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

[gwenabob]

Legally, Oregon is more similar to California than it is to, say, North Dakota since Oregon and California both fall under the jurisdiction of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe that gitana has mentioned that she practises in California (if I am mistaken, my apologies!).

As I understand it, lawyers are more likely to use decisions from within their particular court of appeals in their arguments, since those are considered most directly applicable. So the jurisdictions within each US Circuit Court of Appeals is more like themselves than they are each other.

Hm, that read in a very confusing way. A jurisdiction that falls within the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals is more likely to be similar to another district that falls within the 1st than it is to be like a jurisdiction that falls in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in terms of legal details.

That may affect case law, but we can still write our own statutes.

 

[GrainneDhu]

That may affect case law, but we can still write our own statutes.

I'm sorry; I didn't intend to suggest that Oregon is anything less than a fully individuated state.

 

[gitana1]

BBM

I agree with your entire post, particularly about the reasoning as to what may have happened on 4 June.

When my stepson's mother was granted supervised visitation in a safe facility, the first visit took place nearly two years after he'd last seen his mother. He was nearly four years old.

The social worker reported that he clearly recognised and welcomed his mother. When she came into the room, he jumped up, ran over to her, hugged her, called her Mommy, etc. A very different welcome than the one he gave the social worker, who was a relative stranger to him.

My stepson's mother chose to abandon him when she could not abduct him again. He is still suffering for her decision. I didn't meet him until he was sixteen years old, so I could not and cannot fulfil that role for him, much as both of us might want that. The parent/child bond is not built of will power, it grows through continued interaction and contact.

Without that interaction and contact, a child is at grave risk.

No, therapy will not "fix" it. My stepson was in therapy from two years old to sixteen years old (when he refused to go any longer). Did therapy help? Yes, I think so but it certainly did not make him whole or normal.

OT but I must say that the empathy you have for your stepson really shines through. It is so clear that you care about what happened to him. I bet he knew/knows that and that it helped, even if you could not be there for him when he was small.

In my state, what happens fairly frequently in the cases where one party has a RO against the other party in a divorce, is that the lawyers for each side get together to see if they can negotiate modifications to the RO that are acceptable to both sides.

If they can come up with such an agreement, then they go to court, submit the agreement to the judge and the judge rules on it.

The judge almost always goes with the negotiated agreement.

None of the above is considered a violation of the RO. What would be a violation would be if one party contacts the other party directly. If the petitioner agrees to talk to the respondent directly, that usually voids the RO.

Is this how it works in California? and by extension, Oregon?

It's basically the same in CA and I assume the same in OR which has laws very similar to CA. That's how it would work. Usually, parties to an RO would negotiate through lawyers or a third party if they did not have lawyers. Contacting the restrained party is not a violation though (although contacting the protected party would be a violation) and would not void the RO. However it would certainly aid a restrained party in asking to modify the RO and it would ruin the credibility of the protected party.

 

[pinktoes]

I have to question where some of this evidence is coming from. All along I've seen references to MCook and now Rackner saying she examined his "work cell phone". I can't remember where his employer was named. I know who all the other public figures in this case work for.

Does anyone know/have a link to a MSM reference that states who MCook works for? Or is this considered sleuthing and therefore not ok for me to ask???

 

[pinktoes]

No one can find a published statement of who Michael Cook works for?

I've found statements about who all the other public figures work for. I just can't seem to run this one down.

 

[grandmaj]

Any information on M. Cook has to come from MSM peeps. Thanks.

 

[BringKyronHome]

The only thing I can think of to check is an article that was written shortly after the divorce papers were served.

It mentioned that he lost his job in CA (?) and came back to Portland to find work...he contacted Kaine several times but they hadn't connected.

My guess is that his interest in Kaine likely had to do with networking...but that's a guess.

It is strange, I think, now that I write this, that they weren't friends since HS (according to Kaine), but that he is so involved now.

Anyhoo - I'd check back to that article, it may say who he used to work for...that's as close as I can recall anyone ever talking about where he worked.

