List of Shows



    recommended for you


    Tell your friends

    TELL YOUR FRIENDS

    The Young and the Restless - DAILY UPDATES

    In our 'Daily Updates' section, Soaps.com gives you your daily dose of what's happening on ' The Young and the Restless '! We invite you to read our in-depth updates which we try to post before 6:00pm ET!

    Sentimental Claptrap.

    Monday, September 16 2013
    Victor confronts Adam with his betrayal, Dylan asks Chelsea for a divorce, and Avery appeals to Nick for understanding.

    Show / hide text

    Share on Facebook

    printable PRINTABLE VERSION - View a printer friendly version of this article

    Please register and login to be able to email this article to your friends

    USER COMMENTS

    Posted by fairland at Saturday, September 14 2013 07:51 PM

    Later, Delia arrives and spots the cake. Billy says they're celebrating how happy they are together. So victoria is playing mother to chloe child that is Delia when chloe calls to find out that Delia is having fun with victoria and billy their is drama around the phone call when chloe calls.They have a champagne toast and flirt until Chloe calls. victoria wants chloe out of the to get close to Delia without chloe ever exist around Della. Delia is chloe's mother get over it all ready victoria. victoria acting like a child without knowing that delia the daughter for as a bio mother.

    Posted by fairland at Saturday, September 14 2013 07:57 PM

    Billy has a celebration planned, but first they vow to ignore phones and not talk about Newman.So billy is the one saying they should vow to ignore phone and not talk about Newman. So when chloe called the drama effect actually occurred over chloe wanting delia to come over to see her own father and wanting to play Wizard of oz. So both victoria and billy are happy they are sipping champagne and wanting to be drunk. So why can't chloe call say that delay want to have fun with her father if delia want to spend with her own father?

    Posted by fairland at Saturday, September 14 2013 08:02 PM

    At the park, Nick asks Avery why she was late. She tells him about Dylan showing up, devastated. Nick asked why Avery was late to her own wedding to Nick that nick was standing at the alter waiting for Avery to turn up wanting to be married to Avery so fast. Avery tells Nick that dylan was more than devastated that dylan did not know what to do with his own life. How does that make any since. So dylan was devastated that chelsea lied to Dylan not being the father of chelsea child had to make Avery late to her own wedding is full of bull to me.

    Posted by fairland at Saturday, September 14 2013 08:09 PM

    Nick does have a fine argument here that Avery's needs to focus on dylan 24/7 over the fact Avery wanted to be married to nick and decided at the last minute that dylan had to come first because,Dylan had to come first that dylan was hurt over the chelsea had lied to Dylan about who is the real father to chelsea love child. really,really.Avery tells Nick about Dylan showing up, devastated. Nick says she chose to stay there with Dylan when she should have been there marrying him. I love this line coming from Nick says she chose to stay there with Dylan when she should have been there marrying him. way to go Nick that line is on the money for me thank you for pointing that out to Avery.

    Posted by fairland at Saturday, September 14 2013 08:33 PM

    I love the writing skills too for doing the bag switch story line to dylan than to Adam. I love how Adam got redeemed in this story line so far down the rode that Adam did point I have thanked you for helping to where it comes to Melanie. NO you said I owe you there is a difference. I love how one story line leads to another story line like Melanie wants to on rape charge against Adam and chelsea felt guilty over the fact that the father might go to prison coming from Adam's lips of anger. I love how maline calls rape on adam story line fitting in with chelsea baby daddy drama. I do know that Adam is the innocent man in Maline's case.

    Posted by Estrelita at Saturday, September 14 2013 10:48 PM

    Re: "Posted by USMC Vet at Saturday, September 14 2013 11:09 AM

    After watching Thursday and Friday's show and seeing what's in store on Monday about Nick and Avery's wedding I'm just plain disgusted about the whole s/l. I pictured Nick and Avery as the new generation of Newmans with orientation on the family life and not the business of NE. I guess I just can't understand why a show like this can't have any happiness in a s/l."

    XXXXXXXXXXXX

    My sentiments exactly. Once upon a time, long, long ago - when soaps still had multitudes of viewers - there WERE soaps which had stable couples who could be counted on to be there for the long haul. One of my mother's favorite shows was Edge of Night - which was a sort of take-off on the Perry Mason prime time series which was a big hit at the time. Although the characters didn't use the same names, there was a Perry and Della romantic duo - who always worked together to solve crimes. Another main character was a take-off on the Paul Drake character - and he had romantic involvements from time to time - but - usually - the girl ended up choosing someone else and riding off into the sunset.

