Wisdom of MY Words

Random Musings & Book Reviews

Archive for January, 2017

31 January

Miriam’s Mullet Cut

From – Mon Jul 15 19:12:55 2002
X-UIDL: 39858a6200005b3f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

From: David M Meyer
To: “‘michele@krautgrrl.com'”
Subject: Mimi’s hair
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2002 19:05:11 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI –
Encoding: 35 TEXT
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=6.5 tests=A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WLIST version=2.01
Status: O


Miriam’s hair looks terrible, she is a beautiful little girl, but she looks ugly with long hair. She looks better with short hair. I think the current du doesn’t reflect her best features. Considering the child support increase, this extra $$’s should cover Miriam schedule for a reasonable beauty saloon/stylist on a monthly
basis so she would look her best.

Would you be willing to get a cut that would balance her out rather than a mullet cut?


31 January

Difficult Time for Simon

25 September 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter in defense of Michele Davis and her competency as a parent. I have known Michele Davis and her family for four years. We were first introduced and became friends when our daughters were playmates in nursery school and today they are still very close friends (as are we).

In the fours years that I have known Michele I have watched her family grow. I have watched her tireless and caring efforts to ease her children through the painful and recent transitions of divorce, new marriages and the arrival of a new sibling.

Our two families have become very close during our friendship. We have spent many birthdays, holidays, family celebrations and weekend time together. I know Michele to be a committed mother, a caring person, and a loyal friend. All three of her children are well adjusted, well behaved, a pleasure be with and to know and love. It is my opinion, that this is due to her diligent and careful parenting and the nurturing home and family-life she has struggled to build.

Michele is consistent and generous in her parenting. Ever since I have known her she has arranged her schedule to be home after school for the children (which is especially noteworthy as their school day has sometimes ended at 2:15). I have often heard her say that her children come first in her life, and I know this first-hand to be true.

I know Simon, in particular has had difficulty adjusting to the changes in his life. The past four years have not been easy for Simon. I have personally watched him push boundaries one minute and then cling the next. He is a smart, loving boy struggling to find solid ground. Michele has consistently provided Simon with an amazing amount of patience, respect, tenderness, and guidance, while giving him the necessary space an 11-year old boy needs to enter adolescence with confidence and grace. I think more, now then ever, Simon needs the safety and comfort of the parent who has taken this hard journey with him and that parent is Michele.


Anne Heike Date

31 January

Contempt Of Court Petition




Court File No. DC 246637

In Re the Marriage of:

M Davis,
D Meyer,

Based upon the attached Notice of Motion and Motion, Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit, attached Exhibits, all the files and records available herein:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that D. Meyer personally appear at the Hennepin Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, MN., on the 29th day of August, 2006 at 2:30 a.m. or p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, and show cause to this Court, if any you may have, why an Order should not be made granting the Petitioner any and all relief prayed for in her attached Motion.

1. That the Respondent show why he should not be found in “Contempt of Court” pursuant to Rule 309, and why the Petitioner should not be granted the Respondent’s fifty percent (50%) of the minor child, Miriam’s, 2004-2005 school tuition fee, tithing fee and registration fee in the amount of $1,425.00, and the Respondent’s fifty percent (50%) of the minor child, Miriam’s, 2005-2006 tithing fee in the amount of $200.00 requested in the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion brought before the Court for violating the Stipulation and Order to Amend Judgment and Decree dated September 12, 2001, and signed by the Honorable Stephen C. Aldrich, on page 5., paragraph A., which states:

“A. Schools – Including Private Schools. The parties shall try to reach an agreement on the school each child shall attend taking into account the child’s special needs and talents. The cost of private school attendance shall be shared equally between the parties, if private school attendance is agreed upon.”

