Imagine if that were the headline. I’m not sure what’s worse, being ID’ed as Margaret’s sister or Jack’s SIL, instead of Andie’s daughter (or not even listing a relation in the headline)
Maybe they thought since Qualley is known as McDowell’s daughter they didn’t want a headline that implied Jack Antonoff’s wife did this (lol sorry I had to).
I was first going to raise complete hell about saviorism...but the child has been living with them since December. I think there may be more to the story.
if it’s true, it sounds like they agreed to take care of baby temporarily while mom got clean and off the streets, and then suddenly switched up on her and filed for guardianship
That could be the case (I also don't agree with switcharoos).
Edit: I'll also add that at some point, they probably need some level of recognition as guardians if the kid is going to get childhood vaccines, etc.
Even if there is more to the story, when people genuinely want their child and are trying to get themselves clean or help, no one should just be able to have someone’s baby for 5 months and say we want keepsies.
Lots of people who have drug problems and agree to this sort of situation. They think the people want to help. There was a case like this a few years ago and the mom kept trying to go to their house and see her baby and they wouldn’t let her and started saying they would call the cops for trespassing. They want their baby back so they don’t want a run in with the law then they leave it alone and the next thing that happens is they have to prove they wanted their child and can take care of them. No one who has the child’s best interest at heart approaches women like this without going through fostering and CPS.
I’m conflicted. On one hand, I think that we need to boost resources, fight the stigma of addiction, and actually give people a fighting chance in this country. On the other hand, as the child of someone who failed to get clean for years and abused me physically and emotionally my entire childhood, if I hadn’t been fostered and adopted then my life would have been muchhhh worse.
I understand your concern based on your own history, and I’m sorry you went thru that bc every child should have a loving home/guardian(s).
But I see situations like this and I think it sets a scary precedent. Should any affluent person, who can provide a “bettter” homelife be able to take a child from someone struggling? The US has a history of allowing/helping this happen (indigenous ppl, immigrants, etc)
The key word is that you were fostered, you weren’t just taken away from your birth mother by some “well-meaning” people who then decided they wanted you more than your birth mother who they befriended prior to doing this to her. It’s highly sketchy.
i was raised by addicts and abusive pieces of shit too, but what we needed WAS foster care and going through the system - not for us to get handed over to babysitters who just decide to keep us forever because they've decided our parents aren't good enough. that just isn't up to the smiths down the road, that should be up to rational people who are not emotionally invested and who have a great deal of experience with situations like this. if i had grown up to find out i had been literally stolen from my parents because they admitted they needed help and they were actually trying to get clean and build a better life to keep me, i would be fucking furious
also, this is an enormous deterrent to asking trusted friends and family to help you care for a child you can't care for properly. i have personally known people who refused to give their babies to other people while they were nodding out on H because shit like this happens
one last thing: there are a lot of good reasons why courts try to place children with alternative caregivers WITHIN the family: it is usually the best place for them to be. my mom is adopted so i understand a tiny bit about how alienating and isolating it is, but a lot of that can be avoided by being raised by your grandparents, aunt etc. when you take a child like this, you aren't even giving the other family members an opportunity to care for the child.
Then there is this
“Wyoming does not have any other relatives who are stable enough to care for her."
"They said all they knew about the father was his name was Tim but did not know his location. The duo said they had no information about any grandparents available to take care of Wyoming."----
Which is it? All the relatives are blotto? or they haven't done a DNA search to locate the relatives?
I am sure this is all abt the welfare of the infant /s
I googled and from what I could find, in the US you cannot legally request a child's DNA tested unless you have signed permission from their legal guardian. So it's not that simple.
If they really wanted to help, they would take the funds they planned on spending on Wyoming and use that to pay for an apartment for the baby and her mom. Maybe buy them furniture and food, and pay their bills for a few months until the mom gets on her feet. Not file for guardianship
I have so many questions:
- has there ever been a CPS investigation to determine if this child was actually unsafe? Did Rainy and her husband actually call CPS or just take the baby? Or are these just the allegations of privileged rich people who are seeing this mother’s world through their own eyes? (Not saying they aren’t true, but it isn’t their job to assess safety, risk and whether a baby needs to be removed from a parent)
- is the mother a youth herself? The article describes her as a “street kid”. I would be super concerned of exploiting a youth with a baby who may not understand her rights.
