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

[Dr.Fessel]

My understanding of this is they want the divorce stopped for now because Kaine is not telling the truth about things and using the divorce case for other reasons.

 

[mysticrose]

In the motion for abatement, TH's atty says she agrees to the dissolution of the marriage (that way they can be divorced as soon as possible).

Because of all the attendant issues with the investigation and custody matters and such, they are asking that all other matters related to the divorce be put on hold for a period of time.

I think it's a reasonable request. There could be some messy financial and custody stuff to deal with eventually, and the resolution of the investigation might determine what needs to be dealt with.

Also, an abatement would allow her to avoid giving any testimony under oath til that period of time is over. So it could be a strategic move, but they also have some legitimate reasons to ask for the abatement -- probably a combo of both, IMO.

Thank you ! This makes perfect sense ....

 

[Kat010]

Interestingly enough, this motion also addresses TH's attorney fee, and issues about it.

 

[nas212913]

Maybe nobody paid for him. Maybe he's doing it pro-bono. Maybe she knows some friend's brother's cousin who knows this guy who knows this girl who makes Houze's coffee. I don't know.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Hey Doc, the motion says specifically that TH agrees to the divorce. It also specifies why the abatement is being sought, and it has nothing to do with working on the marriage.

Just noting that! I think I posted maybe a minute before you--we both were fast!

Yes, she agrees she will give him the divorce down the road, just not right now. They want the divorce proceedings stopped now.

 

[Kat010]

My understanding of this is they want the divorce stopped for now because Kaine is not telling the truth about things and using the divorce case for other reasons.

Nope, that's not why they're asking for the abatement. Please check out my original post in my thread and follow the link to the entire PDF and motion.

The motion also answers KH's assertion about the lawyer fees for TH and the amount.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Wow they really don't want any court proceeding do they. She would have to tell the truth in a divorce proceeding and custody hearing and they do not want her on any court record. What is she hiding?

AND most importantly where did TH get the money she paid for her attorney. It says she did not borrow the money. It did not come from her money and she is not asserting it is any kind of marital debt.

OK then where is the money coming from?

Her lawyer says Kaine grossly misstated the amount of money she paid her lawyer.

So who knows what was really paid.

 

[Sherbie]

Wow they really don't want any court proceeding do they. She would have to tell the truth in a divorce proceeding and custody hearing and they do not want her on any court record. What is she hiding?

AND most importantly where did TH get the money she paid for her attorney. It says she did not borrow the money. It did not come from her money and she is not asserting it is any kind of marital debt.

OK then where is the money coming from?

I believe that to be true about the funds. The atty would never misrepresent that to the court (knowingly, anyway). My guess is that her parents and/or other family and friends have helped with the atty fees, and Houze's fee was apparently a lot less than the $300+k reported.

 

[Donjeta]

I missed something.

If she has intentions on signing over her rights to Baby K, why would a custody evaluator be needed? In the motion, it stated that an evaluator would not be able to be unbiased (paraphrasing) due to the media scrutiny.

I actually like the motion. It makes sense. Very interesting.

IMO the money matters can wait but it makes less sense to me when it comes to the custody issue because the child does not wait to grow up. She needs her parents to be there for her now, and all the time.

I don't know how much time would have to pass for the evaluator/s to completely forget and get over the preconceived notions they may have gotten from the media coverage but I bet just a couple of months wouldn't help much. She would have better odds if somebody else was quickly arrested for Kyron's disappearance but even so,
the more time that passes between now and the custody evaluation the more likely the child is to have forgotten all about her mother and the less likely it is that any custody evaluation would recommend upsetting the status quo for a mother who is a virtual stranger to her child unless the father is found unfit, IMO.

Edit: Also, if a significant amount of time without maternal visitations passes, the chances are that the evaluators observing the interaction between the mother and a child will see a more strained situation than when they observe the interaction between the child and the father who has been the primary caretaker in recent times.

 

[wondering1]

Last night on NG, a talking head made comment about the request for the source of money by Kaine that Terri used to pay her defense attn.

IIRC, that information is client/attn. priviledge (defense attn/TMH)

However, the divorce court would be able to access that info, because it is a question of if marital income has been used, or if a loan was taken out to make the payment and it could be viewed as a marital debt.

Don't shoot the messenger please, just relating how it was discussed last night.

I thought that was interesting. I'll see if I can find the link to the transcript if anyone wants.

This is generally true. However, if she waived the a/c privilege by disclosing the retainer to a 3rd-party, it would be discoverable under any circumstances, so long as it is releveant, or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The client (not the attorney) holds the a/c privilege and can waive it. Once waived, there's nothing Houze can do to prevent the information from being disclosed.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Nope, that's not why they're asking for the abatement. Please check out my original post in my thread and follow the link to the entire PDF and motion.

The motion also answers KH's assertion about the lawyer fees for TH and the amount.

I have been reading it the whole time.

LOL LOL and you are right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man I was kinda reading that sideways.