    Prime time shows which feature a rather stable couple who solve crimes together have always been VERY popular on prime time. For example, Remington Steele and the Scarecrow and Mrs. King. The Thin Man series of movies was very popular when they were major motion pictures - and still enjoy healthy ratings whenever they are aired on Turner Classic Movies. The Thin Man featured a married couple who solved crimes together. Hart-to-Hart was also a popular prime time series about a married couple who solved crimes together. So there is NO way that I believe soap writers when they claim that NO audience is interested in watching a stable couple do anything. I personally consider all of the fake break-ups and make-ups on soaps to be extremely boring because most of them are so totally contrived. Just look at the Michael and Lauren debacle! Instead of Michael and Lauren becoming involved in a fairly watchable story about bullying - the bullying story line just became a contrived excuse for breaking up Lauren and Michael! A REAL story about bullying would have been for Lauren and Michael to have learned that their son, Fenmore, had been bullied or attacked in some way during the time that he was at that fancy prep school - and then resented the fact that his parents had left him to sink or swim on his own - but were bending over backward to help this newbie kid. Michael and Lauren could have worked together to expose something like the Penn State scandal at Fenmore's fancy prep school - instead of breaking up.

    I can remember, back in the olden days, on One Life to Live, there were a whole bunch of Lou Grant type of stories, which featured Victoria Lord and her husband, Joe Reilly, working together to solve crimes, using the investigative reporting aspect of their newspaper - The Banner. On Radio soaps, Front Page Farrell used a similar format. Farrell and his wife, Sally worked together to solve crimes as a team. The introduction to that soap was -- "the exciting, unforgettable radio drama... the story of a crack newspaperman and his wife, the story of David and Sally Farrell." Farrell was a top reporter for the Brooklyn Eagle.

    XXXXXXXXXXX

    Re: "Sharon got a traffic summons for court, now if she doesn't show up will the judge issue an arrest warrant for failure to appear? When Nick got full custody of Faith weren't there some stipulations that Sharon had to adhere to: such as see a doctor on a regular basis and be medicated, now by Sharon not taking her meds and maybe not seeing her doctor on a regular basis won't Nick, if he so chooses, get full custody of Faith if he decides to take Sharon to court? "

    XXXXXXXXXXX

    Well - my opinion is that a little more attention to some realistic details would make most of the Y&R stories a lot more interesting - the sad fact is that the Y&R writers have absolutely no regard for such realistic details. Example in point - in real life - in most states - just the fact that a third person's DNA was discovered to be part of the crime scene twelve years after a murder was committed would in no way be allowed to be a reason to jump to the conclusion that the third person was, in fact, guilty of the murder and, therefore, the person who had been incarcerated for the past twelve years would be released. The evidence of a third person's DNA being found at the crime scene might be reason for a new trial - but NEVER would the person originally convicted of the crime just be released while the possibility of the second trial was being considered. Yet - that IS what TIIC concluded in the story about Leslie's father - Gus Rogan! For example, in Colorado - we had a recent case about a young man who was convicted, while still a teenager, of killing a girl. The boy's attorneys kept appealing his case, in the hope that they would eventually be able to prove that he was innocent. In the meantime, a prominent local dentist died. Authorities were appalled when they discovered a collection of photographs which revealed that the dentist had been taking serious liberties with many of his women patients while they were knocked out with anesthesia. That included taking their clothes off and fondling them. One of the patients who turned up in the dentist's photo collection was the young girl who had been found murdered. After this revelation, the attorneys for the young man who had been convicted demanded that ALL of the DNA found at the crime scene be re-tested because, at the time of the murder - the science of DNA was still in its infancy. (The young man had been in jail for 20 years.) A modern study of the crime scene DNA revealed that the dentist's DNA was found at the crime scene. More importantly - NO DNA belonging to the young man who had been convicted was discovered at the crime scene. While it was PRESUMED that the deceased dentist was a more likely murder suspect than the young man who had been convicted - it was still NOT possible for authorities to just release the young man who had been incarcerated for 20 years. It was necessary for the authorities to have ANOTHER trial - during which all of the newly tested DNA became part of the evidence presented. Since the dentist's DNA was present - but NO DNA from the young man had ever been found at the scene of the crime, the second jury concluded that the first jury made a mistake - and voted the young man to be not guilty. The young man was released and the conviction was stricken from his record. However, since the dentist who is now suspected to have been the culprit is also deceased - it was not possible for authorities to conclude that the dentist WAS the culprit. To this day, this crime remains on the books as an "unsolved" crime.

