"Coffee?" (looks over my own shoulder and around the room) "Me? No, I'm (name), I do (position) here. We don't actually have people whose job includes coffee service. We've been happy with self-serve coffee for a long time in this department."

I understand. You think of yourself as an ordinary person, maybe stretched, but not exactly "needy". You're used to being someone who helps others, not someone who reaches out to receive help, not someone who needs or qualifies for social services. I understand that there are various ways of telling the truth of your situation, and that some of them feel dishonest right now. But I also think that your perspective might be sheltering you a little from the harsh realities that I'm seeing in the black-and-white text you have written on the screen. You are spending money on food, and it's barely enough. Because you are spending as much as you can afford to make sure food happens, you are doing without a household utility that is normal in your area -- and you plan to do so for a considerable amount of time. It sucks to say so, but that absolutely fits the definition of living in poverty. It fits the kinds of scenarios that food banks are for: so both things can happen at once (food can be secure, *and* bills can be paid). It's not dishonest to describe yourself and your household income in a way that meets the criteria for food (or other) assistance. It sounds like your small town isn't great at providing social assistance, and is using a 'qualification' shortcut that excludes may needy people from their help. That sucks. I wonder if there is a workaround anywhere local or nearby.

And, "I had to take my kids and leave my husband, but we aren't divorced." -- is hardly a "unique circumstance".

I'm not sure where you live, but I struggle to imagine a food bank that actually operates on a rule that: When a woman is living as a single parent, separated from her husband and having a separate address, that she can't access the food bank without including his income. Can you imagine how many women fleeing abuse that would impact? Or even just women who are waiting a year or more for a divorce to finalize? That makes no sense. Mother-led single parent families are very much at risk of food shortage, no matter if they are still married-on-paper or not. So, if it's true, it's incredibly thoughtless and dehumanizing, and actually fosters domestic violence, and somebody needs to shake these people. But, since it is such a senseless way for a charity to operate, it is also possible that you misunderstood. Maybe circle around and re-check the requirements? Maybe it says 'combined income of people living at the same address' or something? And, if it turns out to be true, I'm shocked, but I'd be more shocked if there weren't, then, other charities trying to fill that gap for separated women and their children. Maybe look and see if there are specific domestic violence resources with different requirements for food help? (I know you aren't saying that your situation is domestic violence -based, I only mean that you might qualify for some those resources based on your living situation, without having to claim anything in particular about your husband.)

Among the other suggestions, is maybe just try releasing your ideas around seasonal eating. Some of those things had roots in actual harvest schedules (like pumpkins being ready at a certain time of year and unavailable other times) but many of them are simply marketing dressed up as 'traditions' (like saucier meatier meals for winter). Most food items are available year round these days, and there's no legitimate reason that things like chili and casseroles aren't 'summer foods'. If that's what you know how to make in those tools, and it's what your family likes -- just do that. (Serve with salad. Now it's a summer food!)

I'm not sure, because I'm thinking you are one of our members that has problematic sister-in-laws? The 'spirit' of a non-traditional 'shower' depends very much on the character of the one throwing it, the one receiving it, and also the tone of contents of the wishlist. In general, I love the idea of non-traditional showers that celebrate things other than marriage and motherhood. (Housewarmings can be this way, for example.) Therefore I kind of love the idea of a "entrepreneurial launch shower" -- in the general case. In the case of one specific SIL, who might not be treating her extended family in excellent ways in recent history, I might not be as enthusiastic. These things are not unconditional. We support other people's children through "showers" when we are in healthy reciprocal relationships already. If there's strain and bad feelings already: nobody should be pushing towards non-traditional gift occasions for their own kids.

