What will Savanna / Samantha Say?

As Dorothy Lee Barnett (Alexandra Geldenhuys) awaits her February 3, 2014 Extradition Hearing and probably Criminal TrialSavanna Todd, Samantha Geldenhuys for her 1994 Kidnapping Crime in the United States, most competent defense attorneys would not want any potential future witness to give an interview to the media. But it appears that Dorothy Lee Barnett’s now adult child Savanna/Samantha will be doing just that on Channel Seven in Sydney, Australia).

The Family Abduction Community has seen a handful of these cases of young Adult-Children that have been so emotionally abused from their parental kidnapping that they are unable to connect the truths and lies that have been told to them. We’ve seen as the parental kidnapper sits in a jail cell, she’ll continue to direct her misguided family, friends and relatives and most pathetically her own child to cover-up her really horrible and heinous crime against her own child. As we’ve seen on many television shows and real life court hearings, some family members and friends will lie or commit perjury to supported their so called loved one.

In this case, if Savanna was recovered as a minor, the recovering parent would have sent her directly to a Therapist skilled with parental kidnapping reunification therapy. She would have been appointed an attorney that represent her legal rights. Instead, it appears in this case that rather than going to therapy, this adult child is headed to the media for a “World-Wide Interview”. We really hope that Channel Seven is sensitive to the fact that Savanna is a victim in this case and doesn’t “participate in the news” rather than just “report it”. Unfortunately, in today’s new digital news and social media, that’s nearly impossible.

Whatever the case, we really hope that Savanna / Samantha will eventually realize that there is some alleged deviant behavior from her mother’s DNA and take the high road.

Channel 7 Australia – Who is Savanna Todd?

Advertisements

30 Responses to What will Savanna / Samantha Say?

  1. Neha says:

    Is that the best you can do so to speak “UnderWatch WordPress”?? Your posts lack any logic. Just insults toward the young lady who is supporting her mother who sacrifices EVERYTHING to guard and protect her!! Best of luck and strength to her mother at this difficult times!!

    your site sounds like a bunch of bullies!!

    • underwatch says:

      Neha,

      If you followed this case, you would find that the custodial-embattled mother wanted to eliminate the father from this girls life. She allegedly got initial support from Faye Yager of the Children of the Underground and was instructed on how to setup her defense. The photograph of the child with the bloody nose and child protective services report to the police was her defense. But it doesn’t sound like she stuck around for any investigation, she just left. She had not exhausted her legal remedies before she left. She went through a 12-day Family Law Jury Trial and no doubt at least one Custody Evaluation. It sounds like the independent evalutor didn’t recommend custody to Dorothy Lee Barnett. These independent evaluators are selected and agreed to by both parties. Even if she were suffering from some type of post-partum depression, there are no custody orders that are permanent. Dorothy did not play by the rules during the Family Law Trial and it sounds like was never planning staying in Charleston. This college-drop out apparently knew what the consequences of kidnapping her child was and will not have to live with the final result.

      The bully hear is anyone who calls this victim father an abuser. Parenting Kidnapping is by far one of the most severe forms of Domestic Violence and the only abuser in this case is Dorothy Lee Barnett. The one belongs in prison and is in jail is Dorothy Lee Barnett. She robbed this father of 20 years of being a parent, that the real tragedy here.

      The Editor

    • Celeste says:

      Obviously Neha the concept of a child having a relationship with a left behind parent is foregin to you so I’ll use as many words with as few letters as possible.

      Savannah clearly has been warped against her father by her mother. Who even knows what ideas her mother put in her head.

      Dorothy is clearly vindictive hiding Savanna from her father for no real reason other than to deny Harris any access to his, not her, daughter.

      Let’s see Dorothy’s record as a so called “good mother” shall we?
      What Dorothy did consitutes as 1st degree custodial interference. She’s aalso been charged by the FBI with UFTAP, Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution and International Parental Kidnapping which are very serious crimes agaisnt her.

      She constantly put Savanna in danger due to having untreated bipolar manic depression. Harris went for custody of Savanna simply because Dororthy was a danger to herself and to his daughter.

      If the woman who was supposed to be doing her job supervising Savanna and her mother had been doing her job Harris would be with his daughter.