    Similarly, in most states, Gus Rogan MAY have been granted a new trial - but he would NOT have been exonerated simply because the DNA of a third person had been found at the scene of Gus's wife's murder!

    XXXXXXXXXXXX

    Likewise - the whole business about Chelsea's baby has no relation whatsoever to the paternity laws of the state of Wisconsin - and - for that matter - no relation to the paternity laws of most states in the U.S.

    The following is from an attorney who practices in the state of Oregon -

    "In virtually every state in the nation, the man who was the mother’s husband at the time the child was born is presumed or deemed to be the child’s legal father, biological reality to the contrary notwithstanding.

    If the husband is in fact the child’s biological father, there generally is no problem. But if that is not the case, the laws of most states allow for the husband’s “presumptive paternity” to be challenged (and possibly overcome), subject, however, to certain procedural limitations. This is usually accomplished through a legal action to “adjudicate parentage.”

    Here in Oregon, for example, a man claiming to be the biological father of a child born to a married woman may file a legal proceeding to declare his legal parentage of the child, without any time limitation. However, Oregon law also says that “The [husband’s paternity of his wife’s child] may not be challenged by a person other than the husband or wife as long as the husband and wife are married to and cohabiting with each other, unless the husband and wife consent to the challenge.”

    Also note that the state in which the child is born is not a critical or determinative factor when it comes to a future court proceeding to adjudicate parentage brought by a man who claims to be the child’s biological father. Such a proceeding, which inherently involves a challenge to the mother’s husband’s presumptive paternity of the child, could be brought in any state that has “personal jurisdiction” over mother, and would be subject to the substantive and procedural laws of that state. However, many states have statutory time limitations (and other restrictions and limitations) that may bar such a proceeding. Much depends on the law of the particular state involved.

    The attorney then goes on to list some variations found in most states - following is what he said about some of the states:

    Alabama - Biological father does not have standing so long as the presumed father has not disclaimed status. -- When a child is born to married parents, there is an automatic legal relationship between the child and the husband of the mother; and the mother's husband's name will officially be considered to be the father's name, which will appear on the birth certificate.

    Minnesota - The law presumes that a husband is the "legal" father of a child born to his wife during the marriage.

    If a woman is married and has a child by someone other than her husband, Minnesota law automatically presumes that her husband is the father and he will be legally responsible for the child until paternity is established with the other man. The biological father has NO legal rights or financial obligations to the child, UNLESS he is established to be the "legal" father.

    North Dakota - standing of biological father - None. Presumption that the mother's husband is the father of the child can only be denied by Husband or Wife.

    Oklahoma - same as North Dakota.

    Pennsylvania - standing of biological father - None. Irrebuttable where the marriage is intact. The Policy = protection of the intact family.

    PENNSYLVANIA -- Strauser v. Stahr, 726 A. 2d 1052 (Penn. 1999)—A child was born to a married couple. The wife’s paramour asserted that he was the child’s father and sought custody of her. He alleged that the wife had allowed him to have contact with the child and that genetic tests showed he was the child’s biological father. The wife opposed his suit and the husband joined the suit asserting that he was the girl’s presumptive father. The husband also asserted equitable estoppel since the paramour had not financially or emotionally supported the child. The trial court found that the mother’s conduct equitably estopped her from asserting non-paternity. Over the husband’s objections, the court received genetic test evidence and found the paramour to be the biological father. The husband and wife both appealed and the appellate court held that since there was an ongoing marriage, and husband had assumed responsibility for the child, his paternity was irrebuttably presumed. Genetic tests should not have been accepted into evidence. The paramour appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which held that so long as the marriage is intact at the time the husband’s paternity is challenged, the presumption that the husband is the child’s father is irrebuttable.

    Wisconsin - Standing of biological father - none. Unless determined to be in best interest of child.

