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

[desquire]

It's hard to see how he would be hurt? Money doesn't make everything okay. Money doesn't solve problems. This man's CHILD is missing and no amount of money can do anything about that. He has to deal with Kyron being gone everyday, you really think it would be better for him to have the divorce to the person he believes did something to Kyron drag out? I think it would destroy him mentally. His son is gone, and he has to keep dealing with his wife who wants to put off being his ex-wife purely to CYA her own butt. I'm sorry, but that is totally unfair to Kaine. I'm sure he'd like this to be over fast, give her whatever money she is due, and be totally done with her.

Justice may have to wait because Terri won't talk, but that doesn't mean that Kaine has to be hung out to dry to protect Terri's rights or make things better for Terri. Kaine has no obligation to make this ordeal any easier on her. She got herself into this with bad decision after bad decision. Kaine should not have to pay the price of waiting up to two years just so Terri comes out okay.

It just amazes me that people think Kaine should be destroyed and Terri should be made whole and healthy. Even if she is innocent, that doesn't mean Kaine has to go down in flames to make it right. He has good reason to suspect her and not trust her. And seriously, I highly doubt he wants "get her" with these divorce proceedings. He didn't even show up to the first divorce hearing! He wants this over, but Terri is the one who wants to drag it out. Why is okay for her to do that, but not okay for Kaine to want it over?

Why must he be tortured just that so Terri isn't?

I can read the passion in your words and I'm sure you think I'm just a callous and unfeeling d-bag. I'm not, really. I just think you are being incredibly unrealistic. Today, Kaine has the baby, the house, the bank account and a restraining order to keep Terri away from him. This is as close to having her out of his life as he will ever get. If the judge refuses abatement and proceeds to divide everything up tomorrow, that doesn't make it over. He married her and had a child with her - for better or worse, he can't just walk away from that. Every month when he writes her a check, every weekend when he picks the baby up from her, every decision about that baby's healthcare and education that he has to consult with her on .... it will never be over and he will never be completely done with her. Life is not clean and neat and fair.

 

[grandmaj]

If Kaine gets custody of the baby why wouldn't Terri be required to pay child support?

 

[desquire]

Just thinking out loud here, but are finances and custody the only legally recognized ways that someone could be hurt by a delay? In practical terms it's easy to sympathize with someone who doesn't want the financial and custodial issues to hang in the air long-term and wants to build their future on solid ground, be divorced in all ways, etc. But is there a legal argument in that, or do the courts just look at the practicalities like financial hardship?

That is true and, even though it's a less tangible and harder to measure impact, there absolutely is an argument to be made on that basis. In fact Kaine's objection to abatement is based almost exclusively on that argument. The court will have to weigh that potential harm to Kaine against the potential harm to Terri in proceeding. He will also factor in the interests of the system in timely/efficient disposition of its caseload.

 

[ami]

That is true and, even though it's a less tangible and harder to measure impact, there absolutely is an argument to be made on that basis. In fact Kaine's objection to abatement is based almost exclusively on that argument. The court will have to weigh that potential harm to Kaine against the potential harm to Terri in proceeding. He will also factor in the interests of the system in timely/efficient disposition of its caseload.

At least on those grounds I think terri's argument is stronger - - if she argues that she's innocent of the (possible future) charges and yet at this moment has no way to defend herself and so will lose custody of her daughter if things proceed right now, and Kaine is arguing that it would be emotionally healthier for himself and baby K to just move on - I'd probably side with Terri on that one unless any evidence came out to suggest she was actually a murderer or hired a murderer. An innocent Terri has more to lose.

 

[SurfieTX]

If Kaine gets custody of the baby why wouldn't Terri be required to pay child support?

I would think so. It's not like she is uneducated and unable to get a job (well, right now it'd be hard, but if/when she is exonerated). As well, if it does come out that she was either responsible or was a part of Kyron's disappearance/harm, wouldn't that be grounds for termination of her parental rights to baby K?

