|
Post by usotsuki on Aug 6, 2010 23:48:23 GMT -5
A friend of mine told me: "Sometimes you can't do it alone, and you have to accept help, no matter how hard your pride may stop you."
As for dealing with special needs kids up for adoption, you'll have some that grow up in foster homes, reach 21, and then what? I was very lucky not to wind up on the street after I aged out.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 7, 2010 0:04:39 GMT -5
And then of course there was Laura Silsby and her band of idiots rounding up non-orphaned children in Haiti after the earthquake. I honestly have to say I was hoping to see that woman do time in a Haitian prison. I mean, seriously??? There is such a sense of entitlement surrounding so much of what makes the news in international adoptions... With some of these folks, I think part of the allure has to do with fewer restrictions and rules. It's easier to just up and pluck children out of their own families in poor countries coping with natural disaster on a vast scale. There's so much bureaucracy to muddle through when it comes to a US adoption. It doesn't surprise me that people who are rather spectacularly entitled (such as celebrities) find this attractive.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 7, 2010 0:10:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 7, 2010 0:15:44 GMT -5
21? Try 18 and not even out of high school yet and the foster care checks stop...That used to be the situation in California. Fortunately they passed some laws the last few years to extend care for several years past eighteen but with the economy the way it is I fear for the programs that were attempting to assist aging out youth, money is so tight and social services is always the first to be cut. Sorry, that's a subject dear to my heart. Can't help responding to it even if we are way off track. However, the idea that a person is a) no longer your responsibility once they either hit eighteen or b) marry is quite common especially in certain socioeconomic classes and ethnic groups. Of course legally it is quite true. But I cannot understand family just riding on what minimum the law demands and counting their job 'done' and 'sink or swim now' regardless of any circumstances. I'm not suggesting parents over protect their children or refuse to let them grow up and be responsible (that's a whole 'nother problem today). I mean those who do the exact opposite. It's jarring to have a conversation with an otherwise kind and attentive mother who thinks her immature child is all done now they have hit their late teens. Forget college, sometimes they don't even support them through to finish high school. My mother (I love her and bless her soul) was kind of an idiot at mothering. She just didn't have sense and listened to other people way more than she should. My oldest sister eloped at seventeen, so that was one daughter gone. So when my second sister reached eighteen (in 1956) my mother wasn't sure what to do and talked to some idiots who told her that at eighteen she should be an adult and out of the house. So my mother actually told my second sister, after they had dinner and cut the birthday cake, to pack up and leave on her actual eighteenth birthday simply because she had turned eighteen. That night. Period. She was a sweet, studious, obedient girl who had no job, no home, no prospects of any kind and it was a total out of the blue pronouncement. She packed that night and used what little money she had saved to rent a single room at a local rooming house and try to look for work while eating cold food from cans alone in her room. After two weeks my mom suddenly decided it was a bad idea and invited her back home again where she remained until she married at nineteen. But to this day she has never forgotten how traumatized she was by that sudden expulsion from her home for no other reason than turning the magic number eighteen. And when her marriage turned bad (immediately) and she was being physically abused by her husband, my mother's response was 'well, you're married now. It's your problem to solve' and would not let her return home. No one says what my dad said all this time - he was very silent about my older sisters and often refused to talk to them at all. He was a womanizer and rarely home and let my mom deal with everything. I wish I knew what he thought about all of that. Obviously he didn't interfere. By the time I came around they were much different and more nurturing people. Thank God.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 7, 2010 0:31:57 GMT -5
nikita: Your mom sounds like my dad. His father died when he was 13, and he's been bitter about the fact that my sister and I have a living father ever since we passed age 13. Once, when I was trying to confront him about something awful he had done, he said, "Look, I didn't even have a father when I was your age." At the time, I almost felt tempted to say, "I might have been better off without one too."
But, anyway... He was always angry when my mother wanted to do anything for my sister and me...pretty much once we became teenagers. He was working as a teenager, so we had to. He bought his own clothes, so I bought all of my own clothes from around the age of 14 or 15 from babysitting and fast food jobs. His father had died, and his single mother hadn't been able to pay for him to go to college, so why should he support either of us after the age of 18 in any capacity?
