[AXOmom]

^^^ And I agree with all of this. Well, all of it except I wouldn't be afraid of him and it sounds like his family isn't.

You seem like a wise parent and like you I wouldn't date him, but it's because I think he acted foolishly, I don't like smoking and I don't personally want to be around guns...oh yeah, and there's the fact I'm married so that probably wouldn't be good parenting - LOL. I just don't think that using one on a laptop makes him a nutcase or an abuser.

Most parents can look back on things we did and wonder how our children came out of their unbringing well-adjusted, but it doesn't make us abusive nutcases and it was putting him into those boxes with little evidence to support it that I take issue with.

SWTXBelle - Yes those may be the definitions of an abuser, but those are open to a lot of interpretations and that's my issue with what you said. What constitutes controlling or monitoring? If my child claims I'm being controlling because I set a 11 pm curfew (I didn't) then am I abusive? If I allow my 14 year old to have a facebook but only under the conditions that I am added as a friend and can see it - is that monitoring and am I abusive? Monitoring and controlling behavior may be part of the definition, but whether or not this constitutes monitoring and controlling behavior is the question. If this was his wife - certainly, but when it is his child - well, child protective services in my state at least would laugh you out of the room frankly if you tried to pass the fact that the dad saw his child's facebook entry while he was updating her computer and decided she wasn't going to have access to a computer anymore off as monitoring and controlling behavior.

As to the gun issue - That definition assumes that you are displaying a weapon in order to harm or lead the victim to believe that at some point you can or will harm them with that weapon. Merely having a weapon and using it at some point on your property is not what that definition is meant to imply. Using a firearm in your parenting would cross a line if he used it to threaten his child or lead her to believe it might be a threat. I do think it was pointless, but to equate it with what that definition is meant to cover (parents like the one I mentioned who hold a gun to their child's head) just isn't fair and is borderline offensive to those kids who truly live in fear. If social services agreed with your definition - the girl would be setting in foster care as we speak. They intereviewed her and that's been that.

Having said that, something else could always come out of this that would point the other direction and he could turn out to be, in fact, an abusive nut case. I just don't believe that on the evidence that is currently available, that is a conclusion anyone could draw at this point.