 

[PortlandMama]

Moving this here from the sext thread:

I've been trying to figure out how best to put my thoughts on this, so please hear me out with the understanding that I am not dismissing anyone's feelings about Terri's behavior--whether inappropriate, dangerous, ugly coping, etc. I think we all agree that whatever Terri's motivation, sexting an acquaintance while under criminal investigation for potentially killing our seven year old and immediately after being forcibly separated from our baby is not something we would ever have done in a million years. So, moving on.

What I am aiming to do is to understand the logic of both sides (not sides taken here on Websleuths, but Kaine's and Terri's lawyers in the divorce situation). These very competent lawyers are thinking through these elements logically, and weighing the risks of various strategies while aiming to arrive at the most satisfactory situation according to what their client tells them they want. And that last point is not insignificant. So let's assume that Terri wants two things: a restored relationship with her daughter, and to preserve her freedom. What Kaine wants is also twofold: no contact whatsoever between Terri and his daughter, and to compel Terri to confess to hurting Kyron.

Kaine's desire for no contact is an extreme position. Please don't flame me. I'm not weighing in on whether or not he's right to take an extreme position. But in Oregon, at least, no visitation at all, not even supervised, is difficult to come by if it's not agreed to by the other party. The burden is on him to show why Terri should not get even supervised visitation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Proof by legal standards. In other words, more than his heart-of-heart feelings, more than his worst fears. And I don't think what he presented in his response to her motion constituted extraordinary proof. To me, it's worrisome, yes. But it would be more supportive of supervised visitation, if even that. Probably supportive of no overnight stays and unsupervised parenting time during the day. And the sexting portion doesn't seem to support even that, as distasteful as it is. (Remember, this isn't the ethical standard, or the err-on-the-side-of-caution standard, this is the legal standard--not necessarily the same thing!)

This leads me to think two things: He believes he will get (or is hoping he will get) the extraordinary proof (that she was directly involved in the disappearance of Kyron) before this goes before a judge in January. Secondly (and circularly), that he can use the ongoing threat of no contact (now deepened with public humiliation and humiliation before her close friends and family) to elicit some of the very proof he needs. I'm sure Rackner was clear with him about the ways in which his statement and the sexts fell short of being the extraordinary proof needed to get the result they wanted (i.e., no visitation), and yet she was willing to put it out there anyway, presumably to satisfy his goal with respect to Kyron.

So did Terri's lawyers file this motion to see how far Kaine had got in terms of developing extraordinary proof? I.e., calling his bluff? A test? Even knowing that they would then have to withdraw their motion to continue to preserve Terri's fifth amendment rights? (Unless by some miracle he unexpectedly acquiesced. And bearing in mind that they already had the sexts, so this would not have been news to them, but they were being frustrated by not getting information from LE that was being shared with Kaine.) Any other ideas? BTW, the filing of the motion as a test, IMO, would not negate their also working to actually secure her some parenting time via negotiated agreement (hence, not disingenuous). As I said above, she has two interests: self preservation and baby K.

 

[Emma Peel]

Moving this here from the sext thread:

I've been trying to figure out how best to put my thoughts on this, so please hear me out with the understanding that I am not dismissing anyone's feelings about Terri's behavior--whether inappropriate, dangerous, ugly coping, etc. I think we all agree that whatever Terri's motivation, sexting an acquaintance while under criminal investigation for potentially killing our seven year old and immediately after being forcibly separated from our baby is not something we would ever have done in a million years. So, moving on.

What I am aiming to do is to understand the logic of both sides (not sides taken here on Websleuths, but Kaine's and Terri's lawyers in the divorce situation). These very competent lawyers are thinking through these elements logically, and weighing the risks of various strategies while aiming to arrive at the most satisfactory situation according to what their client tells them they want. And that last point is not insignificant. So let's assume that Terri wants two things: a restored relationship with her daughter, and to preserve her freedom. What Kaine wants is also twofold: no contact whatsoever between Terri and his daughter, and to compel Terri to confess to hurting Kyron.

