2/2/2012
"Huh?!"
That was my immediate response when I saw a Facebook notice on my computer screen the afternoon of Jan 31 2012 saying that "unauthorized material" had been removed from my Facebook page. It didn't take me more than a few seconds to conclude that my 39 year old son, Andrew Raastad (legally Edward Andreas Raastad, childhood nickname Andy) or his wife Laura Haddan Raastad, had registered a complaint that I had photographs of their infant son, my grandson, Connor Matthew Raastad on my Photo page. Sure enough! The photo album named "Kitty's Favorite People", containing 3 photographs of 4 that had been emailed to me, was gone.
So why, most anyone might ask, would my son (or his wife) object to my sharing photographs of their son on my Facebook page? If Andy and/or Laura were in an amiable relationship with me would they not be pleased that I took pleasure in the photographs of Connor Matthew and wanted others to see him? The three of them are the subject of Andy's current profile photo on his own Facebook page - a very attractive photo I might add. (Access to Andy's page is now closed to those without a Facebook account. This is an option of Facebook that I view as very negative - the ability to hide from the world (though never from governments) - and why I did not create an account until only end of last October, the initial purpose of which was to stay informed about the majority of electronic dance events in central Arizona which had largely become unavailable on other Internet venues.) This same photo is visible in a small version accompanying the name Andrew Raastad as the owner of the Facebook page for Pinal Lodge #30, F&AM (Masonic Lodge), but it too is closed to all without a Facebook account.
I and Laura had a pleasant starting email exchange that she began on Dec 16 2007, but it didn't last when Andy made it absolutely clear that he wanted nothing to do with me. (I was contacted by former husband Ed Raastad prior to Laura's email on the pretext of his wanting some photos of our wedding and Andy's childhood - Ed had refused them when he left Arizona for Montana; but it was a ruse, since Andy wanted them but would not ask me himself.) In fact Andy stated in an email on Dec 21 2007 that he considered me "dead". Apparently there was something I said/did regarding him while he was in the Navy from which this stems - but he will not tell me what it is and I do not know to what he is referring. (My conclusion that the origination occurred when he was in the Navy is substantiated from items mentioned further below; also, my current military stance did not develop till long after Andy was out of the Navy, in fact not until after I had joined Paul in 2000.) Here is the lengthy closing of that 12/21/07 email:
Know this, and know it well "Kitty" Antonik Wakefer(sic): medical science may prove that I am your biological descendant, but you are no mother of mine. Never again will I speak to you, email you, or request anything of you. Nothing you have, possess, or own is of any interest to me nor is it anything I desire, need, or want. No child of mine will ever know you existed from my mouth, nor will they attend your funeral when you die. Others may, or may not, share this opinion, as I leave it to them to decide their own feelings, and make their own choices. I speak for none but myself, but what I speak is plain, simple truth. No letter of yours will be read by me, no email you send will see but this inside of the trash folder, no phone call shall last the first sentence, nor any other form of communication will I accept, save court order. My mother is dead, has always been dead, she left this earth when I arrived, thus leaving me free to believe my mother such a caring and loving and nurturing woman that she gave her life to see mine fulfilled.
Good riddance Mrs. Wakefer(sic), may our paths never cross again, for it will even then be too soon.
May God have mercy on your soul.
My response to Andy on 12/27 after sending a separate more detailed one to Laura (and copied to Andy & Ed) mostly expressing concern for his enormously hatred filled message:
Andy, I am truly sorry if at any time something I said or did not say to you, or did or did not do regarding you, caused you emotional pain. It is not now and never has been my desire or intention to cause you any harm, including any pain or suffering of any kind. In fact, although it is clear that some people have suffered emotionally as a result of my actions, I cannot think of any time in my life when I have desired, intended or tried to cause another person harm.
Mom
Laura and Ed, since Andy may not open any email coming from me, I ask that you convey this message to him.
