Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
OnceSane

S04.E09: A Mother of a Day

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:

have we seen her since? 

Well, no, because we almost never see any of the HW nannies, as I'm sure you know. That doesn't mean she doesn't exist.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

14 hours ago, Keywestclubkid said:

have we seen her since? 

You said yourself we only see snippets of their lives so it's plausible the nanny is still there. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/30/2019 at 8:54 PM, Andi27 said:

If we are getting the whole story (which I doubt, since D'Andra seems to need this business failure/financial distress as a story line since she is getting cut out of Leanne's wedding arc), then both mother and daughter made serious mistakes with the transfer of the company. Dee looks horrible having handed over an obviously failing company in the midst of a huge business model transition to a daughter she claims had no interest in it beyond the income stream. And D'Andra should never have taken control of a company when she wasn't permitted to look at the financials beforehand.

Yes! Dee comes across as awful, but D'Andra ia clearly too stupid to live. If I were D'Andra I'd liquidate and stop talking to my mom. Though I'd never be D'Andra because I'm not a moron.

  • Like 5
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/31/2019 at 12:09 PM, Pickles said:

A little off topic, but this adds to my dislike for Leeann. She was on WWHL a couple of months ago and Andy asked about the wedding gifts she had received. She said--oh, they are stacked up all over the place. I don't even know who sent what. We haven't opened a lot of them and when we do, we don't even keep track of who gave us what.

So...she surely does not plan on sending one thank you note for those gifts. Doesn't even know or care who gave her what. So rude and thoughtless.

As a southerner even the lowest on the social register know better than that. Not sending a thank you card for wedding or baby shower gift is unheard of. That is some trashy behavior.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Hoping that LeeAnne and her drama-mama doesn't take up the whole wedding.  I want to meet some of Rich's family. 

Why did LeeAnne even bother to invite her mother?  Putting her up in a hotel is understandable -- their house isn't big enough for guests -- but it appears that she hasn't even talked to her.  She wasn't at the dress fitting or any of the events.  That's not a big deal either, but she's obviously an after-thought.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/1/2019 at 4:10 PM, Dance4Life said:

Why would you say that when Brandi is not a single parent or working multiple jobs to pay the bills?

She is a pampered stay-at-home mom..! 
 

Single mom here. She is still one person with three kids at different stages, she can't be everywhere all the time. Pampered or not. 

I have a cousin who was like Brandi's oldest. She was born that way. She had disciplinarian parents and still.acted like Brandi's eldest. The daughter and family need counseling.

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, AuntiePam said:

Hoping that LeeAnne and her drama-mama doesn't take up the whole wedding.  I want to meet some of Rich's family. 

I wonder if his daughter will be shown, she is going to light the unity candle but it’s kind of weird she hasn’t been involved in anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/1/2019 at 5:58 PM, LibertarianSlut said:

I don't think parents should ever argue in front of their kids, because it's scary, but at least it's between people who supposedly have a power balance.  I think the reason I got so put-off by Brandi crying over a fight with a ten-year-old in front of a seven-year-old is because the seven-year-old should take comfort in the fact that the mom is in control of the kids, and if the mom is finding a ten-year-old to be a formidable opponent, the boundaries are nowhere near they need to be, and and, as someone pointed out upthread, kids thrive on boundaries.*

*I'm just speaking from my experience as a former kid, not making an argument from authority.   I'm not a parent, nor do I have any special knowledge about early childhood, so please take it all with a grain of salt.

One of my best friend’s in college had parents who never fought in front of their kids, it had a weird, unanticipated consequence for him. Every time my friend had a disagreement with a girlfriend, they broke up. My friend just couldn’t get over the mental block that “couples don’t argue.”  I think there is a place for respectful arguing in front of the kids.

I think Brandi is a loving mother, but she really needs  parenting guidance from someone. She has to learn that it is ok if the kid is temporarily furious with you. They will be, many times you are either getting them to do something they don’t want to do, or stopping them from doing something they do want to do. There also needs to be some very clear rules with no negotiation. She asked Brooklyn “why are you on your scooter without a helmet?” I think it would be better to say “go get your helmet if you want to be on the scooter.” No helmet = no scooter/bike. If you are consistent with rules like this, there isn’t a constant debate.

