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

[Calliope]

I don't see how him contesting this demanding professional supervision (if that's what he's going to do) negates a court order giving her supervised visits that has not even been made yet.

Of course, that's assuming the order is given.

If Kaine requests conditions that Terri couldn't possibly meet --- and he knows she is not employed, has little if any assets --- then he has effectively negated the order because even though she's been awarded visitation, it's impossible for her to carry it out.

As a person charged has an absolute right to an attorney, but if they are too poor to afford one, that right is negated if the State doesn't provide for one.

Poor example, poorly worded, but it's late. (early?) I'm running on empty here.

 

[Calliope]

Calliope, did you mean that this means the law requires Terri to pay for the costs of the supervision?

I thought (I'm as far from a lawyer you can get though) that it means that the court can require her to pay for the costs of the supervision but it's not mandated. I got this impression because the part where it says the abusive party is required to pay for the costs of the supervision and any of the other conditions required by the court is included in the list following "protections include but are not limited to one or more of the following". So the court could but is not required to order all the things in that list, they can pick and choose including the payment part. OTOH they can also order additional things. Couldn't the court also require the abuser to pay for the costs of professionally supervised visits if they order such as a condition for the visits?

It seems as though they are allowed. But I'd bet if they made the terms so that the respondent couldn't take advantage of the order, then the attorney would have a hell of a good case for appeal.


I guess I should have said it can be required, as it says "one or more". Sorry.

 

[Donjeta]

Of course, that's assuming the order is given.

If Kaine requests conditions that Terri couldn't possibly meet --- and he knows she is not employed, has little if any assets --- then he has effectively negated the order because even though she's been awarded visitation, it's impossible for her to carry it out.

As a person charged has an absolute right to an attorney, but if they are too poor to afford one, that right is negated if the State doesn't provide for one.

Poor example, poorly worded, but it's late. (early?) I'm running on empty here.

Yeah. But Terri is not that poor, fortunately. She could afford the atty who she said was worth 350.000 dollars.

I wonder if the party who got her Houze would be willing to help her pay for the chance seeing her child.

 

[Trt]

Well, just read my above post. She has the absolute right by law, to ask for a modification in the RO regarding parenting time and custody.

And yet she has chosen to try and circumvent this "right" thus far...instead working "behind the scenes" to try and get Kaine to disregard a judge's orders and let her see baby K anyway??!! I hope she does plan t answer the allegations contained in the RO and try to see baby K legally. Doesn't seem
like her or her lawyers wanted to go the legal route initially.

Jmo

 

[BeanE]

It's SOP for attorneys from both sides to work together to come to agreements prior to court. Otherwise, they stand to incur the wrath of the judge for wasting his time and the taxpayers money.

I don't see any circumvention here. Just SOP.

My opinion based on what I've seen in other cases, such as Caylee's, where we've seen the judge's admonishments along these lines.

 

[Pensfan]

The 30-day limit doesn't apply with regard to parenting time / custody.

This does NOT nullify the RO. It modifies the issue of parenting time (she's not asking for custody).

Kaine has gone on record (last week) indicating he would be open to supervised visitation. That is something I'm certain the judge will take into account. And it's going to be awfully hard for Kaine to back-pedal on that.


Bottom line. Oregon law allows for respondents to petition the court to modify an RO under FAPA regarding parenting time and custody at any time the RO is in effect.

I never stated that the RO was going to be nullified. ?? I have been discussing the deletion of the toddler's "guaranteed" 12 month RO which the toddler received when Terri didn't contest the RO. In the state of Oregon, if the Respondant (the dangerous person) doesn't contest the RO within the first 30 days, the RO stays in effect for 12 months.

This RO was taken out to protect Kaine AND the toddler (read their RO). Giving Terri visitation would nullify/eliminate/delete/erase/annul/quash the 12 month RO that the the toddler is now "guaranteed" since Terri didn't bother to contest the RO.

Yes, criminals get visitation, but criminals and non-criminals are very rarely granted visitation with a child that has RO on them. The toddler has a RO on Terri that is going to last 12 months.

To state that Kaine is open to visitation is misleading, Calliope. Kaine stated, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."
Kaine is going to set a precondition on any visitation. This is what "depending on the circumstances" implies. Envision what this precondition will be knowing that his son has been missing for four months.

 

[Trt]

It's SOP for attorneys from both sides to work together to come to agreements prior to court. Otherwise, they stand to incur the wrath of the judge for wasting his time and the taxpayers money.

I don't see any circumvention here. Just SOP.

My opinion based on what I've seen in other cases, such as Caylee's, where we've seen the judge's admonishments along these lines.

