Chapter 13 - Ambrose’s Argument
Ambrose’s lawyer requested a family mediation.
We declined while criminal case pending.
Then a letter.
Ambrose did not apologize.
He explained.
Bad sign.
He wrote:
Callum has become increasingly fearful because every adult treats fear as evidence of danger.
Then:
I accept that using a locked kennel was inappropriate.
Progress.
But:
My goal was to show him confinement itself could not hurt him.
There it went.
He still argued.
Then:
Rafferty benefited from similar exercises.
Rafferty read that sentence three times.
Then tore no paper.
He put letter down.
“I want to answer.”
“Why?”
“To tell him I did not benefit.”
“Do you need him to believe you?”
Rafferty stopped.
Good question.
Eventually he wrote one line through lawyers:
I do not consent to my childhood being used to justify what you did to my son.
Nothing else.
Ambrose sent no reply.
Then his criminal case.
Prosecutor offered plea:
Misdemeanor unlawful restraint.
Misdemeanor child endangerment.
Probation.
Parenting/child-safety program.
No unsupervised contact.
No jail recommendation due age, no record, brief duration, no physical injury.
Ambrose refused.
Why?
He would not plead to restraint because:
“The door was closed as part of an exercise, not imprisonment.”
Intent matters less than he thought.
Then child endangerment:
He said crate was safe.
Large enough.
Ventilated.
Seconds.
No dog inside.
Again.
He saw physical hazard as only harm.
May you like
The state prepared for trial.
So did we.