2. That the Respondent show why he should not be found in “Contempt of Court” pursuant to Rule 309, and why the Petitioner should not be granted the Respondent’s fifty percent (50%) of the minor child, Simon’s, orthodontia work (braces) in the amount of $2,280.00 and half of a dental bill on behalf of the minor children, Simon and Miriam, in the amount of $292.00 requested in the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion brought before the Court for violating the Stipulation and Order to Amend Judgment and Decree dated September 12, 2001, and signed by the Honorable Stephen C. Aldrich, on page 5., paragraph A., which states:

“2. Conclusions of Law No. 6 and 7 of the parties’ Judgment and Decree of May 4, 1999 shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof.
Medical Insurance Coverage. Respondent shall continue to provide such medical and dental insurances as available to him through his employment for the benefit of the minor children. If Respondent’s employment or the cost of his insurance coverage substantially changes, the issue of medical and dental insurance coverage shall be renegotiated between the parties. Major costs such as orthodontia or glasses or contacts shall be divided equally between the parties. For elective procedures, both parties will discuss the necessity of such procedure, and if approved, shall share the cost equally. If not agreed upon, this issue may be submitted to a mediator or arbitrator for determination.”
3. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent bring to court his last
pay stub for 2005, his paystubs for June 2006, and his 2004 and 2005 income taxes and W2s to verify his income.

4. IT IS HEREBY ALSO ORDERED that this Order to Show Cause be personally served upon the Respondent by showing to him the signature of the undersigned Judge of District Court on the original of this Order to Show Cause.
Dated: ____________________, 2006 BY THE COURT:
Judge of Hennepin County District Court

31 January

Simon at 17

03 January 2007

Simon Meyer
5416 Columbus Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55417

To Whom It May Concern:

I, Simon Meyer, birth date March 1991 have been living with my mother, Michele Davis and stepfather, Jon Phillips, fulltime since August 29, 2006. I have spent one evening from 12AM-5AM at my father’s home since then, and I have not spent any custodial time with him, nor has he contributed to the cost of my care while I have been living with my mother besides the previously agreed-upon child support.

As far as extra curricular activities are concerned, I was unable to participate in soccer this past fall, but am avidly snowboarding almost every day, and do participate in summer soccer camps for my age group. My interests now lie in moving towards some of my goals, such as music sampling for a career as a Sound Engineer. This would include purchasing a soundboard and mixing software, I would consider this an extra-curricular activity, which my mother cannot afford given her current financial restrictions and her limited child support.

I have no intention of going to my father, David Meyer’s home. I plan to remain living with my mother and stepfather.


S. Meyer

31 January

Response 22 September 2006


Court File No. DC 27-FA-246637
In Re the Marriage of:


D Meyer,

This is a responsive motion in reference to Respondents Motion to Reconsider Judge Mary DuFresne order issued on September 22nd, 2006 of which Respondent brought to the court on October 10th, 2006.

