She was never a single mother and is not shoving "what got her into trouble IN HIS FACE."
Re-check your numbers. She was not 24 when she got married. She was 16, and didn't have her son until she was 18.
Nothing in the article suggest any kind of immorality by any of the defendants. The only immorality here is on the part of the government officials, the grand jury, and possibly the drug store employees who lacked enough self control to mind their own business.
This thing called a "mother" is 34. She's about to celebrate her 18th wedding anniversary.
Let's see 34-18=26!
Her son is 16 years old.
So 34-16=18!
She didn't marry till she was 26 and had her creepy son at 18 so that leaves a gap of a few years. Duh!
"Nothing in the article suggest any kind of immorality by any of the defendants. The only immorality here is on the part of the government officials, the grand jury, and possibly the drug store employees who lacked enough self control to mind their own business."
It's AGAINST THE LAW to have a stripper perform for a minor.
GEESH! You're as nutty as the "mother" is.
It's the same crap that got her in trouble and she is now misleading her son.
OOOPS my numbers were off!
You are right.
She was SIXTEEN when maried and then at 18 birthed this "son".
Yeah, she's setting the right example all right.
I'd bet the "mother" looks something like the stripper she hired for the brute.
I agree with you.