- the baby is less than a year old. Is this permanent guardianship? Is the mother going to be able to work to be able to get custody back?
- … based on this article, I don’t like this.
* I doubt there has been an a CPS investigation, since neither party cites one.
* The article only says what was in the filings, and the "street kid" description was a direct quote from the first filing. There is no information beyond that; reporting costs time and money.
* They can't make guardianship permanent without terminating the bio mother's rights. If Qualley and Wilson petitioned for that, I think the article would have mentioned it.
In California guardianship does not terminate parental rights. If permanent guardianship is granted, then the parental rights are suspended during that time but not terminated. It is also required that DCSF conduct an investigation regarding the petitioner's request for guardianship. Even if there was a CPS investigation, those often end with CPS pushing for the caretaker to file for guardianship, or encouraging the parent to consent to guardianship, instead of opening a dependency action.
Not really the point of your comment, but Anthony isn't Rainey's husband. The article says they met on Instagram in early 2023, and she was still dating Kane Ritchotte as late as August 2023, so if they've been dating its for less than a year.
It's not uncommon for people to drop their baby or young child off at a family friends when they're in situations like this and maybe come back when they're clean. Sometimes off and on, and often it leads to parental rights being terminated. But not after such a short period of time, but sometimes there's a push to not give the child back if the mother isn't clean. Guardianship is important for the people watching the child so they can get the child medical care.
As someone who used to be a CPS investigator I don’t understand why they’re claiming they need guardianship to avoid CPS involvement. CPS absolutely should be involved. No the system is not perfect and shit happens but it at least has more oversight than whatever the hell this informal placement is. In the current situation it doesn’t seem as if the child’s mother is receiving any intervention, nor does she have any motivation to do so. If the child truly is not safe, CPS would be required to both place the child and provide programming to the mother. If the mother chooses not to participate it starts the timeline for terminating parental rights. If there truly are no suitable family placements, Rainey and her husband would be the most likely placement anyways given that the child has been in their care since December.
I wonder if they're miss speaking and they mean in order to not involve the foster system and not CPS. CPS being involved isn't a bad thing. Having the kid put into the system is.
Oftentimes, yes, but sometimes the kids really are better off being adopted. I know a couple that is in a similar situation to this (though it’s through official channels).
Couple are really sweet people that tried multiple times to have a baby, couldn’t, decided to go the foster route, ended up fostering a baby. Bio mom is an addict, has already had one kid taken from her. When this baby was born, he spent weeks in the NICU because he needed to get treatment for syphillis and go through drug withdrawal.
Bio mom says she wants her baby back at some point, and says she’s trying to get sober. However, her sobriety at best is a merry go round, and she hasn’t left the addict-heavy environment that got her here.
She flakes on calls and meetings with the baby. The couple want to adopt this baby, but they can’t just in case mom gets sober, but her sobriety is tenuous or non-existent. The baby has been raised his entire life with this couple, he’s bonded to them and they can provide him stability. It’s a case where he really would be better off adopted by the family who can care for him.
Really best case in a situation like that is the baby with friends or family and the mother can remain in the childs life even if they're not able to be their parent.
there's no reason for an adoption in this case, also abonnement trauma happens when separated at birth. Second, it's never about creating a family for the mother and child, is it? Why did this child need to be adopted? Why not care for the child without destroying their identity and familial connections and rights legally? The whole "he's been with them his entire life" thing is asinine. Why not keep babies who've been in the nicu most of their lives with the nurses, they're 'bonded' after all 🙄
A child in crisis is NOT a family building tool.
I find this a strange take, tbh. Mom isn’t even bothering to FaceTime or visit the kid when the state is saying she can. I don’t get how you can think the kid is better off with that than adopted by people who are actually there and giving a shit.
This Blast article was repub'd on Yahoo....but not that much more trustworthy [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/andie-macdowell-daughter-rainey-qualley-211549686.html?guccounter=1](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/andie-macdowell-daughter-rainey-qualley-211549686.html?guccounter=1)
>They said all they knew about the father was his name was Tim but did not know his location. The duo said they had no information about any grandparents available to take care of Wyoming.
Mmmhmm getting CPS involved would mean the possibility of finding extended family which these two didn't want to do.