1. I, the Petitioner, . Davis, have three biological children: S. Meyer March 1991 and M. Davis August 1994 from my marriage to Respondent. I also have Z. Phillips 11/2/99 from my current marriage to Mr. Jon Phillips who lives with Mr. Phillips and I full time. Simon, since August 29th 2006, has resided with my husband and I 100% of the time. Miriam resides with us 84.2% of the time.
2. Since Simon is living with me exclusively child support should be adjusted.
3. Respondent contradicts himself. In his October 10, 2006 Motion he states that Hortis-Valento should not applied to our case, yet in his January 03, 2007 Motion he states that it should. We should be using the 30% guideline, which we have always used in determining child support.
4. On October 10th, 2001 child support was determined to be $600.00 per month. On July 18th, 2002 the Respondent voluntarily agreed to an increase in child support to $760.00 per month. Several COLA increases have been applied by the State of Minnesota since then. Respondent and I determined that the $760.00 amount to be inline with the state mandated amount of 30% of Respondent’s income for two children, however Respondent and I agreed that it was slightly less than 30% since he contributed 15% to his Company-sponsored Retirement Account. Although it appears that he currently contributes 7%. Respondent contributes $390.00 per month to retirement, while I contribute $200.00 per month to my Roth IRA.
5. Simon & Miriam are now in puberty and various stages of adolescence thus my costs to care for them have sufficiently increased. Simon uses $100.00 per month on school lunches at Southwest High School and has a monthly grocery bill of $250-300.00 per month. Additionally, since Simon moved in with me with fulltime my Electric bill has gone from $68.00 per month to $128.00 per month. Expenses for Simon on a day-to-day basis are debilitating.
6. Both children being in puberty have incurred a variety of expenses such as adult-sized shoes, and all the necessary accoutrements that go with adolescence. At their respective ages they are more concerned about their bodies than ever before. My clothing and personal hygiene budgets have increased due to the new and different needs of each child. Miriam has other needs that are specific only to women thus this increases her monthly expenses.
7. In our Modification of Divorce decree it states that I will pay for extra curricular activities, tutoring, and all necessary sporting equipment. Respondent states that I am no longer paying for extracurricular events. I must save for summer activities throughout the year due to their extreme expense. These expenses are listed below.
8. The Respondent states that neither child is in extra-curricular activities, this is incorrect. Simon is at an age where the Park Board no longer offers sports to his age bracket. During the summer of 2006, Simon was enrolled in Minneapolis United Soccer camp for $300.00. Simon elected to not participate in any other extra-curricular activities during the summer of 2006 since he was working part-time at Kowalski’s Market and hanging out with friends. Simon did not have enough credits to participate in High School soccer this school year. Instead, Simon is Snowboarding with the goal of joining a league and getting sponsorship. I purchased Simon a new snowboard, boots, bindings, snow pants, gloves, coat, hat, and goggles that totaled $1100.00. I also purchased a $300.00 season pass to HyLand Hills snowboarding park. On December 28, 2006 Simon participated in The Hyland Kickoff Rail Jam sponsored by REI. He scored fourth out of sixteen children in the 15-18 age bracket. When Simon started high school in 2004 he joined B’nai B’rith Youth Organization (BBYO) at the Jewish Community Center. Simon went to dances where he needed tuxedos, tickets, dinner, etc. He also went on weekend retreats, which cost me $250.00 per weekend plus BBYO dues. During the school year of 2004-2005 Simon played Soccer for Southwest, which cost $60.00, and joined the Minneapolis Lacrosse League for $150.00.
9. During the summer of 2006 Miriam joined Annunciation Youth Ministry. I spent $850.00 for her Summer Youth Group activities. Miriam loves horses and has been going to horse camp for four years. I spent $1200.00 for Miriam to attend two weeks of summer horse camp. She also went on a two-day bike trip that cost $90.00 and was tutored at Annunciation in Math and English for $240.00. She played soccer for Annunciation during September and October 2006 that cost $60.00. She is enrolled in a weekly soccer boot camp that begins in February 2007, which cost $185.00. We also acquired a piano this year with lessons starting this winter. During the summer of 2005 Miriam attended horse camp for $550.00, St. Paul Academy Summer Arts Program for $1200.00 and was tutored in Math at St. Paul Academy for $140.00. She was also involved in Minneapolis United soccer for $120.00 and Annunciation Math & English tutoring for $240.00. She played soccer for Annunciation in September-October 2005, which cost $60.00 and played basketball in November-January 2006, which also cost $60.00. These expenses, as those with Simon do not include all the gear needed for them, for example, soccer cleats, shin guards, bicycle, etc.
10. Child support has been insufficient to cover the expenses incurred by Respondent’s and my children beginning January 1st, 2004. Until April 15th, 2005 my husband was working full-time and his salary absorbed the deficit created by the insufficient child support. However, he did not become employed again until June 1st, 2006 at a lower income level. Therefore, I can no longer absorb the monthly child support deficit.
