Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
druzy

S09.E11: Peace Gathering

Recommended Posts


5 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Another relationship that's going to end badly. There's no chemistry between them at all. I can't believe Lauren uprooted her entire life for a guy who seems lukewarm towards her at best.

Especially since he moved her to Delaware before he'd even changed his clothes from the last Briana visit.

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 9

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Quilty said:

Poor Aubree getting interrogated as soon as she gets in the car. Chelsea makes her feel like she's done something wrong. And it drives me nuts when Chelsea tells Aubree to leave the room so she can talk with Cole or whoever. She just repeats everything she already said to Aubree.

Ughhh I agree. All the questions are so loaded "How was your day??" *stares intently in rear view mirror "Who came to lunch??? What did they say?? Was he on time? What did they sayyyyy??? Don't lie!" 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, maybe I missed something, but I'm genuinely curious...can anyone explain this to me?

It seems like the Linds have a history of letting Adam be alone with Aubree when he's not supposed to, i.e. driving with her after it had been established he couldn't do so. All this happened in the past, and then Chelsea got it put in the visitation agreement that adam could not be present when the Linds had Aubree. It seems like that happened maybe last year, and we haven't heard anything about them violating the order since then. 

Last episode, adam showed up, and Donna immediately texted Chelsea to come get Aubree. I just don't see how this constitutes violating the agreement. 

Should the Linds have brought Aubree home instead of making Cole come? Maybe. 

Should they have asked Adam to leave instead? Maybe. 

Were they delusional in thinking that Cole would bring Aubree back when adam left? Maybe. 

Should they have alerted adam that he couldn't come to the family gathering ahead of time? Maybe. 

Should they have played dumb and acted like the rule about adam was "chelsea's rule?" Nope.

It sounds like the Linds made some bad judgment calls, but I'm confused as how they violated he court order. Adam showed up, as he is a person with free will, and maybe he just refused to leave. What should they do then? Remove Aubree from the situation, which they did. Violating the court order, to me, would look like letting them both stay and hang out. The next week at school, they even made it up to Aubree by encouraging adam to continue seeing her in an appropriate setting, since they recognized their house was not one and called Chelsea. 

Now, it does sound like they violated the orders numerous times in the past. I remember several times when people in Chelsea's life  were saying that she was too easy on the Linds, to which she'd just mumble something and not really answer coherently. It was obvious then that stopping visits was something Chelsea didn't want to do at that time, and didn't want to speak on camera about. I understand, though, why she might have been tempted to stop visits then. 

However, since this recent court order, all that's happened is this one incident, which they handled okay in my opinion. What has changed, besides Paislee getting adopted, and Chelsea wanting the same for Aubree? I don't get why she's suddenly so upset about them repeatedly violating the court order when all this was in the past. If the Linds had constantly allowed adam to hang out at their house in the last year since the rules were changed, I would get it 100%. Yet, adam showed up once (and they can't control him) and they called Chelsea's immediately. Maybe they were a little snarky about it, yes. I'm not arguing that they handled it well, but I don't think they broke the order. If they were at the mall with Aubree and ran into adam, and then quickly walked the other way, would they be violating the order? They can't control where he goes. 

It really seems like now that Cole wants to adopt Aubree, all the times they violated the order in the past suddenly matter, and they're getting hugely punished in the present for something that really wasn't breaking the rules. 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ChocolateAddict said:

It went down like this: 

1. Adam and his parents have informal visitation. Adam becomes dangerous to Aubree because of his drug use, tendency to not care for her and inability to follow the law. 

2. Adam is ordered by a court to have supervised visitation and to not drive with Aubree in the car. His parents are appointed to supervise any time that he is around Aubree. At this stage, Aubree was going to her grandparents every other weekend and Adam was almost never around. Whenever he was around, the grandparents would violate the order by not supervising (e.g. not being there and letting him take her alone) and allowing him to drive Aubree around, at least once without a seatbelt. This places Aubree at risk. 

3. Last year Chelsea was successful in getting an order that Adam can only see Aubree at a visitation centre because his parents cannot be trusted to supervise appropriately. She successfully argued that Aubree's visits should be reduced to once a month on the basis that the every other weekend arrangement was because Adam (her legal parent) was supposed to be there. Her grandparents are not entitled to every other weekend given Adam can no longer be there with Aubree. They confront Chelsea at court after the order was made. 

Basically, the grandparents have bought this on themselves. The reason that the visitation was formalised in a court order was because they have repeatedly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. Without a court order, there would be nothing to stop them from allowing Adam to be around unsupervised and going around the order that he can only see her at the visitation centre. It can't be said enough that the grandparents have a history of violating court orders and placing Adam above Aubree. They are the reason that Aubree and Chelsea are in this situation where contact must be formalised. 

Chelsea has plenty of faults and she should be approaching her conversations with Aubree better. But as I said before, being around Aubree means following orders made for her safety. If her grandparents don't agree with those orders they can request a review. What they can't do is decide that they know what's best and ignore them. I have zero sympathy because their actions have been the problem here, not Chelsea's. 

Yes!!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, ChocolateAddict said:

They have visitation because the court and Chelsea agreed that their relationship with Aubree should be preserved. Aubree had been staying with them for years at this point and the court agreed that this should continue but for one weekend a month. 

But because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy there are strict conditions on this visitation. Chelsea would have demonstrated to the court that the order was necessary because without it she had reason to believe that they would try and get around the visitation centre order by letting Adam visit Aubree at their place. It's double protection for Aubree - Adam can only see her at the visitation centre and her grandparents cannot let him be around her. Basically the court agreed that they can't be trusted with informal visitation so it has to be formalised with clearly outlined rules. 

It sucks for Aubree that it's got to the point where there are rules about how she can be with her paternal family. It's really sad that her own grandparents can't be trusted to keep her safe to the point where a court had to intervene. But that's on them, not Chelsea. 

But again, why does this need to be codified into a legal document? That's the part I don't understand. Most grandparent-grandchild relationships are nurtured and preserved without any legal intervention. 

Of course, watching this show is always an exercise in piecing together real-life info from social media, public court documents, and all the half-truths said on the show. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/25/2019 at 9:49 PM, BitterApple said:

Does Briana realize child support isn't a weapon to be brandished at her convenience? It's money that Stella is entitled to. If Luis moves to Florida, shares custody and it has to be adjusted that's one thing, but to take him off altogether? She really is the Queen of the Idiot People.

Briana is very, very stupid. I think it's a big part of why her mom and sister are so involved in her life. They realize that she doesn't really have the intellectual capacity to take care of herself and her kids on her own. You can see it when they try to explain to her that she really needs to use birth control so she doesn't have any more kids by deadbeat baby daddies. It's also apparent in her moronic reasoning around changing Nova's name "because Stella has her dad's last name, so I feel like it's not fair that Nova doesn't."

I don't think she really understands how child support works. She seems to think that you "put a baby daddy on child support" to punish him for not doing enough for his child and "take him off child support" as a reward when he is at least trying to do something for the kid.

23 hours ago, Rebecca said:

I also feel that by her reaction she doesn’t really give a shit what Aubree thinks or feels about not seeing them. She’s clearly, to me, trying to set it up like it’s an “us” (Cole, Chelsea AND Aubree) vs “them” (the Linds). The subtext seemed to be, sorry those icky people are bothering you at school, Aubree. We’re going to try make it so that they can’t bother you anymore! I don’t think there’s any justification for how Chelsea treated Aubree this episode. I can I understand her wanting to punish Adam, and even his parents, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. Her attitude about the school visits really gave me insight into her motivation, it’s not just to protect Aubree, it’s also to punish the Linds and remove them from Aubree’s life entirely. Otherwise why not be happy that they see her on a limited time basis in a totally safe space?! Aubree is safe with them there and doesn’t have to feel as abandoned by her father and his family if they see her there. Isn’t that the best thing for her?