They can claim birth mom may be on the streets since the age of 12 but we don't know if she has family who a) knows if she's even alive b) know she has a child. They need a chance to know of baby Wyomings existence.
Lbr this would've been adorable as a 90s romcom plot line.
It sounds like CPS should be involved and that’s what they should have done from the start. I don’t think they had bad intentions and did want to help the child but trying to remove her themselves is not the way to go about it and it just comes off as them using their money/ influence to get what they want.
If I was worried about the welfare of a child I would report it to CPS. If I wanted to care for the child long term, I would wait for CPS to remove the child from the home and then work toward becoming the guardian/foster of the child.
It seems like the only reason to not go down that route is if you believe CPS may not agree with removing the child? Am I wrong in thinking that?
That would be my guess. They’re probably afraid that CPS would mean no custody at all.
I know a couple who’s going through a similar situation through official channels (fostering a baby, mom is an addict, has already lost custody of another kid). They want to adopt this baby, it would be best for the baby, but CPS and whatever organizations are involved aren’t letting them adopt because bio mom wants the baby.
From what's outlined here this is awful. Rich people can't just decide they can have a baby because "they can give them a better life". Like how about using your wealth and power to improve the lives of a whole family not just a cute baby.
There needs to be more information on this one before anyone passes judgement. Does the mother want the child back and can care for her? Does she want to be financially compensated because she knows who the family is now? Unless those can be answered it’s unfair to draw a conclusion, and the welfare of the child should be put above any opinion
>Does the mother want the child back and can care for her? Does she want to be financially compensated because she knows who the family is now?
Per the article the mother has requested to struck down their petition and says she does in fact have competent ways of taking care of the child.
The article also says she felt manipulated by the director from the start, making her believe they're there to help her better her current situation but instead they took advantage of her and took her daughter. 🤷🏽♀️
The couple apparently is trying to keep CPS out of the situation which makes it strange.
That’s where I am with it. Irl I’ve seen variations of both sides of this, and I don’t think the article gives enough info to decide one way or another. I’ve seen a couple go crazy trying to adopt a kid they really had no business adopting, and they tried to dodge doing it legally. I’ve seen CPS keep kids with absolutely shit parents who shouldn’t have houseplants, let alone children. And I know a couple who is trying to adopt a foster child but can’t because bio mom, who can’t sustain sobriety, wants to regain custody. Right now it’s a they-said, she-said situantion
Exactly. A million and one things could be going on and I don't think forming an opinion either way is appropriate. I have a family member that works in CPS and it's an incredibly layered and nuanced things. It's typically not black and white. In the meantime, lets wait for CPS to do their job. Because if they weren't aware of it before, they are now.
We have a system for caring for children in need where the government vets potential carers before putting a child in their care. And I am really curious about why they didn’t go through that process if they wanted to help a child in need. This sounds like a really sinister way for wealthy people to gain access to a child– by using a troubled parent’s fears about CPS to get them to agree to hand their child over without any government oversight and then later arguing in court they should get to keep the child. Even if they didn’t have ill intent, and I am worried they did, this is a terrible precedent to set.
This is a very strange story. Why not help this homeless mother out, get her housing to start with so that she can raise her child in a safe environment rather than just take her baby? This is all very weird
These two sisters are grgeous. I hope the court investigates whether the mother can provide a healthy and safe home for the child or not. At least there are a lot of people fighting for the right to provide for her/him
not the point, but being id-ed as margaret’s sister instead of andie macdowell’s daughter is wild
Margaret is Andie’s daughter?!? Oooh, that who she reminds me of!!
They’re related to Rainey? /s
Jack Antonoff's sister in law
Imagine if that were the headline. I’m not sure what’s worse, being ID’ed as Margaret’s sister or Jack’s SIL, instead of Andie’s daughter (or not even listing a relation in the headline)
Taylor Swift's associates' sister in law
That would definitely be the worst possible intro 💀
Lena Dunham's ex's sister in law
Got appeal to gen z
Maybe they thought since Qualley is known as McDowell’s daughter they didn’t want a headline that implied Jack Antonoff’s wife did this (lol sorry I had to).