The SOP for Terri has always been to motion THE COURT for a modification of the RO so that Terri could have visitation with her child. Had Kaine or his lawyer agreed to allow Terri to see baby K "behind the scenes", Kaine would have been in violation of the RO that JUDGE put in place. It isn't Kaine's call whether or not Terri sees K, it's been in the hands of the court since June 28th. This isn't a standard divorce proceeding, thereis a legal restriction on Terri with regards to her child. And she chose to try and settle it outside of the appropriate venue. That is a classic attempt at circumvention to me and it isn't the first time that we've heard of such with regards to Terri and the RO. Jmo

 

[cypress]

Yeah. But Terri is not that poor, fortunately. She could afford the atty who she said was worth 350.000 dollars.

I wonder if the party who got her Houze would be willing to help her pay for the chance seeing her child.

BBM

Terri couldn't afford her attorney. Someone else is paying her attorney's bills. Bunch has attested to this fact. Do you think he's lying?

 

[mmmagique]

He hasn't gotten away with anything yet. He just filed a motion. I could file a motion to declare myself Queen of Pluto. I could ask the court to make Calliope pay if she contests my motion as well. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I would vote for you as Queen of Pluto. I bet you'd be just darling at it!

 

[BeanE]

The SOP for Terri has always been to motion THE COURT for a modification of the RO so that Terri could have visitation with her child. Had Kaine or his lawyer agreed to allow Terri to see baby K "behind the scenes", Kaine would have been in violation of the RO that JUDGE put in place. It isn't Kaine's call whether or not Terri sees K, it's been in the hands of the court since June 28th. This isn't a standard divorce proceeding, thereis a legal restriction on Terri with regards to her child. And she chose to try and settle it outside of the appropriate venue. That is a classic attempt at circumvention to me and it isn't the first time that we've heard of such with regards to Terri and the RO. Jmo

I am not saying there is no need for them to go to court. Nothing like that.

I am talking about how these attorneys, none of whom are lightweights, are working within the system, as they should, meeting with each other, discussing, negotiating, etc, and then going to court (when necessary - they were already able to avoid the time and costs of two hearings).

There is no circumvention to it. Attorneys of the caliber of all of these work together prior to court appearances, and save the judge's time and taxpayers' money, as these attorneys have done all along.

If we term this circumvention, then Kaine and his attorney are also circumventing. Some of these meetings have even taken place in Rackner's office.

But there's no circumvention to it. They are all doing their jobs, as attorneys of this caliber do.

 

[mmmagique]

Oh, and then there is this:

b. If the court awards parenting time to a
parent who committed abuse, the court
must include adequate provisions in its
order to protect and provide for the
safety of petitioner and the child or
children. The protections under ORS
107.718(6) include, but are not limited
to, requiring one or more of the
following:
1) the exchange of the child or
children take place at a particular
location;
2) the parenting time be supervised;
3) the perpetrator of the abuse attend
and complete a program of
intervention for perpetrators of
domestic violence or other
counseling program the court
deems appropriate;
4) the perpetrator of the abuse not
possess or consume alcohol or
controlled substances during the
parenting time and up to 24 hours
before;
5) the perpetrator of the abuse pay the
costs of supervision of the
parenting time and any other
conditions placed on him or her by
the court; and
6) no overnight parenting time occur.



For those who had wondered if the court would be able to handle this. They are required to handle this.

FR, so this may have been addressed, but I just wanted to point this out. Sounds like Terri is gonna have to pay if she wants to play.

 

[gardeness]

He's not arguing, reasonably or otherwise. He's got a full court press on to hide his client behind the 5th amendment. And he's keeping it on the low, because that's what he does. He knows she's guilty, guilty, guilty and he's working on a plea as we speak...or, he's counting on the fact that they won't find a body. He's talking to his insiders to find out what's up with the SI searches. He knows what the witnesses said to the GJ, at least in general. And, most importantly, he's talked to his client. And he's keeping a low public profile....which he does when his clients are GUILTY! jmoo

bbm

I've seen this from another poster before, but I do not remember what their source was--I would like to read more about it, if you have a link. Thanks!:read:

 

[mmmagique]

I can't find it now but here it is from the petition itself:





I don't see where Bunch says anything about her paying for any kind of supervision. Who is she going to get to supervise it for free, seeing as how it is implied that she has no money to pay anybody, professional or not? Her friends? Would or should Kaine trust these non-professionals if they are paid by Terri or doing it as a favor for her? Of course not. (IMO)

Maybe Dede would do it for her? :croc:

 

[cypress]

FR, so this may have been addressed, but I just wanted to point this out. Sounds like Terri is gonna have to pay if she wants to play.

