their buck. (So a low earner that only paid in, say 500/yr -- x2 to 1000/yr with employer matching tax -- in SS taxes might get a 500/mo in SS benefits at retirement, but a high earner that paid in, say 7000/yr -- x2 with employer matching tax to 14,000/yr -- might get back 2000/mo in benefits . . . TOTALLY made up numbers, FWIW, just making a general point.) To me, this makes sense as SS is intended as an anti-poverty insurance type program, not as a "fair" retirement savings plan. Hope this is helpful.

I think you have the Roth & traditional backwards. My mom had a traditional one, and the earnings are taxed as you take it out. I know, because I handled her taxes, and because I inherited half of it, and now I get to pay the taxes, as it was all considered pre-taxed money, so not subject to estate tax exemptions, etc. I pay taxes on every dollar distributed (so, both her pre-tax contributions and all earnings) as regular income. The contributions were pre-tax; that was a big benefit as she was earning high income when she saved for retirement but relatively low once retired. Dh and I now have SIMPLE IRAs of our own which, so far as I understand, are comparable tax-wise to a traditional IRA (but with higher contribution limits as it is designed for small businesses as a simpler alternative than setting up a 401K). The SIMPLE IRA takes my money pre-tax, but I'll pay taxes on everything later when it is disbursed. Roth IRAs have some advantages over traditional ones, but they are not available to people with incomes above certain limits. https://investor.vanguard.com/ira/roth-vs-traditional-ira

I'm not SKL nor an expert . . . but here's my AMT low-down as we've faced it a few times (I think we narrowly avoided it a few times, might have paid it once or twice) . . . The point of the AMT was to hit high earners who earned a lot but used tons of loop holes to avoid paying taxes. The idea was, "Hey, rich guys -- 1%'ers -- go ahead and calculate your complicated tax forms with all those fancy deductions . . . Then, redo it without all (mostly) of those deductions, and we're gonna take a lower percentage, say 20%, and whichever way shows you owing more, you pay that, either your regular tax OR the ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM tax . . ." Problem is that it was originally intended to only apply to very high earners, but the income threshold wasn't indexed to inflation or fixed legislatively. For whatever reason, our lame ass congress "fixes" it for a year at a time, usually really late in the tax year . . . To nudge it up towards a higher income applicability, but then it reverts the next year to the old/low threshold . . .

Personally, I think SS income should be treated similarly to taxing IRA distributions. The seniors paid into the system (as did their employers), but that was PRE-tax money. When you withdraw IRA money, you are taxed on it, assuming it was a pre-tax IRA . . . Essentially, you are deferring taxation until you are old and presumably in a lower tax bracket and also, the earnings/etc compounded all those years w/o taxation, your IRA or similar funds can grow more than it would have otherwise. But, in any event SS contributions were pre-tax . . . That said, I think there should be a fairly high exemption on all income taxes, say maybe 40-50k/adult + 10k/dependent. That way, anyone with a modest income won't pay income taxes (they pay plenty of other taxes, though), but those with high incomes do. SS maxes out at around 3500/mo, so that sort of exemption could be set high enough to exempt everyone who is living solely on SS. Personally, I'd rather have a world where if I'm lucky enough to retire with $$$ and so SS income is a small part of my income/asset base, then I'll pay some extra taxes then. While, those (or me) who are unfortunate enough to face retirement where their SS income is their entire income stream, they won't pay any income taxes. I think that *in general* things work out this way now with all the complex deductions/exemptions/etc, but it'd make more sense to me to make it simpler. Also, FWIW, the home mortgage deduction favors the younger folks who are paying big mortgages, where many/more retired folks either have no mortgage or are renting. Everything is just so complicated . . . I wish it were simpler . . . I could afford to pay more taxes if I wasn't spending 5 figures each year in CPA fees . . .

TBH, I wish they'd simplify ALL of our tax rules. It's insane. That said, I don't think senior citizens are deserving of more help than, say, a struggling young family with a special needs kid or two . . . I think our entire tax code needs desperately to be simplified. As does our health care delivery system.

ps. Re drug testing. You can buy lots of urine drug tests on Amazon. Super cheap. It's an easy way to check for drug use if you don't want to start a medical record.