I have never received any further message from Andy. There was another message from Laura at the very end of December (actually sent as a reply to her copy of my email to Andy shown above), again wanting me to scan photos from Andy's childhood and again refusing to come to the house and take away all of them (over a dozen albums, all taken with film cameras + videos), selecting the ones she wanted to scan for her photo album "project" - the only reason she ever made contact with me in the first place as it had become clear:
Kitty,
I will tell him you emailed, but the damage has been done. The one saving grace in this situation would be for you to take the oppertunity(sic) to show Andrew you do care and that he is and was important to you and to scan and email some pics to me or to copy and send some pics to the PO box he gave you. I am sure it would be easier to scan because I have seen the many many photos of you and Paul on your website. That would go a long way. Without that effort on your part, I believe without a doubt, you will never hear from him again, thus ending contact with him forever, and with me as is his desire after these past few back and forths. I am deeply sorry it has come to this and it breaks my heart. Unfortunatly(sic), it is what it is and this is your only option left: to send or not to send. I hope that you chose(sic) to do this for us. In any case, I will assume this will be my last contact unless we exchange photos, so again, I am sorry and it was nice to at least meet you in letter.
-Laura
Once again I explained that everything was on film negatives or prints and some on VHS or Super8mm (not digital), and that scanning by me was not feasible since only she knew what she wanted (and besides, Andy had in his scathing email referred to the 2 photos I had scanned and emailed as "two terribly scanned scraps of memories"). The option was to borrow everything (I had made it clear that she needn't have any contact with me) and to copy herself (note that I was still being totally trusting that she would return them to me after copying, even considering what Andy had written to me) - or contract with me for the many hours it would take of my time to make all the copies she wanted, with me guessing which ones...
Laura's response to this was almost as scathing as Andy's and all in one very long paragraph... She closes with this, letting it be known now that all she wants is 6 photos (there had been no mention of quantity previously):
We ask for an hour of your time to scan a half dozen photos. Clearly you are computer savvy enough that it would not take you many man hours to do it. You are just choosing not to. Shame on you! You had your chance to make it right and you chose to be a small, petty and manipulating woman. I will never give you another thought until the day my babies ask where you are. I am sorry I have opened this door with you, I am sorry Andrew has had to deal with you now and I am sorry that for whatever reason God made you his mother. I am just sorry. So, good luck to you Kitty. I am glad you and Paul are happy and have each other, because that is all you get. I hope that is enough. Someday when you look back on these last several weeks, I hope you realize the chance you gave up. The chance to really know your son and the man he has become. The chance to know me, the chance to have grandchildren, the chance to really be part of our family. You had your chance. Times up, you lose.
On Jan 18 2008 I wrote an email addressed to Andy and copied to Laura containing in part:
I have prepared a box containing a number of items, some of which I had even forgotten were here at the house.
I will take the above box to 705 E Brenda on one of our trips into Casa Grande in the next few weeks on a weekend and give it to whoever is there who will accept it for delivery to you. If there is no one there for this purpose, I will incur the fundamentally unnecessary charge (~$7) to have the box moved the few dozen feet from the CG post office clerk counter to the facility rear and a notice card placed in your postal box, #10564.
There is also a box I found addressed to you at Whidby from TN containing only numerous individually sealed comic books. If there is no one at the 705 E Brenda address to receive it with the other described above, I will not mail this heavy box to you. If you want this box of comic books you will then need to make arrangements to have it picked up at the house. However, I may dispose of them by April 20 if you do not make arrangements to have them picked up before then.
I did not copy any of the photos I took over the years of Andy since by his own words I was dead to him. I and Paul delivered those boxes to the house he was in the process of selling - Andy happened to arrive while we were still there. He would not even take them from my (and Paul's) hands but motioned to me to place them on a counter in the carport. I have never heard from either him or Laura since.
So as one can see, I only learned about Andy's marriage (to Laura) via a 3rd party as I also learned about the birth of a son, Connor Matthew.
One could easily be saddened to read "such venom coming from them both, but especially his", as one person has put it when I earlier explained all that is written here.
