2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[x_files]

Yes, it is as if some have already found her guilty and she hasn't even been arrested for anything yet much less afforded a trial.

I think we should all want to have rights and protections in place.

Being a stay at home mom is quite valuable and up until her oldest son moved out a few months ago she was raising three children.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354638,00.html

Study: Stay-at-Home Mom Worth Nearly $117,000 a Year

If I was Terri and innocent I would feel betrayed and outraged by everything and will possibly be in position to sue some people for defamation of character.
I agree she doesn't put herself in a favorable light sounds like she has serious issues. But what about some other cases where the wrong person was accused and arrested and later convicted.
Only time will tell the truth.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Why shouldn't she have spousal support? She didn't initiate the divorce proceedings and is being thrown out of the only home she's known for the past .... however many years. It's standard in most divorce proceedings.

Dare I point out that this is hardly a "standard" divorce proceeding? In fact, the request to order her out of the house is not related to the divorce proceeding at all -- it's related to the RO. The fact that SHE has done things that persuaded a court to issue a RO against her (which she has not contested), shouldn't mean Kaine is suddenly required to pay for two homes instead of one. Some couple continue to live together during divorce proceedings, but that's not an option here because of the RO.

She currently has no children to care for and is free to get a job and support herself. Again, the fact that SHE has done things which make it unlikely that she could obtain any kind of employment at all, is not a reason for a court to saddle Kaine with extra bills. If it was just a matter of suspicion that she might have had been involved in Kyron's disappearance, she could still get some sort of job (though presumably not as a teacher, especially in July), but that's not all that's going on. Sending hundreds of "sexting" messages and graphic photos of herself to a high school friend of her husband's, while her stepson is missing, is all by itself enough to persuade *any* employer to take a pass on her. She's taken herSELF out of the running for even a graveyard shift mopping floors at a factory, or bagging fries at McDonald's -- no employer would believe for a second that she would focus on her assigned duties during work hours, if she was hired.

I don't buy into the notion that women are by nature helpless creatures who need husbands to support them. Spousal support orders are often appropriate when the spouse requesting support has been acting reasonably like a spouse, and has obstacles to employment such as young children at home, and the spouse being ordered to provide support has simply chosen to move on to more exciting pastures or has been ordered out of the home due to his (or her) wrongdoing. But there's no reason why a working father who has moved out of the family home with the only still-findable child on advice of police who feared for their safety, should be expected to support his soon-to-be-ex-wife as she pursues a life of sexting, Facebooking, and buffing herself up for amateur body-building contests. Let her sleep at a homeless shelter and drag a few possessions around with her during the day. Plenty of perfectly innocent people have had to do that.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

A few thoughts:

1) If TH can pay her lawyer, she can rent a uhaul to move her stuff to her new boyfriend's house, or to her parent's house, etc. From what I've read about the man, Houze (sp?) isn't the kind to represent TH pro bono. If she's got funds to pay him (through inheritance or whatever), then she's got a lot of nerve asking for money from Kaine. That said, her parents could very well be the ones putting up the money for the lawyer.

2) If TH has no access to funds of her own and has been a SAHM with KH's full agreement, etc., for these past however many years, then given that there are criminal charges (yet), it's not unreasonable for her to ask for support in moving when he's the one who started the divorce proceedings. This is a little gray in my mind, however, because she's being asked to move because of the RO, not just because of the divorce. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that if a female discovered that her husband was trying to have her killed, and if after she put out a RO against him,took their daughter, and started divorce proceedings...I have a hard time believing that if it were a male who in TH's position, someone who had acted violently, that there would not be public outcry if said violent male asked for money to move out, when in fact he was being asked to move because of an RO due to his violence.

3) Despite the fact that she might have a legal claim to financial assistance in moving from the house, the fact that her lawyer released letter saying that they would move and comply with the RO...and then turn around and add "oh, we'll move if we get paid" is, IMO, bad PR, especially given TH's reported behavior (lying about her whereabouts on June 4, the MFH plot, the sextiing, etc.). I thought Houze was supposed to be a PR type of guy? IMO, this isn't a good PR move.

Actually defense lawyers do about two cases a year pro bono. It is their way of paying back since they are paid so well for their services throughout the year and when they do select the cases many times it will be a high profile case because they couldn't buy the advertising that they will get if there is a trial where their name becomes well known even nationally.