  2. S says:

    Do not attack Cliff Barnett. He is defending his sister as every good brother should. He is as much a victim as Dorothy(mom) Samantha and Harris. Lee lost custody because she could not and would not control her behavior. There was never physical abuse NEVER.
    She was a young heiress who inherited a bunch of money and was not used to people saying no to her. If she would have just listened to the courts and behaved she would have gotten joint custody and that would have been that. This is about a parent stealing the rights of another parent. If the courts continue to incarcerate Lee they in fact will be doing the same thing …, stealing Lees ability to be a parent.. Do 2 wrongs make a right HELL no. I have known all parties for many many years and I was there so listen up. What’s done is done . You can’t give back the 20 years stolen from Harris and Samantha.
    We can as decent human beings try to foster a relationship between father and daughter NOW. This is being denied because Lee is crying abuse. It NEVER happened . Look at the photo it’s completely contrived. Do you think a man who has spent 20 years and considerable sums of money in search of his daughter is a child abuser? Come on, it doesn’t even make sense.
    I believe Lee was desperate , depressed, hormonal and afraid .
    First she accused Harris of being gay(that did not work). Then she accused him of abuse (no evidence. – that did not work). Now is the worst crime of all . To accuse a father of child abuse is a disgrace . Harris is a gentle kind sole who wants nothing more than a relationship with his daughter. I am sure Lees attorney is contriving this defense and its a poor one at best. Shame on him. He will get egg on his face soon enough. GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT

    • underwatch says:

      Thanks for posting this comments and venting your opinions in the Dorothy Lee Barnett case. It sounds like you might be a family member related to Cliff.

      Do not attack Cliff Barnett.

      Cliff has been attacking Harris Todd rather than encouraging his sister and niece to de-escalate this situation. Rather than taking the high road to get Samantha to start the reunification with her biological father, because it’s the morally right thing to do, he is personally making the situation worse. He has also been outspoken about Dorothy Lee Barnett’s innocence. 20 years ago, Dorothy ran from the Criminal Justice System and now is wanting to take advantage of every single right afforded by that same system. We saw Cliff and his mother smiling as they flew to Australia and were reunified with Samantha as Harris Todd, the custodial parent had to watch. How horrible that was.

      If Cliff continues to be outspoken for his sister, as is his right, then in the past we have asked for Missing Children’s Community to boycott certain businesses that support parental kidnappers.

      Lee lost custody because she could not and would not control her behavior. There was never physical abuse NEVER. She was a young heiress who inherited a bunch of money and was not used to people saying no to her.

      We’ve never heard that she was an “heiress” before. We thought she was raised by a mother on welfare. But in following these cases over the past 20 years, the abducting mothers always have similar personalities.

      If she would have just listened to the courts and behaved she would have gotten joint custody and that would have been that. This is about a parent stealing the rights of another parent.

      We agree with that 100%. Dorothy Lee Barnett did not “exhaust her legal remedies” before she kidnapped Savanna. Her belief that she was protecting Savanna was not a “reasonable belief”.

      If the courts continue to incarcerate Lee they in fact will be doing the same thing …, stealing Lees ability to be a parent.. Do 2 wrongs make a right HELL no.

      When a parental kidnapper like Dorothy Lee Barnett is charged in a crime like this, this discussion comes up. Is the purpose of the Criminal Justice System to “punish” or “rehabilitate”? Should the Criminal Justice System punish Dorothy Lee Barnett to deter others from committing this crime? If Savanna were found when she were very young, the courts would have forced Dorothy Lee Barnett to co-parent or lose custody or lose all contact with Savanna. If you are a proponent of “rehabilitate”, then you would step up and get Cliff and Dorothy to do the right thing. It will certainly look better during her eventual sentencing for a potential 23 year prison term.

      I have known all parties for many many years and I was there so listen up. What’s done is done . You can’t give back the 20 years stolen from Harris and Samantha.

      A good start to give back the 20 years stolen from Harris right now is a single phone call from Samantha. In our eyes, Harris is being tormented and victimized, this time by his own daughter.

      We can as decent human beings try to foster a relationship between father and daughter NOW. This is being denied because Lee is crying abuse. It NEVER happened . Look at the photo it’s completely contrived. Do you think a man who has spent 20 years and considerable sums of money in search of his daughter is a child abuser? Come on, it doesn’t even make sense.

      I agree 100%, but we don’t see any Barnett Family Member or Friend foster a relationship between father and daughter.