That's how it came off to me too. I also thought it was weird that Chelsea doesn't want Grandma Donna to talk about visitation with Aubree at all, even though Aubree obviously knows that it's an issue and she was taken away from her last visit early. I think it would be very weird for Grandma Donna to just not mention visiting at all and I don't see how, "I asked if you could visit this weekend, but I don't think it's going to work out." is such a terrible or controversial thing to say.

And since Chelsea is too immature/cowardly to actually talk to Donna, I'm not sure what she wants or expects Donna to do (as pointed out by Aubree). If Donna responded to her text, "Well, I don't see what your problem is since I immediately informed you that Adam was here and you sent Cole to 'rescue' her," Chelsea and Cole would have LOST THEIR SHIT about Donna being "mean" and taken that as justification for Cole to further "protect" Chelsea from having to talk to Donna and for them to keep Aubree away from the Linds.

I think Chelsea understands that she very much has the upper hand in terms of legal rights to Aubree and she passive-aggressively/tacitly uses that to effectively silence Donna in their communication (or lack thereof) around Aubree. The mature thing to do when these conflicts arise would be for Chelsea (as Aubree's mother and the person with the most control in the situation) to tell Donna what her expectations/demands are (e.g., "If Adam shows up when Aubree's there, I want you to tell him he has to leave. It's not ok if you call me to pick her up, but he ends up being with her in the meantime."). It seems that she doesn't say that, or anything, but she expects Donna to figure out what she wants. 

2 hours ago, Christina87 said:

Okay, maybe I missed something, but I'm genuinely curious...can anyone explain this to me?

It seems like the Linds have a history of letting Adam be alone with Aubree when he's not supposed to, i.e. driving with her after it had been established he couldn't do so. All this happened in the past, and then Chelsea got it put in the visitation agreement that adam could not be present when the Linds had Aubree. It seems like that happened maybe last year, and we haven't heard anything about them violating the order since then. 

Last episode, adam showed up, and Donna immediately texted Chelsea to come get Aubree. I just don't see how this constitutes violating the agreement. 

Should the Linds have brought Aubree home instead of making Cole come? Maybe. 

Should they have asked Adam to leave instead? Maybe. 

Were they delusional in thinking that Cole would bring Aubree back when adam left? Maybe. 

Should they have alerted adam that he couldn't come to the family gathering ahead of time? Maybe. 

Should they have played dumb and acted like the rule about adam was "chelsea's rule?" Nope.

It sounds like the Linds made some bad judgment calls, but I'm confused as how they violated he court order. Adam showed up, as he is a person with free will, and maybe he just refused to leave. What should they do then? Remove Aubree from the situation, which they did. Violating the court order, to me, would look like letting them both stay and hang out. The next week at school, they even made it up to Aubree by encouraging adam to continue seeing her in an appropriate setting, since they recognized their house was not one and called Chelsea. 

Now, it does sound like they violated the orders numerous times in the past. I remember several times when people in Chelsea's life  were saying that she was too easy on the Linds, to which she'd just mumble something and not really answer coherently. It was obvious then that stopping visits was something Chelsea didn't want to do at that time, and didn't want to speak on camera about. I understand, though, why she might have been tempted to stop visits then. 

However, since this recent court order, all that's happened is this one incident, which they handled okay in my opinion. What has changed, besides Paislee getting adopted, and Chelsea wanting the same for Aubree? I don't get why she's suddenly so upset about them repeatedly violating the court order when all this was in the past. If the Linds had constantly allowed adam to hang out at their house in the last year since the rules were changed, I would get it 100%. Yet, adam showed up once (and they can't control him) and they called Chelsea's immediately. Maybe they were a little snarky about it, yes. I'm not arguing that they handled it well, but I don't think they broke the order. If they were at the mall with Aubree and ran into adam, and then quickly walked the other way, would they be violating the order? They can't control where he goes. 

It really seems like now that Cole wants to adopt Aubree, all the times they violated the order in the past suddenly matter, and they're getting hugely punished in the present for something that really wasn't breaking the rules. 

This is my understanding as well. As far as I vaguely recall, the incident with the Linds letting Adam drive Aubree somewhere was at least a couple of years ago. I think that since the court order barring Adam from being in Aubree's presence was put into place, there was one incident where Adam came to their house while Aubree was there and Chelsea only found out about it afterwards and this recent incident where Donna called to inform her right away. Were there other violations of the court order?

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Christina87 said:

Okay, maybe I missed something, but I'm genuinely curious...can anyone explain this to me?

It seems like the Linds have a history of letting Adam be alone with Aubree when he's not supposed to, i.e. driving with her after it had been established he couldn't do so. All this happened in the past, and then Chelsea got it put in the visitation agreement that adam could not be present when the Linds had Aubree. It seems like that happened maybe last year, and we haven't heard anything about them violating the order since then. 

Last episode, adam showed up, and Donna immediately texted Chelsea to come get Aubree. I just don't see how this constitutes violating the agreement. 

Should the Linds have brought Aubree home instead of making Cole come? Maybe. 

Should they have asked Adam to leave instead? Maybe. 

Were they delusional in thinking that Cole would bring Aubree back when adam left? Maybe. 

Should they have alerted adam that he couldn't come to the family gathering ahead of time? Maybe. 

Should they have played dumb and acted like the rule about adam was "chelsea's rule?" Nope.

It sounds like the Linds made some bad judgment calls, but I'm confused as how they violated he court order. Adam showed up, as he is a person with free will, and maybe he just refused to leave. What should they do then? Remove Aubree from the situation, which they did. Violating the court order, to me, would look like letting them both stay and hang out. The next week at school, they even made it up to Aubree by encouraging adam to continue seeing her in an appropriate setting, since they recognized their house was not one and called Chelsea. 

Now, it does sound like they violated the orders numerous times in the past. I remember several times when people in Chelsea's life  were saying that she was too easy on the Linds, to which she'd just mumble something and not really answer coherently. It was obvious then that stopping visits was something Chelsea didn't want to do at that time, and didn't want to speak on camera about. I understand, though, why she might have been tempted to stop visits then. 

However, since this recent court order, all that's happened is this one incident, which they handled okay in my opinion. What has changed, besides Paislee getting adopted, and Chelsea wanting the same for Aubree? I don't get why she's suddenly so upset about them repeatedly violating the court order when all this was in the past. If the Linds had constantly allowed adam to hang out at their house in the last year since the rules were changed, I would get it 100%. Yet, adam showed up once (and they can't control him) and they called Chelsea's immediately. Maybe they were a little snarky about it, yes. I'm not arguing that they handled it well, but I don't think they broke the order. If they were at the mall with Aubree and ran into adam, and then quickly walked the other way, would they be violating the order? They can't control where he goes. 

It really seems like now that Cole wants to adopt Aubree, all the times they violated the order in the past suddenly matter, and they're getting hugely punished in the present for something that really wasn't breaking the rules. 

This 🙌🏻 The Linds didn’t violate the court order. Chelsea is being a melodramatic dimwit only seeking to push her own agenda i.e. making the Linds disappear so the world might believe Aubree is Cole’s daughter. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Christina87 said:

Last episode, adam showed up, and Donna immediately texted Chelsea to come get Aubree. I just don't see how this constitutes violating the agreement. 

What if Chelsea/Cole had been out of town or at an event and couldn't immediately pick up Aubree?  The custody agreement calls for one night per month at the Linds and specifically states no Adam.  They violated that agreement by having him at the house.  Not to mention, the only reason they notified Chelsea/Cole was because Adam had already posted a photo to social media.  

There was recently a domestic violence incident in Wisconsin where the mother was murdered by her ex at his parents house.  She had taken her child to visit her grandparents on a Saturday and their son showed up despite an order of protection and killed her.  That's why there are court orders in place.  Based on his (and his parents) previous actions, Adam is only allowed supervised visits with Aubree, at either the visitation center or her school.   He (and they) have only themselves to blame for those restrictions.

