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

[BringKyronHome]

I think we are getting a bit off the subject.

Her attorneys are representing her...they are interacting because what occurs in one court can impact what happens in another. They are doing the right thing. You would want the same thing if someone lodged these kind of accusations at you.

We don't know, and it doesn't matter what her attorneys know, what she is guilty of.

As long as there are supervised visits, K should be safe. And, as long as there is a child psych there, her emotional stability should be safe.

Additionally, it's a pretty well accepted fact, that even under the most haneous circumstances, the child/parent bond should remain intact - witness or not...children compartmentalize these types of things, and separation from parent can have long reaching and serious consequences that could affect K for the rest of her life...perhaps in ways such that we are seeing in TH now with her aleged personality disorder...

Without knowing anything, it's still important for her to have contact with her mom.

Perhaps even with full disclosure, the same may be true.

This is for a childhood expert to determine, not us.

Kaine knows TH won't testify, for her own protection...she cannot get beyond that, but he CAN get beyond K's need to be with her mom...TH's attorneys have claimed he refuses to discuss it though.

To me it seems like...

"well looks like you have something I want, and I have something you want" with little regard for the 'thing' she wants.

Of course I don't know this...and it is quite possible that things were drafted in such a way to lead me to see it this way...

I know we don't know much, so at this moment, I'm inclined to think I'm being lead to believe something by some pretty crafty people...

strategy?

 

[JBean]

I think we are getting a bit off the subject.

Her attorneys are representing her...they are interacting because what occurs in one court can impact what happens in another. They are doing the right thing. You would want the same thing if someone lodged these kind of accusations at you.

We don't know, and it doesn't matter what her attorneys know, what she is guilty of.

As long as there are supervised visits, K should be safe. And, as long as there is a child psych there, her emotional stability should be safe.

Additionally, it's a pretty well accepted fact, that even under the most haneous circumstances, the child/parent bond should remain intact - witness or not...children compartmentalize these types of things, and separation from parent can have long reaching and serious consequences that could affect K for the rest of her life...perhaps in ways such that we are seeing in TH now with her aleged personality disorder...

Without knowing anything, it's still important for her to have contact with her mom.

Perhaps even with full disclosure, the same may be true.

This is for a childhood expert to determine, not us.

Kaine knows TH won't testify, for her own protection...she cannot get beyond that, but he CAN get beyond K's need to be with her mom...TH's attorneys have claimed he refuses to discuss it though.

To me it seems like...

"well looks like you have something I want, and I have something you want" with little regard for the 'thing' she wants.

Of course I don't know this...and it is quite possible that things were drafted in such a way to lead me to see it this way...

I know we don't know much, so at this moment, I'm inclined to think I'm being lead to believe something by some pretty crafty people...

strategy?

I agree with much of of your post and am really glad I don't have to make this decision. I do think there is a strategy involved to be sure; but don't think that we are being led down the path nor do I think that a child should be reunited with parent at all costs.
It is a tough call all the way around.

 

[Trt]

I agree with most of your post too, BKH, but the thing that really gets me is that these types of courts exist for this very reason. To determine whether or not a child would benefit from a relationship with their parent(particularly one found to have abused the other parent). Terri and her lawyers are fully aware of the process and are choosing not to participate in it because their client values her freedom. Whatever we feel about Kaine's motives in obtaining the RO, he got it...and Terri didn't fight it. So for a year(maybe more) Terri has some very specific things that she has to do in order to try and gain access to her child. If contact with a parent were always in the best interest of the child, this process(or this type of RO) wouldn't exist.

Terri is choosing not to participate in this process and expects just to be handed access to baby K because it's best for her. How do we know that? That is why the family court is there...but Terri chooses not to use this court as it intended. Jmo

 

[stmarysmead]

I think we are getting a bit off the subject.

Her attorneys are representing her...they are interacting because what occurs in one court can impact what happens in another. They are doing the right thing. You would want the same thing if someone lodged these kind of accusations at you.

No, I would hope I would consider my child before myself. I would not be encouraging my attorneys to force visitation unless I was certain my child would not be hurt...my benefit would be secondary.

We don't know, and it doesn't matter what her attorneys know, what she is guilty of.

