2nd Board Exam: Questions

I received today June 23, 2009 a text message with this question: "gd pm po pdre bern, ask lng po me kng wn po and deadline ng prc applictn 4 aug gc licnsure? wala po kxc s wbsite ng prc n pgca. tnx-(name withheld) (Good pm po Padre Bern, ask lang po ako when the deadline of the PRC for application for [to take] the Aug. [2009] Licensure exams for Guidance and Counseling. Couldn't find any in the PRC and PGCA websites.)

My answer:

Republic Act No. 9258 mentions in Article III Examination, Registration and Licensure Section 12 Examination Required. - All applicants for registration for the practice of Guidance and Counseling shall be required to undergo a licensure examination to be given by the Board and the Commission in such places and dates as the Commission may designate in accordance with Republic Act No. 8981, subject to the compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission.

Of course the law does not answer the question. What answers the question in the text message is contained in the Rules and Regulation of RA9258, the same Section (12), but Rule III, which states or actually simply paraphrases the law:

"All applicants for registration for the practice of guidance and counseling shall be required to undergo a Board Licensure Examination for Guidance Counselors to be given by the Board and the Commission in such places and dates as the Commission may designate in accordance with R.A. No. 8981, subject to the compliance with the requirements prescribed by the Commission."

Furthermore, what answers the question are contained in these two paragraphs following it:

Form of Application. - An application for examination and registration must be properly accomplished in hand writing of the applicant on the PRC form and shall be filed not later than twenty (20) days in the Central Office, or not later than thirty (30) working days in the Regional Office, before the date of examination. A recent photo with name tag must be attached. Prescribed fees must be paid.

Approval of Application. - The PRC Application Division shall go over the application. At least two (2) members of the Board shall approve the application. In case the former cannot do so, the Application Division shall satisfy itself that each applicant possesses the qualifications prescribed by R.A. 9258 and this R.R.

There you are: if the upcoming Board Exams in Guidance and Counseling will be scheduled on August 27-28, 2009, you can anticipate the deadline by counting 20 days (working) before the examination date for those who will be submitting their applications to the Central Office of the PRC (Manila). Those who will be submitting their application papers in the PRC Regional Offices, they may count 30 working days to get the deadline for filing their application to take the Board Exams in Guidance and Counseling.

Of course, please don't wait for the deadline because as stated in the 2nd paragraph after Sec. 12, the Board will have to approve the application. Then the place for exams will be set. So, better go and inquire with your respective PRC Offices (Manila office has this number: (02) 314-0018). What if you don't qualify? That's something for you and the PRC to arrange in order to ensure that you're qualified to take the exams. And if you qualified, feel free to text me so I can include you in my prayers, specially to St. Jude (hopeless na ba?).

Who are qualified to take the Board Licensure Exams for Guidance and Counseling?

In the meeting at House of Representatives last May 26, 2009, the following document was released for us in response to the nagging question regarding the qualifications for taking the Board Exams for Guidance Counselors. It was established in that meeting that indeed there were non-Masters holders who took the test and PASSED the exams last year! Yes, that's the plain truth, and the PRC and PRB could not but allow the Congressman-Chair of the meeting to state clearly that there was this mistake of letting the 1st Board Exams be given to those who had no Masters.

The observation that two opposing positions may be overrun by a document was provided. Note that last year, IPCAP received a reply from the PRC regarding the interpretation of the law regarding the qualifications to take the Board Exams. (click "The PRC Response to IPCAP's Letter On Board Exam Qualifications" blog entry dated Sept. 18, 2008) That comment from Atty. Lalucis was the only extant document which can be used (again) as the basis for acceptance of non-Masters board examinees for Guidance and Counseling in the absence of another document that supersedes that. The document will always win over verbal or other means of communicating this "new" (because last year was a precedent) requirements to take the licensure exams. Hence, the PRBGC provided this document so we can be guided along.

To read this document, click it and the provider will enlarge it for your convenience:

Blog's New Features: EINSTEIN, AQUARIUM, bigger fonts

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish - Albert Einstein

That's the Albert Einstein quote of the day which I decided to put in so that such a wise man's words can be a good guide for the day.

It's followed by an aquarium, a virtual pet - fish - in order to relax you before you read the contents. Besides, I remember the story of CORY and Erap entitled Logic:

Cory: Erap, alam mo ba ang tungkol sa logic?
Erap: Sorry po, Madam, mahina po tayo sa academics, pero sa tingin ko, kung may example masasakyan ko din.
Cory: Ok. Mahilig ka ba sa aquarium?
Erap: Opo Madam. Enjoy nga po ako sa mga isda.
Cory: Tama. Pag mahilig ka sa aquarium, mahilig ka nga sa isda. At kung mahilig ka sa isda, mahilig ka sa beach.
Erap: Hehe, kaya nga po nagpagawa ako ng Boracay mansion (biro lang po Madam)
Cory: Oh? So ibig sabihin mahilig ka rin sa mga magaganda, like sexy bodies?
Erap: Madam naman, halata kaya.
Cory: Ibig sabihin, macho ka!
Erap: Salamat po, Madam.
Cory: Yan ang logic.

After the conversation, Erap meets John O.
Erap: John, mahilig ka ba sa aquarium?
John: Sorry pare, pero wala sa vocabulayo ko yan.
Erap. Bading ka nga. Logic e.

Just a naughty thought: when I read that SO THAT ALL MAY KNOW document about which I was alerted via text, I felt funny on the following "logical" connections. The stationery used was that of the PRC, hence in the website where it was posted, it was identified as PRC memo. Actually, Dr. Rosales was the signatory of that document, identifying herself as Chairman. It was an audit of the oath-taking that the Board of Guidance and Counseling had done since the 1st in February 2008. I was just thinking aloud: is there a new Chairman of the PRC? Is the Chairman of the PRBGC also the Chairman of the PRC? Does the Board of Guidance and Counseling not have its own stationery? If my understanding is right (I really hope I can be mistaken here), the PRC is not the PRBGC, and vice-versa. The R.A. 9258 clearly delineates their functions. The PRBGC is under the supervision of the PRC. And it may also be possible that the PRC gave her the paper to put that note for public viewing. Yes, we received our copy of this internet-published material, about which we will meet on June 24, 2009. I myself think there are loopholes in the process and the documentation we were furnished. I believe that it is best to clear things out rather than make people think otherwise. The integrity of the Guidance and Counseling profession is at stake here, something which we at IPCAP, and I believe everyone of us with our sane minds and hearts, want to uphold and protect at all times.

I also had enlarged the fonts because I got feedback that there are sexagenarians and septagenarians who read this blog. So for them, I thought of enlarging the fonts. Hope this will serve the purpose.

If you have comments, do please feel free to email me or write them in the appropriate space after every blog.

Hace a great day then. God bless

Job Openings

I received these requests from John Arimado, and I hope these are still available. Anyway, the address and person to contact are here:

June 5, 2009: We need an IT Head and a HEAD-Accounting Department...Please send applications to john_arimado@yahoo.com / angelicumhrd@yahoo.com. Call 7324243 loc 127. Look for John. Please. Thanks. (sent through text using the number 2371002403020)

May 29, 2009: ANGELICUM COLLEGE IS URGENTLY HIRING FOR CLE, LANGUAGE, READING, MATH, SOCIAL SCIENCE, PRE-SCHOOL, FILIPINO, COMPUTER FACILITATORS I.T. HEAD, GUIDANCE COUNSELORS and EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOCIAL WORKER. ALSO COLLEGE (Part Time) FACULTY for Baking and pastry / Bartending / Housekeeping / Commercial Cooking (also sent through text using the number 2371002403020)

These job openings reminded me of one of the points mentioned during the Congress Hearing last May 26, 2009: "We need a Registered Guidance Counselor in our school. Please give us one." The response of the Board of Guidance and Counseling Chair Dr. Rosales was this: "You can forward the request to the APO." Napangisi ang lahat ng nandoon.

We badly need Guidance Counselors, and I bet we need to really watch this matter closely. Let us alert each other of developments in this field so that we end up helping each other than harassing each other. I remember the Congressman say: "The country cannot also afford not to have a Guidance Counselor. We better have quantity and let quantity come later." In other words, it is still better to have a Guidance Counselor in the school than to have none at all. But with the law above us, how are we to do our jobs? I had personally raised the matter there in Congress: if it is possible to suspend the law. The answer was HEAD SHAKING (not the way Indians interpret that of course). Let's see what will happen.

Honestly, this is cause for alarm which those in position should really address. It is easy to say "we're only implementors of the law." But what about when problems crop up in our school settings, in our communities? Are we to simply shrug off our shoulders and say "I am not licensed." Are we to tell our students then:

Students, learning problems are a big no no this year because we have no Registered Guidance Counselors. Maybe next year!

Please don't go into substance abuse because we have no Guidance Counselors available this year, maybe next year.

Please don't abuse others because we have no licensed Guidance Counselor this year. Maybe next year!

Families, please don't separate muna. Just tiis muna kasi wala tayong Registered Guidance Counselor. Maybe next year!

Wala muna tayong career guidance kasi walang qualificadong tumulong sa atin na Guidance Counselors. Siguro, the students will ask us: Sir/Ma'am, pano na ang aming kinabukasan? Pupulutin na lang ba kami sa kangkungan?

Whooh! What a dilemma! Our moral fibers will be tested here. All the best and God bless

On OATH TAKING

When I paid for my oath-taking last Sept. 2008, I asked the guy collecting the P1,500 for an OFFICIAL RECEIPT. He said, "Wala po." I asked, "Why are you not giving Official Receipt? P1,500 is a big amount, and you are obliged to give me a receipt." Tahimik lang siya. I couldn't press him because I did not know whom to address the matter.

On oath-taking day itself, at Manila Hotel, I had with me the IPCAP Treasurer as my guest, so I was charged P1,000 as guest fee. The same guy was there collecting, and again I asked for the O.R. Wala pa rin! Wow, that guy collected P2,500 from me and he gave me no Official Receipt? Talo niya simbahan a! When you give a Mass Offering at the Office, maski P50 me O.R. Well, sa collection, wala po yun, pero even then, the collection has a report made to the public.

On March 1, 2009, I knew certain people who were there for the oathtaking, and sabi sa text: "By d way, fr. Totoo tlaga yong sinabi mo. we were not given a recpt." Ayan, that confirmed a "kalakaran."

Now, on May 26, 2009 in Congress, the matter of the oath taking was deliberated. What does our law (R.A. # 9258) say about it?

Our RA 9258 says in Art. III Sec. 18: "All successful examinees shall be required to take a professional oath before any member of the Board or any Officer of the Commission authorized by the PRC, or any officer authorized by law."

The Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9258 makes it more explicit, saying in Art. III Sec. 18: "All successful examinees qualified for registration and all qualified applicants for registration without examination shall be required to take the professional oath before any member of the Board or any officer of the Commission authorized by it or any other person authorized by law to administer the oath prior to entering into the practice of guidance and counseling in the Philippines. The successful examinees shall register with the Commission after having taken his/her oath and upon payment of the prescribed fees and shall be issued Certificates of Registration and Professional Identification Card."

I just noticed that the phrase "all successful examinees qualified for registration" contains something to ask about since all those who passed the Board or licensure exams for Guidance and Counseling are definitely qualified for registration - meron bang pumasa na di qualified for registration?

Anyway, the oath taking is a requirement of the law. And the one to administer the oath include any one of at least the following persons:
- any member of the Board (Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance and Counseling)
- any officer of the Commission (Professional Regulation Commission) authorized by the PRC (as the law says, but this seems different from the RR which merely says "IT" - is this the PRC or the PRBGC?)
- or any other person authorized by law to administer the oath.

The discussions in Congress on this matter showed that MASS OATH TAKING is never required by the law. In fact, this becomes inimical to the interests of those who are far away from Manila where the oath taking has been taking place. Two Congressmen were particularly strong in saying that the oath taking need not be in Manila since the PRC is now devolved, meaning the PRC Officers in the provinces or regions may be given authority to administer the oath so that the relatives of the oath takers may also attend. It was quite common knowledge that there were quite a number among us who had to borrow money for the Maria Clara attire or barong as well as for the fees paid for the MASS OATH TAKING. In times of financial difficulties like we have, it would have been appropriately sensitive to apply the law for the benefit of the practitioners.

And especially because there was no official receipt given for the oath taking fees (some of us complained that the fee was simply too much if only to eat snacks in the most plush place in the Philippines), the question of who was responsible was raised. The PRC cannot release an Official Receipt daw because once PRC does that, the funds immediately go to the Treasury, the national coffers. It should be the APO which has the Official Receipt. But those who were with the APO before said NO, it didn't receive. So, who was the one to run after? The snacks we ate was supposed to have costed P850 which is more than half the oath-taker's fee. So, may sobra ito, and how was this accounted for? Where did the "earnings" go? For what?

When I enter a movie house, true enough I get no Official Receipt. But the movie house is taxed. The Mass Oath taking is NOT taxed, and particularly the one who collects IS NOT TAXED! Funds received go straight to someone's or a group's pocket or bank account. Who's in charge here? The Board? Di daw, but they know it's accounted for. Really? Is this account or report publicly accessible?

As regards to who made this matter something of an "obligation"? Those who take the oath want it daw made it so. In short, gusto kasi natin na may mass oath taking. What? I don't remember having been asked if I liked it or not, whether I wanted it or not. What about those who cannot afford? Were they asked? has anybody out there been asked if mass oath taking was your choice?

So there you are: there is no Mass Oath taking supposedly obligatory for all of us. For convenience, we may even have oath taking in the PRC itself, like I once read about a Mass Oath taking of nurses in the big hall there at PRC. Was an oath-taking fee charged? PRC should, because the event would mean PRC will be paying for the electric bill. And the O.R should then have been provided. And the country coffers should have been fatter by a few millions which could have been used for the good of the professions.

What we want is transparency, so let's keep it. We can be clear about things and have no need to defend ourselves from questions of impropriety. I bet the BIR would be interested in this matter. In time.

On second thought, didn't we go to PRC, pay P1,050 for the license (I still have my O.R. for this as souvenir), affix our signatures in the logbook and also our 1x1 colored ID picture? The RR of RA 9258 says "The successful examinees shall register with the Commission after having taken his/her oath and upon payment of the prescribed fees and shall be issued Certificates of Registration and Professional Identification Card." But our payment was done before our oath taking, and until now we have no Certificate of Registration yet. There seems to be a procedural reversal which could end in people being able to get their licenses even WITHOUT HAVING TAKEN THEIR OATH! Isn't this bending the law in our favor? Thanks of course to PRC because I got my license on the day of the oath taking. I know of some who didn't receive their licenses on the day they took their oath but LATER! I may be a stickler for the law, but the good Congressman said "Dure lex sed lex."

God bless

Issues in the Field

Today, we at IPCAP met again (we've been doing this quite regularly) and discussed among the agenda current issues in the field. Among those that I find disturbing include the shutting off of the Guidance Center in schools where there are no resident Registered Guidance Counselors or RGC. The Guidance Counselors who used to man the Guidance Center were either laid off, or moved to a different area such as teaching. One of us called some schools to invite Guidance personnel only to be told that there is no one in the Center and that it has been closed. Will there be schools now having NO GUIDANCE COUNSELORS simply because there are no RGC's? Is this now saying that schools can survive having NO GUIDANCE COUNSELORS. Has the time come for the schools to be the first to say that it can go on without these people? Who will be doing the Guidance Counseling then? Will Guidance Counseling still be important? If not, what will licensure be all about then?

The question then was raised, as it has been raised in Congress last May 26, 2009: has the law produced more problems or solved problems? Has it brought harm or good? I know of certain people who communicated with me about being laid off. This is one of the effects of the law: retrenchment of our colleagues. And I bet that person's not alone. The closing of the Guidance Center is I think by far the worst of it all. This is really sad because those who worked for the law may have thought that when there is licensure, the supply of Guidance Counselors will be available. Right now, the demand is so high, but the supply is so low.

Now comes in the economics of it. We at IPCAP got reports and sharing that certain RGCs were being pirated to another "high-paying" institution. "Come to us and we offer you this much." When this said RGC was about to resign and move to another institution, this said institution raised the RGCs pay just to stay! Actually, this can be really exploited.

The other issue is using the license of the RGC in the absence of the said RGC just so the school can maintain its Guidance Services Center. This reminds me of a close relative who is a licensed pharmacist who was offered some funds if only the license could be "borrowed". The said relative disagreed because ayaw niya na on-call siya. The law can be quite clear about this.

And still another issue is the presence among the more or less 1,500 RGCs of those who are not qualified to be Guidance Counselors in the school. Of course we all know that Guidance and Counseling is not purely for the schools. We have RGCs who are into Community Counseling, Pastoral Counseling, Private Practice. Many of them are not Guidance Counseling doctorate, masters nor bachelor's holders, hence they are not qualified to do school counseling. Therein now comes the scope of this profession.

There are schools too, who for having no RGC, now resort to "spiritual counseling" instead. Shall Guidance Centers without RGCs now be identified as Spiritual Counseling Centers? Are we into really challenging times? This should spur lots of research and literature in the field since we are into these situations. Those in their masters and doctorates may pick this issue so that we can really come up with a clear identity as a profession.

Lastly, although there may still be a lot you may want to let us know of, is the issue on salaries. Many of our colleagues, RGCs at that, are paid rather lower than teachers. Rightly so, said one administrator, because schools can afford to lose Guidance Counselors but cannot lose teachers. Schools are centers for instruction. But look, retorted some, as RGC's we have our masters while many of the teachers do not have our level of education yet end up paid lower? The population we serve appears to be more than that of the teacher who only deals with at most 60 (I know this is too many), while the currently approved ratio is 1:500 (1 Guidance Counselor per 500 students). And when it comes to certain cases, it is possible that teachers are kept away from knowing the cases of some students. So we hear comments like, "Ang hirap nito. Pagod ka na, mababa pa ang bayad." But we all know that we don't work for pay only. We work as Guidance Counselors because we love to help (Enneagram #2 ka ba?), and the pay may not be the only source of our joy and meaning. But in our world today, we need something better. This is high time to really come together for our needs.

Hope we all look into our dear profession and collectively discuss the possible directions to take. May God bless us all. Take care

GDAP now GMLP

In our last meeting on June 4, 2009 at the University of the East, Manila, more contributions for GDAP came in. We reviewed the requirements for SEC registration. While we were doing our planning, our elected Treasurer Mr. Ricky Lawas, RGC of the Carlos Lanting College went to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to have our name reserved. Much to the fulfillment (talk of wish fulfillment!) of Dr. Elvi Ramos' womanly hunch, the name Guidance Directors Association of the Philippines (GDAP) was no longer available. We tried to reserve another name, the Association of Guidance Administrators of the Philippines or AGAP, and this too was no longer available. Anyway, we picked another name. Now, we have reserved a new name which we will announce once we get the SEC registration. Mabuti na ito para wala nang mambabara, whoever you are. Better luck next time po. We are very happy with the way things are moving for us. In fact, we will be meeting (#4) again this coming Wednesday, June 10, 2009 from 1-5PM at the University of the East, Manila.. Again, calling on all present and former, licensed or unlicensed Guidance Directors, Administrators or Heads in school, community or even private practice in Guidance Counseling clinics anywhere in the Philippines: please feel free to come and attend this meeting which aims to organize ourselves as persons in charge of the practice of Guidance and Counseling in the Philippines. And, yes, abangan na lang natin ang susunod na kabanata regarding this new organization which we promise will spearhead in looking at a lot of matters concerning our dear profession which is right now in a risky situation.

Risky situation?

Yes, risky. At the moment, there may only be more or less 1500 of us who have been granted the license as Registered Guidance Counselors under the Grandfather's Clause and the 1st Board Exam. According to a party-list Congressman we met at the Congress or House of Representatives last May 26, 2009, there are 37,500 elementary schools all over the country. Note that the high schools and colleges have not been included in this count. Even if each of the 37,500 elementary schools were to have ONE Guidance Counselor, the present number of licensed Guidance Counselors would simply be TOO SMALL! We will be TOO FEW who are legitimate Guidance and Counseling practitioners at the beginning of this school year 2009-2010. Haven't I prophesied (if it can be used here) that there will be Guidance and Counseling practitioners who are not licensed, and their number will be more than those who are licensed. Quo vadis, ma'ams, sirs? The said meeting at the Congress was called by the Committee on Civil Service and Professionalization. I pray that we won't have to go for a full blown congressional inquiry because this would reveal what you, my readers and colleagues have been reporting in your comments to this blog.

Guess what? The CPE or Continuing Professional Education is something that is not to be monopolized by one organization, as we were meant to believe. In fact, at the said meeting where the PRC and the PRBGC attended, it became clear as day that while our regulatory law (RA 9258) mentions something about the CPE, there are currently no guidelines yet promulgated by the PRBGC. Remember, the CPE is for updating and NOT OUTDATING! And, what was really heart warming was the fact that non-attendance at the CPE will never be a reason for non-renewal of license. Thanks God. Legislative history shows us that then Senator Nikki Coseteng (kapangalan niya ang namatay kong pusang magaling magmasahe hehe) led the scrapping of the CPE requirement in license renewal. Why? Kasi naman nabibili!!! Talk about diploma mills? There was then "convention certification mills." Meaning to say, those who did not attend the CPE managed to get such certifications for a fee of course. Sa Recto ba nakuha yun? Those among us who follow events are aware of these malpractices. And we do not want these things to happen in our profession.

But of course, for the sake of the updating of our professional practice, the CPE is highly encouraged. But as some commented, how can we be encouraged when the fees have risen like the Risen Lord? Joke only. Kung kailan naghirap ang buhay, tsaka pa tinaasan. I really feel this is regrettable. Someone even told me na medyo kulang ng sensitivity ang action na taasan ang bayad ng pag-attend sa conventions. Of course, we need to remember that our organizations are there NOT TO EARN, NOR TO PROFIT. In fact, it may be best to look into our Constitution and By-Laws again if the word earning is ever mentioned. Remember we are NON-PROFIT, NON-STOCK. So why think of EARNING? Siguro kung ito na lang ang ating means, pagkakakitaan talaga! Please naman! My father would say POR DIOS POR SANTO! And remember, there is a ceiling for non-stock non-profit organiaztions, professional orgs at that! We may not be holding money beyond that limit lest we be questioned by the BIR. Hala ka, puro ka na penalty. Ah, kaya siguro tinataasan kasi may penalting babayaran! What? I will be paying my membership and convention fees to pay for those penalties? Wag naman po.

Present Directions

There are schools whose Guidance Services areas have been tagged differently. Talk about old dog, new collar! There are Student Formation Center, Student Well-Being Center, etc. You know why this has to be done. In fact, it was recommended as a way to skirt the law! (Alam na ngang mali, ire-recommend pa! Por Dios por Santo!)

The problem here is that with a new name, the scope of work will also be affected. With "Student Formation Center" comes the possibilities that the school will include discipline, even the chaplaincy inside the said center, and Guidance Counselors may be given work that will distract from what Guidance and Counseling is all about. How can this profession ever grow? We are in the time of professionalization and yet we are still besieged by these problems. When will we ever learn? Ma'ams, sirs, let's look into these matters because we are serious about our profession that is trying to make a difference for this country!

Solution? Amend the law! Yes, and we have seen areas for amendment. In the next blogs, I shall mention the areas which need immediate amendment. If you have any recommendation, please email me about it AGAD so we can compile them and send them the soonest possible time. The way to do this is of course to read the law, the Guidance and Counseling Act of 2004, or the Republic Act No. 9258 and its Rules and Regulations and compare these in the light of our practice. Please consider too the practice of our fellow active Guidance Counselors. I tell you, madaming dapat ayusin sa batas na ito! For love of Guidance and Counseling!

Ito na muna. God bless and take care

Invitation to GDAP 3rd Organizational Meeting

The Guidance Directors Association of the Philippines (GDAP) has been meeting for two times already. This time on June 4, 2009, we will meet again for the 3rd time. Some have contributed their personal funds which will be credited as membership fee later on, and so we were able to purchase the SEC proforma papers for registration.

The forming of this Association involves both licensed and unlicensed, former and present Guidance Directors, Coordinators, Heads or Guidance Office/Center Administrators in order to help in the development of the Guidance and Counseling Profession in the Philippines. If you have worked in this area before or are currently in this work, licensed or unlicensed as RGC, please feel free to attend the meeting which will start at 9AM and last until the afternoon, about 4 or 5PM. We shall be preparing our papers for SEC registration. We are grateful to our Guidance Director of Dr. Dr. Carlos Lanting College Mr. Ricky Lawas for his generous service in procuring the said SEC proforma papers. The meeting place is at the University of the East, Manila campus (in Recto). Please proceed to the Guidance Office of UE, Manila. They have reserved our meeting place.

God bless and take care