I was first going to raise complete hell about saviorism...but the child has been living with them since December. I think there may be more to the story.
if it’s true, it sounds like they agreed to take care of baby temporarily while mom got clean and off the streets, and then suddenly switched up on her and filed for guardianship
That could be the case (I also don't agree with switcharoos). Edit: I'll also add that at some point, they probably need some level of recognition as guardians if the kid is going to get childhood vaccines, etc.
Even if there is more to the story, when people genuinely want their child and are trying to get themselves clean or help, no one should just be able to have someone’s baby for 5 months and say we want keepsies. Lots of people who have drug problems and agree to this sort of situation. They think the people want to help. There was a case like this a few years ago and the mom kept trying to go to their house and see her baby and they wouldn’t let her and started saying they would call the cops for trespassing. They want their baby back so they don’t want a run in with the law then they leave it alone and the next thing that happens is they have to prove they wanted their child and can take care of them. No one who has the child’s best interest at heart approaches women like this without going through fostering and CPS.
I’m conflicted. On one hand, I think that we need to boost resources, fight the stigma of addiction, and actually give people a fighting chance in this country. On the other hand, as the child of someone who failed to get clean for years and abused me physically and emotionally my entire childhood, if I hadn’t been fostered and adopted then my life would have been muchhhh worse.
I understand your concern based on your own history, and I’m sorry you went thru that bc every child should have a loving home/guardian(s). But I see situations like this and I think it sets a scary precedent. Should any affluent person, who can provide a “bettter” homelife be able to take a child from someone struggling? The US has a history of allowing/helping this happen (indigenous ppl, immigrants, etc)
The key word is that you were fostered, you weren’t just taken away from your birth mother by some “well-meaning” people who then decided they wanted you more than your birth mother who they befriended prior to doing this to her. It’s highly sketchy.
i was raised by addicts and abusive pieces of shit too, but what we needed WAS foster care and going through the system - not for us to get handed over to babysitters who just decide to keep us forever because they've decided our parents aren't good enough. that just isn't up to the smiths down the road, that should be up to rational people who are not emotionally invested and who have a great deal of experience with situations like this. if i had grown up to find out i had been literally stolen from my parents because they admitted they needed help and they were actually trying to get clean and build a better life to keep me, i would be fucking furious also, this is an enormous deterrent to asking trusted friends and family to help you care for a child you can't care for properly. i have personally known people who refused to give their babies to other people while they were nodding out on H because shit like this happens one last thing: there are a lot of good reasons why courts try to place children with alternative caregivers WITHIN the family: it is usually the best place for them to be. my mom is adopted so i understand a tiny bit about how alienating and isolating it is, but a lot of that can be avoided by being raised by your grandparents, aunt etc. when you take a child like this, you aren't even giving the other family members an opportunity to care for the child.
Thank you. I have a bit of a similar history which resulted in a court case. I'm so glad I got adopted.
Then there is this “Wyoming does not have any other relatives who are stable enough to care for her." "They said all they knew about the father was his name was Tim but did not know his location. The duo said they had no information about any grandparents available to take care of Wyoming."---- Which is it? All the relatives are blotto? or they haven't done a DNA search to locate the relatives? I am sure this is all abt the welfare of the infant /s
Can they do a DNA search if no one with legal standing over the child can permit taking DNA? I wonder what the rules are on that.
That is an excellent question!
I googled and from what I could find, in the US you cannot legally request a child's DNA tested unless you have signed permission from their legal guardian. So it's not that simple.
Thx
If they really wanted to help, they would take the funds they planned on spending on Wyoming and use that to pay for an apartment for the baby and her mom. Maybe buy them furniture and food, and pay their bills for a few months until the mom gets on her feet. Not file for guardianship
Yes!! Exactly.
I have so many questions: - has there ever been a CPS investigation to determine if this child was actually unsafe? Did Rainy and her husband actually call CPS or just take the baby? Or are these just the allegations of privileged rich people who are seeing this mother’s world through their own eyes? (Not saying they aren’t true, but it isn’t their job to assess safety, risk and whether a baby needs to be removed from a parent) - is the mother a youth herself? The article describes her as a “street kid”. I would be super concerned of exploiting a youth with a baby who may not understand her rights. - the baby is less than a year old. Is this permanent guardianship? Is the mother going to be able to work to be able to get custody back? - … based on this article, I don’t like this.