Edited by snarts
  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, TheRealT said:

And since Chelsea is too immature/cowardly to actually talk to Donna

Well we all know after one hearing that Chelsea had to call Randy and tell him how mean Donna was to her.

I FF through Chelsea, but I see that it must be cold in their new house because she needs a stocking hat and Cole is still one patriotic SOB.

Karl was consistent, she looked like shit in every scene this week.

  • Like 6
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, BARISTA said:

This 🙌🏻 The Linds didn’t violate the court order. Chelsea is being a melodramatic dimwit only seeking to push her own agenda i.e. making the Linds disappear so the world might believe Aubree is Cole’s daughter. 

The legal system will decide if the Linds violated the court order. Chelsea can give the information as far as she knows what happened, but it would be up to a judge to decide whether the visitation agreement was violated. Not Chelsea, not Grandma Donna, not us.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

10 hours ago, Christina87 said:

Okay, maybe I missed something, but I'm genuinely curious...can anyone explain this to me?

It seems like the Linds have a history of letting Adam be alone with Aubree when he's not supposed to, i.e. driving with her after it had been established he couldn't do so. All this happened in the past, and then Chelsea got it put in the visitation agreement that adam could not be present when the Linds had Aubree. It seems like that happened maybe last year, and we haven't heard anything about them violating the order since then. 

Last episode, adam showed up, and Donna immediately texted Chelsea to come get Aubree. I just don't see how this constitutes violating the agreement. 

Should the Linds have brought Aubree home instead of making Cole come? Maybe. 

Should they have asked Adam to leave instead? Maybe. 

Were they delusional in thinking that Cole would bring Aubree back when adam left? Maybe. 

Should they have alerted adam that he couldn't come to the family gathering ahead of time? Maybe. 

Should they have played dumb and acted like the rule about adam was "chelsea's rule?" Nope.

It sounds like the Linds made some bad judgment calls, but I'm confused as how they violated he court order. Adam showed up, as he is a person with free will, and maybe he just refused to leave. What should they do then? Remove Aubree from the situation, which they did. Violating the court order, to me, would look like letting them both stay and hang out. The next week at school, they even made it up to Aubree by encouraging adam to continue seeing her in an appropriate setting, since they recognized their house was not one and called Chelsea. 

Now, it does sound like they violated the orders numerous times in the past. I remember several times when people in Chelsea's life  were saying that she was too easy on the Linds, to which she'd just mumble something and not really answer coherently. It was obvious then that stopping visits was something Chelsea didn't want to do at that time, and didn't want to speak on camera about. I understand, though, why she might have been tempted to stop visits then. 

However, since this recent court order, all that's happened is this one incident, which they handled okay in my opinion. What has changed, besides Paislee getting adopted, and Chelsea wanting the same for Aubree? I don't get why she's suddenly so upset about them repeatedly violating the court order when all this was in the past. If the Linds had constantly allowed adam to hang out at their house in the last year since the rules were changed, I would get it 100%. Yet, adam showed up once (and they can't control him) and they called Chelsea's immediately. Maybe they were a little snarky about it, yes. I'm not arguing that they handled it well, but I don't think they broke the order. If they were at the mall with Aubree and ran into adam, and then quickly walked the other way, would they be violating the order? They can't control where he goes. 

It really seems like now that Cole wants to adopt Aubree, all the times they violated the order in the past suddenly matter, and they're getting hugely punished in the present for something that really wasn't breaking the rules. 

In my opinion, and according to the court, the "maybes" listed here should be changed to "definitelys."

As far as the other bolded--how do we know it was immediately that Donna texted Chelsea? Perhaps Adam was there for a while before the text was sent.

Adam has tested positive for meth (2018) and has violated orders of protection against other exes --he has no regard for rules and his parents cannot control him, obviously. If the Linds cannot control Adam showing up where Aubree is, then I guess they cannot be trusted to have unsupervised visitation with her.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Christina87 said:

It sounds like the Linds made some bad judgment calls, but I'm confused as how they violated he court order. Adam showed up, as he is a person with free will, and maybe he just refused to leave. What should they do then? Remove Aubree from the situation, which they did. Violating the court order, to me, would look like letting them both stay and hang out. The next week at school, they even made it up to Aubree by encouraging adam to continue seeing her in an appropriate setting, since they recognized their house was not one and called Chelsea. 

What they should have done, as the person in care and control of their property and under a court order that their son have no contact with their granddaughter without a state-approved CASA or the like involved is called the police and had him removed if he refused to leave.  That's it.  They lost the right to supervise visits between their son and their granddaughter.  They knew it.  Their son knew it.  And it was their responsibility to either remove Adam or, barring that, remove Aubree.  

10 hours ago, Vandy10 said:

But again, why does this need to be codified into a legal document? That's the part I don't understand. Most grandparent-grandchild relationships are nurtured and preserved without any legal intervention. 

Of course, watching this show is always an exercise in piecing together real-life info from social media, public court documents, and all the half-truths said on the show. 

Because South Dakota has a lot of multi-generational family situations in which one parent isn't capable of being responsible for a child and often it falls to the grandparents.  It takes strain off of the social services agencies and allows families to stay together to some point.  And clearly this particular relationship has to have court-mandated guidelines because Adam is a junky and a criminal with zero regard for his personal well being or that of his child and his parents enable it.  

8 hours ago, TheRealT said:

I think Chelsea understands that she very much has the upper hand in terms of legal rights to Aubree and she passive-aggressively/tacitly uses that to effectively silence Donna in their communication (or lack thereof) around Aubree. The mature thing to do when these conflicts arise would be for Chelsea (as Aubree's mother and the person with the most control in the situation) to tell Donna what her expectations/demands are (e.g., "If Adam shows up when Aubree's there, I want you to tell him he has to leave. It's not ok if you call me to pick her up, but he ends up being with her in the meantime."). It seems that she doesn't say that, or anything, but she expects Donna to figure out what she wants. 

The intelligent and less-drama way to deal with this is called "If you have an issue with it, please call my lawyer.  I'm complying with the court order, I expect you to do the same.  Click."  (Click being the sound of the phone hanging up.)  If anything, Donna is exceptionally lucky that Chelsea isn't good at confrontation because if she'd be pulling this out-of-court communication with another, more confident woman and she'd find herself looking at a contempt of court charge or worse.

5 hours ago, BARISTA said:

This 🙌🏻 The Linds didn’t violate the court order. Chelsea is being a melodramatic dimwit only seeking to push her own agenda i.e. making the Linds disappear so the world might believe Aubree is Cole’s daughter. 

Except that an actual judge found they did. 

I don't dispute the rest of your statement though.  There's a part of Chelsea that wishes and prays that Adam takes a hot shot of meth and there's no Narcan to bring him back around or that he rolls whatever vehicle he's driving into a ditch and no one finds him for a month or two.

1 hour ago, snarts said:

What if Chelsea/Cole had been out of town or at an event and couldn't immediately pick up Aubree?  

Then the Linds are in care and control of their property and it's their responsibility to remove Adam from it or call Law Enforcement to do so.  If they are out in public, it is their responsibility to ensure Adam has no contact, even if it means calling the cops to intervene.  Sadly, the cops do it all the time.  The problem is that the Linds are still in denial that their son has problems.

46 minutes ago, Adiba said:

Adam has tested positive for meth (2018) and has violated orders of protection against other exes --he has no regard for rules and his parents cannot control him, obviously. If the Linds cannot control Adam showing up where Aubree is, then I guess they cannot be trusted to have unsupervised visitation with her.

Exactly, as the court has already determined.  

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what triggered Adam into giving up rights to Paislee.  Either he's actually not the biological father and just listed on the birth cert, or whatshername's lawyer is far more aggressive than Chelsea's in regards to child support.  Could be he just enjoys torturing Chelsea too, I wouldn't put it past him.