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Aug 7, 2010 0:58:33 GMT -5
I don't think parents should have to support their kids past the age of 18. People really need, emotionally, to have some independence and be able to make their own life choices once they hit 18, rather than being held hostage by what their parents demand in order to continue the financial support. However, in our society, it is truly necessary for parents to keep supporting their adult offspring at least through college. Student financial aid programs expect parents to make considerable financial sacrifices for their offspring to go to university, and generally, if your parents won't make the expected parental contribution based on their income, you're screwed. Parents can control their kids' post-secondary education completely by refusing to provide financial support if the kid doesn't do what they want, and that's not right when the "kids" are legal adults. Unfortunately, students graduate with so much debt now that they sometimes need financial help even after graduation, and those who don't go to university often can't earn enough money to live. It's not right that parents need to continue supporting their adult offspring, but given how necessary it is, I do think that parents are morally obligated to contribute what student financial aid expects them to contribute. If they want to contribute more than that, or later than that, it's the right thing to do if the money is needed--I just wish it wasn't necessary. And this is way off-topic now .
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 7, 2010 2:20:34 GMT -5
Getting back to Serene and her problems, on the one hand I instantly feel bad for her situation but on the other I don't understand why she and her husband make it so much worse than it is by adopting eight children in addition to their five when they don't even have running water (for years!!! with no fix in sight) and now have eleven children that she is trying to homeschool who need 'one on one attention' to learn. I mean, at a certain point you have to get a grip and know what your limits are, fix what needs fixing, then you can give your excess away. She has 'spells' now, is having anxiety attacks, is trying to adopt two more kids from another family and racking up court costs to fight for them, etc. And the readers of that site you linked which tells this sad tale are being asked to dig in and give financially to help Serene do all of this. That's ridiculous. If a tornado came through and they found themselves suddenly in dire need that would be one thing but they are showing themselves to be terrible stewards of what they do have and completely unable to make rational decisions about what they do with their lives and that of their children. No way should other people be asked to pony up cash to support their bad choices. Along with that is the fact that I am not hearing how her own family is contributing to the financial hole that is Serene's current life either -- it would be good to know what exactly those nearest and dearest are doing to help.
I don't know, it is all so 'we are the christian leaders of whatever ministry so you lowly people who we surely do appreciate should support us' to me, like the televangelists plea for money while living it up (although riches aren't the issue here, it's the same principle when the money is being used to support people who are not acting with any rational stewardship of the resources and gifts they have naturally been given but instead just tack on burden upon burden that they cannot deal with). And then they wait for the affirmations and applause at how good they are for sacrificing and fighting the good fight and letting God provide, etc. But other people sacrifice to provide for them.
Argh! It's late, I should be making more sense but I'm tired. I hope the drift has been gotten, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Aug 7, 2010 7:25:33 GMT -5
From about the time I was 8, we stopped having running water in our trailer, and my uncle and grandmother just *didn't care*.
Sounds similar to what I'm reading here.
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 7, 2010 7:35:40 GMT -5
From about the time I was 8, we stopped having running water in our trailer, and my uncle and grandmother just *didn't care*. Sounds similar to what I'm reading here. Wow... I'm sorry you had to live that way. That's awful.
|
|
|
Post by grandmalou on Aug 7, 2010 7:47:30 GMT -5
If the average Joe family tried to adopt children, CPS would be all over them like flies on poop! Ordinarily, from all I've ever heard, they have really stringent requirements...X amount of money in the bank, bedroom for each individual child, a mansion type house, with everything working, exemplary character references for both prospective parents, etc. Used to be...it was almost impossible to adopt. So...what the he--is happening down there on the Campbell Compound??? Are they feeding Kool-aid to the local gov. officials???
|
|
|
Post by freefromtyranny on Aug 7, 2010 8:42:02 GMT -5
I was a foster parent for 10 years and was homestudied twice for adoptions and it's not a stringent rigid process that is impossible for most people. That said, I'm willing to bet that Serene's family is not adopting from Liberia and neither are they TRUE adoptions. I'm willing to bet that Serene took kids from other families that were disruptions. There is no shortage of families that are looking for new families for their adopted kids.