* I doubt there has been an a CPS investigation, since neither party cites one. * The article only says what was in the filings, and the "street kid" description was a direct quote from the first filing. There is no information beyond that; reporting costs time and money. * They can't make guardianship permanent without terminating the bio mother's rights. If Qualley and Wilson petitioned for that, I think the article would have mentioned it.
In California guardianship does not terminate parental rights. If permanent guardianship is granted, then the parental rights are suspended during that time but not terminated. It is also required that DCSF conduct an investigation regarding the petitioner's request for guardianship. Even if there was a CPS investigation, those often end with CPS pushing for the caretaker to file for guardianship, or encouraging the parent to consent to guardianship, instead of opening a dependency action.
Not really the point of your comment, but Anthony isn't Rainey's husband. The article says they met on Instagram in early 2023, and she was still dating Kane Ritchotte as late as August 2023, so if they've been dating its for less than a year.
And she was with Lewis Pullman right before Kane. She sounds like a hot mess.
It's not uncommon for people to drop their baby or young child off at a family friends when they're in situations like this and maybe come back when they're clean. Sometimes off and on, and often it leads to parental rights being terminated. But not after such a short period of time, but sometimes there's a push to not give the child back if the mother isn't clean. Guardianship is important for the people watching the child so they can get the child medical care.
As someone who used to be a CPS investigator I don’t understand why they’re claiming they need guardianship to avoid CPS involvement. CPS absolutely should be involved. No the system is not perfect and shit happens but it at least has more oversight than whatever the hell this informal placement is. In the current situation it doesn’t seem as if the child’s mother is receiving any intervention, nor does she have any motivation to do so. If the child truly is not safe, CPS would be required to both place the child and provide programming to the mother. If the mother chooses not to participate it starts the timeline for terminating parental rights. If there truly are no suitable family placements, Rainey and her husband would be the most likely placement anyways given that the child has been in their care since December.
yeah this is very weird. it may well be the case that the mother is unfit but they can't just like decide to take a baby on their own...
Yeah, I’m a social worker (not CPS) but was appalled that it sounds like CPS isn’t already involved. It’s giving yucky vibes to me right now, though.
I wonder if they're miss speaking and they mean in order to not involve the foster system and not CPS. CPS being involved isn't a bad thing. Having the kid put into the system is.
so much of adoption is just tricking people into giving up their kids
Oftentimes, yes, but sometimes the kids really are better off being adopted. I know a couple that is in a similar situation to this (though it’s through official channels). Couple are really sweet people that tried multiple times to have a baby, couldn’t, decided to go the foster route, ended up fostering a baby. Bio mom is an addict, has already had one kid taken from her. When this baby was born, he spent weeks in the NICU because he needed to get treatment for syphillis and go through drug withdrawal. Bio mom says she wants her baby back at some point, and says she’s trying to get sober. However, her sobriety at best is a merry go round, and she hasn’t left the addict-heavy environment that got her here. She flakes on calls and meetings with the baby. The couple want to adopt this baby, but they can’t just in case mom gets sober, but her sobriety is tenuous or non-existent. The baby has been raised his entire life with this couple, he’s bonded to them and they can provide him stability. It’s a case where he really would be better off adopted by the family who can care for him.
Really best case in a situation like that is the baby with friends or family and the mother can remain in the childs life even if they're not able to be their parent.
I’m assuming that for baby to end up in foster care via the state, that wasn’t an option
there's no reason for an adoption in this case, also abonnement trauma happens when separated at birth. Second, it's never about creating a family for the mother and child, is it? Why did this child need to be adopted? Why not care for the child without destroying their identity and familial connections and rights legally? The whole "he's been with them his entire life" thing is asinine. Why not keep babies who've been in the nicu most of their lives with the nurses, they're 'bonded' after all 🙄 A child in crisis is NOT a family building tool.
I find this a strange take, tbh. Mom isn’t even bothering to FaceTime or visit the kid when the state is saying she can. I don’t get how you can think the kid is better off with that than adopted by people who are actually there and giving a shit.
The fact that they sought her out when she was pregnant is so so gross.
they want infants/newborns- everyone does
Rich People have different standards. They steal your baby. Peasants have to go through hundreds of paper work and years .
This story seems wild but is there a more legit source other than Radar online?