11. Miriam has a mobile phone that I pay for. Simon had a mobile through the Respondent, but when Simon moved out of his house on August 29, 2006 the Respondent refused to give me Simon’s mobile phone and subsequently cancelled Simon’s mobile plan. I absorbed the cost of purchasing a mobile phone and adding Simon to our cellular family plan.
12. Simon and Miriam were determined to be my tax exceptions in our Modification of Divorce Decree because I have primary physical custody. While the Respondent states that he gets 43% of the time, this figure varies year-by-year because of how our custodial time fluctuates. Our calculations indicate that he gets 0% of time with Simon and 26% of time with Miriam. Miriam only goes to the Respondents home two Wednesday evenings per month and alternating weekends. Miriam also misses a considerable amount of the Respondent’s custodial time in the summer due to sleep-away camp and year round for Annunciation Youth Ministry activities for which I bear the cost. Since both children reside with me the majority of the time, they should continue to be my tax deductions.
13. While our income decreased Respondents increased by 51%. This follows Minnesota Statue regarding substantially increased or decreased earnings of a party.
14. As stated above the expenses of the minor children have substantially increased or decreased need of a party of the child or children that are the subject of these proceedings due to them getting older. Additionally, as Respondent states in his motion, Simon lives with me full time yet I am not being reimbursed for the additional expenses. Respondent has no other children.
15. In 2003 Respondent switched insurance plans to the least expensive, lowest level of coverage available shifting more cost to me in the form of co-pays and co-insurance. I pay the $20.00 co-pay for Simon’s weekly therapy. Simon also doesn’t have a spleen and requires a series of shots every year that is not fully covered by Respondent’s insurance. I also pay dental bills for regular cleanings.
16. In order to get reduced tuition at Annunciation School I tithe $800.00 per year to the Church. Without tithing tuition would be almost twice as much. Respondent should be contributing towards tithing because he reaps the benefits of the lowered tuition.
17. Simon and Miriam both felt strongly about the allegations the Respondent made in his Motion and have written their own affidavits’; these are notarized and attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
18. In reference to Respondents statement that Simon is no longer coming to his because of an altercation with me, that is incorrect. Simon stopped going to Respondent’s home two months before our altercation and continues to reside solely with me.
19. Simon’s probation has no bearing on child support issues. Simon is currently getting help for his substance abuse. I found him a Psychologist, Ken Stewart, whom he meets with weekly. I bear the expense of his therapy. He also attends a twice-weekly drug meeting called Rainbow Bridge. I enrolled him in an Early Chemical Dependency Treatment Program at the University of Minnesota, where he meets with a Chemical Dependency Counselor and a Child & Family therapist. Simon is getting the appropriate help he needs. Regardless of Simon’s issues, he still refuses to go to Respondent’s house, even though I encourage him to do so.
20. Since the Respondent’s divorce occurred in 2006, he potentially may have gotten a cash plus material settlement from his ex-wife. During our divorce I paid the Respondent his share of our home, which prompted him to sign a Quit Claim Deed. My owning a home and getting a deduction for it has no bearing on child support. He owned a home after our divorce, but choose to sell it when he remarried. Per his real estate agent, also my agent at the time, he sold his home at considerable profit when the market was high. His ex-wife sold her home in Chanhassen and moved to a smaller home in Excelsior in 2005, during which time Respondent and his ex-wife were separated, which would indicate that he received a portion of that home sale. I should not be penalized for owning a home. I encourage Respondent to own his own home. His income is sufficient and consistent enough for him to qualify for a mortgage.
21. The Respondent has chosen to live a particular lifestyle. His monthly rent is $100.00 less than my mortgage, property taxes, property insurance and security alarm payment. He also spends $275.00 per month on automobile gas. He elects to drive a Suburban, which is expensive. Whereas my husband and I drive sedans and our monthly automobile gas is $240.00 per month for two cars. Respondent has a loan through the Postal Service that he pays $122.00 on per month and credit card bills of $210.00 per month. Respondent’s lack of financial planning in not owning a home and his debts should not take priority over his children’s expenses. Respondent also shows an Orthodontia loan for Simon’s braces of $210.00 per month however; he emailed me on August 16, 2006 saying that he was “blessed” to be able to pay for his portion of Simon’s Orthodontist bill. Being blessed does not indicate a loan. See Exhibit C. I additionally had the same expense for Simon’s braces.
22. I am not self-employed; I work for Kraut Companies, a Minnesota Sub-S Corporation. If I were self-employed I would not have a W2, I would have a Schedule C on my taxes.
23. While it is true I have another dependent, I also support that dependent.
24. My husband’s income has no bearing on child support.
25. I respectfully request that the Court increase my child support to 30% of Respondent’s income due to the culminating factors presented in this Responsive Motion.