There is NO agency out there that would homestudy a family for 8 kids at one time. Nevermind the fees I mentioned before that are almost impossible to raise all at once anyway. That would also explain the ease at which the children disappear and the "legal battle" Serene was in to keep kids that were not hers.
ETA: I'm speaking strictly from my experience with my domestic adoptions through foster care. International adoptions are whole other ball of wax and from what I've seen friends go through can get pretty hairy....although mostly on the paperwork/money side not the home study part.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Aug 7, 2010 9:25:48 GMT -5
I imagine the adoptions were partially lies--either no caseworker was involved or they were shown Nancy's home. As many of you know, I am a mom by adoption [from Ukraine]. I wouldn't trade my kids for anything, but it has not been easy. My son's issues needed years and years of therapy. Happily, I had a J.O.B. with benefits. I would have gone under paying for it all--the part I paid for alone took nearly all I had in the world.
Now, as to Serene and getting help.......... well, It's harder for a rich man to get into heaven........ I doubt she would accept help from anyone--that would be dishonoring to her Man. Plus, she spends a lot of time doing the AR retreats, etc. Could the kids be pulled from the home? If they've officially disrupted an official adoption I'd say nothing else is going to happen--every social worker in the county will have been there. But they probably just took the kids back to Liberia and dumped them in their old village. [Just my guess] I can't imagine any kid from Africa reacting well to arriving in the promised land and getting..........life in the worst village of the old country with 24/7 Sermon on the Mount added just for "fun". I'd act out, too!
The debt-free and family business mania keeps many people in this movement in needless poverty. Just like Amway the QF gurus sell people a line of crap that a "J-O-B is a four-letter word" and you need to build a business for your family so they can all work in it together. But it Dad has the smarts of a squirrel and the best he can do is to cut and sell firewood.........you are not going to be moving out a tent very fast. The Colfax family--who's son was the infamous first goat raising homeschooler who went to Harvard--detailed just how awful their life was building their home and homestead in their second book. But, as others have pointed out, you can live decently without running water, etc. It's just 24/7/365 hard work.
I've seen Nancy Campbell's "Family Meal Table" and she creeps me out big time. All those perfect people...........I don't recall any black faces in that dvd--but I barely made it thru one viewing so who knows. I imagine they are "earning" their way to heaven with this adoption scheme. Too bad they cannot just accept God's grace and send the 10K to help the whole village!
|
|
melly
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by melly on Aug 7, 2010 9:28:48 GMT -5
In Above Rubies issue #65, Serene wrote an article about their first adoptions. Her husband traveled to Liberia in Sept. 06 to bring back three children who were siblings. While there he "found a baby in the bush". She was weak and ill. He was able to arrange the paperwork to bring her home the next week. The baby's mother was a 12 year old who "pleaded with them to take her baby" and "apparently, the birth father was the spiritual leader of the (Muslim) tribe". They brought the baby home, restored her to health and she is still with them. One of the other girls from the sibling group is also with them. In a later issue, it is explained that two teens come to their home from Liberia. And the last two came from a disrupted placement as per the link given a few comments above. It sounds like they were never actually able to adopt the two from the disrupted placement.
The reason I mentioned in my last comment that I don't condemn them in any way is because I think they believed with all their hearts that they could "rescue" handfuls of children without any negative consequence. They were ignorant but at this point, after decades of positive thinking and an attitude of we can do ALL things through him who strengthens us, I doubt that the ignorance is willful. I still have hope that the general public will hear from them about the problems with the adoptions and the so-called agencies they were recommending to others which turned out to be scams, not legit agencies.
|
|
|
Post by hopewell on Aug 7, 2010 9:34:35 GMT -5
On the adoption--I'm guessing this was done with a bribe to some Liberian official. Cold hard cash but someone lost the paper trail. Just my guess..........
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Aug 7, 2010 9:49:02 GMT -5
This is partly a healthcare system problem, too - in many other countries, it is possible to place kids with unmanageable behavior problems into a professional care home and still be their parents - not disrupt the adoption, still visit and stay emotionally connected, but protect the people living at home.
In the United States that's not financially feasible for most families. (Though if you can hold on until the child is a legal adult, they become eligible for a lot of services through SSI - I'm not sure that applies to international adoptees, esp. if the family goes through a shady agency and never gets them citizenship.)