 

[Aedrys]

I can read the passion in your words and I'm sure you think I'm just a callous and unfeeling d-bag. I'm not, really. I just think you are being incredibly unrealistic. Today, Kaine has the baby, the house, the bank account and a restraining order to keep Terri away from him. This is as close to having her out of his life as he will ever get. If the judge refuses abatement and proceeds to divide everything up tomorrow, that doesn't make it over. He married her and had a child with her - for better or worse, he can't just walk away from that. Every month when he writes her a check, every weekend when he picks the baby up from her, every decision about that baby's healthcare and education that he has to consult with her on .... it will never be over and he will never be completely done with her. Life is not clean and neat and fair.

I'm not being unrealistic. I never said it would clean and neat and fair, nor do I think that. Kaine may have all of those things mentioned, but that doesn't make him so much better off than Terri except that he's not forced to be housebound with no cellphone or computer (and that is TERRI's fault). Like I said, money is not going to solve anybody's problems here. I'm sure whatever Terri gets is going to go right to her defense. It's not like once she gets what she gets from Kaine that suddenly she's going to be okay. Money is not going to solve anything here.

And we also don't know Kaine's financial situation. He could be in debt for the car, the house, the vacations. People live beyond their means all of the time. My husband and I have a huge big screen TV. That doesn't mean we aren't struggling to pay bills otherwise month to month. Just because HER lawyer said he has all of this money doesn't mean that's true. Lawyers say things all the time to make their clients look better. Obivously, Terri can't be that bad off if she can afford Houze's retainer.

Of course he's going to have to keep dealing with her even after the divorce is over. But the phase going through a divorce would be over. Is he not entitled to the piece of mind that at least the one part of his life that he can do something about is taken care of? Should he have this divorce hanging over his head along with his son being missing? Does that sound fair at all?

I'm sure he'd rather get past the settling of divorce details and on with his life. My sister got a divorce, and it was painful to watch her those MONTHS she had to go through getting the right paperwork, and having to deal with her ex on issues time and again. When it finally went through, she could finally get on with her life. Fortunately, they didn't have any kids together.

Having a child does complicate things. But I think Kaine would rather get on with his life and deal with visitation than constantly be hashing out details in a courtroom over the divorce. Going through a divorce can be hell. It takes a huge emotional toll on a person. Until it goes through, it's like life is in limbo. No one can move on or do anything until the details are set and the divorce is final.

It may not get easier afterwards, but there is that piece of mind that it's over and done with, and both parties can finally move on with their lives in a sense. Of course with kids, that becomes all the much harder, but it's not impossible. People move on, get married, etc. Life can move on. Kaine doesn't have that as long at Terri wants to drag this out and make a bigger deal out of it than there needs to be. That isn't fair to Kaine, and it isn't fair to baby K either. I'm sure Kaine would rather spend more time on finding Kyron than battling with Terri in a court room.

btw, I never said you were a callous and unfeeling d-bag. I don't think that at all about anyone here.

 

[grandmaj]

Oregon is not a community property state. I see that Kaine is on the hook for very little as far as paying Terri anything. IN fact he could petition for child support from her and she would probably be paying him not the other way around.

 

[Aedrys]

Oregon is not a community property state. I see that Kaine is on the hook for very little as far as paying Terri anything. IN fact he could petition for child support from her and she would probably be paying him not the other way around.

Interesting. I figured there might be a division in marital assets, at least money wise, but maybe not. I didn't think she'd get any property or anything. I didn't realize she might not get any money either.

So then why all the talk (I mean in the courtroom) about how much money either of them has if neither of them has to divide it with the other? Well, I guess it could be that she might be spending his money, and is not allowed to do that because Oregon isn't a community property state? Is that right?

 

[Donjeta]

I totally agree with you. However, none of that is happening here. Terris did not contest the RO and has stipulated to the divorce. No one is trying to deprive Kaine of the benefits of either action. All we are talking about here is delaying the division of assets and custodial rights. If it were the case that a delay would deprive Kaine of support payments or of custody of the baby, I would agree that there should be no delay. But the reality is that Kaine won't be receiving a penny in this divorce, he'll be paying. And it's also a reality that unless Terri is tried and convicted they will end up with some form of joint custody arrangement. So it's hard to see how Kaine is hurt by a delay that allows Kaine to hold onto his money and sole custody of the baby for a longer period.

