What am I missing here? I'm not reading Jack nor Anna's comments as Erica "lost custody" of her kids. Instead, I think these are comments about the family dynamic is gone now that dad is gone. If anything is "lost", its not the custody of the kids but the family dynamic of two parents that keep it together.
Good point. Attention everybody: from now on it will be considered bad form should you dare to share anything from X that has been community noted.
Stop asking questions!
🤡
"She will never be able to grow old with Charlie. She will never be able to be with them again.. have more children... to have grandchildren. To have those memories. To raise them. It's all gone."
I'm curious about the part where she "will never be able to have grandchildren… To raise them."
Yes I saw the community note. I didn't post this because I think it's 100% accurate. I've posted it to get opinions on why his language is so peculiar.
Yea, I get ya. And glad you posted it bc this was the first I've heard about this speculation. I think these are just words tossed about by Jack and Anna. I'm not getting the sense Erika has lost custody of her kids in any way, just emphasizing the devastation that the family is somewhat shattered and lost without the father. Not sure. And agree with you, not sure what the "grandchildren" comment has to do with anything.
I think the "no grandchildren" is referring to the children that Erika will never have with Charlie. She may have grandchildren from the 2 children already born to herself and Charlie, but no grandchildren from the children she can no longer have with Charlie. This is losing the future that might have been.
She is defending Erika against Candace Owens, who is now "victimizing the victim", recently implied (serving Israel's interests) the Iranian people are victims of Israel. Why is the "islamic sympathizer" not calling this a TRUE genocide, as she called out the FAKE Gaza genocide?
What am I missing here? I'm not reading Jack nor Anna's comments as Erica "lost custody" of her kids. Instead, I think these are comments about the family dynamic is gone now that dad is gone. If anything is "lost", its not the custody of the kids but the family dynamic of two parents that keep it together.
I love how people post stuff and the community notes literally contradict the post
Good point. Attention everybody: from now on it will be considered bad form should you dare to share anything from X that has been community noted.
Stop asking questions!
🤡
For outsiders looking in for ammo, it just looks dumb. To be clear, I'm in the "She was a plant in Charlie's life" group.
"She will never be able to grow old with Charlie. She will never be able to be with them again.. have more children... to have grandchildren. To have those memories. To raise them. It's all gone."
I'm curious about the part where she "will never be able to have grandchildren… To raise them."
Yes I saw the community note. I didn't post this because I think it's 100% accurate. I've posted it to get opinions on why his language is so peculiar.
Yea, I get ya. And glad you posted it bc this was the first I've heard about this speculation. I think these are just words tossed about by Jack and Anna. I'm not getting the sense Erika has lost custody of her kids in any way, just emphasizing the devastation that the family is somewhat shattered and lost without the father. Not sure. And agree with you, not sure what the "grandchildren" comment has to do with anything.
I think the "no grandchildren" is referring to the children that Erika will never have with Charlie. She may have grandchildren from the 2 children already born to herself and Charlie, but no grandchildren from the children she can no longer have with Charlie. This is losing the future that might have been.
She is defending Erika against Candace Owens, who is now "victimizing the victim", recently implied (serving Israel's interests) the Iranian people are victims of Israel. Why is the "islamic sympathizer" not calling this a TRUE genocide, as she called out the FAKE Gaza genocide?