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on Aug 7, 2010 12:25:10 GMT -5
Three things:
(1) Someone should go inside of Serene's house/home and shoot a "Quiverfull" video and post it on YouTube under the title "The Face of Quiverfull - this is what it looks like" versus the hoity-hoity Vision Forum wannabe's who are currently there on YT. Same goes for the Duggar TLC Dog and Pony Show/Variety Hour - another unsustainable QF story. Yeah, we can all live like that with 20,000 kids as long as we have a TV show supporting us. Funny how Jim Bob couldn't finish their Homestead in Tontitown until the TLC show $$$ kicked in. Before that, using their own funds, they were building their dream home at about the speed of molasses flowing in January.
(2) This is what happens when people live in poverty and ignorance QF or non-QF. There are plenty of people living in Appallachia and elsewhere who have never heard the word, QF. They just know that they have nothing and they expect nothing. QF just takes it to a greater and more sickening level because they are living like that on purpose. Oh, how wonderful they are to be torturing their selves and their children. Let's all embrace self-flagellation and turn it into an art form. When Nancy Campbell decides to move out of her mansion and live like a beggar on the street, only then will I believe a word that comes out of her lying mouth.
(3) Nancy Campbell is a witch with a b in front of it. Anyone who lives like a queen while forcing her daughter to live like she is some sort of serf living in the Dark Ages is a witch with a b in front of it to the exponential extent. She is not a mother, she is a self-promoting leach and a liar that leads people down the wrong path. The only good thing that I have to cling to is knowing that Karma is a witch with a b in front of it and it will ring her doorbell when she expects it the least. She will deserve every single thing that comes to her when she answers. I despise her for not only what she has done to her daughter but what she has done to countless other women and children (families).
Thanks.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on Aug 7, 2010 13:12:39 GMT -5
Something I find interesting in the article linked here (regarding Serene's adoption woes) is that the two Liberian children's previous adopted parents (the ones who "gave" them to Serene to adopt after they found they couldn't handle the kids' issues) are treated as bad guys for fighting against Serene being able to adopt them, preferring to have them go into the foster care system.
I can't help but wonder if the family's inhuman living conditions had anything to do with the previous adoptive parents' decision to fight the Campbell's adoption of the children. I certainly know that if I were in the horrible position of not being able to handle my adopted children, I'd probably prefer them to go to a foster home, rather than live in third-world conditions that are probably worse than where they originally came from.
I plan on adopting some time in the far future and I’m scared to death of RAD and other attachment issues, so I have sympathy for some people who have disrupted adoptions. However, I have no sympathy or patience for people like the Campbells. I would think anyone with the least bit of common sense would know to refrain from adopting 8 children (unless it’s one big sibling group) over a relatively short period of time, who are highly likely to have psychological issues, if you don’t have an abundance of resources to be able to help them work through those issues. Resources that include time, attention, and, yes, money (therapy isn’t cheap, particularly with international adoption because there are no subsidies like in foster care adoptions) If you don’t even have the basic necessities of proper shelter, heat, and water, how the hell are you going to be able to address and overcome the problems that are common with older child adoptions?
|
|
melly
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by melly on Aug 7, 2010 13:37:15 GMT -5
I can't help but think that the patriarchal way of life is a big contributor to the situation with Serene. The oldest sister also had poverty-level living conditions for a while. For a short period of time her children slept outside in the dirt until her husband finished their one room cabin. (I think things have improved for them more recently). I remember Nancy writing that she was concerned for a minute that the grand kids had to sleep outside on the ground but then her daughter made it into a grand adventure. So I am just connecting the dots here and thinking that Nancy is a concerned mother but her hands seem tied - why?