In terms of Canadian Parliamentary System (which was modeled on the UK)... 1. Responsibilities of Member of Parliament: To present themselves at the capital to sit in various seating sections in the House of Parliament, and vote (almost always along party lines) either for or against "Bills" (which become "Acts") -- which are proposals for new laws or government activity. Any MP can propose an Act. Usually only a party with a majority (or a coalition that forms a majority) bothers to do so, because only they can pass them. Certain MPs are designated by their party leadership to be in charge of overseeing and guiding various government departments. Not all of them get one. These roles can be shifted at any time. Generally the MP most closely related to the the department of government that is being impacted will be the one to personally propose a Bill. 2. Responsibilities of the Prime Minister: To, with the guidance of many professionals on their staff and in coordination with other leading members of their party, decide the direction and goals of the party -- which become the direction and goals of the country when that party is in power. To be the "face" of the government in official roles, international diplomacy, etc. To have the final say and sign-off on the actions of other party members and MPs. To be empowered to act precipitously as an individual decision maker only in very rare circumstances, like, maybe during a war. 3. Geographical Ridings: Yes, MPs come from a geographical area called a riding, and they technically are supposed to represent the interests of those living there. In reality, they mostly form another vote for their party, and voters know that, so they vote mostly keeping in mind the party they want to become empowered, not necessarily the personal sense of representation. In Canada, these are population-sensitive (large ridings in rural areas, smaller when they represent portions of cities) to some degree, but not really in an up-to-date way. 4. Terms: There are no term limits. An MP can serve for as long as the voters in their riding keep re-electing them. The Prime Minister can serve for as long as they are (a) elected by a riding (any riding) and serving as an MP, and (b) voted by the members of their party to keep on being their party leader, and not having resigned. (Yes they have to be an MP. If they are voted out by their own riding, they also stop being their party leader and being Prime Minister by that action. Edited to add: sometimes, in this situation, a different MP from the same party will strategically resign, opening another riding where the Prime Minister can be the candidate and potentially be elected there and become an MP again. I think if this happens quickly, they can continue to be the Prime Minister the whole time.) It is traditional for a sitting Prime Minister to resign after the loss of an election for their party. They also sometimes choose to resign before an election, if they feel a new party leader (ie a new potential Prime Minister) would have a better chance of leading the party to success. Or they might resign in disgrace of some kind. If a Prime Minister needs to resign when their is no election going on, the party (who is still the majority party) votes on a new party leader. The new party leader automatically becomes the Prime Minister, and the resigning-one steps down that same day. 5. Parties: There are unlimited political parties in Canada. Some of them are tiny, some of them want to be start-ups and change the landscape, but some of them are one-candidate parties that someone has crafted for themselves, and some of them are even jokes (as far as I can tell). In Canada, there are 5 that matter, and 2 that are core. 6. Popular vote: The popular vote has nothing to do with the Prime Minister (or with anything, really). Each riding elects and MP. The party with the most MPs forms the government, and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. (The Prime Minister is not a surprise: everyone knows who the party leaders are, all during the election season.) If the party that forms government has more than 50% of the MPs that's called a 'Majority Government' and they can basically pass any Bills that they want to. If the party that forms the government has the most MPs, but it's still less than 50%, that's called a 'Minority Government' and they have to form partnerships with other smaller groups of MPs from different parties if they want to pass anything. 7. Voting: I think it's just 18yo and Canadian citizen for us. 8. Forming a Government: It's an interesting turn of phrase. It's a reference to the way that a Monarch is still the technical ruler of the country. Pedantically said: It is a pretense that 'in this way' (holding elections) that the Monarch has 'freely decided' (not!) to surrender aspects of rulership to some other body. That other body is 'a government' which must be 'formed' over and over again. It's almost like the king says, "Well, let's just take a little non-binding poll to find out who the people would like to govern them. Then, coincidentally, I'll just happen to request that those exact people do the ruling for me!" Then, from time to time, the king 'finds out' that the people don't like that government any more, so he 'dissolves' it, takes another 'poll' and invites new people to 'form' another government for another little while. Once a party leader is asked to 'form a government' that make them the Prime Minister and empowers them, and other MPs under them, to do the actual work of governance. So, forming government doesn't always involve a coalition -- if a party has a Majority Government they just form the whole government themselves by deciding who among them will serve in which roles. If a party has a Minority Government they may begin building a coalition by inviting MPs from other parties into some governmental roles -- but to do so would be a very deep form of cooperation. The more usual form of cooperation is either negotiation for ongoing support from a whole small party (in exchange for also advancing some of the goals of that small party in an ongoing way) or negotiation for small party support for individual Bills (by making individual bills appealing enough that other parties find them votable). It's essential that a Minority Government has the support of enough other MPs to get themselves past 50% (or they can't pass anything, not even a budget) and it's important that the voting commitments are clear and known in advance. That's because if a sitting government proposes a bill and it is defeated on the floor -- that automatically triggers the next election. Even if it's only been a few weeks since the last election! It's called a no-confidence vote. They hardly ever happen because the negotiations are carefully done and shenanigans don't benefit anybody -- and frequent elections are not something anyone wants. Plus you don't have to be snakey to get a no-confidence vote. If you want a present Minority Government out, as an MP, all you would have to do is propose your own bill (that you don't have confidence in them) and get more than 50% yourself. Therefore coalitions are generally reliable, and parties give each other clear signals if they are planning to withdraw support. Elections are held every 4 years unless there is a disruption or an election that is called earlier than that. Elections can be called any time by the party in power, or they can be precipitated by a no-confidence event. --- I know you were curious mostly about the UK, but I had the time and wanted to help!