I am not really against granting the abatement if the court agrees to it. I can see both the for and against. It may not have been your thought but IMO the drift of the general conversation was that Kaine has trampled Terri's rights simply by filing civil suits which make her choose whether to respond because it has the potential of ending badly for her.

I don't really see what makes Terri and Kaine so special because every trial and hearing has the potential of ending badly for somebody and in fact, I think they're quite often filed for in the hopes that they would end badly for someone other than the petitioner.

Postponing the divorce and the custody rulings may IMO hurt both of them on some level because pending court cases are very stressful and longer they go on the longer it keeps them in a constant state of stress and uncertainty about the outcome.

 

[believe09]

TH is attempting to avoid interrogatories and depositions for the divorce matter. Her attorneys are drawing a dotted line IMO between the divorce case and the criminal case because much crosses over. "What led to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, KH?" "The disappearance of my 7 year old and LE told me of a MFH plot, yr honor."

So what is the outcome here with the abatement and the request for the source of the money to pay Houze? I read that the judge does not like to bifurcate, but he was referring to the request by Burch to split the two issues...as in the abatement and the 350K source. It was a good effort by Burch and Houze to continue to drag this out...

 

[Emma Peel]

That's what Houze and Bunch could have argued. The Petitioner has not offered any substantive proof, the petition contains no solid facts, the petitioner's attorney has not offered the Court any evidence such as receipts, audio tapes, pictures of money being transferred, witnesses, nada. The allegations are based on pure hearsay and the respondent's position is that it is all just slander and should be dismissed as frivolous and harmful to the Respondent.

Then Rackner would either have had to produce her proof or the case would have been dismissed.

It just never came to pass because it was Terri's and her lawyers' choice. They chose not to contest and did not ask for any proof.
Imo it can't be Kaine's or the judge's fault; it's not their job to argue Terri's obvious defense for her if her lawyers don't.

:yes:

That is, again, exactly the point. Terri's lawyers are opting not to argue Terri's obvious defense.

She's lost rights to even see her baby over that choice not to argue.

To me, that speaks loudly - it says that this defense (criminal & civil) fears something damaging to Terri would come out of the process of hearing any evidence regarding the MFH allegations.

It follows that the defense fears this for a reason...

Whatever the truth behind these MFH allegations is, keeping the evidence from being heard in divorce court at this time is a greater priority for Terri than keeping a relationship with her baby at this time.

I don't want to leap to conclusions but, I can't see how this choice doesn't translate to Terri's team believing the MFH allegations & evidence is very serious & very damaging. And that she could lose big-time in civil court.

Maybe...Terri's team believes it will have a better chance to have her found innocent in criminal court.

If her team believes it would improve Terri's custodial position to fight and win in criminal court than to have a hearing in civil court ... where the burden of proof is lower... then THAT is a possible reason to push for abatement of the civil matter.

IMO and I am no authority - just thinking Terri's legal options through...

and wondering why her team is not fighting and demanding evidence in the MFH allegations in these proceedings...

To the untrained legal mind/eye Terri just looks guilty here. It seems that whatever evidence they have, she can't contest without incriminating herself.

I'm trying to reason and understand how she may still not be guilty even as her team is protecting her and making serious choices (no baby time) as if she is...

If the abatement is not granted, does our legal system then force her into a position where she basically can't defend herself in an aggressive divorce proceeding by Kaine?

 

[Aedrys]

I am not really against granting the abatement if the court agrees to it. I can see both the for and against. It may not have been your thought but IMO the drift of the general conversation was that Kaine has trampled Terri's rights simply by filing civil suits which make her choose whether to respond because it has the potential of ending badly for her.