Could it be that once the daughters are married, the parents never interfere with the decisions of their husbands? I have never heard Nancy say that but I have, for example, heard Michael Pearl say that about his daughters. His oldest daughter purportedly lives in similar conditions to Serene (although not on the parents' land) and Michael Pearl has said that he told his daughters before marriage that their husbands were going to be their new... um....masters?...no, he did not use that word but I can't think of the word he actually used. He was not going to interfere EVER. I can imagine a similar dynamic with the Campbell family. What I cannot understand is why the young husbands would not want to provide basic care for their growing families. Oh, there is so much we don't know...I do feel so sorry for Serene and her sisters, the brunt of the lifestyle falls on them, I think.
|
|
|
Post by airlie808 on Aug 7, 2010 15:36:55 GMT -5
I wrote them about a year ago to get off their subscription list. For such a cheery-looking magazine, I didn't find much inspiring about it after awhile, and it certainly didn't reflect the kind of partnership of mutual respect that my husband and I have.
And I also wondered about the whole adoption saga because it seemed so ill-considered. We have enough friends who have adopted children with physical/mental difficulties to know that you don't bring them into a family already stressed by poverty-level finances, poor housing, and other significant challenges. Above-board agencies won't place children into that situation. Yet somehow they got around that type of thing...
|
|
|
Post by km on Aug 7, 2010 15:45:14 GMT -5
Also, this may be a little tangential, but I don't understand the need to publish a glossy color magazine. Why not just publish online? Particularly if you don't have the money to publish the glossy color product on paper... There are virtually no overhead costs for online publishing, particularly online publishing for small niche audiences. The faithful may even be willing to pay for online subscriptions, so...
What's with the reluctance to go digital? And could it have anything to do with their more generalized paranoia about social services and child welfare workers? Paper magazines are far more private and insulated from the public. Critics aren't going to be particularly likely to donate funds in order to receive the magazine.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Aug 7, 2010 16:22:46 GMT -5
Also, this may be a little tangential, but I don't understand the need to publish a glossy color magazine. Why not just publish online? Particularly if you don't have the money to publish the glossy color product on paper... There are virtually no overhead costs for online publishing, particularly online publishing for small niche audiences. The faithful may even be willing to pay for online subscriptions, so... What's with the reluctance to go digital? And could it have anything to do with their more generalized paranoia about social services and child welfare workers? Paper magazines are far more private and insulated from the public. Critics aren't going to be particularly likely to donate funds in order to receive the magazine. (Emphasis mine) Precisely!
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Aug 7, 2010 17:32:29 GMT -5
I, too, am feeling rather distressed about the Campbell's silence wrt the Liberian children who are no longer with them. Since the Campbells enthusiastically promoted these adoptions and encouraged their readers to also adopt children from Liberia ~ it seems irresponsible that they would say nothing at all to readers and supporters.
I used to be a devoted reader of Wisdom's Gate publications: Home School Digest, An Encouraging Word, etc. I noticed that, although Skeet Savage has six children and used to print their pictures along with a brief bio in every issue, after a while ~ there were only five children listed ~ and never a word about what happened to the older daughter. I thought it was strange ~ and figured that there must have been a falling out of some sort ~ and I remember complaining to a friend that it seemed like a disservice to her readers that Skeet never mentioned anything about whatever problem they were having ~ everything was always focused on the positive stuff.
I told my friend, These movement leaders hold their families up as examples and encourage us to follow their ideas and teachings ~ but when it comes to the "dark side" ~ they do not have the integrity to tell the truth ~ to just be honest about their struggles. It leaves the impression for readers that everything is always peachy keen.
Around the same time, Phil Lancaster sent out a letter to all the subscribers of Patriarch magazine explaining that his daughter was in rebellion and had moved in with a boyfriend ~ and he would no longer be publishing until he could get his own house in order. That's the last I ever heard of him.
I am getting a bit of insight now regarding the almost complete silence when things go wrong ~ and that is because I, myself, have had restraining orders filed against me and one of my daughters ~ and it does have a way of shutting a person up in a hurry.
So now rather than attribute the Campbells' silence to their ideology ~ I'm more inclined to wonder if they are not involved in some sort of litigious situation which prevents them from being more forthcoming as to what exactly is going on.