57 minutes ago, Mr. Minor said:

I FF through Chelsea, but I see that it must be cold in their new house because she needs a stocking hat and Cole is still one patriotic SOB.

Karl was consistent, she looked like shit in every scene this week.

The sartorial choices of all three (well, all of them) continue to baffle.  

Edited by Lemur
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing baby Stella reach out for Devon the second she saw him was cute as hell.  Why does Kail have a hair product line.  Her hair looks like sh*t.  Who are these people buying her products?  B

  • Like 4
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Lemur said:

Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what triggered Adam into giving up rights to Paislee.  Either he's actually not the biological father and just listed on the birth cert, or whatshername's lawyer is far more aggressive than Chelsea's in regards to child support.  Could be he just enjoys torturing Chelsea too, I wouldn't put it past him.

Paislee is a lot younger than Aubree, and although the Linds have known of her existence they haven’t had the chance to bond with her the way they did Aubree. I 100% believe Adam is Paislee’s bio dad, and he allowed her to be adopted to get out of having to pay child support (he was likely behind and maybe was facing repercussions for not paying).

  • Like 12
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it seems now that the breakdown in communication is what the Linds should do if adam just shows up. I find it unfair that he can just come to their house and they have to pay for it, when he has free will, and they could just as easily run into him in public. If Chelsea wasn't afraid to talk to Donna (which she has been since long before this started, since Donna told her to grow up, hardly the worst insult in the world), I feel like this could easily be worked out. As it stands now, I guess they need to go to court since communicating between themselves is impossible, and have a procedure in place for what to do if adam shows up and refuses to leave. Do they call the police? Do they immediately take Aubree back to Chelsea's? If Chelsea is not at home at the moment (which, let's face it, she has two babies and most likely will be; plus, I don't see her taking family trips without Aubree) they cold take her out for ice cream or a movie or something until she returns? It sounds silly that they need a procedure for this scenario, but as a teacher, it's crazy how much people in general need procedures! When I started teaching eighth grade, I thought kids would know by now how to come in, sit in their seats, do their work, and raise their hand if they need to leave the classroom, but shockingly, procedures for those things need to be set in stone, as well as literally everything else that could happen in the classroom. It just seems like they've reached a part of the court agreement that's a gray area, and they don't have a procedure for. It doesn't seem like the Linds stubbornly violating a rule to me; it seems like them trying to follow a part of a rule where there's no procedure in place, and one is needed. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Christina87 said:

I find it unfair that he can just come to their house and they have to pay for it, when he has free will, and they could just as easily run into him in public. 

Given what I’ve seen of humans and family structures in the 33 years of my life, if Adam’s parents MADE HIM show them proper respect (both as his parents and as Aubree’s grandparents) he would NOT show up when Aubree was there and he would not put them in the position of having to tell him to leave or have Aubree removed from the location. It’s obvious Adam doesn’t respect his parents.

Adam cannot just show up uninvited and unwanted, and if he’s following his parents when they have Aubree that’s cause to think he’s stalking them.

Adam is allowed to do whatever he wants (hence why he’s an addict and a felon) and he’s been given NO boundaries by his parents. Hence the situation we have now. 

I think the Linds should tell Adam that he isn’t allowed to mess up their time with Aubree and he isn’t to set foot on their property when she’s present. Period. If he doesn’t like it too bad. 

  • Like 18
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 3/25/2019 at 8:49 PM, BitterApple said:

Does Briana realize child support isn't a weapon to be brandished at her convenience? It's money that Stella is entitled to. If Luis moves to Florida, shares custody and it has to be adjusted that's one thing, but to take him off altogether? She really is the Queen of the Idiot People.

That was such a bizarre statement.  Like oh hey, now they're actually helping (and probably not financially) I'll be nice and take you off child support.   Is that even possible!?!?  If someone is court ordered to pay support can the custodial parent terminate the order at whim??? I feel like that shouldn't be a thing. 

On 3/26/2019 at 4:40 AM, jacksgirl said:

Havent watched, got some bad news last pm. The ONLY reason I dont like the Linds is that they do not follow the rules set up by the court. If they are allowed to see Aubree,  but Adam cannot be there they have to follow through with that. I get that he is their son and they love him unconditionally but if they want to see their granddaughter they have to follow the rules or get the rules changed. Aubree's such a smart kid at some point she is going to resent Cole and Chelsea not letting her pursue her relationship with her dad. Chelsea and Cole need to put aside their feelings and do what's best for their daughter.

With most grandparents I know... they love their grandkids even more than their own kids (my parents included lol) They will do ANYTHING for their grandkids.  So I give the Linds major side-eye that they can't get their heads out of their asses about how their son is a piece of shit. 

On 3/26/2019 at 7:30 AM, Vandy10 said:

Why did Kail need to get away to a Days Inn? If the kids are gone, that means you have the whole house to yourself! Unless it was to meet Becky halfway or something?

I was a little shocked she didn't end up in some fancy spa hotel - going to a regular hotel was a little weird, at least get a suite to make it look a little fancy but maybe it's slim picking in a neutral area to meet up with Becky. 

20 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Another relationship that's going to end badly. There's no chemistry between them at all. I can't believe Lauren uprooted her entire life for a guy who seems lukewarm towards her at best.

Javi likes to fake it till he makes it.  I truly believe that guy just wants a family and doesnt matter who it's with. 

20 hours ago, ghoulina said:

I think the Linds do have court-ordered visitation. Because I kind of remember Chelsea saying something about how she would be in violation by not taking Aubree there; BUT that they're violating the order by allowing Adumb over. She, honestly, needs to go back to lawyer and present all the times the Linds have gone against the order. Let the legal system officially deal with it. 

But if it is court ordered then i don't know how she can decide they need to 'take a break' or is that what she was discussing with randy in that ADAM would have to say she's in contempt of court, and since Adam won't do it then she knows she's safe with restricting visits? 

10 hours ago, TheRealT said:

I think Chelsea understands that she very much has the upper hand in terms of legal rights to Aubree and she passive-aggressively/tacitly uses that to effectively silence Donna in their communication (or lack thereof) around Aubree. The mature thing to do when these conflicts arise would be for Chelsea (as Aubree's mother and the person with the most control in the situation) to tell Donna what her expectations/demands are (e.g., "If Adam shows up when Aubree's there, I want you to tell him he has to leave. It's not ok if you call me to pick her up, but he ends up being with her in the meantime."). It seems that she doesn't say that, or anything, but she expects Donna to figure out what she wants. 

ummm the court order is very specific - ADAM CAN'T BE THERE - that is the expectation. No if's, and's or but's about it.  

7 minutes ago, Christina87 said:

Well, it seems now that the breakdown in communication is what the Linds should do if adam just shows up.

There is no breakdown in communication when the court order states that adam cant' be around Aubry. 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

Did Kail actually bail Jenelle out of jail? And did she actually drive to New Jersey and pick up Jenelle when she was strung out? 

Lincoln was cute holding his new baby brother

  • Like 4
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Given what I’ve seen of humans and family structures in the 33 years of my life, if Adam’s parents MADE HIM show them proper respect (both as his parents and as Aubree’s grandparents) he would NOT show up when Aubree was there and he would not put them in the position of having to tell him to leave or have Aubree removed from the location. It’s obvious Adam doesn’t respect his parents.

Adam cannot just show up uninvited and unwanted, and if he’s following his parents when they have Aubree that’s cause to think he’s stalking them.

Adam is allowed to do whatever he wants (hence why he’s an addict and a felon) and he’s been given NO boundaries by his parents. Hence the situation we have now. 