I think Brandi is so stressed about the other kid because she can’t see taking on another kid, yet she also can’t see leaving her son’s sibling “behind.”

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NYCFree said:

One of my best friend’s in college had parents who never fought in front of their kids, it had a weird, unanticipated consequence for him. Every time my friend had a disagreement with a girlfriend, they broke up. My friend just couldn’t get over the mental block that “couples don’t argue.”  I think there is a place for respectful arguing in front of the kids.

I think Brandi is a loving mother, but she really needs  parenting guidance from someone. She has to learn that it is ok if the kid is temporarily furious with you. They will be, many times you are either getting them to do something they don’t want to do, or stopping them from doing something they do want to do. There also needs to be some very clear rules with no negotiation. She asked Brooklyn “why are you on your scooter without a helmet?” I think it would be better to say “go get your helmet if you want to be on the scooter.” No helmet = no scooter/bike. If you are consistent with rules like this, there isn’t a constant debate.

I think Brandi is so stressed about the other kid because she can’t see taking on another kid, yet she also can’t see leaving her son’s sibling “behind.”

I agree with you that Brandi should change the way she relates to her kids, but I don't think it's rooted in ambivilance toward Bruin's sibling, as she's kind of been a subpar parent the whole time (calling her daughters "bitches" on camera last season, calling Brooklyn "a shithead" demonstrated to me that she looks at them as rivals, not little people she is tasked with molding into adults).  

I thought about this after I posted, and you're right--parents should technically feel free to "argue" in front of their kids.  "Argue" spans a lot of things, and if I were a parent, I would even encourage my kids to "make an argument" if they wanted something (I'm like Nick Naylor from Thank Your For Smoking; what can I say?). So...if Brandi and Brian want to argue China trade policy in front of their kids, I would think that was healthy.

What I don't think they should ever do is argue heatedly about an adult topic in front of their kids.  They can disagree.  I can't define it with precision, but a kid just feels dread when the former happens.  When I was a kid, my mom said, "we need [insert something finanacial]" and my dad snapped back, "don't you think if you asked 100 people, they would say I need a vacation in Acapulco?"  That's not stuff that I think kids should ever hear.  

I don't know your college friend, but I think a lot of guys shut down when they face a difficult verbal situation with the opposite sex.  I think a lot of women are shocked that guys will just break up instead of working things out--a lot of times it's as simple as the guy not liking the girl that much, and he's just letting things play out, like, I'm cool with her if she's easygoing, but if she's gonna get pissed that I talked to that girl at a keg party, I'm not dealing with it and she can go.  I see this across the spectrum between the sexes.  I wonder if it can be blamed on parents' lack of fighting though, because my parents argued in front of me plenty, and to this day, I won't fight or raise my voice.  If someone violates my boundaries, I get very cold and still and I say things with deliberation and precision.  Even if my husband raises his voice during a disagreement, I won't speak to him until he's cool.  I never learned healthy conflict resolution.  I just cut people out.  Maybe that's the problem for a lot of people--their parents didn't teach them how to have healthy conflicts and conflict resolution, not that they didn't have people to fight in front of them.

I guess I just don't subscribe to that theory that the couples who really love each other are loud and passionate, and love hard and fight hard.  I don't think fighting, as opposed to clean, sporty arguing, is normal. Or, at least, it shouldn't be the norm.   Especially in front of children. And I guess that's about all I have to say on the topic.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/2/2019 at 5:52 PM, AuntiePam said:

Hoping that LeeAnne and her drama-mama doesn't take up the whole wedding.  I want to meet some of Rich's family. 