Kaine's desire for no contact is an extreme position. Please don't flame me. I'm not weighing in on whether or not he's right to take an extreme position. But in Oregon, at least, no visitation at all, not even supervised, is difficult to come by if it's not agreed to by the other party. The burden is on him to show why Terri should not get even supervised visitation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Proof by legal standards. In other words, more than his heart-of-heart feelings, more than his worst fears. And I don't think what he presented in his response to her motion constituted extraordinary proof. To me, it's worrisome, yes. But it would be more supportive of supervised visitation, if even that. Probably supportive of no overnight stays and unsupervised parenting time during the day. And the sexting portion doesn't seem to support even that, as distasteful as it is. (Remember, this isn't the ethical standard, or the err-on-the-side-of-caution standard, this is the legal standard--not necessarily the same thing!)

This leads me to think two things: He believes he will get (or is hoping he will get) the extraordinary proof (that she was directly involved in the disappearance of Kyron) before this goes before a judge in January. Secondly (and circularly), that he can use the ongoing threat of no contact (now deepened with public humiliation and humiliation before her close friends and family) to elicit some of the very proof he needs. I'm sure Rackner was clear with him about the ways in which his statement and the sexts fell short of being the extraordinary proof needed to get the result they wanted (i.e., no visitation), and yet she was willing to put it out there anyway, presumably to satisfy his goal with respect to Kyron.

So did Terri's lawyers file this motion to see how far Kaine had got in terms of developing extraordinary proof? I.e., calling his bluff? A test? Even knowing that they would then have to withdraw their motion to continue to preserve Terri's fifth amendment rights? (Unless by some miracle he unexpectedly acquiesced. And bearing in mind that they already had the sexts, so this would not have been news to them, but they were being frustrated by not getting information from LE that was being shared with Kaine.) Any other ideas? BTW, the filing of the motion as a test, IMO, would not negate their also working to actually secure her some parenting time via negotiated agreement (hence, not disingenuous). As I said above, she has two interests: self preservation and baby K.

Nice work PortlandMama! And a great summary of the off-topic topics over on the sexts thread!

As you probably know from over there oke: on the other thread, I am in agreement here with your analysis. And, I too have been wondering if Team Terri filed to try to ferret out what it is exactly that Team Kaine has up their sleeves at this time.

Not sure I have any other strategy ideas at the moment regarding either side...but I'll stew on it, as usual...

Thanks for the neat summary, and for keepin' grandmaj happy by reviving this thread... :dance:

 

[desquire]

Moved this over from the "sexting" thread.

BBM...extraordinary circumstances as in the respondent listed on the RO has tried to hire someone to murder the petitioner and that she is involved in the disappearance of petitioner's son(uncontested facts as it relates to the RO).

Those aren't extraordinary circumstances, those are unchallenged allegations made by Kaine to obtain sole custody - remember there has been no independent proof put before the court. If Kaine, a competent adult represented by counsel and, presumably, a competent custodian of baby K, comes back before the judge and says he agrees to a reasonable set of conditions for shared parenting, it would be an abuse of discretion for a judge to reject such an agreement.

I haven't (finally) admitted anything other than what I've been stating all along...sure Terri and her lawyers can try to work out a parenting plan with Kaine outside of the court, but that Terri would STILL have to file a motion to have the RO modified and the plan is STILL subject to whether the judge wants to agree to it or not. I've provided several documents to back up my assertions.

Sorry, I may have confused you with another poster, but someone suggested repeatedly that it was somehow illegal or improper for the parties to work on settlement while the RO was in place. In any event, I think you are misunderstanding the process to the extent you believe it is likely that a judge would reject an arrangement or settlement agreed to by the parties.