Oh, I absolutely agree with this! My guess, knowing what @Rebecca told us about his background, is that the Linds were softies, and got lucky that their first three were good, respectful kids. Then they had adam, who broke the mold, and they didn't adjust their parenting, and probably coddled him even more! Then he met Chelsea, who also had poor boundaries. He's been able to manipulate everyone his whole life, and that started with the parents. It's very much a parallel to Barb, who probably didn't set boundaries with her kids, and then yelled and did other reactionary behaviors when they were disrespectful. The Linds are Barb if she had gone the coddling route rather than the yelling route!

yet, the court's job isn't to determine whether the Linds were good parents, but a good court system would want to help them keep adam away, since he clearly doesn't respect his parents. The court can't go back in time and help them set boundaries, so they need help setting boundaries now, with clear instructions. Some people aren't naturals at it, for sure. I always had poor boundaries because I had a home life like Chelsea's growing up, and never needed to protect myself. Then I ended up with an adam, and then became a teacher! My first year of teaching, setting boundaries was sooo hard for me, because it just didn't come naturally. I thought the students would just follow basic rules, and if one misbehaved, I'd send them to the office. That is not at all how a classroom works! Thank god I had mentor teachers who said, "it works for me if I have this policy for this issue, and if they don't do it, A, B, and C happens." Thankfully, since I learned to master having good boundaries with my students, I have learned to be that way in my personal life too! I am so much happier now overall.

Of course court isn't an educational system, but I do think it's a good thing to give parents of a habitual offender a tool or two to use to deal with him. If they set a clear cut expectation of what to do if adam showed up, they would have the tools to deal with the situation, and there wouldn't be a gray area of "did I do the right thing?" Maybe they would become better at setting boundaries in general once they felt the confidence that came from enforcing this one. I see it as a win win for everyone, because I don't think the Linds are coming from a bad place. I think they genuinely need help because they're not good with situations like this, and TBH Chelsea's not the easiest, most understanding person to work with on the other end, either. Was Chelsea ever able to control Adam's behavior? NO! Think about if they'd had the court order in season one, and he'd shown up. "Adam-uhhhh!!!!! You're not supposed to be here-uh! Whyyyyy are you here-uh? You can only stay a minute-uh, or I'm going to have to call my dad-uh!"

i think if the Linds had a clear procedure in place for what to do if adam shows up, it would make it way easier for them to follow the court order, which would be in the best interest of everyone involved. If they chose to not follow it then, Chelsea would have grounds to get visitation removed. 

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

@Christina87, I see what you’re saying, and you do have some points regarding the Linds and their parenting of Adam. But this is now, as you said. The Linds are fully aware of Adam’s struggles with addiction, domestic violence (ex-gfs), and the law. They know. And they know about the court order. They know. They were in court when the original visitation agreement was changed to Adam only being allowed to see Aubree at the visitation center.

I would not have any problem if I were Chelsea, giving the Linds a piece of my mind and then some. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Christina87 said:

Well, it seems now that the breakdown in communication is what the Linds should do if adam just shows up. I find it unfair that he can just come to their house and they have to pay for it, when he has free will, and they could just as easily run into him in public.

There's no breakdown.  They willfully broke with the court order.  Based on friends dealing with similar situations, the judge usually give you explicit directions on what to do, and that's to call Law Enforcement or remove the child.

Let's be clear here ...

1.  They've been dealing with this for NINE YEARS.  If it was as simple as "sit down and talk it out", they would have done it years ago before things with Adam spiraled out of control.  Not everything can be settled by having a talk.  You can say something to someone and think you're being as clear as Waterford crystal, and they will still only hear what ever it is they want to hear.  You see some of that with Chelsea and some of that with the Linds.

2. Regardless of *if* you can resolve it that way, you still *need* a court order to protect all parties involved.  Even if you and your ex are amicable, you still need to have the courts bless all custody and child support agreements so that they're enforceable.  There's no guarantee you and your ex will always be amicable and sadly, some people need the specter of legal ramifications hanging over their heads to make these things work.  Adam needs even more than that, but I don't think even the courts can make him want to actively parent his daughter.

3.  There's a procedure in place, the Linds just don't think it applies to them. 

Edited by Lemur
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

I just think that if adam showing up is a problem, someone ought to try to help solve the problem once before throwing the Linds under the bus. Judges can't think of every complication when they make decisions, and if the Linds aren't inviting adam over, and have informed him he can't come while they have Aubree, you'd think that's all it would take. However, it's not. I see this as a legitimate problem that puts them at a disadvantage when they're really trying to follow the court order, and it needs a clear cut solution. I like to give people tools so they can have a chance before throwing them to the wolves. 

Now, if texts surfaced from Donna to adam saying, "come to the family gathering! You can see Aubree for just a minute...we don't have to tell Chelsea!" I'd be all for punishing the Linds. 

But if they are really trying to follow the court order and he shows up, now they're put in a position where they have to make a judgment call and 1) their judgment isn't necessarily the best, and 2) whatever choice they make will be scrutinized by Chelsea, who's already itching to take away visitation. I don't like setting people up to fail, and if they're trying to follow the court order, but now the same unforeseen circumstance keeps popping up, I think it would be in everyone's best interest to formally address that. 

In teaching, I've learned that the people who make the rules also have a responsibility to set others up to be able to follow those rules well. If the rule is "no fighting," and you sit two kids with a history of fighting right beside each other, the first thing the principal's going to ask is why you put them together. If you have a rule that any work not completed in class gets a zero, but a certain student is taken out every Tuesday for speech therapy, it's your duty to work with that situation to give the student a chance to succeed. You need to sit down with the student and speech therapist (and probably a principal) and outline a plan that still allows this student to meet the expectation, since following the rule is difficult for them because of a unique circumstance. This is what the Linds need. No, they are not children, but adults can benefit from  setting expectations as for what to do in a unique situation, as well as clarifying what already exists and where the problems are. I just really see this as an order that needs adjusting to fit reality, so that all parties can easily follow, than the Linds needing to be thrown under the bus. Throw them under AFTER they've flagrantly violated the order, not before. Until we find those texts asking adam to come over, I'm going to assume they were doing the best they can, but the order isn't specific enough for this specific situation, and they need to come to an agreement as to what the right thing to do in that circumstance is. Hoping adam will become a good person and stay away isn't realistic, and I don't like blaming his parents when they supposedly told him to stay away. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, Adiba said:

The legal system will decide if the Linds violated the court order. Chelsea can give the information as far as she knows what happened, but it would be up to a judge to decide whether the visitation agreement was violated. Not Chelsea, not Grandma Donna, not us.

Em, obviously. This is simply a forum for expressing opinions on issues that arise in the show, like whether or not the Linds violated the court order. If I were the Judge, I would say they certainly did not. And that’s before even hearing the Linds side of the story.!

2 hours ago, Lemur said:

Except that an actual judge found they did. 

No, a judge has never had to determine this particular incident, that we know of?

I’m not here to defend the Linds, but let’s not wrong them either. 

In my view, had Chelsea merely heard afterwards that Adam had been at their house while Aubree was there, that is clearly not ok and would be a clear violation of the court order. But the fact that they contacted her when the problem arose, i.e. when Adam turned up at their house, and they didn’t play dumb, they knew Aubree would have to be removed from that situation and advised Chelsea of this, means they acted on this situation. We don’t know the rest of the story to comment. Did they ask Adam to leave and he refused, did they threaten to call the cops on him if he didn’t leave, why couldn’t they have dropped Aubree home themselves, we don’t know. As@Christina87 points out, there was likely no clear procedure in place for if this scenario arose, and the Linds reacted as they saw fit, whether they was correctly or incorrectly. But what a horrid situation for all involved and especially for Aubree. The Linds were obviously also upset that that had happened during their time with Aubree, they went to lunch with her that week. They’re still human & trying to juggle a lot, regardless of whether or not much of this was self inflicted due to bad parenting or whatever, what is clear is that they care deeply for Aubree and she cares for them. I hope it can be sorted for all involved, even if it means going back to court. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, BARISTA said:

Em, obviously. This is simply a forum for expressing opinions on issues that arise in the show, like whether or not the Linds violated the court order. If I were the Judge, I would say they certainly did not. And that’s before even hearing the Linds side of the story.!