Why did LeeAnne even bother to invite her mother?  Putting her up in a hotel is understandable -- their house isn't big enough for guests -- but it appears that she hasn't even talked to her.  She wasn't at the dress fitting or any of the events.  That's not a big deal either, but she's obviously an after-thought.

as someone with a perfectly cold and uninterested and less than ideal mother, i still invited her to wedding. nothing else. she wouldn't have bothered with the rest anyway, and my feeling would get hurt even more. but at the wedding? rich has his family? and she has????? only her mother, and i can see why she would still invite her. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/2/2019 at 7:33 PM, ShawnaLanne said:

Yes! Dee comes across as awful, but D'Andra ia clearly too stupid to live. If I were D'Andra I'd liquidate and stop talking to my mom. Though I'd never be D'Andra because I'm not a moron.

Half of D'andra's problem is that she's too damn stubborn. Travis told her (and I'm sure he wasn't the first) that the best thing to do would be to sell the business. Get out of from under it and do something brand new with the money. Or just invest, hell.....But, no. D'Andra has to prove that she can run the business just as well, if not better, than her mother did. Good luck, dear. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/2/2019 at 7:52 PM, AuntiePam said:

Why did LeeAnne even bother to invite her mother?  Putting her up in a hotel is understandable -- their house isn't big enough for guests -- but it appears that she hasn't even talked to her. 

Where do we get the idea her house isn't large enough for guests?  When they showed the pan over the top of it last episode - it looked like it would have had 3-4 bedrooms and likely more than 1 bathroom.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

18 minutes ago, DFWGina said:

Where do we get the idea her house isn't large enough for guests?  When they showed the pan over the top of it last episode - it looked like it would have had 3-4 bedrooms and likely more than 1 bathroom.  

Not sure where I got the idea.  Might be because I don't think she's ever had an event at her house -- no brunches or barbecues that I recall, not even a gathering place on the way to somewhere else. 

There may well be 3-4 bedrooms and for sure more than one bath, but the house is still too small for a guest that she's not on good terms with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, DFWGina said:

Where do we get the idea her house isn't large enough for guests?  When they showed the pan over the top of it last episode - it looked like it would have had 3-4 bedrooms and likely more than 1 bathroom.  

It’s 3 bedroom, 2.5 baths and just under 3,000 sq feet. I assume Rich’s daughter has her own room. 

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Brooklyn is acting out about something in the family. I don't think it's a happy one.

Kam was selected by Cort's family to bring tall genes into the family.

Leeann's wedding dress: you get what you (don't) pay for.

D'andra's husband needs to get a job.

Dee's an asshole.

Kary's headed for divorce.

Edited by pasdetrois
  • Like 12
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, pasdetrois said:

D'andra's husband needs to get a job.

He has a monthly income from his military service and works a professional photographer. He has enough to support himself, he just doesn’t have enough to support D’Andrea how she wants to Iive. It’s really annoying how they act like he is a deadbeat.

  • Like 16
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

But didnt D'andra sputter that "her husband doesnt have a job?"

I'm a military brat. Jeremy's retirement income isn't very high. And photographers are a dime a dozen. There are thousands of talented ones.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, biakbiak said:

It’s 3 bedroom, 2.5 baths and just under 3,000 sq feet. I assume Rich’s daughter has her own room. 

Plenty of room for guests - especially family.   3000 sf is large enough to accommodate an extra person for a weekend.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have been to many Catholic weddings where the ceremony is at 11 or 12 and the reception is not until the evening.  Most of this has to do with the availability of the church.  Five hours between the start of the ceremony and the start of the reception did not seem out of the ordinary for me.  Leeanne's ceremony looked to start at 2pm.  Figure an hour for the ceremony and then an hour or two for the pictures, and the bridal party would not have that much time to kill before the reception.  It does kinda suck for the guests, but I would rather be able to hang out at a bar or my hotel room for a couple of hours instead of waiting at the reception site while the bridal party takes picture after picture after picture.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

and the bridal party would not have that much time to kill before the reception. 