BTDT, have the t-shirt. My suggestions . . . Yes, get him help now. Don't wait. This is a medical issue, and the parents have a legal and moral duty to address it. That's what I said (over and over) when the issue arose in my family. It's not optional to do something. You can negotiate on time lines, choice of gender for therapists, changing therapists if child hates one, meds vs no meds vs change in meds . . . But, doing nothing is not an option. 1) Schedule a pediatrician appointment to evaluate to "screen for depression". If you are lucky, and your pediatrician is awesome (as my child's was), the pediatrician can be vitally helpful in setting the stage for the child accepting therapy and/or meds. They can help de-stigmatize it, make it clear that it is typical/common to get some help navigating this, and that it is normal and not bad . . . S/he will also likely be the prescriber for any meds and can refer you to therapists. 2) Insist on 8-12 weeks of therapy to evaluate what's going on and see if it helps. 3) Make clear that the therapist can act as a "life coach" and help the teen "get what you want" by helping them negotiate with you, etc. 4) Be clear that you and your spouse are open to change and open to meeting with the therapist (or an additional therapist) together to work out family dynamics, etc. 5) Make it as pleasant as possible for the kid to go to therapy. (Buy coffee on the way, go to lunch after, or whatever else makes outings more pleasant for your kid.) 6) Meanwhile, encouraging outdoor exercise and healthy sleep habits can help. Also, meanwhile, definitely take child to a dermatologist and comply with purchasing the slew of expensive medications that will be prescribed. Get rid of the acne. It can make a real difference. (Also, washing sheets frequently is also very helpful.) Again, treat the acne as a "MEDICAL" problem that you, as the parent, have a moral and legal obligation to address. Google up "signs of depression in teens" and share with your teen. My teen was very forthcoming about signs, and seeing that s/he met *every* clinical sign made it pretty clear that something was amiss. Obnoxious teen angst-y behavior is easy to confuse with depression.

That's a very tough situation. I'd likely insist she kept going to a therapist for some significant period of time. I'm guessing I'd insist on 8-12 weeks initially, but I'd permit her to reject one therapist and try a new one, which would re-start the 8-12 week clock, since I'd expect it'd take about that long to get into the meatier aspects of therapy and know if it was helping (and get over the newness of it and hopefully establish a bond of sorts and also get some good results . . .) If after "giving it a good try" the teen still insisted s/he wanted out, I'd re-evaluate. (I'd make clear to the kid that we can/will change therapists immediately if s/he feels creeped out or uncomfortable . . .) In general, if the kid is in danger, or you think the kid is in danger, you've got to do what you think is best no matter what the kid wants. That's my guiding principle. However, respecting their autonomy is both morally right and also makes it more likely they will grow and heal . . . Sooooooo, I'd want to try whatever I could to gain cooperation. I'd offer bribes. If I were driving the child to therapy, I'd routinely stop at a nice (to the kid) lunch spot after, stop for coffee before (if the kid likes coffee), etc. I'd try to make it as pleasant as possible. I'd frame the therapy as "life coach" and seek to encourage the child to see it as a way to learn techniques not just to change how s/he feels but to change her universe . . . I.e., "I know you want to play x-box (substitute your kid's favorite time-wasters or other desired life circumstances here), which we've forbidden [since kid hasn't followed the rules], Therapist X can help you figure out how to get what you want . . . " Also, be sure to allow for you and your dh changing. "Therapist X can help you figure out how to get what you want from Dad and I. Dad and I are willing to change. We know we aren't perfect and we make mistakes. We are making this up as we go along. I/We are happy to listen to you and to Therapist X. If we need to change a rule or change other things we are doing, we will." So, anyway, it may be too late or too little for those approaches to help. At the end of the day, I'm guessing I'd require a couple weeks of weekly sit-downs with both parents and the therapist and the kid all together before agreeing to a change in medications (unless there were clearly dangerous or disturbing problems that might be attributable to the meds, in which case, one emergency call to the therapist and/or prescribing physician would be all it would take to change/stop the med, but then I'd require a couple sit downs to discuss the decision and next step (i.e., try a different med).

