Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe, but in the 2000s, Jim Edmonds was actually quite the eligible bachelor in St. Louis due to being part of a really great Cardinals team. I could see how Meghan ignored the red flags when they met.

I lived in STL and followed Meghan early on social media. Looking back, I can see now that some of her posts - even going back 15 years - were really manic. It wouldn't surprise me if she had mental illness. Add in 3 kids in 2 years, a cheating spouse and other stressors... and I imagine she just broke. To me, her oversharing on social media seems like a cry for help.

I don't know that Edmonds is the monster people are making him out to be. I guess it's good he and his wife are stepping up with the kids. But to move his kids to TN at a time when they probably really need their mother and some assurance she's going to be okay... I dunno. Seems like it would've been better for them to relocate back to STL and help Meghan get the help she needs.

Her family was a nice, normal St. Louis family back in the day. I wonder if they are trying to stay involved in the kids' lives. I imagine it's really tough when your daughter's ex has unlimited funds and is revered in STL.

Poor kids. I hope Jim is being a good father and that their mom gets well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Again, pot meet kettle.

This is hilarious and definitely a very juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" style of comebacks.

Right? All PP can do is stamp her foot and scream ABUSIVE!!!! NARCISSIST!!!! WEALTHY!!!! And everyone is to believe there is some big conspiracy against Meghan instead of what she herself has presented over the last decade.

Sorry you're confused. I'm the PP above you and I was referring to the "pot meet kettle" guy.

Lol, that went right over your head again.

Nope, I knew exactly what you were doing, hence my response. Looks like it worked. Cheers!

Anonymous wrote:Hard to believe, but in the 2000s, Jim Edmonds was actually quite the eligible bachelor in St. Louis due to being part of a really great Cardinals team. I could see how Meghan ignored the red flags when they met.

I lived in STL and followed Meghan early on social media. Looking back, I can see now that some of her posts - even going back 15 years - were really manic. It wouldn't surprise me if she had mental illness. Add in 3 kids in 2 years, a cheating spouse and other stressors... and I imagine she just broke. To me, her oversharing on social media seems like a cry for help.

I don't know that Edmonds is the monster people are making him out to be. I guess it's good he and his wife are stepping up with the kids. But to move his kids to TN at a time when they probably really need their mother and some assurance she's going to be okay... I dunno. Seems like it would've been better for them to relocate back to STL and help Meghan get the help she needs.

Her family was a nice, normal St. Louis family back in the day. I wonder if they are trying to stay involved in the kids' lives. I imagine it's really tough when your daughter's ex has unlimited funds and is revered in STL.

Poor kids. I hope Jim is being a good father and that their mom gets well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Again, pot meet kettle.

This is hilarious and definitely a very juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" style of comebacks.

Right? All PP can do is stamp her foot and scream ABUSIVE!!!! NARCISSIST!!!! WEALTHY!!!! And everyone is to believe there is some big conspiracy against Meghan instead of what she herself has presented over the last decade.

Sorry you're confused. I'm the PP above you and I was referring to the "pot meet kettle" guy.

Lol, that went right over your head again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Again, pot meet kettle.

This is hilarious and definitely a very juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" style of comebacks.

Right? All PP can do is stamp her foot and scream ABUSIVE!!!! NARCISSIST!!!! WEALTHY!!!! And everyone is to believe there is some big conspiracy against Meghan instead of what she herself has presented over the last decade.

Sorry you're confused. I'm the PP above you and I was referring to the "pot meet kettle" guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Again, pot meet kettle.

This is hilarious and definitely a very juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" style of comebacks.

Right? All PP can do is stamp her foot and scream ABUSIVE!!!! NARCISSIST!!!! WEALTHY!!!! And everyone is to believe there is some big conspiracy against Meghan instead of what she herself has presented over the last decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Again, pot meet kettle.

This is hilarious and definitely a very juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" style of comebacks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Again, pot meet kettle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One Mom's Battle, which is a community activist organization that supports women who navigate post-separation abuse through a variety of resources, posted this:

"What is happening to Meghan King right now is a crisis I have watched play out again and again. It is a war on mothers and the same pattern I see in my messages every day.

She has lost custody of her children. He has temporary full custody. This is not entertainment or gossip. It is a window into a system stacked against protective mothers.

People keep saying, “Do you know what it takes for a mother to lose custody?”
I do. It is very easy and very common for mothers to lose custody.

