We had a (thankfully) small gathering for the Fourth of July, which was 100% larger a gathering than I wanted to have in the first place. Is there a Fourth of July equivalent for "bah humbug"? Wait....that makes me sound unpatriotic. It had nothing to do with the Fourth of July. It had a lot to do with the fact that I just wanted to relax at home. It would have been fine if Hubby had gone off to the golf course. But we had a gathering all the same, and as usual, it wasn't nearly as bad as what I had been dreading.
Hubby's mother and sister came, along with her son (D), his wife (K), and their three kids (D2, S, and C). They have two sons who are six months apart in age. I can explain that.
Hubby's nephew married fairly young. In the old days (way, way, way back), we would have said "they HAD to get married." They produced D2, a sweet little girl who was born the very day that Princess Diana died.
As happens to many young couples who "have" to get married, they began to grow apart. Eventually they split, but they were never very far apart, mainly due to D2. Both of them took their parenting responsibilities seriously, for which I admire them. I tend to think D took his responsibilities even more seriously than the child's MOTHER did, but I could be biased, since he's related to Hubby by blood.
D got involved with church, however, and in fact he sometimes preaches at his church, although he is not a fully ordained minister. K began to go to church with him, and soon neither of them resembled the people they had been before. The transformation was almost unbelievable. They weren't obnoxious about religion, but you could tell they weren't just dabbling in it. And they apparently aren't judgmental, because D continues to play golf with Hubby. That could test ANYONE'S religion.
They got back together, and then their son S was born.
Personally I wouldn't want to have children 10 years apart, but that's their business. I chose not to have more than one child no matter WHAT the age difference. Unlike my ex, who had two children born on Valentine's Day, THIRTY YEARS APART. But I digress.
When S was about nine months old, K's sister was tragically beaten TO DEATH by her husband. They had a three-month old named C. Well obviously he wasn't NAMED C, but you get my drift.
He is the sweetest little thing, but he appears to be much further behind S developmentally than their six-month age difference.
D and K took the little guy in, because they were his only family. Their family went from two kids to three literally overnight. They didn't even get a nine-month pregnancy to get ready for this event. They didn't even get to discuss whether they even WANTED a third child. That's not quite true.....D told me they HAD discussed it, but they had decided two was enough. I guess God had other ideas.
It is a terribly sad situation. They had to wait for the father to get sentenced before they could legally claim the child as their own. They still haven't adopted him, because right now they can get limited financial assistance from the state; if they adopt, that goes away. I know the legal system is cold and heartless out of necessity, but it seems a shame in a situation such as this one. They couldn't really afford a third child, but what else could they do? I am not usually in favor of milking the state for assistance, but in this case I certainly can't blame them for holding off on the adoption. It is safe for them to hold off; since the murderer has been sentenced, they have been granted "physical custody," and no one can take him from them.
The situation just raises all kinds of questions in my mind. For one, could I have done the same thing? Could I have taken a child to raise who wasn't my own? A child who will never remember any other mother? Of course I could, had it been one of my sisters. That's what sisters do.
At what age will they tell him what happened to his birth mother? And his sperm donor?
And how many times will D and K have to explain how they have two sons who are six months apart in age?