Do they have a bridal party? When she was getting ready it didn’t look like she is Rich had any attendants. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I have been to many Catholic weddings where the ceremony is at 11 or 12 and the reception is not until the evening.  Most of this has to do with the availability of the church.  Five hours between the start of the ceremony and the start of the reception did not seem out of the ordinary for me.  Leeanne's ceremony looked to start at 2pm.  Figure an hour for the ceremony and then an hour or two for the pictures, and the bridal party would not have that much time to kill before the reception.  It does kinda suck for the guests, but I would rather be able to hang out at a bar or my hotel room for a couple of hours instead of waiting at the reception site while the bridal party takes picture after picture after picture.  

An hour for the ceremony??  People are really having hour-long ceremonies?  I'm not snarking; I'm just shocked.  What needs to be done that takes an hour?  I'm schvitzing just thinking about that.  There's no one on earth who would get me for more than 20 minutes, door to door.  

As far as pics, why should a guest be asked to wait around at all when there are so many alternatives?  Why couldn't Leeanne and Rich have taken pictures well before the ceremony was slated to start (I say "well before" because I think it's incredibly rude for a couple to be late to their own ceremony).  For couples who want to make a big deal over seeing each other for the first time, the photog call do a reveal.  (I personally find reveals to be strange, and my husband and I just had our photog take pics before the ceremony and during the reception).  So Leeanne and Rich can also take posed, professional pictures during the reception, while everyone else is relaxing, eating and drinking.  I don't think guests should be put on ice while a couple takes 1,000 photos ever, whether they're waiting there or at a hotel.  I think this is asking too much of people, when it can be avoided.

I'm not incredibly well-versed in church schedules, but I don't know why, if the schedule of the church was actually a challenge, just get a date that the church and reception venue can fit you back-to-back?  They've been planning this wedding forever.  It would seem like that would be manageable if it was important.

When there are tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line, I see "no" simply as a counteroffer, not a final answer.  If a venue tells me they aren't available until 7 pm until, say, June, then we can sit and go over every date between November and June to see exactly what it is that's preventing them from booking me, and voila, a space opens.  Or we go to a new venue.  A bride should always have a BATNA (best alternative to negotiating an agreement) before she even walks in the door.  And Leeanne is a lot bigger of a bitch with much bigger balls than I have.  I think she got her way, which was to have her day, her way, and I think, had she wanted four hours in between, she would have gotten four, six if she wanted six, etc.  I think she wanted exactly five hours in between and got what she wanted, which is fine, it's not a crime, but I think she needs to own it.

I'm not purposely trying to sound like a contrarian, but I don't know why, in all other walks of life, people are expected to be on time and do their part, except for weddings, which are apparently free-for-alls for the couple?  I just don't understand it.  I think you should either do things exactly how you want, but not expect anyone who isn't getting paid to be uncomfortable, or have guests attend and yield to guests out of respect for them being there for you.  I literally don't understand how normal people become so selfish on this one day and then go back to being normal and everyone is ok with it.  I guess it might be something I never figure out.  And at least I have to hand it to the Housewives for having the consistency to be selfish across the board and not leave anyone guessing about which way they'll go! 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, LibertarianSlut said:
2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

An hour for the ceremony??  People are really having hour-long ceremonies?  I'm not snarking; I'm just shocked.  What needs to be done that takes an hour?  I'm schvitzing just thinking about that.  There's no one on earth who would get me for more than 20 minutes, door to door.  

Catholic ceremonies frequently have a full mass so you are definitely looking at least an hour, longer depending on the priest. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

It’s been discussed a lot, but count me in on finding it extremely annoying to have such a large gap between the ceremony and the reception. I enjoy weddings personally, but many don’t. And then the timing makes those who dread weddings even more annoyed by them taking up the entire day. The guests, especially the women, may already feel uncomfortable. The bride isn’t the only one expected to be dolled up that day. Lots of people don’t enjoy wearing formal attire, and then women worry about how their makeup will hold so many hours later. I already think it’s extra to have so many events celebrating your marriage. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, LibertarianSlut said:

There's no one on earth who would get me for more than 20 minutes, door to door.  