One thought I've had about this is that if we pay 15/hr to entry level folks, yes, we'll have fewer employees in low skilled jobs and more mechanization. BUT, that's not necessarily a problem, because, frankly, I'd expect some people to opt to work fewer hours if they were earning more. Folks who now earn 7.50/hr and scrape up 50-60 hr/wk with multiple jobs and their spouse is doing similarly . . . Well, if their hourly wage gets to 15/hr, they can drop back to 40 hr/wk or less. Or one of them might go PT . . . We employ a dozen or so folks, most of whom (maybe 8/12) earn within a couple dollars/hr of minimum wage (albeit our state min wage is 8.75/hr). When we bought our vet hospital nearly 12 years ago, min wage was 5.15/hr IIRC, and lots of staff was earning close to that. As min wage goes up, our wage scale does nudge up but it also compresses. So, we used to have staff making from 5.15-12/hr (with one or two exceptions at maybe 14/hr). Now we have lay staff that makes about 8.75-13/hr, with a couple exceptions that earn around 15-18/hr. Although every increase in minimum wage pinches just a little at payroll time, I always welcome it, not just because philosophically I think it is a good idea, but because that means that my business competitors must now increase their wages . . . and I know we generally pay higher than most and offer more benefits . . . so it helps "even the playing field" just a bit, making it EASIER for me to be a more generous employer. Another big advantage to me, as a small business owner and employer of fairly low wage staff, is that raising wages will definitely improve my clients' ability to afford the services we offer, and even allow them to even own pets at all . . . So, anyway, those are my thoughts.

My 2c (having been in your shoes, but with a dead dad as a result of the hospital negligence) . . . Note, my experiences shadow my words, and my experiences were brutal and sad. One, if you can't recover big, big money, don't bother with a law suit. (For me, it'd have to be 300k+++ and/or to support a victim with long term critical needs that can't otherwise be met.) You can't likely recover significant monetary damages since those are based on pain/suffering as well as lost companionship/earning power, etc. Assuming he has no lasting harm done and the suffering was of short duration, then there is little case. Any law suit requires a lawyer, which is both $$$ and depressing as hell, as you will be faced with the realization that an old, harmed or old, dead person is worth very little to our court system. It's all about lost earning power. Maybe also lost companionship/love . . . then there is the argument that the old frail decrepit person had little of that left to give. Very depressing. All around. Don't go there, IME. HOWEVER, if I were in your shoes, I'd definitely file board complaints at the various professional boards. I'd get Dad's medical records, make a list of every nurse and doctor and hospital, etc. . . . and file board complaints at the various regulatory boards. Should not take you more than a handful of part days of hassles, and will probably result in much teeth grinding and head banging among those who contributed to his poor care. Honestly, this will likely make them pay more attention than a regular law suit. Professionals have insurance to protect them financially, but their licenses, those are without price. Hit them where it hurts. Now, if you feel sympathetic and might not want to "punish them" with board complaints, then you *could* contact the hospital and let them know your concerns and that you'd like a sit down meeting with the doctors involved, the nursing staff involved, and whatever administrators are interested, and you'd like them to present you with a review of your loved one's care, identifying their errors, and letting you know what they are doing to make sure this never happens to another patient. In my ideal world, that would be the end of things. Honestly, in the case of my dad, if the hospital staff had been forthcoming after his care-caused accident and consequent death, my brother and I would not have sued. We begged them for explanation of what happened. All we wanted was to understand and to know they would take better care next time . . . Dad was dead, and we weren't in it for money. But, they clammed up completely as soon as the accident occurred (as it was obviously negligent), not being willing to share any information with us about how/what had happened. We *had* to sue to get a lawyer to pay experts to read and interpret the thousands of pages of medical records to even idenittfy the actual people who failed their duties. (In Dad's case, it turned out that a day nurse failed to "re order" a restraint order and then the night nurse also failed to find that omission on her required daily review of renewals of standing orders . . . AND a PT AND the paired OT both also failed to properly secure Dad before leaving him . . . AND some unknown staff failed to lock the wheels on his bed . . . The *least* culpable people, IMHO, were his actual nurse at the time of the accident (because Dad had been moved from ICU to a recovery/medical floor just the night before, so he was new to her wing, and she had many other patients, so she had no way to know he -- a recent survivor of a massive stroke who was on blood thinners -- was as fragile as he was and that when the PT & OT left him alone in a chair -- that was his first time out of bed in 10 days and he was unsafe to be alone for any time, let alone while seated adjacent to a wheeled bed with unlocked wheels . . . And, his actual doctor(s), who had appropriately *ordered* continuous 24/7 restraint, but because of laws, those orders MUST be renewed daily (cannot be "standing" orders without renewal). SO, all this is to say that unfortunately, it is hard to know WHO is at fault in the complex environment of a hospital adverse event. If the hospital has some system through which to complain, I'd start there. If I wasn't confident that they were taking the problems very seriously, I'd get medical records and start filing complaints -- the more the merrier, and I'd let the boards figure out who actually screwed up. So, anyway, that's my 2c. (And, yes, we did win a significant financial settlement. It was enough to notice, but not life changing. The money wasn't worth the agony of the process. BUT, knowing the truth of what happened and knowing that those whose sloppiness killed Dad were to some small degree called to the carpet, well, that made it worth it.) I'm so very sorry this happened to your dad. I have lots of medical professional friends and family. I love and trust them . . . BUT, I am incredibly paranoid and controlling about anyone in the hospital. I've seen lots of errors, and Dad's death was 100% preventable . . . I ask loads of questions, and I never leave them alone in the hospital, ever.