    One of the fundamental reasons that couples marry is to secure the legal and financial status of their children. Unlike children born outside marriage, marital children are entitled to financial support from their fathers as well as their mothers. They also have the right to inherit from paternal as well as maternal relatives. In addition, marital children are usually part of their father’s extended family, acquiring grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Because of the importance of these familial and legal relationships, there is a long-standing legal presumption that a child born in the context of marriage is the child of the couple.2 A child born to a married woman is entitled to call his or her mother’s husband “daddy” and the husband is entitled to treat the child as his own. The presumption applies even if the marriage was defective in some way.

    In my view - it would be more interesting if TIIC at least took a swipe at some of the prevailing laws during the Chelsea baby story - my guess is that TIIC will do what they always do - and totally ignore everything remotely resembling reality.

    Not to mention, of course, the fact that IF Dylan turns out to be Nikki's mystery child - and that Dylan was born BEFORE Nikki married Victor for the first time - this would mean that Dylan is OLDER than Victoria, Nick AND Adam! I am positive that TIIC will NEVER acknowledge that, IF they use the Nikki mystery baby story to turn Dylan into Nikki's biological child - then the possibility that Dylan would HAVE to be older than all of the other Newman children SHOULD be addressed!

    Posted by bikette at Sunday, September 15 2013 08:44 AM

    Estrelita re the updates... He says that's impossible. "I'm leaving town." Chelsea begs to make it work, but Dylan wants a divorce

    So do those same laws still hold water if the husband wants to abandoned the wife and the child? Couldn't Dylan even sue Chelsea for entrapment or something like that for lying to him about Connor? And wouldn't Adam have a better case then? I doubt that is what is going to happen though, but just saying. I think Adam will soften until he finds out that Dylan has taken off with his child. Then he will realize that unless he sues that could happen again and he would have no say in what happens to his child(good or bad).

    Posted by bikette at Sunday, September 15 2013 08:53 AM

    per the updates of Villy...They play Wizard of Oz. Delia is the Wicked Witch, Victoria is Dorothy, and Billy is Toto

    Someone needs to talk to the casting director. Victurdia would be a natural playing the wicked witch. LOL

    Posted by autigers at Sunday, September 15 2013 09:25 AM

    @Estrelita.......I enjoy reading your posts. Always so full of information and so well written.

    I don't mean to get too personal and you may not want to answer, but what is your background or line of work? Are you in the legal field? Please forgive me for asking but your posts really interest me.

    Posted by kmc320 at Sunday, September 15 2013 10:27 AM

    *****************SPOILERS/ SPUMORS***********************
    Avery is left alone in the rain (Maybe it'll wash that film of denial off her face)

    Nick's emotions get the best of him

    Adam and Victor’s relationship explodes

    Noah worries when he can’t find Sharon

    Sharon assures her son that she’s OK and looking forward to supporting Nick

    Noah upsets Sharon with his opinion about Nick and Avery

    Chelsea pleads with Dylan not to annul their marriage

    There's a storm and the crackling thunder causes Dylan’s PTSD to surface

    Chelsea is horrified to find Dylan and the baby gone

    Paul’s investigation on Nikki’s behalf turns up a significant clue

    Nikki's quest for the truth leads her to the church where her life changed

    Hillary outsmarts Lily and Cane, something about drugging the Aussie (Wuss)

    Michael inspects the music box Jill inherited

    Traci gets a massage

    Dylan’s breakdown forces Adam into action

    UPCOMING
    Adam has an intense confrontation with Chelsea after she makes a confession

    Nikki and Paul are drawn together as they work through Nikki’s complicated history (as long as their being together remains NON-sexual)

    Victoria finds herself tempted to resume her rightful place at her father’s side

    A nearly forgotten deed casts a ripple effect on the present (What that the ranch will revert back to CI upon the death of Katherine or victor )

    Sharon continues to see Cassie as it becomes more and more evident that Sharon needs help
    Dr. Watkins reappears (a slap in the face to mental health doctors every where)

    Nikki’s secret son shakes up Genoa City

    Ashley heads home for a visit when her siblings need her

    Andrew Abbott arrives

    Victor deals with the transition in his relationship with Adam as Adam discovers the man he wants to be for his own son

    MORE COMMENTS: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » »| page:

    Please Register and login to post your comments.
    » Back to Daily Updates