Stick with Jewish weddings, mostly 20 minutes long, (so are most funerals, lol).  Traditionally we take photos before the ceremony so it does not interfere with the reception, unless you are Orthodox, there is a whole bedekkan thing so no photos are taken together till after the ceremony, either way it never stops us from eating!

  • Like 2
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

Man y'all hope you never get invited to a wedding in India...

  • Like 2
  • Laugh 7

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, LibertarianSlut said:

An hour for the ceremony??  People are really having hour-long ceremonies?  I'm not snarking; I'm just shocked.  What needs to be done that takes an hour?  I'm schvitzing just thinking about that.  There's no one on earth who would get me for more than 20 minutes, door to door.  

As far as pics, why should a guest be asked to wait around at all when there are so many alternatives?  Why couldn't Leeanne and Rich have taken pictures well before the ceremony was slated to start (I say "well before" because I think it's incredibly rude for a couple to be late to their own ceremony).  For couples who want to make a big deal over seeing each other for the first time, the photog call do a reveal.  (I personally find reveals to be strange, and my husband and I just had our photog take pics before the ceremony and during the reception).  So Leeanne and Rich can also take posed, professional pictures during the reception, while everyone else is relaxing, eating and drinking.  I don't think guests should be put on ice while a couple takes 1,000 photos ever, whether they're waiting there or at a hotel.  I think this is asking too much of people, when it can be avoided.

I'm not incredibly well-versed in church schedules, but I don't know why, if the schedule of the church was actually a challenge, just get a date that the church and reception venue can fit you back-to-back?  They've been planning this wedding forever.  It would seem like that would be manageable if it was important.

When there are tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line, I see "no" simply as a counteroffer, not a final answer.  If a venue tells me they aren't available until 7 pm until, say, June, then we can sit and go over every date between November and June to see exactly what it is that's preventing them from booking me, and voila, a space opens.  Or we go to a new venue.  A bride should always have a BATNA (best alternative to negotiating an agreement) before she even walks in the door.  And Leeanne is a lot bigger of a bitch with much bigger balls than I have.  I think she got her way, which was to have her day, her way, and I think, had she wanted four hours in between, she would have gotten four, six if she wanted six, etc.  I think she wanted exactly five hours in between and got what she wanted, which is fine, it's not a crime, but I think she needs to own it.

I'm not purposely trying to sound like a contrarian, but I don't know why, in all other walks of life, people are expected to be on time and do their part, except for weddings, which are apparently free-for-alls for the couple?  I just don't understand it.  I think you should either do things exactly how you want, but not expect anyone who isn't getting paid to be uncomfortable, or have guests attend and yield to guests out of respect for them being there for you.  I literally don't understand how normal people become so selfish on this one day and then go back to being normal and everyone is ok with it.  I guess it might be something I never figure out.  And at least I have to hand it to the Housewives for having the consistency to be selfish across the board and not leave anyone guessing about which way they'll go! 😉

A full Catholic wedding is an hour minimum.  We also have Mass on Saturdays after 4pm, so the priest needs to have the wedding party out the door so he can get the church ready for the rest of the day.  If the couple wants pictures in the church after the ceremony, it needs to be scheduled early enough to accomodate this.  Very rarely can a Catholic couple schedule their wedding for after 3pm.  I have been to so many weddings with a large break between the ceremony and the reception that I don't see anything wrong with that arrangement.  But, I come from a large family spread throughout the US.  We don't mind having some downtime to hang out and drink.  I'm already traveling for the wedding and am on vacation mode.  It would be different if this was local.

I can see where Leeanne may have not been able to get the church for a later time or her minister for a later time.  Church weddings are always at the mercy of the church's regular schedule.  Or it very well could be that the minister has a previous engagement for later that evening and he cannot accommodate a later wedding.  Leeanne and Rich would have to decide if they wanted that particular guy or a later time for the ceremony.  She also could have had an earlier reception, but I'm guessing Leeanne has been envisioning an evening reception for decades.  I also wonder if filming the event had anything to do with the time gap.  If someone else was picking up the tab for this wedding, they may have required Leeanne to have her wedding and reception at specific venues.  I think Leeanne grifted as much as possible for this wedding.  So if the free or heavily discounted venue/caterer, etc told her this was what they were willing to do, then Leeanne said OK.