She could contest moving out and he would have to pay more attorneys fees and it would slow down the process. Since she is willing to move he should assist her with the move especially since she has not been charged with anything.



IMO

 

[Adalena935]

Thanks for the video on page one Chili Fries. She's asking for money from Kaine but not asking to see the baby. Oh my gosh. Kaine's lawyer said he'd like some answers from her first regarding where his son is. Who would wonder. I feel for him and especially little Kyron.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

I'm hoping that since Intel is a large company with a lot of resources that they are keeping him on the payroll while he searches for his son.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are. Or perhaps they have put him on some sort of disability status that continues to pay most of his normal salary -- I think any psychiatrist would readily attest that his current mental state makes it impossible for him to focus on his work. They may also just be allowing him to "work from home", which he apparently already did some of the time anyway, and are just not pressuring him to be very productive.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

I know she did some sub teaching but anyone know when she quit teaching full time?

I'm pretty sure I read that she's never held a permanent teaching position, though she did have at least one fairly long substitute teaching stint. She hasn't had her teaching license all that long. And I believe the little matter of the child endangerment conviction (for drunk driving with her 11 year old son in the car) took her out of the substitute pool for a year or so, while she was on probation. And then a couple of years after that, Baby K was born, and she hasn't done any subbing since then. I haven't seen any evidence that she's ever actually supported herself, other than her live-in child care position with Kaine, before that morphed into a marriage.

 

[nonfictionrocks]

At the risk of getting timed out or smacked by the mods - does anybody else here see Terri and her lawyer coming from left field with a statement along the lines of, "Kaine is not the father of my daughter K and had no parental rights" statement anytime soon - Man, that would smart! Please stand-by Levi, Nancy and of course, Jerry Springer! JMO and heads up everyone.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

By the slight chance she didn't have anything to do with Kyron's disappearance she could have played her cards better and then been entitled to something. Maybe she could move in with her parents.

If I was her parents, and she announced she wanted to move in with me now, I'd tell her in no uncertain terms that her housing crisis was *her* problem, and suggest she ask her new sexting buddy if she could bunk with him.

 

[gitana1]

I have filed many RO's and they are temporary until court. You can say whatever you want to get them and they will be granted temporarily almost always. Then you go to court to fight them, which she has not had opportunity to do. You can't just go in whenever you feel like to fight it. You get a court date. She has a court date now. Let's see if she fights toothe and nail for visitation before we say she isn't. You do not know if she will fight it or not and since she doesn't have job she is not in a position to pay the mortgage so why would she fight that? She would lose either way. If she fought it and stayed in the house it would go into foreclosure and it would be gone to both of them. It would be stupid to try and keep the house even if she had a job based on what a teacher would make.

That's not my experience. All I do is family law and I have seen many RO requests denied on a temporary basis (just not mine!). Especially when young kids are involved - at the least, temporary orders will include supervised visitation until the hearing. This one did not.
According to Kaine's attorney, Mr. Houze stated TH is not going to be fighting an order giving no parenting time to her at a future hearing. We will see what happens in a few days I guess. Isn't it on the 22nd? My bet, she's not going to fight at all. Why? Because then she has to answer the allegations and if she is guilty, anything in the context of this civil RO hearing can and will be used against her in the context of a criminal trial.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

she will never teach again. imo.

children, school, I mean.

Not children, but I expect she'll teach again. They have programs in prison where inmates who are qualified can help tutor other inmates who are trying to learn to read, or trying to earn their GEDs.

 

[gitana1]

How much proof would they need in family court? Is there a higher standard of proof - such as being able to take it to trial (or at least a grand jury) needed to use it as evidence? Or can it simply be a statement such as "Law Enforcement gave me probable cause to believe...."? Does the family court judge have to see the evidence, or are statements that it exists enough?