No, a judge has never had to determine this particular incident, that we know of?

I’m not here to defend the Linds, but let’s not wrong them either. 

In my view, had Chelsea merely heard afterwards that Adam had been at their house while Aubree was there, that is clearly not ok and would be a clear violation of the court order. But the fact that they contacted her when the problem arose, i.e. when Adam turned up at their house, and they didn’t play dumb, they knew Aubree would have to be removed from that situation and advised Chelsea of this, means they acted on this situation. We don’t know the rest of the story to comment. Did they ask Adam to leave and he refused, did they threaten to call the cops on him if he didn’t leave, why couldn’t they have dropped Aubree home themselves, we don’t know. As@Christina87 points out, there was likely no clear procedure in place for if this scenario arose, and the Linds reacted as they saw fit, whether they was correctly or incorrectly. But what a horrid situation for all involved and especially for Aubree. The Linds were obviously also upset that that had happened during their time with Aubree, they went to lunch with her that week. They’re still human & trying to juggle a lot, regardless of whether or not much of this was self inflicted due to bad parenting or whatever, what is clear is that they care deeply for Aubree and she cares for them. I hope it can be sorted for all involved, even if it means going back to court. 

I agree so much with this!!! I blame the Linds for the times in the past when they let adam drive, or otherwise be alone with Aubree, but Chelsea didn't do much about it then except whine. When her friends suggested she take action, she'd kind of shrug uncomfortably. For whatever reason, she needed those visits then, whether it was to give her a break from being a single mother, because she was still in love with adam and didn't want to upset him, she didn't truly believe he was dangerous, etc. When things with adam got to the point of drug addiction, as opposed to just reckless driving and DWI's, that's when she started taking it more seriously. 

I FULLY blame the Linds of yesteryear for violating the policies set forth regarding adam driving, but Chelsea didn't want to punish them then. Since this new agreement, this latest incident is the only thing that's happened, and I think the Linds were really trying their best. What has changed? Oh yeah. Chelsea wants coleyyyy to adopt Aubree! Funny how the Linds were fine when they actually were letting Aubree ride around with him and stay alone at his house, but now that they magically can't prevent adam from showing up, and notified Chelsea immediately when it happened, they are so evil that all visits must immediately cease. Sorry Chelsea, but I see through that! She wants to use events that happened in the past, and have been dealt with via the existing court order, to further her coley daddy agenda, and it rubs me the wrong way. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, BARISTA said:

No, a judge has never had to determine this particular incident, that we know of?

Yes, last year, when Chelsea got the order amended so that Adam can only see Aubree at the visitation center.  That was an order against the Linds as much as Adam because they could no longer be trusted to supervise their son's visits in accordance with the court order.  The judge also reduced the amount of unsupervised visitation with the grandparents.

It doesn't matter when Chelsea heard or how she heard.  The court order is the court order.  They have increasingly been amended to be more restrictive for Adam and his parents because they choose not to abide by them.  

  • Like 12
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Lemur said:

Yes, last year, when Chelsea got the order amended so that Adam can only see Aubree at the visitation center.  That was an order against the Linds as much as Adam because they could no longer be trusted to supervise their son's visits in accordance with the court order.  The judge also reduced the amount of unsupervised visitation with the grandparents.

It doesn't matter when Chelsea heard or how she heard.  The court order is the court order.  They have increasingly been amended to be more restrictive for Adam and his parents because they choose not to abide by them.  

But...if you were the Linds, and adam showed up, what would you have done? What is the correct reaction here? I understand why their actions in the past were wrong, but I really think they tried to do the right thing here. What can they possibly do when adam shows up except remove Aubree, which they did?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Christina87 said:

But...if you were the Linds, and adam showed up, what would you have done? What is the correct reaction here? I understand why their actions in the past were wrong, but I really think they tried to do the right thing here. What can they possibly do when adam shows up except remove Aubree, which they did?

Easy.  I would have asked him to leave my property and if he refused, I would take the kid and leave.  If it continued to be a problem, I would have him trespassed from my property and then take appropriate legal action to bar him from setting foot on it.  If Adam wants to see his daughter, there is a venue for that, which they all are well aware of.  

And no, they didn't remove Aubree.  They called someone else to remove Aubree for them. 

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you on the adoption thing.  I think Chelsea needs to chill on that.  She made a kid with a loser.  The loser still has rights - yes, they're limited - and she's in no position to threaten or ruin that relationship with the loser.  She'd also under no obligation to put up with him or his parents putting that kid in actual, physical or psychological danger.  But she has to respect the court order and allow him and them the relationship they have.   I mean, he's doing a good job of ruining it on his own, him and his enabling parents.  

Edited by Lemur
  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Lemur said:

Easy.  I would have asked him to leave my property and if he refused, I would take the kid and leave.  If it continued to be a problem, I would have him trespassed from my property and then take appropriate legal action to bar him from setting foot on it.  If Adam wants to see his daughter, there is a venue for that, which they all are well aware of.  

I agree 100%. Adam should’ve been asked to leave and he should’ve done so. IMO Adam showed up because he knew he would be welcome, even though it was his parents time with Aubree. 

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

10 minutes ago, Lemur said:

Easy.  I would have asked him to leave my property and if he refused, I would take the kid and leave.  If it continued to be a problem, I would have him trespassed from my property and then take appropriate legal action to bar him from setting foot on it.  If Adam wants to see his daughter, there is a venue for that, which they all are well aware of.  

And no, they didn't remove Aubree.  They called someone else to remove Aubree for them. 

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you on the adoption thing.  I think Chelsea needs to chill on that.  She made a kid with a loser.  The loser still has rights - yes, they're limited - and she's in no position to threaten or ruin that relationship with the loser.  She'd also under no obligation to put up with him or his parents putting that kid in actual, physical or psychological danger.  But she has to respect the court order and allow him and them the relationship they have.   I mean, he's doing a good job of ruining it on his own, him and his enabling parents.  

I agree this would be a great course of action! Maybe the judge needs to explicitly tell them that they do this next time he shows up, or visits stop. I just want to give them one more chance because it's clear they are trying, but seem to lack good judgment. If the judge said they had to take these actions if he showed up again, and they violated it, I would totally support taking the visits away. And you're very right that adam probably just assumes they're not serious in asking him to leave, because they did set a bad precedent in the past by violating agreements. Plus, he doesn't respect them, and probably never has. I just support giving them another chance, with clear rules about what happens if adam shows up, and not throwing them under the bus this time. If they still disobey, they had every chance to succeed and they blew it!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Christina87 said:

I agree this would be a great course of action! Maybe the judge needs to explicitly tell them that they do this next time he shows up, or visits stop. I just want to give them one more chance because it's clear they are trying, but seem to lack good judgment. If the judge said they had to take these actions if he showed up again, and they violated it, I would totally support taking the visits away. And you're very right that adam probably just assumes they're not serious in asking him to leave, because they did set a bad precedent in the past by violating agreements. Plus, he doesn't respect them, and probably never has. I just support giving them another chance, with clear rules about what happens if adam shows up, and not throwing them under the bus this time. If they still disobey, they had every chance to succeed and they blew it!

What do you think happens when you get a court order?  You get explicit instructions.  The judge spells out what you can and can't do.  And if you're unclear, you're supposed to call your lawyer, that's what you pay a retainer for.  It's also why the term "On advice of counsel" exists.

And I disagree, I don't think they're trying, I think they are intentionally ignoring the parts of the order that they find inconvenient.  I think, based on what Aubree says (not so much Chelsea - I find her a pretty unreliable narrator when it comes to this), they are  passive-aggressive and manipulative.  Saying to a child "I wanted you to come over this weekend but your Mom wouldn't let me have you" is exactly the sort of thing a family court judge or a counselor or a lawyer or a CASA will tell you NOT to do because it's detrimental to the relationship between the kid and the primary parent, the kid and the secondary parent and lastly, the relationship between both parents.  It's text book shitty parenting.  And the sad part is, Aubree clearly wants to see them and enjoys it and shot back at Chelsea when Chelsea described the text exchange with Donna.  Donna needs to get her shit straight, play by the rules for a couple of years and then petition the court for more access.  