I don't really see what makes Terri and Kaine so special because every trial and hearing has the potential of ending badly for somebody and in fact, I think they're quite often filed for in the hopes that they would end badly for someone other than the petitioner.

Postponing the divorce and the custody rulings may IMO hurt both of them on some level because pending court cases are very stressful and longer they go on the longer it keeps them in a constant state of stress and uncertainty about the outcome.

I should have waited for your response, lol. You said it much better than I ever could! ITA and thanks!

 

[debs]

But Terri isn't charged with anything, yet people just think she should allow someone to accuse her in a civil trial and believe she should have nothing to fear if she's innocent.

I can't fully articulate how wrong that notion is.

Terri has the Constitution behind her on this: She has the right to face her accusers and she has the right to not have to be compelled to say something which might incriminate her. Not because she's done anything; she has the presumption of innocence. But Kaine Horman's attorney is trying to force Terri to prove she's innocent without ever having been charged with anything just so her client can get his divorce. Oh, and get answers he rightfully wants. But he can't just tear down the Constitution to get them and people shouldn't advocate for it to happen.

Because if it happens to you, who is going to be in your corner? I will be, but you see how many times I'm screamed down. It isn't about protecting Terri; it's about protecting the rights of every citizen to not be manipulated into testimony about something with which you have not been charged.

 

[Billylee]

This is what's listed as grounds in the petition for dissolution between Kaine and Terri:

Irreconcilable differences between the Petitioner and the Respondent have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.


That being the case, just where does the MFHP come into the divorce proceedings? Does it at all? Yes it has to do with the restraining order, but what about the dissolution itself?

 

[cluciano63]

Here is my problem with all of this...if Terri says OK to everything, let's get it done, I don't want anything...that, too, is, to many people, admitting guilt, right? Because why would she allow Kaine to have custody, etc. if she is not guilty?

And if she wants to fight it, but takes the 5th, that too will be seen as guilt. So all she can do, to avoid implication of guilt, is get up there and expose herself to whatever is thrown her way and hope she can field the questions. Her lawyer probably won't advise that, as no matter how innocent she may be with concerns to Kyron, she may have some degree of guilt with her relationship with landscaper, things they may have discussed, texted, etc. Maybe she could answer questions about Kyron honestly, but not about the landscaper's claim. And if she is guilty of even discussing Kaine's demise, in jest or otherwise, many will see that as guilt regarding Kyron.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Here is my problem with all of this...if Terri says OK to everything, let's get it done, I don't want anything...that, too, is, to many people, admitting guilt, right? Because why would she allow Kaine to have custody, etc. if she is not guilty?

And if she wants to fight it, but takes the 5th, that too will be seen as guilt. So all she can do, to avoid implication of guilt, is get up there and expose herself to whatever is thrown her way and hope she can field the questions. Her lawyer probably won't advise that, as no matter how innocent she may be with concerns to Kyron, she may have some degree of guilt with her relationship with landscaper, things they may have discussed, texted, etc. Maybe she could answer questions about Kyron honestly, but not about the landscaper's claim. And if she is guilty of even discussing Kaine's demise, in jest or otherwise, many will see that as guilt regarding Kyron.

Thanks for the breakdown of the situation.....it looks like she's really painted herself into a corner that she can't escape from. And, IMO, she has nobody else to blame but herself.

 

[Donjeta]

But Terri isn't charged with anything, yet people just think she should allow someone to accuse her in a civil trial and believe she should have nothing to fear if she's innocent.

It's the principle of the thing. IMO everybody should have the right to file for a restraining order if they feel threatened by their spouse since the law has given peope that right. IMO if the civil RO cases were meant to be dependent of criminal charges being filed and the person being convicted there would be no such thing as a civil RO in the law, the RO would follow the criminal conviction if any.

What if it was just some random incognito people, not well known persons who we have formed various emotional responses for and against? What if it was a random wife saying she's being threatened by her husband, would we say that she has to wait for the courts to convict her husband for something before she can file a suit to try and protect herself and her minor children? I know I wouldn't, I'd say go for it, the sooner the better. It can be too late for her and her children by the time the criminal case, if any, is resolved, if the threat she feels is real.