Just a thought ...
|
|
phatchick
Junior Member
Medicated for Your Protection
Posts: 80
|
Post by phatchick on Aug 7, 2010 17:59:05 GMT -5
They came down a couple of days after the flood to find all their furniture upside down and falling over because the floor had grown into waves! It is hilarious. They have now had to move upstairs to live." So glad to know that she finds her daughter's misery hilarious. Oh My God. Words fail me.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Aug 7, 2010 18:46:00 GMT -5
So now rather than attribute the Campbells' silence to their ideology ~ I'm more inclined to wonder if they are not involved in some sort of litigious situation which prevents them from being more forthcoming as to what exactly is going on. Just a thought ... Or, it could be the the children who disappear from these publications are asking for some privacy from their parents. I would. I'm appalled, though, at the living conditions described. And the whole "it's hilarious" thing--in what universe? Normal people, when they see their new wooden floor destroyed by a flood, sit down and cry. Then they sigh and get to work on it. Christianity does not require that we pretend that misfortune and tragedy do not exist. It does require that we bear one another's burdens and mourn with each other, and that we hope.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Aug 7, 2010 20:13:06 GMT -5
I seem to be reacting strongly to Serene's situation which startled me. But this is the problem I'm having with it. I get that she was raised in a family that shaped who she is now and how she reacts to life in general and adversity in particular. I get that she is married to someone who may not be pulling his weight in the marriage/parent/life pact they have going there. I get that she believes in welcoming her own babies into her home no matter how many and I don't condemn her for it or for needing assistance once the proverbial shit hits the fan on that road she's on. What is bothering me is that she is living in squalid conditions on her family compound for long periods of time and subjecting her babies to those conditions while ostensibly whistling a happy tune. And if she was isolated and without other resources like many here have been this would be in the 'I get it' column instead of the 'What gets me' column BUT What gets me is that her parents are right there and we don't have any indication that they are either offering or giving assistance or being permitted by Serene and Sam to do so. It's a big black unknown. What gets me is that her husband is making trips to Liberia to minister (I assume) to others while his own family needs him at home (again I assume) and while there decides to bring back what, six??? Liberian children to add to the overburdened family living in squalor. What gets me is taking in two more Liberian children on top of the now eleven she has, to make a grand total of thirteen children living in conditions that would get a puppy mill raided and shut down. What gets me is that far from being a cautionary tale this whole horrible fiasco is being promoted as 'doing the Lord's work' and an example to us all of righteousness and proper attitude, etc. But the adopted kids is what gets me the most. Your own kids are kind of part of the road you are destined to walk together for better or worse and it's luck of the draw there. But to bring unrelated children into that mess and subject them not just to the extreme religious misery they promote but also to lives of unnecessary squalor and pain -- that is just beyond to me. That is cruelty dressed up in holy garments. That's a tell-all memoir just waiting to be written. So I have sympathy to a point, and I have a strong feeling Serene's husband is the one who dragged the children back from Liberia from what I read on the site link and trying to connect the dots there, but it seems to me the Campbell family has a lot to answer for in their life choices and how they choose to spread their special kind of misery around the globe the way they do. So my sympathy will only get them so far. Someone needs to go in there and read them the riot act and take the children someplace safe and warm until they get their housing situated properly. It is indeed possible to live fine without running water and electricity if you are set up properly for it in housing meant to be lived that way. But the conditions described do not reflect that and living in such a way that you cannot breathe in your own home and have to run in the snow in order to keep from freezing to death is not a valid life choice to make for children. I have nothing against asceticism. But ascetics make their choices for themselves. They don't have families they are caring for and children they are forcing to live that life as well. And I have no problem with living a survivalist's life, off the grid, back to the land etc. But know what the hell you're doing and have your shit together about it before you bring children into it. Somehow properly caring for the members of their own households is a part of scripture that these men seem to have missed in their much studying. Patriarchalism nurtures this kind of blind narcissism in men. Most men need a little prodding to make a house a home and not some hole in the wall because many men don't pay attention to the niceties. That is just the way it usually is. Women tend to care about stuff that men don't even notice. If it wasn't for their wives most men would be living in a steaming crater with excellent television reception. In regular marriages women influence the home front for the better of everyone. But when they are silenced and their opinions count for nothing then you get this kind of crap -- a man who doesn't really notice or care whether they have water or can breathe in their own home, say, and a woman who has been told she must accept his non-caring without complaint or comment. That's not normal!! It's all skewed and unbalanced. And it most certainly is not Christianity. / end rant
|
|