The more crises I'm peripheral too, the more I question the giving of gifts. People in crisis need money. Spending money on a thoughtful gift when you could be funding hospital parking, lunch, groceries, and bills -- it seems a little bit insulated from the realities of the situation. (Some exceptions apply, such as: If you have something on hand that you wouldn't spend money on anyways. If the gift is some combination of an object and your labour (like a meal) or mostly a service (like driving them places). If shopping/securing needed objects is difficult, and you know what they actually might need or want in the situation. If they are likely to spend money on necessities and there's a luxury you really want for them. If they are of sufficient wealth that this kind of crisis isn't at all hard for them to cover themselves.) For me, a home made card, with thoughtful note, and whatever cash gift is most reasonable for my standard of living and theirs. Give it to them as you are leaving, so you aren't available to give it back to.

I'm so sorry that my guesswork wasn't quite correct. I should have left it to you to share the nuances of your complex situation and equally complex feelings about it. (For what it's worth, your perspective as you have expressed it here shows that you are in quite a bit 'better shape' and less vulnerable to being badly hurt than my guesswork had assumed. I'm glad you are doing better than I thought! I hope you weren't insulted.)

While all of this is true, it's my understanding that our Llama has an extraordinary sense of honour and a deep connection to her marital vows in terms of herself having a sacramental relationship to the vow itself, regardless of her relationship with her separated husband. Therefore she considers herself bound permanently by her own word to either chastity or possible (far-future-many-changes) reconciliation. It is only on these terms that she can think of herself as a good person in spite of her separation, because separation itself suggests that she might have more modern or more secular views of marriages and sacred vows. I also think she retains a deep dedication to do as much good, and as little harm as possible to her estranged and deeply unwell husband -- while also prioritizing her kids' and her own safety and wellbeing. It has been a balancing act for her, involving deep personal ethics and a solution (legal separation with a no-contact order) that, if I'm remembering correctly, was only barely acceptable at first. Therefore we can really see that while ordinary people might date when they are legally separated, and might eventually consider divorce and the possibility that future relationships might lead to a second marriage -- those things are unimaginably unethical for Llama. So, even though bystanders might not be the slightest bit scandalized by this rumor about two legally separated people (and it's good that Llama knows that people are generally unfazed, and she need not anticipate a public shaming if the rumor is believed), it's also true that it has been hard work for Llama to find a way to consider herself faithful, true, and honourble in this situation. Having found a road that she can walk down without considering herself a moral failure, and having committed herself to it for a lifetime, and having disciplined herself to follow it so far -- the suggestion that she might be publicly believed to be doing the opposite is a truly deep wound. She cares whether 'people' believe she is living up to her *own* ethical standards, not whether they themselves would or wouldn't impose any such standard on her. Llama: The bit you need to hear is, yes, anybody who knows you will easily disbelieve a rumor that you are dating anyone right now. You also need to know that you truly have done everything you can to do your separated husband as much good and as little harm as possible. This rumor may harm him. However, it's important that you know that even though this rumor is about you (you are the topic) that doesn't mean that this rumor is something you are doing. You have done nothing to invite it into your life, or into his life. The rumor is totally someone else's doing, and 100% their moral responsibility. You are only the topic, not the actor, in this situation. If your separated husband falls into self harm, it will be because his sister pushed his buttons, not because you did anything wrong, not because you neglected to do anything that might have helped.

I'm genuinely sorry, and I'll delete it if you like. I thought we had enough history that you might appreciate a little levity about a tricky situation (which it how I intended it to land). I should have recognized that you are feeling this situation very deeply and I wish I had anticipated that you would be far too raw to receive it in a light hearted way. I should have known your heart is not light right now! It's one of my failings, and I have made that mistake on this forum (and in real life!) more than once. I can see that it can totally read as a very catty comment. It's my mistake, not yours. Please let me know if you want it gone.

