I'm sure the photo store employee thought he/she was doing the best thing for the children. I'm sure he/she wans't particulary prudish and, if one were to dig, could find a little nudity, premarital sex, pot or other 'unwholesome' details of his/her life.

I'm sure what motivated the employee was excitment at the prospect of being a hero, of being at the centerpiece of a grave matter, of being taken seriously by authority figures. Behold, the meek inheriting the earth.

As for the negative consequences of the accusation - that never even crossed the clerk's mind and nor should it have - as there ARE no negative consequences to the clerk, the police, or the DCFS. No one gives a crap about the falsely accused because they don't have to - they can just assuage any vague feelings of unease with "heck, if they aren't guilty then they have nothing to worry about." This of course is patently false, because where sex-related crimes and accusations are concerned, the law and the culture generally proceed on the premise of guilty until proven innocent..and innocence often can never be proven. Even science recognizes you can't test for/prove the null hypothesis, and that's what proving innocence in molestation/child porn cases amounts to - proving nothing happened.

Most people are so scared of the idea of being falsely accused they are quick to distance themselves from any situation that has the stink of inappropriateness about it - not because of prudishness or actual suspicions but because the first thing we do when we see a madman open fire on a crowd is run. The second thing we do is hunker down and watch the innocent fall and think in our dark, unaccountable heart: better him than me.

Until the penalties for false accusation are as severe as the penalties for actually being guilty of hte crime, there will continue to be a whole lot of power to destroy reuputations and lives in the hands of people with too much free time and not enough moral compass and/or smarts.

The author should start a legal action against Eckerd. It's a good place to start, and will quell the remaining murmur of rumor (and trust me, there is a remaining murmur) still swirling around the family.

The LW wants to be right at all costs, something that will destroy the relationship faster than disagreements over children or depression.

If the LW says he'll forgive his wife for having an 'unconsulted' abortion, then he can save them both a lot of emotional turbulance by just assuming she did, and forgiving her. Instead, he requires that she admit what she did; only *then* can he forgive her. This isn't forgiveness, it's entrapment.

The LW seems pretty selfish to me. It's all about him. His baby is gone, his rights were violated by his wife's alleged dishonesty, his future dreams are being compromised by her indecision. If the wife really did induce an abortion, it's hardly any wonder - he treats her depression and anxiety as no more serious than an inconvenience, with no more repercussions than a mild vitamin deficiency. This is clearly not a man who is going to listen to her fears about being able to raise a child in her present state of mental health. This is clearly a man who is used to considering himself right, no matter what. Even his follow up letter - if it was indeed him writing it - asserts to the point of obnoxiousness that we, the audience, would all be in agreement with him if he chose (though he does not) to lay all of his cards on the table (read: it's not just me! you'd accuse her of aborting my baby too, if you only knew what I did!)

The LW is freakishly controlling and obsessed with being right no matter what. It's unlikely he can really get to the point of forgiveness, despite his claims. It would mean a) allowing that he might, just might be wrong and the miscarriage was exactly that or b) being right but not being able to prove it/beat his wife over the head with her wrongness.

Being wrongheadedly right won't bring the baby back, and it sure has heck won't ensure another is forthcoming any time soon. If the LW wants a baby with his wife, he needs to stop worrying at the carcass of this questionable miscarriage and instead work with his wife on a timeline of what needs to happen for her to be comfortable with the idea.

I find it strange when one spouse really wants kids even in the face of the partner's reluctance. You join your life with your partner's because you want to spend your lives together. That's the first reason for the partnership. Children are an experience you seek to have *together* or so it would seem to me. But it seems many prospective parents fall in love with the idea of themselves as a mommy/daddy, not as part of a parenting partnership. Personally I wouldn't want to raise a child with anyone who wasn't 100% enthusiastic about it. Isn't that one of the keys to the experience -r aising children with a partner? It seems so incredibly selfish when one parent tries to steamroll the other into going along with their fantasy. Not to mention disprespectful. If there is any hesitation at all on the part of either partner, best to wait - best for the partners, best for the hypothetical child.