I think I'd allow some overnight unsupervised mixed gender activities... But not quite the 'having a blast at a cottage alone for a week' variety. I'd be fine with camping trips or going to an event out of town, or something... But the idea of just hanging out for fun, it sounds like trouble. But I don't even know if we'd be in the dynamic of allowing/not by that point. Probably not, really. It's hard to say.

Is it possible that the whale was dangerously near to shallow water and needed to be "scared" into moving to a safer depth? I don't know much about whales, but I've heard how terrible it is for them to get "beached" -- maybe they thought they were helping.

I don't think pregnancy ruins photos. I think it's beautiful: especially if you are dressed in a flattering way, which is easy to do with formal wear, and provides a reason why your dress would not be identical in style. I also don't think that the grief of miscarriage ( if it happens) needs to be shrouded in absolute privacy. It would truly be fine for an inner circle of family members to be aware if your pregnancy at this point -- even if it doesn't go full term. However, I think my family instincts are very far away from the way your family seems to do things. The whole thing seemed bizarrely complicated: he said / she said, moping and mortification, arrangements and rearrangements, offences and reparations and distant memories... I don't really expect or engage with that kind of thing. If I'm invited to do a thing, I assume I'm wanted, regardless of what I might look like... If I'd rather not, I say I'd rather not... And if I'm not honoured by such an invitation in the first place, I don't give it a second thought. In my family people just make their own choices whiteout any fuss or bother.

Yep. Mullet. I "love" him, but I don't think he's got the social capital to bring that back into style!

An ikea $10 square small coffee table is ideal. They also have little chairs... That cost more than the table.

It sounds like the issue is simply that "she said she wouldn't" -- even though they both know she was free to do it (legally). The OP expected the LL to abide by her word, even though there was no real reason the LL would have to. The OP was budgeting based on a casual agreement that the LL would graciously place an interval between cashing two checks, even if they were both current. OP: it's an error to make financial decisions based on hoping people will keep their word. It's unwise generally, and even more unwise when a financial relationship is coming to an end. Your landlord needed to wrap up her dealings with you as soon as she could, because transitioning tenants is "work" for a landlord. Your financial relationship shifted to not being "ongoing" any more, so she changed how she dealt with your cheques. However, never "bank" (literally) in what people say they are gonna do. If someone says, "I will deposit that today." -- that's a good intention, not a promise. Wait until you see deposits, and consider expenses gone Instantly. Anything ekse is too much trust for money issues. It's called "cold hard cash" for a reason. So if you trust people less now: that's probably a good thing. Every so often good intentions just don't happen the way they were intended to: so don't make money decisions based on somebody's "word". This is a skill all financially strong people learn early. It's part of being a success with money. I hope you are able to get through a couple if weeks of being broke and learn that, although your LL technically should have kept her word (or warned you that things were changing), even more so, you should absolutely not have set up your finances to be in disaster if she happened not to do what she said/intended. Currently, my mortgage comes out if my account the day after our paycheque arrives BUT I am completely set up as if that was going to happen backwards every month. Has it happened that the mortgage payment went through before the paycheque arrived? Not yet. Would we be in overdraft if it did? Nope. I cover my own backside, and you should too.

Ok aparently they are called glider swings http://www.fifthroom.com/images/ProductSet/495x390/Glider_Swings_463.jpg

So it sounds like you would want a gentle ramp up to some level of the play structure, and se arractive activities up there -- possibly "theme" the structure (sailing ship, tree fort, drama stage, candy store) so that just getting onto the structure opens the imagination to a form of play that isn't terribly physical (steering wheel, telescope, "lights and cameras", noise makers... depends on the theme). Also, there is a type of swing seen in public parks: not like a playground swing, more like a porch swing, but there are two little benches that face each other, and a 'floor' between them, and that whole part hangs down from a standing wooden structure around it, and the whole thing swings (one bench goes forward while the other bench goes backward) and there are joints that all pivot to make that happen. It's moved by co-operative leaning. (I'm going to try to find a picture.) A child with a walker could use a ramp to get up onto the 'floor' then turn and sit on one of the benches. Another adult or child could take the other bench and provide a gentle ride. On the other hand, fully able kids can really get them going! And coupes tend to find them romantic. Great for the elderly too.

You need to be more clear about what kinds of play limitations these special needs children are experiencing.

"Lord Captain Commander"

And build adult benches into the middle of the play structure, not at the edges.

Oh, a sheltered sort of 'bower' for reading in.