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Lemur said:

Yes, last year, when Chelsea got the order amended so that Adam can only see Aubree at the visitation center.  That was an order against the Linds as much as Adam because they could no longer be trusted to supervise their son's visits in accordance with the court order.  

You’re talking about an order made at least one year prior to the incident on this weeks episode that we are discussing. To our knowledge, Chelsea did not go back to court claiming the Linds’ behavior on this weeks episode constituted a violation of the original court order. So a judge has not made any determination on what we we are discussing at the moment. 🤷🏼‍♀️

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, BARISTA said:

You’re talking about an order made at least one year prior to the incident on this weeks episode that we are discussing. To our knowledge, Chelsea did not go back to court claiming the Linds’ behavior on this weeks episode constituted a violation of the original court order. So a judge has not made any determination on what we we are discussing at the moment. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I actually kind of got the impression she brought it up to her lawyer, who didn't take it seriously. When she was talking to Randy, she said something like, "I told my lawyer about it..." and I expected her to add, "and he said it was definitely a violation! He said I should go into court, full steam ahead!" But instead, she just kind of paused, and then grinned and said, "and we talked about other stuff, like the adoption!!!!" It seems like if her lawyer had thought it was a serious violation, she would have been chomping at the bit to tell Randy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, BARISTA said:

You’re talking about an order made at least one year prior to the incident on this weeks episode that we are discussing. To our knowledge, Chelsea did not go back to court claiming the Linds’ behavior on this weeks episode constituted a violation of the original court order. So a judge has not made any determination on what we we are discussing at the moment. 🤷🏼‍♀️

You're absolutely right about that.  I was discussing the Easter? 2018? 2017?  incident and the repursions from it.  The timelines on this are so wonked, it's difficult to tell where we are on Jeremy Bearimy. 

Edited by Lemur
  • Like 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Lemur said:

What do you think happens when you get a court order?  You get explicit instructions.  The judge spells out what you can and can't do.  And if you're unclear, you're supposed to call your lawyer, that's what you pay a retainer for.  It's also why the term "On advice of counsel" exists.

And I disagree, I don't think they're trying, I think they are intentionally ignoring the parts of the order that they find inconvenient.  I think, based on what Aubree says (not so much Chelsea - I find her a pretty unreliable narrator when it comes to this), they are  passive-aggressive and manipulative.  Saying to a child "I wanted you to come over this weekend but your Mom wouldn't let me have you" is exactly the sort of thing a family court judge or a counselor or a lawyer or a CASA will tell you NOT to do because it's detrimental to the relationship between the kid and the primary parent, the kid and the secondary parent and lastly, the relationship between both parents.  It's text book shitty parenting.  And the sad part is, Aubree clearly wants to see them and enjoys it and shot back at Chelsea when Chelsea described the text exchange with Donna.  Donna needs to get her shit straight, play by the rules for a couple of years and then petition the court for more access.  

Unfortunately, even us lawyers can’t predict every possible scenario that may arise in the future and so unfortunately a court order doesn’t give you explicit instructions, it’s just not feasible, particularly in family law, the court order simply states what is allowed and what is prohibited in general terms. Any disputes then yes your lawyer should be your first port of call and if they can’t provide the level of clarity required then it’s back to court for a ruling on it, which is actually quite common. All parties know for future reference then, so @Christina87 makes some good points. 

If as you say they were intentionally ignoring the parts of the order they find inconvenient, then they wouldn’t have bothered contacting Chelsea or letting her know. Also, Aubree didn’t say that Donna said her mom wouldn’t let her have her. She said she wanted her to come over but she “wasn’t sure it would work out”, which is a far more diplomatic way of letting her grandchild knows she cares about her and has an interest in seeing her, without throwing Chelsea under the bus. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, Lemur said:

You're absolutely right about that.  I was discussing the Easter? 2018? 2017?  incident and the repursions from it.  The timelines on this are so wonked, it's difficult to tell where we are on Jeremy Bearimy. 

And I agree that the Easter 2018 incident was a clear violation of the order and was disgracefully irresponsible on the part of the Linds. They undoubtedly have a past history of violating court orders and being in complete denial of their sons issues. But the particular incident on this weeks episode, was it a violation or not?, not so clear, though opinions are certainly divided on this! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BARISTA said:

This 🙌🏻 The Linds didn’t violate the court order. Chelsea is being a melodramatic dimwit only seeking to push her own agenda i.e. making the Linds disappear so the world might believe Aubree is Cole’s daughter. 

BINGO!  She wishes the Linds would just disappear.

When Mandy (the producer) said, "do you think Aubree is upset about not getting to go to Grandma Donna's?" and Chelsea says "no" and that she "never really thought about that," I was like ARE YOU KIDDING ME??  You haven't thought about the fact that Aubree loves her grandma and the rest of the Linds?  You haven't even thought about it?  A good mother actually considers her daughter's feelings.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Christina87 said:

But...if you were the Linds, and adam showed up, what would you have done? What is the correct reaction here? I understand why their actions in the past were wrong, but I really think they tried to do the right thing here. What can they possibly do when adam shows up except remove Aubree, which they did?

If someone shows up where they are not supposed to be--say, a parent in the classroom--or a stranger, what do you do? An ex-boyfriend whom one has an protection order against? Ask them to leave. If they don't? Call the police. Now if Adam, being their son, does not respect the court order nor his parents' wishes (if in fact, they have told him NOT to come over when Aubree is there) and they refuse to call the police--THEY should immediately remove Aubree and call Chelsea, imo. Take Aubree for ice cream, anything---just leave.

And I am not saying Chelsea is some perfect parent, either. She has waffled in the past about Adam, which had me irritated as well. But I really do not think that if things were better with Adam (he stays or gets sober and keeps out of trouble)  and if he hadn't signed away his rights to his five-year old daughter, that she would think of adoption. Just my opinion.

I think there are many reasons to snark on Chelsea (and Cole), but if Aubree's safety is at risk--and I do believe it is at risk around Adam--then I'm on the side of Aubree's safety--even if she doesn't quite understand everything. 

Edited by Adiba · Reason: typo
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, heatherchandler said:

BINGO!  She wishes the Linds would just disappear.

When Mandy (the producer) said, "do you think Aubree is upset about not getting to go to Grandma Donna's?" and Chelsea says "no" and that she "never really thought about that," I was like ARE YOU KIDDING ME??  You haven't thought about the fact that Aubree loves her grandma and the rest of the Linds?  You haven't even thought about it?  A good mother actually considers her daughter's feelings.

And didn't she ask Aubree like two episodes ago if she still enjoyed going to the Linds', and Aubree said yes? It seems like Chelsea considered stopping the visits for no reason, but Aubree didn't want to. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BARISTA said:

This 🙌🏻 The Linds didn’t violate the court order. Chelsea is being a melodramatic dimwit only seeking to push her own agenda i.e. making the Linds disappear so the world might believe Aubree is Cole’s daughter. 

The Linds did violate it. They let him hang out at their house with her there. We know this has happened at least twice just from watching the show. Courts don't care if they want to claim an "oops." Doesn't work that way, there aren't sort of violations and real violations. They violated the order. Again. (source: am an attorney who used to work in abuse and neglect cases- no contact means NO CONTACT)

With that being said, I agree that Chelsea wants Adam to go away. I can't say I blame her but that's not how this is going to work and she has to give that up. 