My point is...it DOES matter what her attorneys know,,just as it matters what the doctor knows in malpractice suit; what an engineer knows about the structure. I ask again...why exempt attorneys...when they function in society to hold everyone else accountable? NO ONE here has answered that! If Baby is harmed by the actions they are pursuing and they KNOW she witnessed her Mother killing Kyron...that is truly vile...unworthy of any profession...because Baby K is helpless and these attorneys would be knowingly traumatizing her.[/I]


As long as there are supervised visits, K should be safe. And, as long as there is a child psych there, her emotional stability should be safe.

I'm sorry...no one can guarantee that. Think of military professionals traumatized by the gore they witnessed....but if these attorneys would VOUCH for this...be willing to allow Kaine and Baby to hold them legally and finanicially responsible for what the effects are in the future...let them offer that. Don't lawyers haul doctors in court for operations done years before?

Additionally, it's a pretty well accepted fact, that even under the most haneous circumstances, the child/parent bond should remain intact - witness or not...children compartmentalize these types of things, and separation from parent can have long reaching and serious consequences that could affect K for the rest of her life...perhaps in ways such that we are seeing in TH now with her aleged personality disorder...

These are debatable opinions. And do they apply if you have watched your Mother murder your sibling? You would force a Baby to see, smell the scent, hear the voice that she associates with such horror. Give me links to reassure on THAT count.

Without knowing anything, it's still important for her to have contact with her mom.

That is your opinion.

Perhaps even with full disclosure, the same may be true.

This is for a childhood expert to determine, not us.

But to do so...the expert needs an evaluation of the Mother. Terri refuses.

Kaine knows TH won't testify, for her own protection...she cannot get beyond that, but he CAN get beyond K's need to be with her mom...TH's attorneys have claimed he refuses to discuss it though.

To me it seems like...

"well looks like you have something I want, and I have something you want" with little regard for the 'thing' she wants.

Of course I don't know this...and it is quite possible that things were drafted in such a way to lead me to see it this way...

I know we don't know much, so at this moment, I'm inclined to think I'm being lead to believe something by some pretty crafty people...

strategy?

I prefer to err on the side of the helpless child. One child is already gone and probably dead. Kaine should not be made to risk another.

 

[JBean]

Terri Horman's attorneys are not "vouching for her". Good grief, they are doing their jobs, defending her in a court of law. They are attempting to protect her rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. And, I might add, it's particularly difficult for them, because she hasn't even been charged with anything for heavens sake!

Her attorneys have to "speculate" whatever she might even eventually be charged for, I would hate to be in their shoes! How do you defend someone against the accusations of some crime when you don't even know what that is?

What I'm reading here sounds as though you're saying all defense attorneys should be held accountable if someone who is actually guilty is found innocent by a jury of their peers, and that, in turn, would mean all prosecuting attorneys should be held accountable if someone who is innocent is found guilty by a jury of their peers.

It is a defense attorney's job to defend. It is a prosecuting attorney's job to prosecute. They are all doing their jobs, that's all.

Good points and well stated!

 

[stmarysmead]

It's a structural engineers job to build buildings. If his design harms someone, he's held accountable. If a surgeon operated on Baby K and made a mistake, he would be held accountable. If a child drowns in a pool...the homeowner can be accused by an attorney of possessing an "attractive nuisance." Maybe a murderous Mother is an "attractive nuisance" for a 2 year old?

They are trying to force this...without any safeguards that would exist in an ordinary divorce.

Why shouldn't Terri's lawyers be held accountable if, in doing their job, they cause great emotional harm to Baby K?

I don't understand why they cannot be held to the standard that their livelihood imposes on everyone else?

 

[JBean]

It's a structural engineers job to build buildings. If his design harms someone, he's held accountable. If a surgeon operated on Baby K and made a mistake, he would be held accountable. If a child drowns in a pool...the homeowner can be accused by an attorney of possessing an "attractive nuisance." Maybe a murderous Mother is an "attractive nuisance" for a 2 year old?

They are trying to force this...without any safeguards that would exist in an ordinary divorce.

Why shouldn't Terri's lawyers be held accountable if, in doing their job, they cause great emotional harm to Baby K?

I don't understand why they cannot be held to the standard that their livelihood imposes on everyone else?

I am not sure I am following your logic. if an attorney operates within the law and a judge awards visitation, and harm befalls the child, the attorney should be held accountable?

All of us have our own definition of what is "in the best interest" of the child. To some, it may be having contact with the mother. To some it may mean getting as far from the mother as possible. All each side can do is present the information, consult with experts and pray what truly IS best for the child is chosen by those in the know.