Wouldn't there have to be evidence abuse occurred? Wouldn't LE have to prove this in some way? Have they done that? People may think it's true, there may be instincts, gut feelings, and beliefs, but has it been proven? Does it have to be proven in the context of our discussion?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm genuinely curious about the legalities of this. If one can simply allege it and it be so, whatever it is, well that's scary.

 

[mmmagique]

Wouldn't there have to be evidence abuse occurred? Wouldn't LE have to prove this in some way? Have they done that? People may think it's true, there may be instincts, gut feelings, and beliefs, but has it been proven? Does it have to be proven in the context of our discussion?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm genuinely curious about the legalities of this. If one can simply allege it and it be so, whatever it is, well that's scary.

The evidence has already been shown and admitted, hence the RO.

 

[BeanE]

Wouldn't there have to be evidence abuse occurred? Wouldn't LE have to prove this in some way? Have they done that? People may think it's true, there may be instincts, gut feelings, and beliefs, but has it been proven? Does it have to be proven in the context of our discussion?

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm genuinely curious about the legalities of this. If one can simply allege it and it be so, whatever it is, well that's scary.

IANAL, but my understanding is that our system works on the premise that all parents are good and fit. Anyone who wants to curb a parent's rights, based on them being in some way unfit, danger to the child, etc, has to bring evidence. Just saying so doesn't cut it.

In this instance, it is Kaine who, I assume, will say Terri is detrimental in some way to the safety and/or well-being of the baby. Therefore, he's the one who's going to have to cough it up. (the evidence, that is)

He can try to get evidence from LE. He can try to get evidence from the ice cream man. He can bring anything from anybody that he feels is evidence that Terri detrimental in some way to the baby's safety or well-being.

I think his attorney would object to him bringing anything silly. She's not a lightweight. We have seen, however, one instance in which the evidence she brought on behalf of her client appears inadequate (claimed to have a writing that said Terri had paid $350k for her attorney, and when the writing was published, it did not).

There are instances where there is no ready evidence or witnesses. Venus Stewart's case comes to mind, in which her little girl had alleged that her father (Venus' husband) had sexually molested her. In that case, the judge ordered a psychological eval of the child to determine if there was evidence, and CPS also did an investigation. (The results of the psych eval were that the child allegation were true. He's up on charges now.)

In this instance, Kaine has alleged that LE told him that they have probable cause etc. He will have to bring evidence of that. I *think* he would be able to bring alternate evidence of the same allegations if MCSO won't provide any.

I don't know if he can add on additional allegations, such as past abuse, and bring evidence of that.

We really need our verified attorneys to visit this thread.

 

[BeanE]

The evidence has already been shown and admitted, hence the RO.

No, as our verified attorneys have explained, since Terri didn't contest the RO, Kaine didn't have to show or admit any evidence. The RO was granted therefore based on Kaine's hearsay in his RO application.

Gitana has posted some great explanations of this. I think an advanced search on her posts in Kyron's forum for the keyword hearsay will bring them up.

 

[cypress]

The evidence has already been shown and admitted, hence the RO.

Was evidence shown, though? Or did Kaine simply say he believed X and Y to be true? Based on lengthy discussions about ROs and whatnot, I haven't viewed the granting of a RO as a barometer by which evidence can be judged.

Remember the hilarious David Letterman example?

 

[mmmagique]

No, as our verified attorneys have explained, since Terri didn't contest the RO, Kaine didn't have to show or admit any evidence. The RO was granted therefore based on Kaine's hearsay in his RO application.

Gitana has posted some great explanations of this. I think an advanced search on her posts in Kyron's forum for the keyword hearsay will bring them up.

He did not have to show or admit any evidence because Terri did not contest the RO. That is an answer in itself.

 

[mmmagique]

Was evidence shown, though? Or did Kaine simply say he believed X and Y to be true? Based on lengthy discussions about ROs and whatnot, I haven't viewed the granting of a RO as a barometer by which evidence can be judged.

Remember the hilarious David Letterman example?

If I were to attempt to take an RO out on you due to extreme emotional distress and other bad stuff (yes, it's a legal term. I learned it going to paralegal school here in Kentucky.) and you did not contest it, the court considers it as admitted.

So basically, either you did it and want to save yourself the hassle of going to court, or, you just really don't care to bother with it because either you don't want to see me anyway, or a piece of paper isn't going to stop you from continuing the extreme emotional distress and other bad stuff.