Oh, dear. Certain controlled drugs do require hard copy prescriptions. So sorry!

LOL, I just the other night teased dh that "When we were dating, your favorite author was Dostoevsky (really!!) , but now you read tween fantasy" (over and over) . . . He pointed out that when we were dating, he used to sleep 10 hr/night and had no kids and no responsibilities other than grad school (which was easy for him). He suggested that maybe he'd pick back up the classics when he retires. :) So, yes, I think it's a reasonable response to a stressful and demanding life. You need some brain candy. Enjoy it!

I don't understand. Is "this . . . venue" referring to the email/message or to the WTM forums? And what does "that" refer to? My post was suggesting a reinterpretation of the ex-husband's message to his ex-wife. I was just suggesting an alternative interpretation of the reasoning of the ex-h's reluctant assent to his ex-w's desire to place the child in a school he didn't like. I agree to leave the school out of squabbles.

Actually, it is my understanding that if you are widowed, you will be eligible for your spouse's entire SS check (once you hit your own full retirement age). If he dies young, you and your kids are each eligible for survivor's benefits. You can get 75% of his benefit amount as long as you are caring for children under 16. Once you are 60, you are eligible for 71.5% of his benefit, ramping up to 100% your full retirement age. When you hit retirement age, you are eligible fro 50% of his "standard, full" retirement benefit (but not the bonus part that you get if you work a few years longer) So, if his full benefit is $2000/mo, he would get that AND you will get another $1000/mo. (If you are eligible for your own benefits, you get to choose whether to take the spousal or your own, whichever is higher in most cases.) If you divorce, so long as you've been married 10 years and don't remarry (before age 60), you are still entitled to spousal benefits. Check it out. https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/onyourown5.html

Google up the animal laws in your state and county and city/town. In many places, it is just a matter of days after leaving that the pet is considered "abandoned" and then you can re-home or euthanize them. Also, if the person is living in the home, and the pets are left there in your presumed care, and you neglect them, then you could be liable for neglect/abuse charges -- felonies in some locations. So, essentially, as long as you are involved in any way, I'd make sure the animals are cared for. In some places, caring for and feeding a pet for as few as 3 days makes someone the legal owner of a pet. She could call the sheriff or animal control and report the excess number of pets. If she declares that s/he was fraudulently identified as the pets' owners, then she should tell them that, in writing, and let the authorities know that the pets are not actually hers, and that they are in danger, neglected, or whatever else is true, and ask for their help. If the person is the registered legal owner of the animals, and s/he wants to humanely re-home or otherwise dispose of them, I'd encourage her to keep copies of the the registration papers or other proof of ownership. Then s/he can contact rescue organizations and/or shelters to try to re-home the pets. Or, she can surrender to a shelter. Or, she can ask her veterinarian to euthanize (which would be readily available if the pet has significant medical or behavioral problems . . . but not all vets will do it for simple "convenience" on a healthy pet. At the end of the day, I'd just encourage your friend to make herself and her children safe and well. Once she is out and safe somewhere, she can always call and report to the authorities. IMHO, it is incredibly unlikely she'd have any legal exposure. Just keep all pertinent records. Ideally, also write that letter to the authorities notifying them. As in -- addressed to both the local law enforcement and any animal control: "Please be aware that even though I was (without my consent or knowledge) made the registered owner of the 5 dogs (breed/color/names listed here) and 8 cats (breed/color/names listed here) residing at 15 First Street, Jonestown, I have never been the actual owner of these animals. For my own safety/security/wellbeing, I have moved out of that address, and I want to alert you that the remaining adults in the residence (names optional here) were not willing to re-home the pets, which, in truth, belonged to them, so I have left them there. Conditions are not good. Some of the pets need medical care. They aren't well fed or cared for. I request that you follow up to ensure their wellbeing. Thank you, Sally Jones

I think you are right, but I think they should be able to fax an RX in.

Fire pit. Outdoor couches, ideally where 2-3 people could lounge on one big couch. Maybe one of those outdoor sectionals if you have room. Hammock. Pool if you have $$$ for it. Hot tub is a good alternative. Games . . . bocce ball is fun. I'm personally thinking about putting in tether ball. I always loved that game. :)