 

[germaine]

It's a structural engineers job to build buildings. If his design harms someone, he's held accountable. If a surgeon operated on Baby K and made a mistake, he would be held accountable. If a child drowns in a pool...the homeowner can be accused by an attorney of possessing an "attractive nuisance." Maybe a murderous Mother is an "attractive nuisance" for a 2 year old?

They are trying to force this...without any safeguards that would exist in an ordinary divorce.

Why shouldn't Terri's lawyers be held accountable if, in doing their job, they cause great emotional harm to Baby K?

I don't understand why they cannot be held to the standard that their livelihood imposes on everyone else?

I agree. Just for example, if Mr. Houze wants to "do his job" by getting a rapist and murderer off the hook because he was *tricked* into coming back to this country to face the music, then Mr. Houze should be responsible for whatever the monster does after he's set free. Better yet, he should be required to give the sicko access to his own child. See how he feels about getting rapist/murderers off on technicalities or plea bargains then.

 

[Chili Fries]

It's a structural engineers job to build buildings. If his design harms someone, he's held accountable. If a surgeon operated on Baby K and made a mistake, he would be held accountable. If a child drowns in a pool...the homeowner can be accused by an attorney of possessing an "attractive nuisance." Maybe a murderous Mother is an "attractive nuisance" for a 2 year old?

They are trying to force this...without any safeguards that would exist in an ordinary divorce.

Why shouldn't Terri's lawyers be held accountable if, in doing their job, they cause great emotional harm to Baby K?

I don't understand why they cannot be held to the standard that their livelihood imposes on everyone else?

It seems to me that along this line of reasoning it would be the judge that should be held accountable. The attorneys are only arguing their sides, the judge makes the final decision. Obviously there are political safeguards in place in that respect...the judge was appointed by the Governor of Oregon, who was elected by the people.

Desquire, I really appreciate your input. I may have missed you telling us but, if you don't mind, what area of law do you practice?

 

[Nat]

I agree. Just for example, if Mr. Houze wants to "do his job" by getting a rapist and murderer off the hook because he was *tricked* into coming back to this country to face the music, then Mr. Houze should be responsible for whatever the monster does after he's set free. Better yet, he should be required to give the sicko access to his own child. See how he feels about getting rapist/murderers off on technicalities or plea bargains then.

I hope you are being facetious. The entire legal system would fall apart if that kind of reasoning were to be employed.

 

[germaine]

I hope you are being facetious. The entire legal system would fall apart if that kind of reasoning were to be employed.

The whole legal system would fall apart if murderer/rapists couldn't get off on technicalities and the lawyers who made that happen had to live with the consequences themselves???

That's quite a system we have then, eh? jmoo

 

[JBean]

The whole legal system would fall apart if murderer/rapists couldn't get off on technicalities and the lawyers who made that happen had to live with the consequences themselves???

That's quite a system we have then, eh? jmoo

would you say if LE doesn't follow protocol and it causes a pedophile to go free then LE should have to send their children to spend time with the sicko, as you suggested? Come on now,that is craziness germaine.

Lawyers don't make technicalities happen,imo. There are guidelines and/or rules/laws in place that are primarily designed to protect the innocent. If the authorities or whomever does not follow them and people are released, how can that be the fault of an attorney?
We cannot have a system where the defenders of the laws are penalized. KWIM?

 

[germaine]

would you say if LE doesn't follow protocol and it causes a pedophile to go free then LE should have to send their children to spend time with the sicko, as you suggested? Come on now,that is craziness germaine.

Lawyers don't make technicalities happen,imo. There are guiddelines and/or rules/laws in place that are primarily designed to protect the innocent. If the authorities or whomever does not follow them and people are released, how can that be the fault of an attorney?
We cannot have a system where when the rules are followed the defenders of those rules are penailzed. KWIM?

Lawyers are advocates, LE is not. If LE deliberately, actively let a pedophile go free, than I would have a serious problem with that. Just like I have a serious problem with lawyers who actively advocate to let a known dangerous criminal walk free. As far as it being permitted under the rules, like my mama always said, just cause you can do it, doesn't mean ya should. jmoo

 

[JBean]

Lawyers are advocates, LE is not. If LE deliberately, actively let a pedophile go free, than I would have a serious problem with that. Just like I have a serious problem with lawyers who actively advocate to let a known dangerous criminal walk free. As far as it being permitted under the rules, like my mama always said, just cause you can do it, doesn't mean ya should. jmoo

Do you mean that rules should apply to some but not all? If a guilty person's rights are violated we should turn our heads and say they are a waste anyway? do you think only innocent people should have a defense attorney?