3 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

Man y'all hope you never get invited to a wedding in India...

One of the best weddings I have ever been to was an Indian coworker.  I was only invited to the ceremony and reception, but those were both long and unbelievable with a large break in between.  That was the first wedding I went to where the guests were not required to be present for the whole ceremony.  

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Man y'all hope you never get invited to a wedding in India...

I have an opportunity to go to a wedding (somewhere in India, not 100% sure exactly where), it could be interesting, one of the ceremonies will be in a synagogue but oy vey that is a long trip.

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I think Leeanne grifted as much as possible for this wedding.  So if the free or heavily discounted venue/caterer, etc told her this was what they were willing to do, then Leeanne said OK.

It would have been a great opportunity to invite her nearest and dearest and keep it small than try and do something she could not afford, so now she looks cheap and she put out a lot of people...the cheapness gets noticed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Baltimore Betty said:

I have an opportunity to go to a wedding (somewhere in India, not 100% sure exactly where), it could be interesting, one of the ceremonies will be in a synagogue but oy vey that is a long trip.

Omg, don't fly coach! Remember that Seinfeld episode when they went to an Indian wedding just to spite the braless O Henry candy bar heiress? 

129FA268-B332-4B04-816C-D8E56847C18B-5599-000004F76F1B816A.jpg.3862e875a666d80d8ae224c312bd5f2f.jpg

I just wanted to say that the more I learn the whys of any given wedding tradition, I come around to understanding it better. Like the couples' shower and the "lingerie." What I don't understand is the commercialism of it all, or the blind following of custom (for instance, when my husband and I hired our officiant, she assumed we would want to participate in a "hand ceremony" without putting it into context, and we were just like, "Why would we do a hand ceremony?" Crickets. It's meaningless to us, but she wanted us to do all this bullshit, because she thought it made her services more valuable than the next guy's, when all we wanted was someone to get us legally married in as short a time as possible.  That's what I object to--not the stuff that's happening for a valid, articulable reason). 

And when it comes down to it, I wish them the best--Leeanne and Rich, hell, even D'andra and Jeremy. Even if I don't agree with their planning to a T, even if they're bitches, I hope they find love & happiness. I'm sure I'll be raving about how touching it all was next episode! 

Cognitive dissonance, man...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, LibertarianSlut said:

Omg, don't fly coach! Remember that Seinfeld episode when they went to an Indian wedding just to spite the braless O Henry candy bar heiress? 

129FA268-B332-4B04-816C-D8E56847C18B-5599-000004F76F1B816A.jpg.3862e875a666d80d8ae224c312bd5f2f.jpg

I just wanted to say that the more I learn the whys of any given wedding tradition, I come around to understanding it better. Like the couples' shower and the "lingerie." What I don't understand is the commercialism of it all, or the blind following of custom (for instance, when my husband and I hired our officiant, she assumed we would want to participate in a "hand ceremony" without putting it into context, and we were just like, "Why would we do a hand ceremony?" Crickets. It's meaningless to us, but she wanted us to do all this bullshit, because she thought it made her services more valuable than the next guy's, when all we wanted was someone to get us legally married in as short a time as possible.  That's what I object to--not the stuff that's happening for a valid, articulable reason). 

And when it comes down to it, I wish them the best--Leeanne and Rich, hell, even D'andra and Jeremy. Even if I don't agree with their planning to a T, even if they're bitches, I hope they find love & happiness. I'm sure I'll be raving about how touching it all was next episode! 

Cognitive dissonance, man...

That Sienfeld episode is exactly what I was thinking about! 

  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/5/2019 at 1:24 PM, Hiyo said:

Man y'all hope you never get invited to a wedding in India...

Only been to an Indian wedding in the US. lol 

Share this post


Link to post

Hasn't Rich been married and divorced a couple of times? Are they getting married in a Catholic church?