      I believe Lee was desperate , depressed, hormonal and afraid. First she accused Harris of being gay(that did not work). Then she accused him of abuse (no evidence. – that did not work). Now is the worst crime of all . To accuse a father of child abuse is a disgrace . Harris is a gentle kind sole who wants nothing more than a relationship with his daughter. I am sure Lees attorney is contriving this defense and its a poor one at best. Shame on him. He will get egg on his face soon enough. GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.

      There is also the media factor of Channel 7 giving the accused criminals families a rumored $150,000 Australian Dollars for their story. This will no doubt come out in a Criminal Trial and should be relevant when it comes to probable sentencing. Unless

      I think most of the past victims of the International Family Abduction Crime that includes Searching Parents, Recovering Parents, Kidnapped Children and their Family and Friends would agree that 23 Years for 20 Yeas is an appropriate level of punishment for Dorothy Lee Barnett. As for Cliff Barnett, his sister Claire Barnett in Seattle or for all Barnett Family Members that were sworn to secrecy and most likely knew where Dorothy was or which family member knew (Claire, Cliff, the Welfare Grandmother?) — maybe the Federal Prosecutor will also charge them as accomplices or accessories in this crime.

      The Editor

    • Mary says:

      I agree that the 20 stolen years for father and daughter certainly cannot be given back. I sincerely hope that a relationship between father and daughter can be fostered. This is something that Dorothy Lee Barnett’s relatives should encourage.

      I disagree with your thinking, “If the courts continue to incarcerate Lee they in fact will be doing the same thing …, stealing Lees ability to be a parent.” This woman must now be held accountable for her wrongdoings, none of which are misdemeanours, and have tentacles in several countries. This woman’s other life must be shocking and unbelievable to her now adult children. Her relatives must now be wondering who funds her legal defense.

      It is now time for this woman to take responsibility for being the creator of the pain, dilemma and difficulties she has inflicted upon her now adult children, her daughter’s father and her nearest and dearest.

  3. Celeste says:

    I couldn’t even watch how sympathetic that particular reporter was for the mother.
    She seems to be reporting a one sided story that didn’t include how the mother was physically abusive towards Harris Todd. You can’t tell me that Dorothy wasn’t a threat to Savanna.
    Dorothy is just sorry that she got caught out.

    • forthelost says:

      It’s amazing how everyone’s coming out of the woodwork now to say Harris Todd was an Evil Abusive Father™ and yet didn’t say a word when the story came out in 1997 about it, even to Faye Yager.

      • Celeste says:

        Yeah. Dorothy’s family and friends are just downright pathetic for defending her actions.
        Savanna is, obviously, in pain over her mother but in hindsight she must know that her mother must be held accountable for her misguided actions.
        And like I said in the other post no judge in his/her right mind would denny a good father access to his child.

    • underwatch says:

      You can’t tell me that Dorothy wasn’t a threat to Savanna.

      Celeste,

      I agree with you. The reporter didn’t mention that the 20 year parental kidnapping in itself is abusive toward the child.

      – The Editor

      • Celeste says:

        It was also abusive towards Mr Todd because he’s been without his daughter, not her daughter, his daughter for the past 20 years of christmases, birthdays, and other family functions.

    • Mary says:

      To me, it was grubby journalism, but typical of that now-axed current affairs program. That said, I am still a little surprised, as I would have thought lessons would have been learned from media fingers being badly burnt and professional reputations sullied by the other Mountain Creek international parental child abductress. She and her family used the media to sell their concocted version of reality right up until 60 Minutes twice set the story straight.

      I hope a fee of $150,000 was not paid for a story supposedly about Savanna/Samantha that, to me, was more about attempting to dismiss Dorothy Lee Barnett’s wrongdoings, and enrage the viewing public on Dorothy’s behalf. I ponder whether the story’s purpose was an attempt to circumvent the ickiness that presents when one is seen as profiting financially from their wrongdoings.

  4. Megan says:

    If Dorothy Lee Barnett was genuinely suffering from a severe mental illness 20yrs ago then how did she manage to raise two happy, healthy and confident children?

    In order to have gained joint custody she was expected to accept psychiatric treatment for a mental illness that neither she nor at least 2 medical professionals who provided testimony believed she suffered from. Presumably she would have been expected to take the strong medication recommended. Medication of this type has the potential for various side-effects such as mood-swings, self-ham and violence.

    If she had taken this deal any future custody hearings would have been taken for granted that she was seriously mentally ill and would have been biased in Harris’ favour.