Dated: _____________________, 2006 _________________________________

31 January

My ExHusband is From Hell

Envelope-to: michele@krautgrrl.com
Received: from mailcentral03.srvs.usps.gov ([])
by krautgrrl.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
id 1GDWQt-0007Vy-Cg
for michele@krautgrrl.com; Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:12:27 -0500
Received: from mn-vds-01.usps.gov (eagnmnvds01 [])
by mailcentral03.srvs.usps.gov (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BE5F19E203
for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:10:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (eagnmnsxm30.usps.gov []) by mn-vds-01.usps.gov with smtp
id 77dc_69c951f2_2d8d_11db_8a7f_001143d35f3c;
Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:12:12 +0000
Received: from eagnmnsxm14.usa.dce.usps.gov ([]) by eagnmnsxm30.usa.dce.usps.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:12:12 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: dental bill
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:12:06 -0500
Message-ID: <0B4729E3BB25ED42B853A963785850F702227EF1@EAGNMNSXM14>
In-Reply-To: <26521.>
Thread-Topic: dental bill
Thread-Index: AcbBOu13uhqFRbP0SI+RMFUCzS5NkQAXaYog
From: “Meyer, David M – Eagan, MN”
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2006 01:12:12.0445 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B6EE4D0:01C6C19A]


I’ve been blessed that I’m able to pay you $2,280 for
Simon’s braces and $146 for Simon and Mimi Jan/Feb dental=20
bill on September 1. Let me know, if you’re interested.


31 January

When You Are Actively a Bitch

17 March 2006

Dear David:

Here is a storm window from Kathy Palmer’s house at 4712 Beard Avenue S. She is the mother of Liz Harness. During your custodial week-end of March 10-12, Simon threw his cell phone at Liz’s window, breaking it.

They expect it to be replaced or fixed. I’ve already done some of the leg work with Kathy. Since this occurred during your custodial time it is your responsibility to get the window repaired and returned to the Palmer/Harness residence.

I so enjoy co-parenting with you.


31 January

June 2006 Petitioner Affidavit




Court File No. DC 246637

In Re the Marriage of:

Michele E. Davis,

David M. Meyer,

) ss.

Michele E. Davis, after being duly sworn upon oath deposes and states that:
1. That on September 12, 2001 a Stipulation and Order to Amend Judgment and Decree was signed by the Honorable Stephen Aldrich. It was filed with the Hennepin County Family Court on October 10, 2001. See Exhibit A.
2. That during the spring of 2004 the Respondent agreed to a parochial school education for our daughter, Miriam Davis. Per Exhibit A, item A states “the cost of private school attendance shall be shared equally between the parties.” A$100.00 registration fee was due in February 2004, which the Respondent owes me $50.00 of, since he did not contribute to the registration fee. The Respondent agreed to pay his 50% of Miriam’s $2800.00 tuition bill. The Respondent’s 50% is $1400.00. However, he only paid $400.00 on August 01, 2004 and I spent, $250.00 on August 01, 2004, $1000.00 on July 15, 2004 and $1250.00 on August 09, 2004. See Exhibit B, the highlighted $400 on Annunciation School’s tuition bill. I am asking the Court to award me $1050.00 for 2004-2005 tuition and registration fee reimbursement.
3. That the Petitioner and Respondent have reduced tuition because of an expectation to tithe a specific dollar amount to Annunciation Church. During 2004-2005 the tithing amount was $750.00. See Exhibit C for Annunciation School’s Parishioner Tuition and Tithing guidelines. The Respondent owes his 50% of the tithing amount for the academic year of 2004-2005, which is $375.00. I am asking the Court to award me $375.00. See Exhibit D, two tithing statements from Annunciation Church showing my $750.00 tithing contributions.
4. That during the academic term of 2005-2006 the Respondent paid his half of Miriam’s tuition but did not tithe. See Exhibit E, which is the Respondent’s email stating that he will pay his half of Miriam’s tuition for 2005-2006. The Respondent’s tithing commitment for 2005-2006 is 25% of the current $800.00 tithing expense because I have two children that attend Annunciation and only Miriam is the Respondent’s biological child. The tithing total is the same regardless of how many children attend the school from one’s family. See Exhibit F, one 2005-2006 tithing statement from Annunciation Church showing payment of $400.00 and a cancelled check number 6589 for the second $400.00 tithing contribution. Therefore the Respondent owes 25% of the tithing fee, which is $200.00. I am requesting the Court to award me $200.00.
5. That the Respondent owes $2280.00 for Simon Meyer’s braces. The cost of Simon’s braces is $4560.00. The Amended Divorce Decree states that all “uncovered medical expenses should be divided equally between the Petitioner and Respondent.” Simon’s need for braces is not elective or aesthetic; they are needed because of the misalignment of his jaw. See Exhibit G, Dr. Rudman’s statement regarding Simon’s need for braces. See Exhibit H, Dr. Murdoch’s, who is Dr. Rudman’s partner, statement regarding Simon’s need for braces. See Exhibit I, the total cost of Simon’s braces. See Exhibit J, an email from the Respondent stating he will pay $500.00 for Simon’s braces. See Exhibit K, an email to the Respondent informing him that he can make payment arrangements with the orthodontia office. See Exhibit L a receipt from the orthodontia office for the first $2280.00 payment for braces and my two cancelled checks for payment, one for $2280.00 dated December 07, 2006 and two for $2280.00 dated June 11, 2006. See Exhibit M, the Respondent’s email stating that he won’t pay anything for Simon’s braces. I respectfully ask the court to award me the amount of $2280.00 for Simon’s braces, which is the Respondent’s portion of the uncovered medical and/or dental expense.
6.That the Respondent is correct in his email that states that I received an increase in child support.The State of Minnesota increased child support based on their standard Cost of Living Increase (COLA). Child support went up $44.00. $22.00 per month is Simon’s portion of the COLA, which is not enough money to pay for braces or other uncovered medical and dental expenses. See Exhibit N, the COLA statement from the State of Minnesota.
7. That the Respondent also refused to pay for half of Miriam and Simon’s dental expenses that were not covered by insurance. The amount was $292.00. See Exhibit O, dental bill from Dr. Paul Berg DDS for Simon and Miriam with an amount due of $292.00. I paid both portions since the Respondent refused to pay for his portion. See Exhibit P, Petitioner’s check to Dr. Paul Berg in the amount of $300.00. Therefore the Respondent’s obligation is $146.00. I respectfully ask the Court to award me $146.00, which is the Respondents portion of the dental bill.
8. That there is an unpaid Aspen Medical Group bill for Miriam. The Respondent paid $40.00 over the course of five months and then stopped paying the Petitioner for the outstanding bill of $177.54. The current bill is the Respondent’s portion, which is $53.77. See Exhibit Q the last Aspen Medical Group bill I received before the bill was sent to collections. The collection agency has not sent the Petitioner a new, updated bill and this affects the Petitioner’s husband, Jon Phillips’ credit score because the Aspen Medical Group bill is in his name.
9. The Respondent does not currently pay 30% of child support and I don’t know how much the Respondent is earning. I have been erratically unemployed during the past five fiscal years and my husband was laid off in April 2005. The current child support arrangement is not adequate to meet Simon Meyer and Miriam Davis’ expenses. Proof of income with W4s and tax returns will enable the Court to determine whether child support should be increased.

