People are eating them up! For Abby's favorite recipes, send a long, business-size, self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $3.95 ($4.50 in Canada) to: Dear Abby, Cookbooklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, Ill. 61054. (Postage is included.)
These Finders Are Keepers, at Least According to Law
DEAR ABBY: I am writing in response to the couple in Anchorage who were torn over whether or not to keep the $42 the husband found in the glove compartment of the used car they had recently purchased.
They have no legal responsibility to return the money to the car's original owner. To illustrate, here's a similar case that went to the Supreme Court in 1981: In the case of the City of Everett v. the Estate of Sumstad, the Mitchells were a couple who purchased a used safe at an auction for $50. The safe had previously belonged to the Sumstad estate and contained a locked inside compartment. The Mitchells had a locksmith open the compartment and discovered $32,207 inside.
The Everett police impounded the money and brought an action against both the Sumstad estate and the Mitchells to determine the owner of the money. The trial court decided in favor of the estate, but in appeal, summary judgment was for the Mitchells.
Since the Mitchells understood the sale was final, and the auctioneer reserved no rights of the estate to any contents of the safe, the reasonable conclusion is that the auctioneer objectively intended to sell both the safe and its contents, and that both parties mutually assented to the sale. Therefore, the Anchorage couple should feel no guilt in keeping the $42, since the Supreme Court ruled that the Mitchells could keep $32,207. -- KNOWS THE LAW
DEAR KNOWS: Surely you also must know that that which is legal is not always moral. I rest my case.
DEAR ABBY: The first time you quoted "The Reading Mother," I meant to write to you; when you did it again today, I decided I would not fail this time.
Why not a reading father? My three sons received bedtime readings from the time they were small until almost through high school. I, their father, was the reader; I love books, and I enjoyed the material at least as much as they did.
We got through the Alice books, "Gulliver's Travels," "Huckleberry Finn," "Lord of the Rings," and scores of others.
I was in medical school and psychiatric residency training during many of these years, and the hours spent reading to my children were a welcome relief to me, as well as an introduction to the world of literature to them.
I recommend reading aloud to children of all ages by either parent. -- ROB HARDY, CHIEF, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, R.A.F., LAKENHEATH, UNITED KINGDOM
DEAR DR. HARDY: I am printing your letter in the interest of fairness to those fathers who read to their children. Although their numbers may not be as great as mothers, they deserve to be counted.
CONFIDENTIAL TO DESPERATE IN CHICAGO: "The darkest hour in a man's life is when he sits down to plan how to get money without earning it." -- HORACE GREELEY
GETTING OUT OF MARRIAGE IS HARDER THAN GETTING IN
DEAR ABBY: I am 21 1/2 years old and was married when I was 20. I thought at the time I was doing the right thing, but now, after a year and a half of marriage, I realize it was a mistake. I was too young to get married.
My husband and I disagreed on too many things, so now we are getting a divorce. He doesn't want it, but he says if I pay for it, he will sign all the required papers. We have nothing to divide. No house, no car, no money and no kids. Nothing to fight over.
Now for my problem: I went to a legal clinic and they told me there wasn't any "no-fault divorce" in Cook County, Ill., which is where we live. This means I will have to go to court and claim "mental cruelty."
Abby, there was no mental cruelty, so why do I have to go to court and lie -- especially since my husband agreed to cooperate? Isn't there someplace that we could go and just sign some papers and be divorced? Why must I point a finger of blame at a perfectly nice man? The marriage was MY mistake.
Also, I would like to know why a divorce should cost so much? I was quoted a figure of $970. There is nothing to divide up, and my husband is not going to contest the divorce. Isn't there a cheaper and easier way? -- NOBODY'S FAULT
DEAR NOBODY'S FAULT: A cheaper divorce would be available through your legal aid society -- only if you are unemployed.
According to Dorothy B. Johnson, attorney at law and chairperson of the Chicago Bar Association Matrimonial Law Committee:
"Since July 1, 1984, there has been another ground for dissolution of marriage in Illinois, which you and your spouse may find more suitable: 'irreconcilable differences.'
"As for the cost of your divorce, the rate you were quoted is not out of line for the greater Chicago area."