People are asking why the grandparents rights are via court order- because the Court clearly felt they need protected. Also, it doesn't put Chelsea in the position of trying to enforce rules with the Linds (not that they bother following them). I think it's very smart of Chelsea- she doesn't have to fight them on how often they see Aubree, Aubree maintains an important relationship in her life, and the Court sets the rules. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Christina87 said:

But...if you were the Linds, and adam showed up, what would you have done? What is the correct reaction here? I understand why their actions in the past were wrong, but I really think they tried to do the right thing here. What can they possibly do when adam shows up except remove Aubree, which they did?

Remove Adumb? 

I'd tell him, "This is my appointed time with my granddaughter. I only get it once a month now, due to you screwing up. It's the same weekend every month, so it's no secret. You know better than to just pop over during this time. Go hang out with one of your scuzzy friends and eat chicken wings."

Okay, maybe not those exact words. But given that HE is the violation, I'd tell HIM to kick rocks. It's a lot easier for a grownup to deal with coming back later, especially when he has plenty of other time to come over. 

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, Adiba said:

In my opinion, and according to the court, the "maybes" listed here should be changed to "definitelys."

As far as the other bolded--how do we know it was immediately that Donna texted Chelsea? Perhaps Adam was there for a while before the text was sent.

Adam has tested positive for meth (2018) and has violated orders of protection against other exes --he has no regard for rules and his parents cannot control him, obviously. If the Linds cannot control Adam showing up where Aubree is, then I guess they cannot be trusted to have unsupervised visitation with her.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Lemur said:

There's no breakdown.  They willfully broke with the court order.  Based on friends dealing with similar situations, the judge usually give you explicit directions on what to do, and that's to call Law Enforcement or remove the child.

Let's be clear here ...

1.  They've been dealing with this for NINE YEARS.  If it was as simple as "sit down and talk it out", they would have done it years ago before things with Adam spiraled out of control.  Not everything can be settled by having a talk.  You can say something to someone and think you're being as clear as Waterford crystal, and they will still only hear what ever it is they want to hear.  You see some of that with Chelsea and some of that with the Linds.

2. Regardless of *if* you can resolve it that way, you still *need* a court order to protect all parties involved.  Even if you and your ex are amicable, you still need to have the courts bless all custody and child support agreements so that they're enforceable.  There's no guarantee you and your ex will always be amicable and sadly, some people need the specter of legal ramifications hanging over their heads to make these things work.  Adam needs even more than that, but I don't think even the courts can make him want to actively parent his daughter.

3.  There's a procedure in place, the Linds just don't think it applies to them. 

This! We did everything we could to try to let my daughter have a relationship with my in-laws.   They continuously broke our trust and threatened us.  My situation is not like Chelsea’s.   We broke contact after my MIL assaulted me.  However, anytime (small town) I see her, hear her name, or she contacts my family to pass messages I have a full on panic attack. My body shakes and I can’t even think. (This woman threatened to kidnap my child and kill me so SHE would call HER mom.  She’s psycho!). Chelsea’s isn’t to this extreme but who’s to say she can’t handle confrontation with Donna anymore.  If you haven’t been in that situation, you don’t know.  One of the many reasons we are moving far, far away. 

Edited by Mkay
  • Like 6
  • Surprise 2
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know what's going on in real time? I know this episode was filmed months ago, so I'm curious to see if they ever went to court or if threatening to do so was enough to make Donna straighten up. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Lemur said:

  The timelines on this are so wonked, it's difficult to tell where we are on Jeremy Bearimy. 

high five episode 7 GIF by The Good Place
 
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I agree 100%. Adam should’ve been asked to leave and he should’ve done so. IMO Adam showed up because he knew he would be welcome, even though it was his parents time with Aubree. 

I agree, too. They probably called Chelsea to arrange for a pickup because it allowed for some time for Aubree and Adam to spend together. Didn't she say they played some pool together before Cole arrived?

4 hours ago, queenbee24 said:

The Linds did violate it. They let him hang out at their house with her there. We know this has happened at least twice just from watching the show. Courts don't care if they want to claim an "oops." Doesn't work that way, there aren't sort of violations and real violations. They violated the order. Again. (source: am an attorney who used to work in abuse and neglect cases- no contact means NO CONTACT)

With that being said, I agree that Chelsea wants Adam to go away. I can't say I blame her but that's not how this is going to work and she has to give that up. 

People are asking why the grandparents rights are via court order- because the Court clearly felt they need protected. Also, it doesn't put Chelsea in the position of trying to enforce rules with the Linds (not that they bother following them). I think it's very smart of Chelsea- she doesn't have to fight them on how often they see Aubree, Aubree maintains an important relationship in her life, and the Court sets the rules. 

The Linds visitations were decided by a court because they kept doing stupid shit like letting Adam drive the child around even though he didn't have a license, had known drug problems, had her riding on shit with no helmet, etc. They suspended their judgment even though they were fully aware of his risky behaviors and now they're paying for it. This last time he may have been there for a bit before Grandma Donna texted Chelsea and they probably only told because they knew Aubree would mention it when she got home and they even they could not in good conscience ask her to stay mum. 

Still, Chelsea and Cole, as I've said many times, need to fucking chill because Aubree wants to spend time with that family. And she doesn't want to be fucking adopted. Thank goodness she has Randylicious in her life because those two and Lois Griffin are The Most.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, gunderda said:

That was such a bizarre statement.  Like oh hey, now they're actually helping (and probably not financially) I'll be nice and take you off child support.   Is that even possible!?!?  If someone is court ordered to pay support can the custodial parent terminate the order at whim??? I feel like that shouldn't be a thing. 

With most grandparents I know... they love their grandkids even more than their own kids (my parents included lol) They will do ANYTHING for their grandkids.  So I give the Linds major side-eye that they can't get their heads out of their asses about how their son is a piece of shit. 

I was a little shocked she didn't end up in some fancy spa hotel - going to a regular hotel was a little weird, at least get a suite to make it look a little fancy but maybe it's slim picking in a neutral area to meet up with Becky. 

Javi likes to fake it till he makes it.  I truly believe that guy just wants a family and doesnt matter who it's with. 

But if it is court ordered then i don't know how she can decide they need to 'take a break' or is that what she was discussing with randy in that ADAM would have to say she's in contempt of court, and since Adam won't do it then she knows she's safe with restricting visits? 

ummm the court order is very specific - ADAM CAN'T BE THERE - that is the expectation. No if's, and's or but's about it.  

There is no breakdown in communication when the court order states that adam cant' be around Aubry. 

If it is between my son and or my Grandson my Grandson comes first!! My son is an adult my Grandson is a child!!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Look, I know Adam's an asshole, but this delusional adoption fantasy Chelsea has (and is inappropriately pushing on Aubree) is beyond moronic. There's less than a snowball's chance in hell he'd give up parental rights, and even if he wanted to, his parents would never let him. Plus, Aubree is probably going to dig her heels in at the idea of (as C&C seem to imagine it) totally discarding a bio parent. I'm guessing she craves Adam's time/validation more precisely because he's barely ever there. And from Aubree's perspective, I could understand the frustration that C&C are so fixated on obsessively rehashing every time her dad blinks & sneezes. In her eyes, they're just ganging up on her dad when he actually tries and shows up...and then yanking her away from him when they have actual bonding time.

I get that Chelsea feels guilty that Aubree has ol' shitbag Adam for a dad and spent her early childhood as an only child, whereas her younger kids will be treated to a Pinterest Deluxe lifestyle and an army of fellow Coleeeeeeeeee spawn popped out as fast as Chelsea can ovulate, but she can't change the past or vote Adam off the island because she's decided Cole is the better father figure. Plus both Chelsea and Cole have started doing this weird peacocking thing to each other about how protective they are of Aubree to...impress themselves with their mutual parenting skills? Which totally disregards Aubree's feelings and at this point they're treating her like a little spy to gather dirt on the Linds. Trying to force Adam out of the picture out of spite or to perpetuate their "perfect Coleeeee family" image is only going to alienate Aubree further and drive her into Adam's arms, especially as she enters her teen years. 

  • Like 9
  • Laugh 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