In California, it's basically reasonable proof that needs to be shown to prove DV, such as a hit/contract on someone's life. I think that's less than beyond a reasonable doubt. The statement itself is usually not enough. In my experience, the court usually weighs the credibility of the parties based on their credibility as shown by testimony, if there is no other proof. Basically, if she refuses to answer the allegations, which is what I think will happen here, TH should lose and the orders requested granted.
Technically, the statement "LE told me they have probable cause", is not enough. It is hearsay, unless LE testifies. But family law court tends to be much more relaxed about evidentiary rules, depending on the judge. I predict no LE will show up to testify and it won't matter a bit.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Well, based off my readings for law school - as he's been Baby K's parent since she was born and claimed her as his own child, the law may still recognize him as her legal father, regardless of DNA. There have been cases where the non-biological father has had to pay child support because they have acted as the child's parent for so long. Depending on Oregon law, DNA showing she is not his daughter might not affect anything as far as custody/support.

Or he could end up like the adoptive father of Terri's older son (who legally adopted the boy while he was married to Terri). He's still the legal father, and still required to pay (and is paying) child support, but hasn't seen the boy in years. If I was Kaine, I might just want to skip the DNA test, and love and protect this baby girl no matter whose DNA she may have.

 

[Aedrys]

I really think we shouldn't talk about baby K's biology. That's taking it a little too far. Whether Kaine is her biological father or not, he's the one taking care of her right now. He is her father for all intents and purposes, and honestly, if TH dares to bring that up right now, that is about the coldest and most hurtful thing that could be done to Kaine. Just think about it - he would lose two children, not just one.

I don't mind talking about her asking for money, but I think we should stay away from suggesting Kaine is not baby K's father. That is strictly a rumor started here not verifiable in any way.

Plus, I'm more incensed about the money issue right now. You better believe I'll be incensed about the baby K daddy issue if that does come up in a verifiable way.

 

[butterfly1978]

I believe this also, but there are people who would accuse him of extortion if he made the offer!:banghead:

but in the same since her refusing to cooperate and now asking for money to move could that be demanding a ransom? I guess only if she agreed to help if he pays, sorry I answered my own question.

 

[gitana1]

She can't contest it until the court date. So I am not going to assume there is something to the allegations.

Judges sign off on almost all temp. requests.

I hear what you are saying but apparently, she is not going to fight the RO or any of the requested orders. I frankly do not see how she can since she knows she is the focus of a criminal investigation that is related to the allegations in the RO petition. Well, that is, she can't fight if she's hiding something.

 

[gitana1]

She can't contest it until the court date. So I am not going to assume there is something to the allegations.

Judges sign off on almost all temp. requests.

By the way, it is possible to fight temporary ROs prior to the hearing date.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

This is actually really hard to guess on. It's been 5 years since the DUI/CE charges, but that might stop her )I don't know if those things ever expire in terms of teaching credentials). But in regards to Kyron's case, she might be safe - some school boards have to follow the laws about holding suspicion against a person without charges/convictions.

I remember a case a while back about a woman whose child died (I won't say how, as that would lead to a debate about how TH was worse, and about the pros and cons of this example's offenses - suffice it to say, it could have brought significant charges). She worked as an educator in a high school, and there was substantial resistance from the parents for having her retain her job working with their kids. The school board decided their hands were tied, since charges were dropped and she was not convicted.

Not saying this was right or wrong, but just that it is not certain TH will never teach again without charges/conviction - she just has to find the right board and district.

A bit scary, though. The fact is, you can't hold suspicion alone against a person. MOO.

There's a *big* difference between firing someone who's already employed, and declining to hire someone. Terri has very minimal teaching experience, and combined with the child endangerment conviction, any school district could take a pass on her without fear of legal consequences. She will absolutely never be hired as a teacher by any public or private school that has minor children as students.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

BBM. Agreed! She has not been convicted of anything yet - so she should be entitled to their monies, I would think. She doesn't deserve it, but I don't see how he could keep her from it. I didn't know when you are married, one partner can have their OWN money. I was always under the impression it is both of theirs, regardless if one does not work outside the home.

They most certainly can. Even in a community property state, any money that was one partner's prior to the marriage can remain the sole property of that partner. And as far as I know, pre-nup agreements, and similar agreements freely entered into after the marriage begins, also trump community property laws. Now if you choose to throw your assets into joint accounts, jointly owned homes, etc, you can lose control of them. But many spouses keep some or all of their finances completely separate for a variety of reasons.

