Board Thread:General Grimm Discussion/@comment-24.150.82.174-20150519044346/@comment-25875828-20150623002640

you have no purpose of the kids without Adalind. Any story line that involves the kids has to involve Adalind. Even Diana with her rapid aging is not able to be her own character. So the kids only purpose could be to drive the story of Adalind, Nick, and or Sean. True with Diana's rapid aging they could make her old enough to be a character when Season 5 returns. But what about the son do they age both.

All of the comment in the section could only exist once the kids are old enough to do something. Even Diana is shown to be limited.

For a baby to be on the show need a family situation or someone that would have a live in nanny. Why, Adalind holding a child every scene that kills what she can do. Neither Sean or Nick are able to do what they do caring a baby. EVery show that has babies has a realtive of family member to watch the child. Nick has not family, ADalind has no family, Sean mother wll tkae Diana but that does nothing for the baby.

You are right the title is Kid's purpose. But all that is beign written is about what the kids will do. Forgeting all of the things mentioned would only be possible after several seasons. So by definition the kids are not to create a family. but to cause striff. between the characters. striff that will only be resolved with the kids not being seen on the show.

There is not enough time for a spin-off. You can not spin off kids until you make the kids a character.

But your biggest problem is you can not have that much screen time for kids. Which means stories can not revolve around the kids. Which by definition we will not see much of the kids. More then likely the show will explain they leave for there own protection like they did with Diana.