Hi Susan,

The issue is pretty much moot because Marolyn did stay.  One can't wind the clock back.  I don't know anything about California divorce laws, but I believe what you say about it. Obviously, Rawat had a huge influence over Marolyn (unlike any other premie) and probably scared her a lot, especially if he ever threatened to keep her kids away from her if she left.  She probably believed that it was true if he ever said that to her.

That kind of fear is understandable, and I'm sure Rawat would have found plenty of premies to lie on his behalf about any alleged abuses, including his alcohol consumption,  that may have taken place in that home.  That would have made a liar out of Marolyn.  And in order to have been able to stand up to that, she would have had to completely remove herself from the belief-system about Rawat himself.  That's quite a rough and unique situation, especially when there is a lot of money involved, not to mention all that power (however false the power is in reality).  I can imagine that a divorce or separation like that could have dragged on for years, too.

Like I said, I'm very biased about the issue of abuse in a home where kids live.  For any parent to stick it out by saying it's for the kids, especially until they are grown is something I consider an excuse and is really the wrong way (in this day and age) to consider it, IMO.  In everyday situations of abuse in a home, it's not in the best interests of a child for a parent to stay.  I'm not saying it's easy to leave, just that it's not what's best for children in the long haul. Staying also teaches girls to be submissive and boys to be aggressive.  Not a good thing.

Hey, maybe it wasn't all that bad for Marolyn or the kids.  I certainly don't have anything to base my opinions on besides what I've heard.   

Cynthia