    In an ideal wold she would have co-operated with the court and continued to pursue custody legally but I can see how she could have become desperate.

    Even giving Harris the benefit of the doubt and assuming he genuinely believed Barnett was violent and mentally ill, I still believe that his pursuing sole custody was cruel. Savanna spent several months after her birth living with her mother. She was a healthy, thriving child. Any neglect or abuse would have been obvious. Harris was absolutely within his rights to seek access and shared custody of his child but he and his legal team went to the extreme.

    BOTH parents allowed their bitterness and hatred for each other to overcome what was best for Savanna (to have a loving relationship with BOTH parents through shared custody). BOTH parents sought to cut out the other parent from Savanna’s life. The difference is that Harris did it through the legal system and Barnett went outside the law.

    The bitterness between the parents made it almost inevitable that Barnett would assume any injuries to Savanna must be abuse rather than accidental. It would seem a confirmation of all her fears and bias against Harris. Equally if Savanna had accidentally fallen and suffered the injury while in her mother’s care Harris would surely have assumed his “violent, mentally-ill” ex-wife had been abusive. A parent’s protective instinct would have compelled him to seek to end the limited visitation Barnett was allowed.

    The judge in the case should have awarded joint custody and compelled both Harris and Barnett to attend therapy until they both overcome their antagonism and could co-parent without hostility.

    I feel desperately sorry for all involved. I can’t argue that Barnett doesn’t deserve a jail term. She knew the risks when she broke the law. In many ways 3 years is a paltry term compared to the ongoing sentence of estrangement imposed on Harris. The possibility of an additional 20 years for passport offences is doubtless horrific to her family but again she knew the risks she was taking. She could have chosen to settle in a country with less severe penalties. Sadly any jail term will be as much a punishment for her two children.

    I hope Samantha is able to find it in her heart to contact her father and hear his side of the story. Whatever his actions or motivations during the divorce or custody battle, he has been the one to suffer constantly during the past 20yrs.

    • Judith says:

      Megan, you’ve made some good points. I’m just wondering. Was Dorothy in any way cooperative in this matter or herself looking for a “win-win” situation in order to resolve this fairly?

      The facts regarding Dorothy being diagnosed with a mental illness doesn’t seem to sit well with some viewers. It seem that this is an element that needs to be omitted completely, in order to make dealing with this much more pleasant and better fit in with the world view.

      I would highly doubt that the decision to diagnose a mental illness was something the doctor simply decided on the spot, with no formal testing by a doctor trained in psychiatry. It’s not like the doctor would simply take a look at the patient and write “bipolar” on the file and walk away. The patient’s symptoms are fully assessed using specific criteria from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or DSM-IV.

      They’ll take into account factors like unusual mood elevations, high risk behaviours, increases of energy, sleeplessness, compulsive behaviours. Family history of mental illness is checked. The assessment wouldn’t have come about simply because the doctor only spoke to Harris, and based on his testimony alone, she was diagnosed with a mental illness.

      Just to further ruin the theme, it was documented that Dorothy’s mother sought help for her daughter’s destructive behaviours. How does this sit with the viewers? Is there any explanation?

      You say “at least 2” medical professionals provided testimony that they didn’t believe Dorothy suffered from a mental illness. Does “at least two” mean three or more? Why would it be such a vague number? It’s not like shopping for quotes for prices on a new car. Did Dorothy undergo “at least two” separate tests by doctors trained in psychiatry? If so, they wouldn’t provide mere “testimonials”. It would be the complete documentation and assessment based on the official testing regimen.

      I’ve seen these family law cases before, where the woman and her supporters are bitter that “key evidence” was disregarded by the judge and they lost the case. When we finally do get to see the “key evidence” they kept on insisting was crucial but was not accepted, it turns out to be nothing more than a personal testimonial put in affidavit form by a friend.

      • Patricia Roth says:

        Quit calling her Dorothy, her name was Lee and now it is Alex!

      • underwatch says:

        Quit calling her Dorothy, her name was Lee and now it is Alex!

        Hi Patricia,

        Dorothy, Dorothy Lee, Alexandra, Alexandria, Alex, Lee … does she have any other names?

        – The Editor

      • Miranda says:

        So what if Lee does go by another name, how many people do so…John Wayne, Marilyn Manson, Prince etc. Bit of a rich comment coming from someone who hides behind the pseudonym ‘The Editor’?