The comments from people who know nothing about family court have been infuriating. I do not care if you like her or dislike her. What has happened to her is inhumane. The people rushing into the comments with fast opinions are often the least informed about the family court crisis.

Money plays a role. Influence plays a role. Families are targeted by professionals who profit from conflict.

Women are pushed to the brink and when we finally react like any human under prolonged stress, that reaction is used as proof against us. “See, she is crazy.” This is the trap. This is the setup. This is the pattern.

I will say this plainly. In my opinion, he is a raging egomaniac narcissist. I have viewed footage from one of their custody exchanges. His behavior was rageful and frightening. He placed the children in the conflict while she did everything possible to deescalate. I thought about that video for a long time. The fact that he now has full custody is deeply concerning.

But this is not only about them. This is what is happening to mothers across the world. When a mother tries to protect her children, she is punished for it. When she speaks up, she is labeled unstable. When she reacts to trauma, that reaction is weaponized and used to justify removing her children.

It is a crisis. It is real. It is happening in plain sight. It needs to be called what it is."

This. Absolutely this.

LOUDER, for the people in the back.

Not all of think that it is okay for children to be harmed or killed based on a biased belief that children should always be with their mothers and that men or fathers are evil. Would you like me to share a list of mothers who have harmed or killed their kids? Advocating for mothers blindly at the expense of their kids is shameful. The kids matter and they have a right to a safe and stable lives. There is nothing about being a woman or man that makes one a better parent. And anyone, man or woman, can say they aren’t responsible for their behaviour, they can say that all their actions are reactions to other people or to trauma - but at the end of the day when those actions and reactions harm the kids, they shouldn’t have custody.

The courts are not anti mothers in the least. They were very anti fathers for years and now that they are becoming less biased and including fathers more in custody and care, that is a good thing, it isn’t anti mothers.

There are many YouTube channels that play live family court cases - you can watch thousands of family court cases. There is definitely no anti mother bias. What you do see though is both mothers and fathers being the ones who are making decisions in the best interest of their kids and mothers and fathers who aren’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Of course it's your prerogative to be an apologist and supporter of malignant narcissist abusers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between defending someone and being cynical about what a rich and powerful man's PR team has leaked to the media and achieved through the family court system.

Then you would post as such instead of the screeds that have been posted on this thread about people just “knowing” Jim must be a narcissistic abuser manipulating the courts. All of these rants painting Meghan as a victim would be more factual rather than just “feelings” that poor Meghan is being mistreated. Instead of you know, the people actually being mistreated - her kids?

The allegation came via third-party quote from a woman who'd seen video footage of prior custody exchanges and she described Jim as being rageful and frightening and putting thd kids in the middle of the conflict where Meghsb tried to shield them. Her organization is a watchdog for abusers. The organization is One Mom’s Battle.

Multiple posters made the same claims earlier in the thread. And you’ve lost the plot if you believe anything from One Mom’s Battle.

Of course, as a group of educated moms, we believe in One Mom's Battle and in the work they are doing to help children and mothers. You now sound like the problem.

She has an extreme bias and agenda and needs to keep that in everything she says and does as that is how she makes a living. Kind of skews her narrative when you can already predict exactly what she will say about each case.

+1 People need to stop being so gullible about this woman.

I know Tina Swithin and you and the other PP have not one single iota of a clue what you are talking about and you are simply dead wrong. But I know that won't mean a thing to you. You won't take the time to listen to or read her story (she herself is a child of divorce and she was raised by her *father* who she says was the healthier of her two parents), how she advocates for *childrens' rights* and supports *protective parents* (whether that is the mother or the father), and she also talks about the name "One Mom's Battle" and how she chose that name over 15 years ago when she started a little unknown blog at the time, documenting her own (as the mother, as in "one mom") battle and how that name doesn't fit anymore but it has become so synonymous with her advocacy platform that it would be too difficult to change.

You’d be wrong. Which is why you and others posting about One Mom and all these narcissistic rants are so incredibly dangerous.

You can keep trying to undermine with your unmitigated one-line BS responses with zero details or facts, it won't work.

Pot meet kettle.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

Nope. You’re just so deep into your online fantasies that you can’t see how disturbed Meghan has been over the years. All from her own POV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When Jim moved to Tennessee, how did he and Meghan share custody if she was in St. Louis?

They only recently moved FT to TN. Meghan lost custody in October.

Anonymous wrote:When Jim moved to Tennessee, how did he and Meghan share custody if she was in St. Louis?

Anonymous wrote:When Jim moved to Tennessee, how did he and Meghan share custody if she was in St. Louis?