I know nobody wants that. But this isn't middle school and the principal's office isn't going to stop her from spreading lies and mean rumors about your chastity and fidelity. She is legally entitled to lie about you if she wants to. (Unless she meets the threshold for libel or slander and you want to hire a lawyer to send her a cease-and-desist letter, and follow up with that kind of a case if she won't.) The thing about someone spreading public lies about you is... you find out who really knows you, vs who is willing to believe the worst about you. Your husband is probably willing to believe crap about you: that's awful, and painful, and it's normal to feel grief about that. Your neigbours and kids' friends' parent will probably vary, especially if they barely know you -- But your religious community should be able to at least try to resist the temptation to the sin of gossip, and also be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. If that turns out not to be true, they are either not 'your' faith community, not a Christian 'faith' community, or not a faith 'community'. (Which is also something to be grieved.) This new thing that you might need to grieve is harsh, and horrible, and it shouldn't be happening to you -- and all of your feelings belong. It's just also not something you have any control over, whatsoever.

I don't think fighting this would be expensive at all. First of all, it's only a proposed clause in a proposed custody agreement -- right? So it's not even a legal document that he is legally bound to (yet) and he doesn't have to sign it on those terms if she's going to make trouble over that term. He can withdraw his agreement to that clause if it's not yet signed and submitted to the court. Second (if that custody agreement is finalized and becomes legally binding) she would have to (a) hire a lawyer who would be *willing* to bring and unproven accusation of a violation of a minor term of a mutually-agreed (not court-ordered) custody arrangement before a judge, ( b ) decide what reasonable remedy she thinks would be appropriate for such a minor violation (Given that she does not want more custody time, I don't know what she would request? Money?) (c) wait for a court date, (d) the lawyer would allege the violation, (e) he or a lawyer representing him would deny the allegation, (f) the judge would ask to be shown proof, (g) her non-proof will piss off the judge, and everything will be dismissed. At most he would have paid his lawyer for one letter (denying the allegation and demanding proof before the court date) and a 3-hour minimum if he thinks he needs his lawyer's company to deny the allegation in the courtroom. She, on the other hand would be getting fleeced by the kind of lawyer who would accept her case knowing it would fail, and charge her by the hour to try anyways.

I think your first steps should be to generate a flow chart with branching paths of all the possibilities and paths: Biopsy with general anesthetic vs no biopsy // biopsy having a positive vs negative result // having cancer without having a biopsy vs not having cancer and not having a biopsy (but still having dementia) // various treatment paths and options after a positive result, including no treatment // various treatment (or no-treatment) locations (home or not home, permanently or temporarily). Once you've got it all laid out visually, look at each end point. Ask yourself in detail, with research if needed: (a) What is it like to live with this exact outcome? ( b ) How hard is the path between the present moment and this outcome? (c) What is the potential impact of these choices on how long she might live? (d) What is this path and outcome like for a caregiver? One thing to consider is the sense of balance/tension between living as long as possible, vs the discomfort of living with increasing dementia symptoms, vs the discomfort of enduring cancer treatment (if needed). It's not always about how many years are left, but also about how 'good' those years are. And, with absolute certainty -- once you understand the situation yourself -- you need to explain it to her, and really listen to her heart when she tells you how she feels about things. You don't have to let her make this decision if she's not capable (you probably shouldn't be doing that) but it's important to involve her, and to try to take her wishes as seriously-as-is-reasonable given her condition. Of course, you and your sister should give your dad the best advice you possibly can -- but unless he's incapable, he's the actual person in the position to make this decision. It's not a 3-way vote: legally it's his call.

There is no necessity to prove a negative. If she wants to put you in a role like that, in legal terms, it's her that would have to prove it. Since she can't prove it (since it's not true) there's absolutely nothing happening except a person *without any power at all* talking into a void that doesn't care what she says. (ETA Clarification: even the court doesn't care what she says if there is no proof.) You can totally safely ignore the ramblings of this person about you. She could just as easily start rumors that you are an undocumented resident, that you are a terrorist, or that you have 50% bovine DNA. None of it matters. People are allowed to talk nonsense. If they want anything binding to happen, they have to prove it.