If every wife battered or threatened by her spouse/ex etc. has the right to file for a RO for her and her children's protection without waiting for the courts to convict her husband IMO we can't deny that right from Kaine if he considers himself a threatened spouse just because we want Terri to come out of this smelling like roses.

It's not that she should have nothing to fear if she's innocent. Everybody has something to fear if they get lawsuits filed against them. But IMO it's not a constitutional right for Terri or anyone to have nothing to fear in court. If it was there would be no lawsuits at all because what would be the point?

I can't fully articulate how wrong that notion is.

Terri has the Constitution behind her on this: She has the right to face her accusers and she has the right to not have to be compelled to say something which might incriminate her.

I'm not getting the problem. I thought she has the right to face the accusers, who are Kaine or his attorney in the civil case, if she wants to, and she also has the right not to speak in the civil case, if she wants to.

Not because she's done anything; she has the presumption of innocence. But Kaine Horman's attorney is trying to force Terri to prove she's innocent without ever having been charged with anything just so her client can get his divorce.

IMO he doesn't really need to prove she's guilty of anything and she doesn't need to prove that she's innocent of anything in order for them to get the divorce. I have learned here that Oregon is a no fault divorce state, so it's not necessary for anybody to be the guilty or innocent party, and she already agreed not to contest the divorce so it should be a done deal without any proving or counterproving necessary. There's just the matter of timing to be resolved.

Oh, and get answers he rightfully wants. But he can't just tear down the Constitution to get them and people shouldn't advocate for it to happen.

IMO if he has attempted to tear down the Constitution he will get his butt soundly thrashed by Houze and Bunch for it but so far they have not argued that any of Rackner's petitions are unconstitutional IIRC. It would surely be the quickest way to throw Kaine out of court in shame. Since we have heard so much of Houze's reputation I'm sure he'd be on top of this and Terri has another lawyer to assist her as well if Houze doesn't but neither of them have said that Kaine has torn down the Constitution. It leads me to suppose that Kaine is probably well within his legal rights to file for a divorce whenever he wants to, to file for a restraining order whenever he feels threatened, and to file for contempt of court whenever the court's orders have been disregarded.

Because if it happens to you, who is going to be in your corner? I will be, but you see how many times I'm screamed down. It isn't about protecting Terri; it's about protecting the rights of every citizen to not be manipulated into testimony about something with which you have not been charged.

Is there really a right not to be manipulated? You can't be forced to testify, you can plead the fifth. But IMO there is no corresponding obligation for others to avoid trying to tempt you to testify, putting you in situations in which you might like to plead the fifth.

If it was anybody else but Kaine and Terri and the divorce petitioner felt that the respondent had done some awful thing in their marriage and cited it in their petition we wouldn't be talking Constitution at all, IMO. It would be just par for the course. Every day, family courts hear stories about awful, potentially criminal things that the other spouse allegedly has done although he/she hasn't been charged let alone convicted for them and you don't often see the divorce cases thrown out of court on the basis that they're unconstitutional and trample the parties rights not to incriminate themselves. The judge considers the merits of the arguments on each side and rules in favor of one or the other or splits it in the middle.

If it ever happens to me that I get suspected of murderous plans against my husband or my children I fully expect for my husband to sue the heck out of me. I do not expect him to kindly sit back and stay married to me, letting me have access to our precious children and risk their lives, quoting as the reason his desire to spare me from situations in which my testimony might be incriminating. I expect that he would always put the safety of the children first because he's that kind of guy. If it ever looks like I might have hurt them he'll darn well try to make sure I'll never get near any of them again.

And I think it would be his right to do so. If he files for something unreasonable or illegal hopefully I'll have a good attorney.

 

[ami]

But Terri isn't charged with anything, yet people just think she should allow someone to accuse her in a civil trial and believe she should have nothing to fear if she's innocent.

I can't fully articulate how wrong that notion is.

