If you don't read the article, "father" implies his son was a child, but his son was 36.
> If you don't read the article, "father" implies his son was a child, but his son was 36.
Biologically and relationally, he in fact remains his fathers child.
I also took no such implication from the title? It might be your interpretation, it was not mine.
Huh, even when my kids are grown ass adults I will consider them my children, and myself their father.