 

[wondering1]

Maybe nobody paid for him. Maybe he's doing it pro-bono. Maybe she knows some friend's brother's cousin who knows this guy who knows this girl who makes Houze's coffee. I don't know.

TH's lawyer says the amount was grossly overstated, not that it was zero. I can't think of anything left as a source but a *gift*

 

[nas212913]

IMO the money matters can wait but it makes less sense to me when it comes to the custody issue because the child does not wait to grow up. She needs her parents to be there for her now, and all the time.

I don't know how much time would have to pass for the evaluator/s to completely forget and get over the preconceived notions they may have gotten from the media coverage but I bet just a couple of months wouldn't help much. She would have better odds if somebody else was quickly arrested for Kyron's disappearance but even so,
the more time that passes between now and the custody evaluation the more likely the child is to have forgotten all about her mother and the less likely it is that any custody evaluation would recommend upsetting the status quo for a mother who is a virtual stranger to her child unless the father is found unfit, IMO.

I agree. I would want certain things like that done ASAP. I would want to see my child(ren) as soon as I could.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

For our attorneys: If they are able to abate the case and there is not been a custody arrangement worked out, could they try to demand visitation due to the "terms to be determined later"?? IE: once the time of the restraining order expires?

This hits me as a smoke and mirrors move to avoid corporation with the investigation of a tiny little boy who deserves much more than paper games! If she is not involved, what is there to hide? Why would she not want to clear the air and be reunited with her daughter? I would think if she doesn't want KH to know the source of the funds, she could allow her attorney to satisfy the judge in camera of the source and eliminate the speculation the money was from selling a child or his likeness, right? So what am I missing - please! :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

 

[Jaxson]

BBM

Does it really work that way in Oregon? For one thing, I thought Oregon was a no-fault divorce state.

In my state, child support is calculated based on estimates of expenses but the actual amount cannot be more than a certain percentage of that person's real income. I believe that percentage is 20%, but I may be mistaken.

So, say a child's total support each month is theoretically estimated at $1000 (I'm using easy numbers!). Each parent would be expected to pay $500/month. If the non-custodial parent has a job that makes a total of $500/month, though, their child support is limited to $100/month (20% of their income).

If neither parent is capable of financially supporting the child, the state then provides family assistance to make up the amount so that the child does not suffer.

There are parents who deliberately acquire low paying jobs in an attempt to limit their child support obligations but they rapidly discover that the instant they get a better paying job, they will also be going back to court to be re-assessed for child support.

The underlying principle is that no free citizen can be forced to work at a job that is repellent to them. People are free to work at whatever low paying job they want but they have to be willing to actually live on that money.

Actually I based my opinion on Wa State. It is also no fault but child support is based on combined income and is divided by percentages of what each parent makes. SO if combined income sets a base amount of 1000.00 a month, and one makes 65% and the other makes 35% then that is how it is divided. Of course the custodial parent does not actually pay out. However if one parent has not been working then the courts here will imput an income based on median income of that age group and gender. My husbands ex had an income of 0 butthey imputed her income to 1800.00 a month at that time and then figured out the percentages. In Wa you don't get to take a low paying job to lower support. They look at tax returns and base it on those. Once set it is set, unless something unforseen occurs (work accident, diabilities, layoffs, etc) then you can ask for it to be lowered. Just because you take a lesser paying job does not necessarily lower your support.

 

[Kat010]

I have been reading it the whole time.

LOL LOL and you are right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man I was kinda reading that sideways.

Thank you, Doc! Yea, the legalese is kinda weird stuff, eh?

I've written a mod suggesting that the threads be merged, as a couple of folks have suggested. Will that work for you?

I found the lawyer's comments about KH's assertion re: lawyer funds to be quite...terse. I enjoyed them. Ahem.

 

[wondering1]

PB says TH didn't pay Houze 350K, and it didn't come from her funds. Wonder if the speculations about her parents giving her the money were correct.

But wouldn't it briefly become her funds if somebody donated her money to pay for a lawyer, until it became the lawyer's funds? Can a third party pay for your lawyer and have it considered a transaction between the third party and the lawyer and not a gift to yourself?

bbm

I think that it can, but I'm not sure. I came across that situation in the context of looking at whether the payor has an attorney/client relationship with the payee.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

I have been reading it the whole time.

LOL LOL and you are right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man I was kinda reading that sideways.

Wait!!!!

If you go on to read after she says she will give him the divorce, that is an offer and until the time Kaine agrees to that they want the divorce stopped in total.

 

[21merc7]

anybody know how to save this link to the pdf?

I just tried to get the kgw news article and I couldn't, but this works right now. (Could just be my computer though.)

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

 

[grandmaj]

Oh boy on Issues Bruce McCain just said that the divorce would be set aside with her promise to not contest in the future.

But the kicker is........ this would stay all motions. She would not be required to answer to any motions already filed and no motions could further be filed to put pressure on her. In other words the motion for contempt would not be heard until after the criminal matter.