      • Mary says:

        Miranda, people who use stage names, but have not legally changed their names to their stage names, still have passports, visas and everything else issued under their real names. It is illegal to do otherwise. You know that, and so did Dorothy Lee Barnett.

      • forthelost says:

        Prince is Prince’s real first name, anyway.

      • Judith says:

        So how come the “go fund me” website is titled “Funds for Justice: Dorothy L Barnett”? Then the blurb starts with “The Story of Dorothy Lee Barnett is about to unfold…”.

        And the “change.org” petition is titled “Free Dorothy Lee Barnett – Mother of Savanna Todd”.

        Can anyone explain?

  5. Miranda says:

    Dr Oliver Bjorksten, himself a victim of his mother divorcing his father in times when divorce was rare, diagnosed hyperthymic temperament which is unrecognised by WHO and the American Psychiatric Association. He prescribed Lithium which for a nursing mother has side effects on the baby such as cyanosis, heart and muscle problems.

    Dr James Folk and Dr James Shecut could find no signs of mental illness in Alex. I’m sure the appropriate medical assessments were rigorously completed and filed with the divorce Court. I have a litigation and medical background, nowhere near an expert but would say that the single diagnosis that labelled Alex as mentally unstable was unfounded. She’d had a baby, taken away whilst breastfeeding, going through divorce, her every word and action twisted and used against her, what person, male or female, wouldn’t be experiencing and displaying a whole spectrum of emotions?

    From personal experience, my ex-husband used similar tactics at divorce. He was so charming he managed to convince my mother I was unstable, which she later regretted immensely. He labelled me violent (he broke MY nose) but 15 years later our ‘mutual friends’ still don’t speak. Alex managed to build a new life for herself where she has many, many friends who are supporting her to the hilt. Harris seems to have little support from friends save for one woman who wrote that she was a lifetime friend but hadn’t been aware he’d married? I find it so hard to understand why 2 years ago he didn’t immediately fly to Australia to build a relationship with his daughter rather than involve the authorities, he’s intelligent enough to know it would alienate his daughter.

    The facts are out there, Megan just used the wrong word by saying ‘testimonial’.

    • Mary says:

      Miranda, you say “the facts are out there”. Your comment is nothing other than your personal opinions, personal experience and assumptions, with a name or two thrown in for good measure. I prefer Court transcripts for facts and reliable information.

      Also, it is irrelevant whether Ms Barnett has more friends than Mr Todd. What will be relevant though is how deep those friends will be prepared to dig into their financial pockets to provide Ms Barnett with a continual money stream to fund her upcoming and future legal defenses.

      I have no difficulty in understanding why Mr Todd reported his daughter’s whereabouts to the authorities two years ago.

    • Judith says:

      Do legal cases get determined on the number of “likes” one side gets on their Facebook page? Does every “liker” come to their conclusions based on their study of the evidence, or were they emotionally coaxed into “liking” the mother’s side of the story by use poetic license?

      There are no “newly outraged” members of the public who have discovered this case and are looking to be educated on the details. Almost every supporter can be traced back to an existing friend or family member of Dorothy or perhaps at most, the friend of a friend who has been coaxed into signing the spurious petition which I’m sure will totally work.

      Despite a rather aggressive and one-sided media campaign directed at the Australian public to sell the mother’s story, and the not so subtle plug for the donations website, public interest in the “Savannah Todd” marketing campaign is very, very tepid. There was a small flurry on the night of the media airing, and then it pretty much went dead.

      Even the usual “domestic violence” crowd have shown a limited interest in the matter. “Donna QLD” and “Ivona whatsherface“ put up some excuse for a support page which rapidly descended into some forum to air their own grievances. And it’s been dead only a few days after the media programme.

      If the father was ever once seemingly isolated and lacking support in this matter, then this is no longer the case. He will enjoy a far larger and more connected network of supporters than he can ever imagine. The PR campaign against him didn’t work. Though, if a bunch of embittered sour women wish to continue the dream and call him names, I’m sure their opinions aren’t going to travel outside of their narrow circle of other family court rejects. I sure he’s actually able to live a life and mix with the other 7 billion people on the Earth without being concerned about these couple of people.

