It's not like she has to make sure her kids are looked after. John may be a scumbag but he's going to make sure his kids are provided for financially. Nor will divorce change who raises the kids when she's gone. They're John's kids.

She just needs to decide where she wants to be and be there. Forget lawyers and depositions and accountants. She's been in major denial for a very, very long time. She owes herself to give her kids some good memories and enjoy the world. Watch movies. Read. See stuff. Without any thought to anything else. Divorce will do nothing more than keep John in her life. Just walk away. I cannot imagine that John will object or deny her anything.

And as for Rielle, I so don't get people who blame her for squat. She had a scumbag for a father, a crappy childhood, and Edwards sold her a pretty dream. He's the one who committed adultry. Party girls are nothing more than people who know so little about being happy, they think you find happiness in self-induced public stupor.

As for why we discuss this, it is the height of human drama. It is tragedy. It is hubris. It is the fall. They have both fallen so very, very far. How could we possibly not watch. Drama is the National Enquirer's specialty. On this particularly occasion it happened to be correct and the story has a dodged bullet element that ads relevance and creates a cultural phenomenon which it turn makes it fodder for the present forum.

Those who don't care to watch can change the channel.

why don't we scold the people who facilitated her drinking. When you're drunk you are far less likely to take steps to protect yourself; and you are far less able to protect yourself should you get into a bad situation. Could she have done anything to protect herself had she not been drunk? Who knows, but the alcohol--which it was illegal to give her--took away any chance she might have had.

Is that blaming someone other than the perpetrators? Must it be an either/or thing? Are we really that simple minded?

As for the woman who wondered why a father of a 15 year old wasn't panicking when his daughter was 2 hours late, I have a 14 year old son. Once in a blue moon he has shown up a couple of hours late and been inaccessible by phone. Did I panic? You never know whether to panic. Teens are idiots. They think they are invincible. They think you are ridiculous for worrying when you don't know exactly where they are. At two hours, I'm just starting to get angry/really concerned. At the two hour mark I'm calling other parents and friends to find out where my child was last spotted and if he's with anyone who is reachable by cell phone. It's only happened 2-3 times, and its always turned out well. The longest was 5 hours or so. My son just felt like hanging out with his friends and didn't bother to call home. He was grounded for a month afterward, but its the kind of experience that makes you hesitant to call police when he's probably just being a teen.