Share this post


Link to post

No - it's Church of Christ.  And doesn't have any Saturday services listed so that doesn't explain the ceremony/reception gap.  Which, I agree, was most likely due to whoever would donate reception space.

https://cathedralofhope.com/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/31/2019 at 10:27 AM, jalady said:

It happens.  I know of three people who had that exact situation, and they all adopted the second sibling . . .

But where does it stop?  The bio mom seems to have no concept of birth control and is pregnant again less than a year later. Same time next year ... hello Brandi, little Bruin and Banker are getting another sibling. 😬

I just find it hard to believe that there is no financial incentive for this girl to keep having babies and giving them away. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I think Brandi will adopt/already has adopted Bruin's sibling.  I'm not a huge Brandi fan, but I can't imagine someone being so awful that she'd use a private person (a newborn baby no less) as her main storyline.  There's absolutely no reason that this story had to be made public otherwise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Jel said:

I think Brandi will adopt/already has adopted Bruin's sibling.  I'm not a huge Brandi fan, but I can't imagine someone being so awful that she'd use a private person (a newborn baby no less) as her main storyline.  There's absolutely no reason that this story had to be made public otherwise.

It does seem they're setting up that story line, and it's a shame since Brandi admitted, on camera, that she's really struggling with the three she already has.  Combined with the fact that they're openly talking of her eldest's behavioral issues and showing this on camera, leads me to believe that these are private adoptions.  The first adoption, sure, you can possibly slide by as portraying yourself on national TV day drinking while caring for your children, and your children mouthing off and disobeying. 

Now we're to believe, if this is the way it's going, that Brandi would be approved for another infant, within a year of the prior, whilst crying on camera talking about not even handling what she currently has?  I just don't see that being approved by the system.  I know there were posters trying to float the belief that redheaded babies are especially hard to adopt out, but I'm telling you, white babies of any hair shade or health condition, are in desperate demand.  That's not it. 

When the Bruin adoption happened, I thought it was probably a teenaged relative of Brandi or Brian, and that's why they look so similar.  I don't really know what to think now.  But I really don't understand why this bio mom is setting up a baby factory of infants she doesn't want.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

It does seem they're setting up that story line, and it's a shame since Brandi admitted, on camera, that she's really struggling with the three she already has.  Combined with the fact that they're openly talking of her eldest's behavioral issues and showing this on camera, leads me to believe that these are private adoptions.  The first adoption, sure, you can possibly slide by as portraying yourself on national TV day drinking while caring for your children, and your children mouthing off and disobeying. 

Now we're to believe, if this is the way it's going, that Brandi would be approved for another infant, within a year of the prior, whilst crying on camera talking about not even handling what she currently has?  I just don't see that being approved by the system.  I know there were posters trying to float the belief that redheaded babies are especially hard to adopt out, but I'm telling you, white babies of any hair shade or health condition, are in desperate demand.  That's not it. 

When the Bruin adoption happened, I thought it was probably a teenaged relative of Brandi or Brian, and that's why they look so similar.  I don't really know what to think now.  But I really don't understand why this bio mom is setting up a baby factory of infants she doesn't want.

Absolutely agree it was a private adoption. I remember Stephanie's version of Bruin as an adoptable baby made it sound like Stephanie's friend was going through his Rolodex (HI 1987!) frantically calling around for someone to adopt a highly adoptable baby. Sure, Jan.

I also agree that if this were a state adoption, and the baby was already in care, or about to be taken into care, that the situation Chez Redmond would not meet the State's suitable home requirements.  

I'm also of the opinion that some money changed hands somewhere along the line.

As for the bio mom, there are certainly women who have babies they shouldn't have for a bunch of reasons: No sense, lack of maturity, irresponsibility, drug addiction, an aversion to birth control or even money. Hard to guess what this one would be. 

Still going with secret surrogacy FTW. 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The saddest thing about this episode was not Leeann's mom being late to her wedding but rather the notion that a husband with a vacuum is somehow notable and exotic.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size