|
|
|
0 members (),
3,176
guests, and
26
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
M 6.3 - 84 km SSW of Nikolski, Alaska
• M 3.6 - 185 km SE of Perryville, Alaska
• M 2.8 - 119 km SSW of Nikolski, Alaska
• M 1.0 - 22 km NE of San Lucas, CA
• M 1.9 - 26 km SW of Ackerly, Texas
• M 1.6 - 32 km NNE of Skwentna, Alaska
• M 2.1 - 4 km NNE of Snoqualmie, Washington
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 352
Mission Specialist Level 2
|
|
Mission Specialist Level 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 352 |
Oh so true, removed from you because they are deemed 'at risk' and put with other people who could abuse them. Look at my child removed off me due to being a child at risk then actually being abused physically with smacks that lasted one week on his buttocks for pooing his pants.
And 1 in 4 women are sexually abused. Why don't they take every chld off every parent at birth and then the parent has to prove they are worthy to parent. the child could be at risk until proven otherwise. I've argued this before. It sounds mad but do you see my point.
|
|
CMS The Best Conveyancing solicitors conveyancing quotes throughout the UK
For any webhosting enquiries please email webmaster@aus-city.com
|
|
Forums60
Topics820,059
Posts854,852
Members2,960
| |
Most Online102,106 Jul 10th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|