A big slide, like down from a deck/balcony. A "flying fox" (not too steep, but long) plus a bit if a "ropes course" (but not very high). Fitness-y structures (chin up bar...) Giant lincon logs, properly treated to resist rotting, but simultaneously not poisonous... and splinter-free. Or, provide work gloves. Rocks suitable for flagstones, walls, innuk-shuk building: a selection of naturally colourful types if rock. Water stuff, like PVC pipes with joints and things. An excellent gardening bench, pots, etc, and garden tools that make the hard tasks easy. Think carefully about your areas of shade and sun when planning what to build wherever. Build pergola / shade structures if needed. Attach an outdoor room to the house: close able windows for a winter solarium, openable windows for a screen porch in the summer. Put in double doors. Get a soft-walled portable hot tub. Keep the tub hot in the solarium in the winter, roll it out through the double doors and keep it cool for summer play as a paddling pool.

It's like this: > If there is indeed a real God, creator of all humans etc. > Then to simply disbelieve is an act "against" that God. Similar to "if there is a genuine 3yo crying for your attention, doing nothing and ignoring her is an act against that child" -- If there is no child, it's nonsense to be bothered about the mom not paying attention to someone who is not there and/or not real. Because some people think of God as not there / not real, they see no offense in disbelief. It's just that believers think God is there, being dishonoured and ignored. They take offense on behalf of God... Even though I'm pretty sure God isn't actually taking offense. Logic OK? Sense made?

I stand corrected. It was only a suspicion.

In order for me to believe my DH had the kind of character that was so good that it just could never be subject to change... I'd have to believe myself to have some kind of amazing dose of better judgement, much better judgement that any woman among my friends and family, in fact if have to have such confidence that I considered myself capable of selecting such a man: utterly incorruptible, and immune to all sin, all illness, all injuries... And then winning him! Suffice it to say that I don't think I can use my own judgement of DH's current character to garuntee our future together.

Canadian here: 1. There is a perception that "civilization" came from its cradle via Britan to N. America. It's because most adult Canadians were taught euro-centric and classical history (as opposed to a situated history if our own geographic history). This would lead to pride in having descended from a 'good' background. It wasn't that long ago that it was normal to for those of high class to make sure their children visited 'important' places like England/Europe for the culture. 2. In Canada "English Canadian" is a reference to the language spoken (in opposition to "French Canadian") because we are a bilingual country, and sometimes it's relevant to mention that. Ie: "English Canadians have expressed dismay about the proposed charter of Quebec values." It's not actually about "England" the place, or an idea of "English" heritage or ancestry. That would be a wildly inaccurate interpretation of the reference above, for example. It's about our own regions. 3. Subject, of course, to the rebuttal of my American friends... I'm quite suspicious sociologically that the habit of revealing distant ancestry might be code for "I'm not black." (In some cases, on kind of a wide scale.)

Yes, to the above: sealed, and colder than they would be in the fridge. But, even so, I'd be inclined to shorten my expectation of how long to keep it for. If they are opened, or if they got genuinely warm, eat it up. If necessary, that 'peach honey' plus some canned or fresh peaches would probably make a lovely pair of pies, or cobblers. If they have been warm for actually a long time, like, left out on the counter for days warm, don't eat it at all. :-(

I will never say, "Divorce is not an option." 1. Because I believe in sin and the damage/destruction that it causes. 2. Because I am neither a prophet nor the daughter of a prophet, so I do not know what the future holds. 3. Because I don't believe that God likes me so extra-specially so much more than other people, such that He is guaranteed to step in and prevent tragic events in my life. Therefore my spouse is free to become both despicable and dangerous. He is fully capable of ruining our covenant and my life without my participation and without my consent. That makes divorce an option. Similarly, I am deeply flawed and more than capable of becoming someone cruel and callous, despicable or dangerous -- someone I even wouldn't recognize. It has happened to others, so it would be pure hubris to consider it impossible in my case. If any one of you honestly thinks that it is impossible that your spouse is capable of ruining your marriage without your participation and without your consent, I'd (really, not being snarky) like to see how that logic looks. Or is it that you believe you would be willing/able to "stay married" no matter how despicable or dangerous your spouse became? Or you would consider the covenant intact, no matter what actions your spouse ended up engaged with? Or in this case does "staying married" / "not divorcing" mean just in the technical/sacramental sense, not in the 'sharing life together' sense? (Yeah, that sounds like a snarky challenge... I don't mean it that way. If there is logic that I haven't thought of, I do want to read and understand what it is.)

There are two strategies for "urges" 1. Fight the urge, repress the urge, deny the urge -- use self control and/or will power, and hope you've got enough of it to endure every urge, every time. 2. Acknowledge the urge, accept that the urge exists, don't expect it to go away -- use intelligence, forecasting, and ethical reasoning to decide what to do about the urge, then apply your decision to each situation. I go with strategy #2, which is not a "self-control" strategy, but rather a "sensible choices" strategy. It's likely that both strategies yield the result that some/all sexual activity is off limits, it's just that people who use strategy #2 are more likely to stick with their decision long-term, regardless of their urges. They are also likely to feel less stressed about it and more at peace with themselves (rather than battling themselves) over this issue.