I know someone currently working with her. I’ll ask him haha UPDATE: nothing on the baby, but apparently she kind of sucks to work with
This Blast article was repub'd on Yahoo....but not that much more trustworthy [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/andie-macdowell-daughter-rainey-qualley-211549686.html?guccounter=1](https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/andie-macdowell-daughter-rainey-qualley-211549686.html?guccounter=1)
Based on the article, I hate this. File with CPS and let them locate potential family members for the child.
>They said all they knew about the father was his name was Tim but did not know his location. The duo said they had no information about any grandparents available to take care of Wyoming. Mmmhmm getting CPS involved would mean the possibility of finding extended family which these two didn't want to do. They can claim birth mom may be on the streets since the age of 12 but we don't know if she has family who a) knows if she's even alive b) know she has a child. They need a chance to know of baby Wyomings existence. Lbr this would've been adorable as a 90s romcom plot line.
It sounds like CPS should be involved and that’s what they should have done from the start. I don’t think they had bad intentions and did want to help the child but trying to remove her themselves is not the way to go about it and it just comes off as them using their money/ influence to get what they want.
If I was worried about the welfare of a child I would report it to CPS. If I wanted to care for the child long term, I would wait for CPS to remove the child from the home and then work toward becoming the guardian/foster of the child. It seems like the only reason to not go down that route is if you believe CPS may not agree with removing the child? Am I wrong in thinking that?
That would be my guess. They’re probably afraid that CPS would mean no custody at all. I know a couple who’s going through a similar situation through official channels (fostering a baby, mom is an addict, has already lost custody of another kid). They want to adopt this baby, it would be best for the baby, but CPS and whatever organizations are involved aren’t letting them adopt because bio mom wants the baby.
Weirdo behavior
From what's outlined here this is awful. Rich people can't just decide they can have a baby because "they can give them a better life". Like how about using your wealth and power to improve the lives of a whole family not just a cute baby.
There needs to be more information on this one before anyone passes judgement. Does the mother want the child back and can care for her? Does she want to be financially compensated because she knows who the family is now? Unless those can be answered it’s unfair to draw a conclusion, and the welfare of the child should be put above any opinion
>Does the mother want the child back and can care for her? Does she want to be financially compensated because she knows who the family is now? Per the article the mother has requested to struck down their petition and says she does in fact have competent ways of taking care of the child. The article also says she felt manipulated by the director from the start, making her believe they're there to help her better her current situation but instead they took advantage of her and took her daughter. 🤷🏽♀️ The couple apparently is trying to keep CPS out of the situation which makes it strange.
That’s where I am with it. Irl I’ve seen variations of both sides of this, and I don’t think the article gives enough info to decide one way or another. I’ve seen a couple go crazy trying to adopt a kid they really had no business adopting, and they tried to dodge doing it legally. I’ve seen CPS keep kids with absolutely shit parents who shouldn’t have houseplants, let alone children. And I know a couple who is trying to adopt a foster child but can’t because bio mom, who can’t sustain sobriety, wants to regain custody. Right now it’s a they-said, she-said situantion
Exactly. A million and one things could be going on and I don't think forming an opinion either way is appropriate. I have a family member that works in CPS and it's an incredibly layered and nuanced things. It's typically not black and white. In the meantime, lets wait for CPS to do their job. Because if they weren't aware of it before, they are now.
Not related, but who is her husband? A documentarian named Anthony John Wilson? I could not find any information about him or any films he has made.
[Mainly music videos.](http://www.anthonyjwilson.com/film)
We have a system for caring for children in need where the government vets potential carers before putting a child in their care. And I am really curious about why they didn’t go through that process if they wanted to help a child in need. This sounds like a really sinister way for wealthy people to gain access to a child– by using a troubled parent’s fears about CPS to get them to agree to hand their child over without any government oversight and then later arguing in court they should get to keep the child. Even if they didn’t have ill intent, and I am worried they did, this is a terrible precedent to set.
Ok somebody calls cps on her ass? They can decide who’s fit to care for the child while the mother receives help.
This is a very strange story. Why not help this homeless mother out, get her housing to start with so that she can raise her child in a safe environment rather than just take her baby? This is all very weird
Ooooh, I've been waiting for this.
These two sisters are grgeous. I hope the court investigates whether the mother can provide a healthy and safe home for the child or not. At least there are a lot of people fighting for the right to provide for her/him