Originally Posted by Dragonfly
Now I'm confused. The way I read it, the child was allowed the opportunity to eat between 6 and 7 (so it's probably safe to assume that he hadn't eaten immediately before then) then, when he refused to eat, was not allowed access to any other food (even food he might get for himself) for the rest of the night until breakfast. How is that different than what Pat is saying? (And I'm not trying to be snarky. I truly want to understand how the situation is being misrepresented.)
WHich was not the case.