 

[krowdkat]

The job of a criminal defense attorney is to make absolutely certain the government/LE dot all their I's and cross all their T's and follow the letter of the law when doing so, period. Whether their clients are innocent or guilty is actually irrelevant.

Without criminal defense attorneys there would be a whole lot of INNOCENT people doing time for crimes they didn't commit.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I personally think it's a slippery slope to start blaming defense attorneys for things their clients did, or to blame LE for letting people slip through the cracks sometimes.

Sometimes there is corruption, and sometimes we don't like verdicts, but the only way to change those is to change the laws that govern us, through legislation.

Our system isn't perfect, but it often works quite well.

Everyone is entitled to a good defense, and I wouldn't want that any other way. JMOO

 

[krowdkat]

Can you imagine how sloppy/lazy/omnipotent government/LE could potentially get if defense attorneys weren't part of the full legal equation?!?

I'd never want to live in a country such as that. Half the states in the country would be nothing but prisons.

 

[germaine]

Do you mean that rules should apply to some but not all? If a guilty person's rights are violated we should turn our heads and say they are a waste anyway? do you think only innocent people should have a defense attorney?

Yes, if a person is guilty of murder, they are, imo, a waste. Who would defend a murderer. Not me. And I couldn't give a carp less if a murderer has a defense attorney. For what, so they can skate and do it again?

 

[GrainneDhu]

So, unlike every other profession, they can practice their craft without any responsibility for lives they destroy, in this case...possibly a child's life?

Why are lawyers the agents that (to be blunt) enrich themselves holding everyone else responsible...but they are exempt? We are talking about traumatizing a child here.

The other side of that question is: what if, in 20 years, Baby K has emotional or mental health issues that mental health professionals are convinced are caused by her complete separation from her mother before she was two years old?

Under your theory, that then makes Laura Rackner liable for Baby K's hypothetical mental health issues.

The role of making such decisions is not up to the lawyers, it is up to the state, represented in court by the judge.

And really, if Houze and Bunch were obligated to argue on behalf of KH, would that not mean that Laura Rackner would be obligated to argue on behalf of TMH?

I'm not at all certain what a legal system would look like if each side were obligated to argue both their own case and the opposing case.

I bet opening and closing statements would either be much longer or much shorter. It would certainly be an interesting experiment.

I don't think such a system would produce better results, though.

 

[GrainneDhu]

I am not sure I am following your logic. if an attorney operates within the law and a judge awards visitation, and harm befalls the child, the attorney should be held accountable?

All of us have our own definition of what is "in the best interest" of the child. To some, it may be having contact with the mother. To some it may mean getting as far from the mother as possible. All each side can do is present the information, consult with experts and pray what truly IS best for the child is chosen by those in the know.

I've written before about my stepson.

Briefly, his mother abducted him when he was 18 months old and held him for six months. He was found when she took him to the hospital in respiratory arrest. Her second husband had abused the child by burning him with cigarettes and finally by causing a skull fracture. His mother was convicted and served time for negligence for the part she played (witnessing the abuse without removing him from the situation).

After she was out of prison, she petitioned for full custody. The court decreed that she would be allowed supervised visitation in a safe facility for some number of hours each week.

The way visitation went was my husband had to drop their child off at the facility, which could only be entered through an air lock type entry with armed guards on duty. He left his son in the care of a social worker. Then his mother came and had a supervised visit with their child. The social worker was there and had the authority to make suggestions, direct her to stop doing something or to leave if in the social worker's opinion the mother's actions were not in the child's best interests (boy is this hard to write about without using names!).

After six months of this, my stepson's mother tried to abduct him. Not from the supervised visitation facility; she went directly to my husband's home in violation of the court order and attempted to take my stepson away with her.

After that, she disappeared. So far as we know, she has never been found, although her parents tried several times to find her via private investigators (the PIs contact us, we go over the same old information, nothing happens... lather, rinse, repeat).

I truly wish my stepson's mother had not chosen to disappear (we're pretty sure she chose to disappear rather than being the victim of a crime). He's over 30 years old now and still carries scars from her abandonment of him.

There are very real risks to any course of action in regard to Baby K and TMH. It would be easy to decide if the only risks were from visitation--that's a no brainer! There are also risks from lack of contact as well.

It is not up to any lawyer to decide which way is best for Baby K, it is up to the state as represented by the court system.