Michele E. Davis

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

_________ day of ____________________, 2006

Notary Public

31 January

Trump +12

12 Days
Post Election
Chaos reigns
This is what it must’ve been like to watch as your society reacted to forces brought upon them by leaders like Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini.
If you start brutalizing people first
Muslim ban.
Put the Jews in ghettos
Spread fake news (both sides of the aisle)
Then start brutalizing them

30 January

Bathroom Problems

Simon and I were having a muffled word conversation about him peeing in the corner of his room instead of going to the bathroom in the middle of the night when suddenly his father was in the room, standing tall, thick, broad, puffy face that was easy to red because he couldn’t control his drinking, his presence was agitated with anger. His energy was full of knives. Now I was scared. Minutes before I was just fine, but suddenly the fight or flight response, the desire to batter my husband about the head to get him off my child, my boy with Nana Davis’s eyes, was raging in my head. I couldn’t think and then he started hollering.

Midwestern Voldemort was bellowing, “Do you know what we do to dogs that pee on carpet? Little boys don’t pee on carpets, only dogs,” and my son’s father, my rapist, grabbed our son by the back of his narrow red freckled neck like he was a rabbit, kitten, or guinea pig, and pushed his head until it jutted forward and then he pressed his fat khaki covered legs, knee bent, onto my sons thin, frail back and pushed him hard and fast into the carpet, rubbing his face well into the tight polyester blue curls filled with musty, stinky urine. Simon got up in the middle of the night and urinated behind an old midCentury channel backed chair of Nana’s in the corner of his bedroom. He’d been doing it for weeks and the room had started to smell, and the floor to lose it’s varnish. Urine as floor stripper.