How can anyone truly blame this poor man for the death of the girl? Where is there any fairness in this trial?
1. The two counts of procuring alcohol for minors are simply ridiculous because Parent didn't buy the alcohol for his daughter or any other minor, he bought it for himself. That he let his own daughter in his own home have some of this alcohol does not change this at all.
2. Anyone who has teen-aged children knows that it is impossible to control them 24/7.
3. A parent shouldn't have to go to jail because he or she trusted his child, but that trust was abused. As a parent you should be able to believe that alcohol that you buy for yourself will stay in your own house. It is not the father's fault that his daughter stole the bottle. Do you honestly think that most families lock up any alcohol they have in the house? Do you do this if you have children?
4. How come the parents of the dead girl just blame the other father? The drinking took place in their house.
5. The girl did not die because of the alcohol. Yes, she was drunk but the cause of her death was asphyxiating in the bathtub. Obviously this was an accident, a tragic accident, but an accident nevertheless.

Alcohol is a part of almost every society (prohibition demonstrated very clearly that it is basically impossible to get rid of it). So, instead of demonizing it and making it even more interesting to adolescents, we should teach our kids how to be responsible around it. In most other countries it is part of the social life to let children have sips of alcohol. Interestingly enough, deaths due to alcohol poisoning among young people are lower than in this country.

Can't say I'm surprised....worked with him for a couple of years....knew he'd reach his bottom one day. My thoughts go out to the victim and her family -- the 13 year old is strong and brave -- you did the right thing reporting this -- don't let anyone tell you any different -- ever.

Hi Drew,

A technical error caused the first paragraph of the story to be inadvertently dropped. That's been fixed, and hopefully you'll find the author's intent to be a little more understandable now.

The collateral damage is often overlooked. The veteran returns from battle, can find no comfort from those around "who don't know"--and ends up distancing family and former friends. What appears to the family as bizarre behavior--outbursts of anger, moroseness, a tendency to drink alcohol excessively, a lack of interest in life--take their toll on the family members, especially children. Often, the returning vet exhibits anger which in turn makes the spouse and kids fearful. They end up suffering from secondary PTSD, and the effects can wreak havoc in their lives, extending even to subsequent generations. There are shock waves from PTSD that are like those of a bomb--except that the PTSD bomb just keeps on exploding. The vet is not unaware of the damage, either, which results in guilt, self-recrimination, and sometimes suicide.

Nice opening run-on sentence, you have effectively caused me to disregard your article.

Well, I think the fact that the Pine Street house (that Ms. Awad inherited in a divorce) is currently rented clearly says they are not living there. And clearly as soon as somebody makes an offer on the North East Street Condo it is gone.

As Mr Brooks is a personal friend of Ms. Awad he should have abstained (not that it would have made a difference of course). So I will simply Appeal this to both the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.

And yes, the mortgage terms are not state law but the bank is an FDIC lender (under FEDERAL LAW). So by swearing they are still--as of of July 3'rd--"primary residents" of Amherst, that means they lied on April 10 saying they would be "primary residents" by June 10 of 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley.

The recent sub-prime mortgage meltdown on Wall Street was said to be partially caused by lenders giving quick easy mortgages to folks who claimed the home would be their "primary residence"--but instead were investing in it for profit.

So perhaps the Federal Prosecutor in Springfield may also be interested in this curious case.

Is any responsibility being taken by the daughter who took the vodka from her house, went to her friend's house(not Mr. Parent's house, where he would be expected to provide oversight, but another family's house without his knowledge), and got her friend (and presumably herself) drunk to the point of alcohol poisoning? I suspect Mr. Parent is not pleading guilty in order to avoid jail; he's doing it to protect his daughter.