It's not an expectation that all rooms would be accessible, only that a play space, equipped with toys/etc would be available to her during free time -- and her free range / off limits areas should be clear. I don't think she should be following your 4yo into his room... So it makes sense to bring toys out. Not "everything" needs to be available, but it should be a reasonable selection for the amount of time she is expected to be playing.

I think that divorce is very serious, very tragic, and very very personal. I'm not willing to tackle it at the theoretical level of which reasons I will/won't consider legitimate. It can't be set out like a policy or flow chart of if/then-s. For myself I will decide if my situation ever warrants divorce with a great deal of prayer, a great deal of logic, and hopefully many good advisors. For other's, as a bystander, I just assume that they didn't take the decision lightly, therefore they most likely made (or are likely to make) a legitimate and defensible decision. I refrain from any other assumptions. If I were ever in an inner circle, I would hope to be a wise, logical and prayerful advisor -- taking the details of the actual situation into account, not applying a pre-set personal policy, as if these things are one-size-fits-all.

So she probably doesn't view "playing with household toys" as "the 4yo is sharing with me" -- nor should she. So, I guess it makes sense that she is using her public/group play social skills (including blocking/hoarding). It also makes sense that she doesn't sense any "reciprocal" need to share the belongings she brought with her. She views you home in the category of 'a place with toys that I go to, and there are other kids there' -- that's not usually an environment where you are expected to share 'things from home' with anyone who asks, so her behaviour is entirely normal. (If a child brings a 'home toy' to a daycare, school, library or public pool -- no one expects him/her to engage in mandatory sharing... especially not with preschoolers.) I think you are getting good suggestions, but it's important to put yourself in her shoes. Her treatment of 'household' toys is normal. She doesn't give priority to your son because she thinks she is in a equal-access place, not in a owning-and-sharing place. However, she still believes she owns her own things from home, because going to an equal-access place doesn't usually change that.

Most people tend to use euphemisms when we have to talk about sex and virginity, but I find the use of the moral concept of "purity" as a euphemism for virginity (for either gender) to be terribly misguided and definitely damaging. In fact I find fault with the entire concept of virginity being something that matters. As a Christian I think sexual chastity matters -- but chastity is about what you are *doing* right now: whether or not you are sexually active, currently. Virginity is about some (supposedly permanent) status that is changed at the point of your first sexual experience. It's like sex is the only sin that (supposedly) changes forever an aspect of your identity. In reality, if a sexually active person ceases their sexual activity, they are just as chaste as the person who has never been sexually active. That's important. If you want to bring "practical theology" into the life of plausibly promiscuous young adults, it's terribly important to refrain from the idea that one's first sexual experience turns you forever into 'something else' that can't be changed back. That's not Christian. If the "horses" are out of the barn, why would anyone be motivated to shut the barn doors at that point? What really needs to be said is, "Come home. There is purity here for all, flowing from the cross of a Saviour who will make all things new. You are not ruined. You can do something different today, and that matters." To say, 'sin no more' is more powerful than to say, 'don'ch'a wish you weren't already ruined?' <-- That is exactly the message inherent in every sex talk that warns young adults not to loose-forever their precious pure virginity -- As if it's a one-shot deal! As if we've forgotten the meaning of redemption.

Are the 9yo's toys unsuitable for a 4yo? Or is she just possessive? I totally understand not wanting to squelch the 4yo's willingness to share (that's great), but then the only way to make it fair is to insist that the 9yo also share -- which can be tough when that isn't your child, and those items do not belong to your family. Perhaps greet her each time, asking her if she has brought any toys for herself and/or any for sharing. Place her toys "for herself" into a basket that she can play with, away from this little 4yo -- and so that he doesn't see them and want them. Make some fairly concrete rules about this. Then teach fair play with the "toys for everyone" that are primarily your 4yo's belongings. Supervise, give concrete instructions, make rules and procedures. Then begin to step away for brief times, to extend her willingness to comply when you will 'be right back'. I do not actually consider these toys "his" because you have agreed to care for this 9yo, and full access to household toys is a reasonable expectation of that care scenario. In a sense, when you agreed to care for the girl (presumably for money?) you 'sold' access to his toys, even if he didn't know that. (If someone was babysitting my child on an ongoing basis, I would be shocked to find out that the caregiver was using the model of, "My kids can share if they want to, but her access to toys in my home is governed by their wishes." I'd assume that only special things would be off limits / permission basis. I wouldn't be comfortable with my child being cared for in a home where she constantly had to ask permission of other children to play with anything. Even if the answer was always, "Yes" from the other child, I'd be really bugged by the dynamic of owning-and-sharing, rather than free play being included/assumed in the care agreement.)