The release of the
Aung Family Statement certainly aligns with some of my suspicions on the family dynamics (which I'd hesitated to speak of here, since we're supposed to be victim-friendly, and both AA's family and SAH's mother are both considered victims).
From the Aungs' Statement...
View attachment 510281
So here we have two young adults with lots of things that they say they
intend to do in the future, though for whatever reason, they have not yet. AA could have joined the National Guard at 17 with parental permission, or at 18 on his own. Why had he not yet? NC had not yet taken the LSAT or been accepted to a law school, which many "responsible, resourceful, smart" students would have done prior to graduation. (LSATs are generally taken 9-12mo prior to starting law school.) Why had she not yet?
"they acted on Seraya" - to me, this is admission that AA's family knew there was a plan to take SAH.
View attachment 510288
"his 'trip' to Montana" - using quotations around "trip" again only seems to verify that the fishing trip story was just that: a story
"rashes... unusual behavior" - diaper rashes are extremely common, and some children's skin is more sensitive than others; a rash in itself is not any indication of abuse. Saying "go away" at diaper changes isn't necessarily unusual either; some kids don't like having their diaper changed, and if she did have diaper rashes, she may have come to associate that with discomfort.
"
she kept their home like a pigsty... complain of having to pick up after dirty diapers" - and yet AA was living in this home as well, so was it not his responsibility to provide his daughter with a clean living space? Why should the task of housekeeping fall solely on the mother?
View attachment 510290
"family court system in the United States is a disaster" - because it doesn't favor YOU? Most States will generally try to keep both parents involved in their children's lives, if at all possible.
Samara's half-brother - some
extremely heavy allegations here.
View attachment 510293
domestic violence in their family - and yet the text states that Samara refused to stay with him because of that, which to me, shows the
right choice. (After all, we can't help who our family is, but we can certainly set healthy boundaries with them, such as
I'm not going to stay with him. Also, medication and therapy? GOOD things.
View attachment 510295
View attachment 510296
We do not vaccinate - So they're saying that, even though AA's family paid a PI to dig up all this ugly dirt on SAH's mom and her family about drugs and SA, they only got 50/50 custody because they don't vaccinate.
I'm calling BS on that. IIRC, Idaho had one of the
lowest vaccination rates during COVID. As of 2023, it had the
highest rate of vaccine exceptions in the USA. This is NOT the full story.
totalitarian government - Just because a government does not give you exactly what you want does not mean they are totalitarian. Using that term in this case is absurd. AA's issue here is with the Idaho state court system, not the "United States government" or any other centralized governing body that's trying to control them by force. (And with the earlier indication that this was a "private custody agreement," it sounds like the problem is really that they don't want to stick with what they themselves previously agreed upon.)
Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. (britannica.com)
View attachment 510297
"Seraya... is in very capable hands" - Again, this feels like an admission that they know exactly what's going on. Which also makes me suspicious of the "going to Mexico" thing. If they have resources and were in on the planning stages, who knows what other mis-directions they'd planned.
View attachment 510299
"asking Aaron for weed" - This tells me that AA was the one who regularly
provided her with weed. In this conversation, he doesn't say no, or tell her he doesn't know where to get it. He only tells her he's finishing other stuff first or can't make it there that night. If they really think that this somehow exonerates their son, they're completely wrong.
Now, TBH, from her first interview, SAH's mother has struck me as someone who is not the most emotionally mature or responsible. (Calling SAH her "
very best friend;" talking about all of the times that SAH disrupts her sleep, doesn't want to eat dinner,
etc.) The
medical concerns, too, were presented in a way that made me question whether they were being exaggerated. Everyone responds differently in a crisis, but to me, her body language in the
earliest interviews felt "off" -- lacking visible indicators of sorrow or concern. Possibly a sign that she didn't really understand the seriousness of the situation, or possibly just didn't think it that big a deal, since apparently, AA had withheld SAH from her before.
HOWEVER... Parental custody is a legal right, and unless it is proven that she is somehow unfit to care for her child, that's absolutely beside the point here. When you have a child with someone, you don't get to be the sole decision-maker in that child's life.