Yes, it is truly venomous.... and so unlike anything I'd ever heard from Andy before I found and realized how important Paul was to my happiness and then told Ed, Greg and Andy about Paul (latter half of December 1999). Andy's nastiness became very apparent then and only got worse, especially after he finished at Embry Riddle University (Dec 2001) and just decided to move back into the house without asking permission of me, the owner (by virtue of the divorce agreement between me and Ed) even if I was in Canada at the time and had given Ed permission to live there while tending the house and property in return. I recall clearly Andy's graduation from Navy bootcamp in Sept '92 when he gave me 3 doz roses with a card saying I was the greatest Mom in the world.... I attended but Ed did not; this was the week my sister Irene's husband Curt died (my father had died unexpectedly the preceding year and my mother the summer before that).
In addition to being initially shocked and saddened by Andy's email, only part of which I've quoted above, I was also for several days a bit frightened, not knowing whether Andy would actually try to harm me - he was (and still is) located in the same general area.
As someone noted to me: "To not wish to discuss with you the reason behind his anger is a shame as it leaves you unable to know what has triggered this emotional outburst. He said it was something from when he was in the Navy? From his email to you it sounds more like a culmination of things that built up and the emotions splattered all over you."
Some information had been forthcoming from Laura in an email on 12/19/07, confirming my suspicions at the time regarding the origin timeframe of Andy's longstanding animosity:
"Andrew has been very open about your relationship and I was aware of the correspondences that you had back in 2001. More then(sic) just the emails, there were several encounters that the two of you had when he returned from the Navy that eventually led to the straw that broke the camels(sic) back with the rent issues. Things build up, and that is just where he is at right now, feeling unready and unwilling to talk."
So yes, there was some build-up on Andy's part but never any openness about whatever the problems were or that they even existed as they were occurring. He often put me off when I attempted back in 2001 via email to get him to spill what was eating at him - he just didn't want to spend any time. And he didn't want to talk to me in person either.
So the wonderful looking/talking person on Facebook - before he recently made most everything about himself closed to Facebook account holders who not a confirmed "friend" - and unprecedented 3 years in a row (2007-2010) "Worshipful Master" of Pinal Masonic Lodge #30 has a very hidden past that he does not reveal to anyone other than me via ugly email, and somewhat to Laura as whatever he's told her. And where is the logic of closing his Facebook page to all but "friends" if he considers me "dead"? What harm can the "dead" do to him? And what harm can the very much alive Kitty Antonik possibly - or even want to - do to him? I have not attempted to contact him in anyway since 2008. I do not think he has well reasoned out any of this, but I do hope that he will.... eventually, if not sooner.
The closing paragraphs of the last email on January 18, 2008 contains reference to placing this above information on the Internet (something I did not do in these past 4 years because it was extremely unpleasant to me to even re-read) and explaining why I am doing so now:
I will be placing your entire 12/21/2007 email message to me [Here for full email sent to me by Andy, mine to Laura that he refers to in the first sentence, and also mine to Laura following Andy's and mentioned earlier above], of which the above is merely the last paragraph, on MoreLife.org so that your words are made viewable to everyone, not just me (plus Laura and Ed to whom you copied it) and those to whom I have showed it. Your statements will then be accessible to be associated with you by anyone searching the Internet for information about you. I will be doing this not as any sort of vindictive act (I *never* do such) but rather as the logical consequence of your words, an act of social preferencing that will demonstrate for others your present (and for the past ~8 years) level of self-responsibility regarding your relationship with me. Since you have refused to make clear in private discussion those events between us which are so hateful to you, the only recourse I see is the greater influence that such publication may have to cause you to enter into such discussion even if on completely separate venues. When you do decide to discuss the items of the past that have resulted in your current great anger towards me (including informing me of what all the items/events actually are), that fact and your consequentially stated views of me to me will also be made public (if you have not done so yourself) so that that(sic) the information about you in this respect (and all others of which I am aware) remains current. I do truly hope that you will deal with this situation in a self-responsible manner if for no other reason than that sustained anger is detrimental to one's physical health, especially when that health is not at an optimal level (as indicated by your clearly excessive BMI).