      Dorothy past victories are now memories only. The entity once known as “Alex” is dead. It won’t ever return. Neither will any lifestyle or independence she may have once enjoyed. She’ll be dependent on the charity of others, until they get sick of her. When she finally regains her freedom back into society, the ravages of age will replace the powers of charm. Plus, doesn’t any dormant or latent mental health issues start to make a comeback in times of crisis? We’ll see.

  6. Judith says:

    Are all losses in a Family Court due to the other party having been railroaded or tricked? Or is it possible that sometimes, a person receives an unfavourable outcome because of the total sum of their behaviours over a period of time were taken into account?

    Is the unfavourable outcome for Dorothy at the 1994 court case based on the fact that a doctor allegedly gave her an incorrect diagnosis? If the doctor hadn’t of diagnosed Dorothy with a mental illness, would she have lost her custody rights?

    Dorothy was actually ordered to attend a psychiatric evaluation by the judge AFTER she already lost custody of the child, and when she first defaulted on her court order caused by her not having returned Savanna after her access visit. This order was made at a contempt of court hearing, not as part of the original divorce hearing. Therefore the assessment of mental illness had no impact on the initial decision to grant full custody to the father.

    The testimony from doctors that asserted that they didn’t think Dorothy had a mental illness had come to the attention court AFTER she had already fled with the daughter. Therefore using this evidence as a defence to help mitigate the severity of the current legal issues may be challenging.

    But there’s nothing to lose by giving it go all the same. I don’t want anyone to be put off giving their legal defence the very best chance.

    As for the father not flying to Australia immediately, two years ago. Well, firstly isn’t it strange that for a group of women who consider him to be as evil as Satan, they actually wanted him to form a relationship with his daughter?

    The answer is simple.

    Dorothy and her support crew have no leverage or control over the current legal situation. They figure though that the only possible hope now is that the father would intervene and petition the authorities to drop the case. To this effect, they’ve dangled his daughter in front of him like a piece of bait in order to emotionally blackmail him. This and the FBI actually advised him to not make contact at that point.

    • Patricia Roth says:

      Her name was Lee, not Dorothy and now it is Alex. And she is and always will be my good friend…I believe in her and her decisions.

      • Celeste says:

        Dorothy Lee Barnet aka Lee Barnet aka Lee Barnet Todd aka Alexandra Geldunhys.
        She’s still wanted by police in IOP and the FBI.
        Do you believe in her decision to deliberately and illeagally remove Savanna from her father’s care knowing that she’s a danger to herself and her daughter?
        What if it was your child who got removed from your care? Would you give up custody of your child knowing that your former spouse was a danger to himself and to your child?
        No you wouldn’t. You would fight tooth and nail for your child to make sure that you never lost touch with your child.

      • Mary says:

        Patricia, unofficially your friend may call herself whatever she likes. Until your friend legally changes her name to whatever, she is officially known as Dorothy Lee Barnett – be it in the US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or wherever. Whatever aliases your friend was using for the past 20 years officially died on 5 November 2013, the day the FBI and the AFP knocked on her door.

        Patricia, you can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. That said, I find it extraordinary that an upstanding person such as yourself would believe in the decisions that Dorothy made 20 years ago. Dorothy did not have to like that Court decision. But, she had to obey that decision, the same as everybody else has to do.

  7. Celeste says:

    At any rate I still think that Faye should be charged as an accessory after the fact since she had a hand in aiding and abetting Dorothy in hiding Savanna from her rightful custodial parent. Why she hasn’t been charged in this case and in many of the other cases that she had a hand in is beyond me but Faye accomplice in hiding Savanna.

  8. Celeste says:

    Sorry that should say “but Faye is an accomplice in hiding Savanna.”

  9. Sonya says:

    Pat. If you are really a good friend of Lee’s ? help her! She needs to understand that telling the truth is of the utmost importance. Fostering a relationship between father and daughter would be a very good start.
    I walked away 20 years ago because watching her was so painful. My mistake was not being a good enough friend to get her help when she needed it. Don’t make my same mistake.
    If you have any influence on her please use it.
    Harris is no abuser….he worshipped that baby. This is fact.

    I have never blogged before this incident. . I was hoping for a more civil conversation . The name calling is really unnecessary. I see snippets of banter that I don’t think I am seeing the whole conversation??
    We need to move forward with positive thoughts and actions to help all parties involved.
    Samantha deserves to know her roots. She should not be forced to chose a side.
    I fear the worst for Lee if she doesn’t get a grip.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: