Everyone loves a good rescue story, but some pets don’t immediately open up. It takes a loving, patient parent to ease their fears so they’ll learn to trust again. Rescued Cockatoo, Chloe, is one of those pets, and it’s taken 780 days to finally do the one thing these birds are known for—and it’s a beautiful moment.

If you’re in need of a heartwarming, tear-jerker of a video, this is it. Watch as Chloe chooses to take the leap and trust that her new mom will never hurt her, and will remain a steadfast, loving figure she can count on.

Chloe’s been in her new home since January 2023, and is just now beginning to understand she is safe. This sweet girl’s progress to let love in has been slow, and not always “linear,” as @apparrotly shares, but she’s still grateful for any progress at all.

In a previous clip, the timid Cockatoo let Mom pet her for the very first time—14 months after her rescue, and when Chloe first got close enough to explore Mom’s feet, she shared the clip explaining, “Chloe doesn’t let me touch her or even move my hands around her when I’m looking at her.”

So as you can see, it’s been quite a journey to get to this point, but Chloe’s getting there little by little. The video brought longtime fans who’ve followed Chloe’s story to tears.

“She’s gonna be your sidekick I know it,” famous Cockatoo Cumulus’ Mom wrote. Another added, “I am literally crying! I have been watching you build this relationship for so long!” And another offered praise writing, “I knew she would eventually get there. Trust, love and a lot or patience can overcome so much.”

Related: Precious Cockatoo Loves His Doctor So Much He Sings a Special Song About Her

How To Help a Rescue Cockatoo Adjust

Chloe’s journey is inspiring, but it’s taken a lot of work to help the reserved Cockatoo get where she’s at. Northwest Parrot Rescue explains that the acclimation process in a new home can be done in a few steps, and the first 72 hours are crucial for setting the tone.

The first is to create trust and bonding. Keep your bird in an uncovered cage for 48 hours to become familiar with the new surroundings and only the adopter should feed, water, and care for and speak softly to him/her. This is very important for forming a bond.

On the second day, only the adopter should open the cage and let the Parrot out on their own volition. The home should be distraction-free and quiet. Asks the bird to step onto your hand to slowly walk through the house. No one else should be involved. again, this matters!

Step two is strengthening the bond. The adopter shouldn’t show affection to any other pet in the home for the first three days to avoid jealousy and unwanted behavioral issues. Also, avoid responding to the Parrot if they’re making loud cries or unwanted phrases. Now’s the time for boundary-setting.

They may be acting out to see what they can get away with or to get attention—just like kids! Practice positive reinforcement by rewarding them with time out of their cage for being quiet. Do this for 30 days to set the routine. Likewise, ensure you’re giving them plenty of attention when they are out because Parrot species require a lot of dedicated time with their main person.

The org suggests offering attention in small increments of 10-15 minutes at first so any schedule changes don’t throw them off. Cuddling should be 30 minutes or less and be consistent. Parrots thrive on scheduling and consistency so if any of these things are broken in the first week home, they state to start over.

Some rescues just need a little more time to adjust, and that’s okay. Look at Chloe. 780 days later, she’s finally able to give Mom the same love in return.

🐶SIGN UP to get “pawsitivity” delivered right to your inbox with inspiring & entertaining stories about our furry & feathered friends🐾🐾

At a luxe island resort in Thailand, three childhood best friends are on vacation, having left their jobs, kids and partners at home so they can reconnect and recharge with the help of Reiki, yoga and wine. That hotel? The White Lotus — the fictional setting of Max’s hit TV show, now in its third season. The comedy-drama provides an incisive take on politics, class, gender roles and relationships — and this season, it’s the trio’s fraught friendship that’s under the microscope.

To a casual resort guest, it may seem like Kate (played by Leslie Bibb), Laurie (Carrie Coon) and Jacklyn (Michelle Monaghan) are just gal pals enjoying some time off. But in reality — and what is apparent to viewers — their friendship is anything but easy. The trio subtly competes for who has the lowest body fat mass. They have snarky side conversations about whatever friend went to bed early that night’s plastic surgery or political choices. They pass not-so-subtle passive-aggressive judgment on one another’s love lives and parenting styles. This friendship is stressful — for those watching along at home and to the friends who, when alone, look like they’re having anything but fun. The biggest mystery on The White Lotus isn’t the identity of the dead body teased at the beginning of the season … it’s whether this group will remain friends when they leave the island.

“This is a pretty realistic version of female friendships, especially ones who have known each other since high school,” commenter Annette Hunt shared on Max’s Instagram page. “Any time you have an odd number of friends, someone’s gonna get ganged up on by the other ones.”

As Hunt notes, the pop culture threesome is true to life. TikTok creator Sahar Dahi shared a similar experience. “Every single group of three I’ve ever been in has been a complete disaster,” she said. “I’ve decided I’m never gonna travel with groups of three, go out in groups of three, have a main group of three … there’s too much, like, ganging up, a lot of talking s*** and bullying.”

Then there’s Brandon Edelman, co-host of the “Between Us Girlies” podcast, who said that he’s happy with his four-person squad because groups of three are a recipe for disaster. “Anytime I’ve been in a friend group of three, someone is always the third wheel,” he reflected. “Especially in high school, when you’re younger, two people latch on to each other, and the third person notices — and everybody notices. And I honestly feel like sometimes as an adult, that still happens.”

So are groups of three actually problematic, or do they just get a bad rap? Here’s what some experts have to say.

You’re inviting exclusion into your friendship

Groups of three aren’t inherently bad but they do add an extra layer of complexity to friendship than when two people are hanging out.

Psychotherapist Barbie Atkinson of Catalyst Counseling tells Yahoo Life that while three-person friendships can be “really enriching,” you have to be “more intentional” than you would be in two-person friendships to avoid conflict and hurt feelings.

Spending time in a group of three can easily leave one person feeling left out. No two friendships are exactly the same, so it’s natural for someone to feel like the other two are closer or that their voice carries less weight in the group because, often, that’s the reality. But according to Atkinson, this imbalance isn’t always personal or malicious — it’s simply harder to give two people equal attention at the same time.

One example Atkinson gives is when planning a dinner with your trio. If you live closer to one of the friends, you will likely end up picking a place more convenient for two out of the three people — at least, if you’re not intentional about it. “You naturally exclude, and that can feel tricky,” she says.

Three-person friend groups can lead to triangulation

Sometimes, however, the hurt caused by a friendship with a group of three goes beyond inadvertent exclusion — especially when the group’s balance is thrown off by conflict.

One of the biggest problems with three-person friend groups is the likelihood of “triangulation,” Victoria Kress, professor of psychological sciences and counseling at Youngstown State University, tells Yahoo Life. This is when two people bond at the expense of the third person — like on The White Lotus, when Jaclyn and Laurie gossip about Kate’s political and religious leanings after she’s gone to bed for the night. While this talk connects them with each other, it alienates Kate in the process — and when she witnesses it, she’s left feeling hurt and uneasy.

“If one person is experiencing tension with another person in the group, they’ll often go to the person they aren’t experiencing tension with to try to diffuse it, so they don’t feel so alone and feel connected,” she explains, “but this is a really unhealthy and unfair dynamic to the person who is being talked about, because they don’t get an opportunity to protect or defend themselves.”

And you might end up triangulating with different members of the group at different points, as is the case on The White Lotus. That means that whatever conflict you’re having never really gets resolved: You’re talking about people without actually talking to them.

“Healthy relationships involve people talking directly with each other about their issues and concerns and communicating those and working through those so that they can become closer and build genuine intimacy,” Kress says.

Power imbalances come into play

There are also power imbalances at play with groups of three, Kress says, as often one person in the group wants to be the leader. This isn’t a problem if that person is operating from a place of kindness and looking out for the needs of the group. But as Kress explains, if they’re more interested in control and status, that can open up room for conflict, particularly if there are people in the group who don’t really assert themselves.

You know how Regina George (Rachel McAdams) is the leader of The Plastics in Mean Girls — while Gretchen (Lacey Chabert) is content to be walked all over … until her whole “we should all just stab Caesar” freak out? Kress says that groups of three can create this type of pressure cooker.

“Sometimes what you see is those people who don’t assert themselves is that they can explode,” Kress says. “They’re frustrated that people aren’t asking what they think or what they want.”

Plus, Atkinson says that these different imbalances can also occur when one person feels closer to another in the group, which can “inadvertently fuel jealousy and competition for attention or perceived ‘best friend’ status,” Atkinson says.

When fights do happen, they can ramp up in intensity quickly, says Atkinson. A disagreement between two people within the group “suddenly involves the third,” which can “unnecessarily escalate the conflict” by bringing “a whole other person’s energy into it.”

The bottom line

Atkinson stresses that just because friend groups of three have unique challenges doesn’t mean they’re impossible to maintain healthily — but you have to “make a concerted effort” if you want to avoid the drama.

That means paying attention to how you’re communicating. Instead of triangulating when you have a conflict with a group member, it’s important to communicate directly. And while it’s normal for friendships to go through phases where people feel closer to one person than another, being mindful of giving everyone an equal voice in the friendship is also important. (That may mean heading to your furthest friend’s neighborhood for dinner occasionally!)

“If done well,” Atkinson says, “it can be really cool, and you can have so many different points of view, and know that everyone has your back and you have theirs.”

Last week, a measles outbreak claimed the life of a person in New Mexico. Late last month an unvaccinated child died in Texas in a separate measles outbreak. The deaths come as the U.S. public health programs and agencies are rocked by the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a well-known vaccine skeptic, as the new secretary of health and human services.

It also comes at the five-year anniversary of the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Dr. Mike Osterholm, one of the country’s top health experts, spoke to The Advocate recently about the anniversary and his concerns about U.S. public health.

During the height of the pandemic, then-President Joe Biden appointed Osterholm to his COVID advisory committee because of his expertise in pandemic preparedness, disease outbreak investigations, and public health practice. Osterholm is Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health and the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, where he’s taught for almost 50 years.

Osterholm has been vocal about the potential negative impacts of Kennedy’s appointment on both national and global health.

“One of the immediate actions taken under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership was the suspension of critical vaccine advisory meetings,” Osterholm said. “The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is responsible for recommending vaccine protocols, and a similar committee advising the Food and Drug Administration on flu vaccines, have both had their sessions canceled.”

Osterholm expressed deep concern over these cancellations. “I don’t see any reason why we would need to have a total pause in the sharing of information,” he pointed out. “Such disruptions could jeopardize the ability of agencies like the CDC and FDA to respond to emerging public health crises.”

He also pointed to the CDC’s delayed response to the measles outbreak in Texas, attributing it to the necessity of clearing communications through the Department of Health and Human Services. “Effective public health relies heavily on good communication; without it, challenges become more pronounced, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic,” he explained. “Effective communication enhances the likelihood of successfully addressing public health emergencies and bringing them to a resolution.”

The importance of maintaining robust communication as well as vaccination programs is being underscored by the measles outbreaks. In Texas, that outbreak has resulted in over 130 cases. The death in the state is the first U.S. measles fatality in about a decade.

During a recent Cabinet meeting, Kennedy downplayed the severity of the outbreak, suggesting that measles occurrences are routine and misstating hospitalization protocols.

“What he said was not true,” Osterholm said. “He had a number of misstatements…He also said that the children that were hospitalized were being quarantined. Quarantine is something we use to basically take people who might be infectious and capable of transmitting and in a sense isolating them from doing that. That is not true. These children are all hospitalized because they’re severely ill.”

In the last week, Kennedy, who first seemed to tout fish oil instead of vaccines, has taken to Fox News to recommend the measles vaccine.

On top of all this, Osterholm characterized the administration’s approach to governing as being led by a “wildly swinging machete” rather than a “finely precisioned surgical tool,” suggesting that necessary changes should be implemented thoughtfully and strategically. “While it’s essential to assess workforce productivity and make necessary adjustments, such actions should be executed with precision, akin to using a surgical instrument, rather than through broad and hasty measures, because some of our finest doctors and researchers as well as grants might be part of that machete cut.”

He further criticized the abrupt withdrawal of support for numerous global health programs aimed at combating diseases and promoting healthy lives for children. “I compare it to suddenly denying a patient a lifesaving drug without warning because these moves by the administration will have immediate and severe consequences,” he said.

He predicted that these decisions could lead to a crisis, especially with anticipated major cuts to federal health agencies like the CDC, FDA, and National Institutes of Health.

Addressing the potential cuts in funding for programs targeting diseases like AIDS and malaria, Osterholm asserted that these diseases “don’t know borders, but they love chaos.” He explained that reduced attention and resources can enhance the transmission of these diseases, leading to a “double whammy” where the elimination of international borders for transmission is compounded by increased spread due to diverted focus.

“The damage inflicted by such neglect may be immediate but will have long-term implications, making recovery challenging,” he noted.

Regarding the bird flu problem, Osterholm emphasized that it requires a long-term solution, particularly the development of reliable, durable, and safe vaccines. He criticized the current minimal investment in vaccine research and development for both flu and coronaviruses. “It’s a major mistake that will incur a significant price in the future,” he said. “Having more effective vaccines readily available and ensuring public willingness to receive them are crucial steps in mitigating the impact of future pandemics.”

The convergence of leadership that undermines vaccine efficacy, coupled with policies that disrupt both domestic and global health initiatives, presents a precarious future for public health, setting up a perfect storm, he said.

“Everything that I could define as a disrupter is what’s happening in terms of public health in this country,” he cautioned. “The proof is in the pudding of what’s happening right now. When people used to ask me how concerned I was about public health, I always said I sleep with one eye open, and lately I feel like I’ve been sleeping with three eyes open.”