> 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.

> 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.