My parents finances were always completely separate, and my mother bought and owned the house we lived in much of the time (and still lives there, decades after the divorce). We also lived in other places much of the time due to my father's employment, and those were rentals paid for by my father, while my mother collected rental income from the house and put it in her own accounts. They never had a joint bank account of any kind. My mother also worked outside the home most of the time, starting when I was about 7, and eventually had a higher income than my father. Part of the reason for keeping things separate was the terms of my father's previous divorce agreement, which (quite appropriately) required a large chunk of his estate to go to the children of that marriage. Had my parents' marriage lasted and if my father had predeceased her, the terms of the prior divorce agreement could have had a big impact on her financial situation after his death, and also on what her own children would ultimately inherit. Neither of them wanted to commingle their assets.

 

[rosiebean]

Actually defense lawyers do about two cases a year pro bono. It is their way of paying back since they are paid so well for their services throughout the year and when they do select the cases many times it will be a high profile case because they couldn't buy the advertising that they will get if there is a trial where their name becomes well known even nationally.

She could contest moving out and he would have to pay more attorneys fees and it would slow down the process. Since she is willing to move he should assist her with the move especially since she has not been charged with anything.



IMO

I know about defense lawyers working pro bono to pay back for their services. One of my first jobs was with a very well known legal firm in D.C. involved in legal cases that I'd read about in my college text books.

In my experience, the pro bono cases my firm chose were low profile, and most often, the defendants were very low income and in very obvious need of good legal advice. Very often, the cases were rather 'simple'...i.e., they were cases with moral merit that would NOT monopolize the firm's time (they were, after all, working for paying clients...clients who were paying a LOT...at the same time).

There was much speculation on the Web when TH retained Houze that he was taking her on as a client pro bono because of the publicity. Local peeps with knowledge of him indicated that, beyond the fact he didn't need the publicity, there was nothing in his history to indicate that he'd take on a case simply because it was high profile. After much debate over his history, speculation turned to how TH was paying him, because with his history in regards to pro bono cases, he was getting paid. Add to that my experience...the attorneys I worked for would not represent TH pro bono...too high profile a case, too much time needed to defend, etc.

Rather, the attorney that my BF from college worked for would have taken the case pro bono. He was an ambulance chaser of the highest order and desperately craved media attention. From what I've since read about Houze, he does not need that kind of attention, nor has he ever shown a a pattern of seeking it out. I *could* be wrong. But my opinion about his working pro bono was made with *some* experience in the legal field and with local opinions about TH's lawyer .

Edited to add: Since TH is accused of trying to hire someone to kill KH and she is moving because of said violent behavior that resulted in a RO that she is not contesting, I don't see why she is entitled legally to financial aid...she is not moving because of the divorce, she is moving because of the RO. I cannot think of a case where the person seeking the RO was legally bound to pay the person threatening them to move. If you can dig up case history on that, please let me know, I'm very curious if it's happened before.

 

[gwenabob]

I know about defense lawyers working pro bono to pay back for their services. One of my first jobs was with a very well known legal firm in D.C. involved in legal cases that I'd read about in my college text books.

In my experience, the pro bono cases the firm I worked for chose were low profile, and most often, the defendants were very low income and in very obvious need of good legal advice. Very often, the cases were rather 'simple'...i.e., they were cases with moral merit that would NOT monopolize the firm's time (they were, after all, working for paying clients...clients who were paying a LOT...at the same time).

There was much speculation on the Web when TH retained Houze that he was taking her on as a client pro bono because of the publicity. Local peeps with knowledge of him indicated that, beyond the fact he didn't need the publicity, there was nothing in his history to indicate that he'd take on a case simply because it was high profile. After much debate over his history, speculation turned to how TH was paying him, because with his history in regards to pro bono cases, he was getting paid. Add to that my experience...the attorneys I worked for would not represent TH pro bono...too high profile a case, too much time needed to defend, etc.

Rather, the attorney that my BF from college worked for would have taken the case pro bono. He was an ambulance chaser of the highest order and desperately craved media attention. From what I've since read about Houze, he does not need that kind of attention, nor has he ever shown a a pattern of seeking it out. I *could* be wrong. But my opinion about his working pro bono was made with *some* experience in the legal field and with local opinions about TH's lawyer .

I have to agree with you. I really doubt Terri is getting this for free. I think she (*cough* her parents) are paying big bucks for him.