DEAR ABBY: The letter from a woman who had witnessed a father abusing his young son in a department store, and she didn't know what to do or say, bothered me. You seemed to be sympathetic with the abuser and suggested that she could have said, "I know how you must feel -- shopping with children isn't easy," which would seem to give approval to the father's actions.
The other day, I witnessed a similar situation involving a young mother in a checkout line in a supermarket. Her child had obviously misbehaved and the mother was berating him with some harsh words that can hurt a child more than physical blows!
A woman in line in front of them turned around and delivered what I thought was the perfect remark: "I'll give you a dollar for him!"
That one sentence reminded the young mother of the value of her child.
I wish I had said it. -- SYLVIA E., LOS ANGELES
DEAR ABBY: I have never written to you before, but after reading about the old gentleman who is still making love often at the age of 85, I took the newspaper out of the trash can three times to make sure I had read it correctly.
I would sure like to hear his wife's side of this story. I'll bet she is sick to death of it. Or maybe she is like me, going through the motions and faking it.
I am a 65-year-old woman married to the most wonderful man in the world, and I have been faking it for years. How many letters have you gotten on this one? I would love to know. -- "B" IN DALLAS
DEAR "B": Thus far, only a few, but I would welcome letters or postcards (unsigned, of course) from other females who have been "faking it" for years.
"How to Be Popular" is an excellent guide to becoming a better conversationalist and a more attractive person. To order, send a long, business-size, self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $3.95 ($4.50 in Canada) to: Dear Abby, Popularity Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, Ill. 61054. (Postage is included.)
DEAR ABBY: I am a child psychologist and the mother of two. There is certainly controversy in the field of child development concerning pacifiers. However, most professionals believe that there is no harm in giving pacifiers to infants as long as the pacifier is "orthodontically approved" -- meaning the shape prevents the development of a tongue-thrusting habit.
It is important to understand that the sucking reflex, being necessary for survival, is the strongest reflex in a newborn. Some infants display a stronger need to suck than others. If a mother were to attempt to satisfy this need with breast or bottle, the result would be overfeeding -- and a very tired mother.
Use of a pacifier is harmless as long as the infant is weaned from it, much as one weans a baby from a bottle.
My younger daughter was born with an extremely strong sucking reflex. When the pediatrician came to the hospital and lifted her from her bassinet, all of the bedding came with her -- she had tried to stuff it into her mouth! The pediatrician said, "I hope you have a pacifier at home."
Abby, the next time you print a letter from a "child development specialist," please check with other professionals before unnecessarily alarming thousands of parents who are already bombarded with well-intentioned advice from every side. As with everything, moderation is the key. -- PRO-PACIFIER, MONROE, MICH.
DEAR PRO-PACIFIER: Meet another pro-pacifier enthusiast who shares your opinion of the child development specialist.
DEAR ABBY: I am really incensed by this "child development specialist" who, by sheer ego and self-importance, purports to know more than the instincts of a mother.
I am equally incensed at her allegation that parents who give their children pacifiers are really pacifying themselves to keep their children quiet.
How dare this "child development specialist" insinuate that I am a bad mother for using pacifiers! If I were to listen to the constantly changing theories of these child development specialists and actually put to use some of their theories, my children would be so confused, they wouldn't know which way is up!
I would like to see the research that backs up her theory that the use of pacifiers can lead to smoking, overeating and alcoholism. Furthermore, what makes this woman a "child development specialist"? Is it education or experience? If experience counts for anything, I am a child development specialist myself. I'm raising twins. -- PAM ISAACSON, EL PASO
DEAR ABBY: Some very close friends are planning a surprise 25th wedding anniversary party for a special couple we all love.
The friends who are planning the party want all the other friends of this couple to participate. Would it be considered tacky to put on the invitation: "In lieu of a gift, please make a cash contribution to help defray the cost of catering"? -- "US" IN BALTIMORE
DEAR "US": Yes, it would be tacky. If the "very close friends" want to plan the party together and split the cost, fine -- but do not ask the invited guests to chip in.
What teen-agers need to know about sex, drugs, AIDS, and getting along with their peers and parents is now in Abby's updated, expanded booklet, "What Every Teen Should Know." To order, send a long, business-size, self-addressed envelope, plus check or money order for $3.95 ($4.50 in Canada) to: Dear Abby, Teen Booklet, P.O. Box 447, Mount Morris, Ill. 61054. (Postage is included.)