Terri has the Constitution behind her on this: She has the right to face her accusers and she has the right to not have to be compelled to say something which might incriminate her. Not because she's done anything; she has the presumption of innocence. But Kaine Horman's attorney is trying to force Terri to prove she's innocent without ever having been charged with anything just so her client can get his divorce. Oh, and get answers he rightfully wants. But he can't just tear down the Constitution to get them and people shouldn't advocate for it to happen.

Because if it happens to you, who is going to be in your corner? I will be, but you see how many times I'm screamed down. It isn't about protecting Terri; it's about protecting the rights of every citizen to not be manipulated into testimony about something with which you have not been charged.

I'm certainly not advocating the suppression of Terri's constitutional rights so Kaine can get his divorce. Realistically, it doesn't matter what we say because the judge in the case and Terri's attorneys will see to it that her rights are upheld.

However I cannot see Kaine's current requests as the trampling of her constitutional rights. Some parts of the requests are not linked to the criminal case and seem to be easy to respond to - the financial parts, for instance. And you are against that as well, even though they don't link to criminal activity (one would think) and are well within Kaine's rights.

 

[Donjeta]

This is what's listed as grounds in the petition for dissolution between Kaine and Terri:

Irreconcilable differences between the Petitioner and the Respondent have caused the irremediable breakdown of the marriage.


That being the case, just where does the MFHP come into the divorce proceedings? Does it at all? Yes it has to do with the restraining order, but what about the dissolution itself?

IMO it might depend on whether you ask Kaine or Terri. If it comes down to equitable division of marital assets it could possibly play a part in what is considered fair if one spouse has planned to murder the other?

 

[stmarysmead]

Here is my problem with all of this...if Terri says OK to everything, let's get it done, I don't want anything...that, too, is, to many people, admitting guilt, right? Because why would she allow Kaine to have custody, etc. if she is not guilty?

And if she wants to fight it, but takes the 5th, that too will be seen as guilt. So all she can do, to avoid implication of guilt, is get up there and expose herself to whatever is thrown her way and hope she can field the questions. Her lawyer probably won't advise that, as no matter how innocent she may be with concerns to Kyron, she may have some degree of guilt with her relationship with landscaper, things they may have discussed, texted, etc. Maybe she could answer questions about Kyron honestly, but not about the landscaper's claim. And if she is guilty of even discussing Kaine's demise, in jest or otherwise, many will see that as guilt regarding Kyron.

Leaving Kyron's disappearance aside for a moment, all of these other problems are of Terri's own making.

Terri is responsible for her behavior with the Landscaper. She is responsible for her words: written, emailed, texted. or spoken. She is responsible for repeating the behavior with the Sexting Friend only FOUR days after her husband had left her and she knew police were suspicious of her....behavior that enabled police to see a "resemblance" between the two incidents.

She created all these situations with her words and her behaviors.

Now in the matters of divorce and custody, she has to answer for them. Well, that's called accountability.

Why should Kyron's disappearance be Terri's trump card not to have to answer for these behaviors in the divorce suit? Why should she get to "cover-up" her reckless behaviors again? As she apparently has done in the matter of her "courtship" with Kaine.

IMO, Terri likes to have a public persona of perfection. But this doesn't just involve silence toward awkward history...it means rewriting it with Terri as hero. She's so fabulous!

This is why the cover-story was out there that she was Desiree's devoted friend...that she unselfishly stepped in when Desiree was ill. Didn't that story come from HER MOTHER in part...or am I mistaken?

She likes people to think she was so wonderful...while in fact she does whatever she wants, takes whatever she wants...including a despicable affair with a pregnant woman's husband. (and yes, I blame Kaine here too)

But this time, Kaine is the one who was cheated on by Terri. At the worst possible moment of his life, the person closest to him...is portrayed by investigators to him... at the least, as betraying him with her sexual behaviors...at the most...despising him enough to want him murdered. They are not equally culpable in destroying this marriage.

She is in a tough spot...but she has a top attorney. That's more than many others might have.

I haven't one whit of pity for her.