Welcome to Amy's "One Life in a Week" for June 11 and 13:
This week's episodes exhibited more inconsistencies with characters and a few actions that left me shaking my head. Does John really believe Natalie's tried to keep him from Liam or has someone else manipulated the situation? Was Victor behind the gunfire or was someone making it appear as though he was? Let's break it down…
Coffee = ecstasy = nonsense.
Natalie works in law enforcement and suspects drug deals going on at Shelter. Why would she make a reference to her fabulous coffee tasting as good as being on ecstasy in public? It surely wasn't to pique interest amongst other patrons, given the startled looks she received, to which she responded with, "If I knew what that felt like." It was nothing more than redundant dialogue, which needs to be left out. It might have worked as a ploy with a younger crowd to find out more about the drugs currently being sold, but that wasn't the case. Make the dialogue mean something, so we can relate to it storyline-wise. If all else fails, Blair could start selling 'this great, ecstasy tasting coffee' at Shelter so the kids will drink it verses taking drugs.
A custody battle in the making.
As far as John suing Natalie for not allowing him to see Liam… Natalie insists she never put a restraining order on him or sent a Dear John (pun intended!) letter, unless someone else is manipulating the situation. With all the 'McBain bashing' Clint has been throwing around my guess is Clint's back to his true self and has been behind it all. Parents integrating themselves into their grown children's lives happens every day. This is nothing new to Clint and it makes sense. Since John won't be back, unless the writers take a cue from my blogs and recast the character, this storyline isn't needed. It's not as though it's unheard of for toddlers to go unseen in Daytime. We just assume they are in daycare and that's that. Liam's presence isn't really needed at this point.