I am copying this message to Laura since you likely will not even open this one, but I am doing it primarily to keep as a record what I am placing in the aforementioned box.
Your mother, whether you currently like it or not.
Some readers may be shocked at certain of the contents of this "Reflection", holding to some variation of the belief that "families should never air their dirty laundry in public" - not unlike "my country (or President), right or wrong". I disagree with the idea of keeping secret from the assessment of all others the behavior of one's self and others. In the current vernacular, I am "outing" my son; a now 39 year old man who has behaved towards me for 12 years much like a very angry and overtired 5 year-old might act towards a parent who has told him/her (hir) that s/he must put hir toys away and get ready for bed. My reasons were stated clearly to Andy in my email to him of Jan 18 2008 and I am emphasizing them now:
I will be doing this not as any sort of vindictive act (I *never* do such) but rather as the logical consequence of your words, an act of social preferencing that will demonstrate for others your present (and for the past ~8 years) level of self-responsibility regarding your relationship with me. Since you have refused to make clear in private discussion those events between us which are so hateful to you, the only recourse I see is the greater influence that such publication may have to cause you to enter into such discussion even if on completely separate venues.
Those who assess Andy's (and/or Laura's, and/or even Ed's) actions described here to be unacceptable or even just inappropriate, are able to let that assessment be known to him/them in written or spoken words (directly if you know them) and/or implement the reader's own negative Social Preferencing - withdrawal of voluntary association, whether in-person or electronically. Hopefully some true friend of Andy's will be able to succeed at reasoned logic with him where I have failed. Likewise, those who think my actions here or in the past as described are not acceptable are always capable of saying so privately to others or even anonymously just about anyplace on the Internet, and in any other manner Socially Preferencing against me. However, why not stand behind your opinion and publicly state why, being specific rather than something akin to, "It's not nice"? If you, the reader, are willing to be non-anonymous, you can send me an email and I will include its contents (without the email address) in an update of this page (see Comment Section below).
"What do you want to achieve from this?", someone might ask me. What I'd like in the long-run is to regain a son who is simply just an older version of the very nice young man who entered the Navy back in 1992. The one who also, after he was out of the Navy and attending Central Arizona College said something to me and his father one day (~1998) while standing in the kitchen, that I never forgot and reminded him about in an email sent to him in 2004:
Hi Andy,
Hallmark notified me that you opened your birthday card. I hope that you had a very nice day and celebrated #31.
You might not recall - though I do quite well - a discussion you, your Dad and I had about rights several years ago (in the kitchen, in fact) while you were attending CAC. You quite firmly stated that people did not "have them" until a government granted them or "recognized" them. I might not be quoting you with perfect accuracy, but at the time I defended the typical position that "everyone has rights" whether or not the government under which they live agrees or not. You were not convinced - and rightly so, as I have come to agree these past 2 years. Even though you couldn't explain it well, you were correct in your position that "rights" are not inate(sic) in humans. Actually there is much more wrong with the entire theory of natural rights. If you'd like to take up the discussion again, I'd enjoy it and we both may profit by it.
Another hug, Mom
It is a somewhat older (and reasonably thereby wiser) version of the young man who said those words I described immediately above, and gave me 3 dozen roses (this photo and backside took better part of 1 hour to scan and file on our equipment) when he entered the Navy (and taught me several Country Swing dance moves on his leaves at home :), whom I would like to retrieve from the hate-filled man of 34 he demonstrated so very strongly in December 2007, and by all indications to me remains to this day.
As for Facebook's removal of those photos of my grandson, I will soon be completing a counter-notification and the link to this Kitty Reflects item will be included as part of the reasoning for why Facebook has made "a mistake in removing the content", as they refer to my assessment of their action in their form.
 |
 |
Comment Section
All comments that show reasoned analysis, quote the article text which is being addressed and are from fully identified people are welcome and will be posted here as they come, including clear threading when/if responded to (made clear again by including author and text being addressed).
Please send all comments together with identifying information to the author of the article. Commenter email addresses will not automatically be included, but limited sig lines will be allowed.