My belief is that Terri and her lawyer withdrawing the already needed motion and instead opting to *work outside the court for an agreement* IS disingenuous since, the respondent would still have to file a motion to have the order modified. So why withdraw the motion if you have to file it anyway before any type of contact can happen? I think they are blowing smoke...my opinion based on my understanding of what has to occur before parenting time or ANY contact can be awarded to the respondent.


eta: first BBM...the domestic relations order will not supersede an RO in place unless the two matters have been combined and that has not happened.
JMO

OK, I think this might be the part I was missing in your thinking. Again, I think you are misunderstanding the process. I have no doubt that Bunch has been trying to get Kaine to agree to parenting terms. I'd be willing to bet that Kaine refused to negotiate - why should he at this point? So Bunch filed a contested motion to modify the Ro, probably thinking that they might have a chance at getting a ruling without having to engage in/submit to extensive discover of the sort they just delayed by winning abatement. At some point I'm guessing it became clear to them that the judge was going to allow discovery in connection with the modification of the RO, so the pulled it off the table. It's unlikely that the parties are going to reach any agreement before January but, if they do, all they need to do is submit another motion to modify the RO. It's not like you only get one shot to do that - I think that might be what you are missing. If the parties reach an agreement after January - and the odds are incredibly high that they will settle at some point because the system is set up to strongly encourage that and discourage litigation - it most likely will be a settlement of all of the divorce issues and when the judge issues the DRO it will supercede the RO by its terms - they don't need a separate hearing for that to happen, it can all be simultaneous.

 

[Trt]

Moved this over from the "sexting" thread.

Sorry, I may have confused you with another poster, but someone suggested repeatedly that it was somehow illegal or improper for the parties to work on settlement while the RO was in place. In any event, I think you are misunderstanding the process to the extent you believe it is likely that a judge would reject an arrangement or settlement agreed to by the parties.

I stated that it would have been illegal for Kaine to allow Terri visitation outside of the order in place.(true) Was corrected by you or another lawyer that this was just a process between their lawyers and not an attempt to circumvent the RO by having Kaine grant Terri parenting time(which he has no authority to do). Haven't revisted that line of thinking since. Still hold on to my opinion that the out-of-court attempts are/were disingenuous since the respondent never filed a motion in those 3.5 months and has since withdrawn a motion finally filed after almost 4 months.(again, necessary even for mutually agreed upon plan).

OK, I think this might be the part I was missing in your thinking. Again, I think you are misunderstanding the process. I have no doubt that Bunch has been trying to get Kaine to agree to parenting terms. I'd be willing to bet that Kaine refused to negotiate - why should he at this point? So Bunch filed a contested motion to modify the Ro, probably thinking that they might have a chance at getting a ruling without having to engage in/submit to extensive discover of the sort they just delayed by winning abatement. At some point I'm guessing it became clear to them that the judge was going to allow discovery in connection with the modification of the RO, so the pulled it off the table. It's unlikely that the parties are going to reach any agreement before January but, if they do, all they need to do is submit another motion to modify the RO. It's not like you only get one shot to do that - I think that might be what you are missing. If the parties reach an agreement after January - and the odds are incredibly high that they will settle at some point because the system is set up to strongly encourage that and discourage litigation - it most likely will be a settlement of all of the divorce issues and when the judge issues the DRO it will supercede the RO by its terms - they don't need a separate hearing for that to happen, it can all be simultaneous.

No, I'm not missing that...I understand that at any time while the RO is in place, either party can request a modification to the RO for parenting time, custody, living arrangements, etc. I also have read the FAPA RO statutes to understand that the RO can ONLY be superseded if the divorce dissolution and the RO are combined...you seem to think that it will be...I'm dealing with what we know at this point. That is that Terri and her lawyers have withdrawn the motion that they would need to file (AT THIS POINT) in order to get the RO modified, instead stating that they would *work something out*. For that reason(among others), I think they are being disingenuous.

I also think they were disingenuous with their assertion that they tried for 3 months to get Kaine to work out a plan and that is why they never filed the motion before. 3.5 months is a long time for a parent not to see their child while that parent tries to get a parent to agree JUST TO MEET to try and agree on a plan. Its not like Kaine and his lawyer and Terri and her lawyers were hammering out a plan for 3.5 months(just as you said, and I agree, Kaine has NO motivation to work out a parenting plan with Terri and her lawyers). I think they knew this, if not by the first day, at least by the first week of trying. So they decided to, instead of just filing a motion to get visitation with K, keep *trying* to get Kaine to work out an out of court arrangement that may or may not be accepted by the judge?


JMO

 

[germaine]

Moved this over from the "sexting" thread.


Those aren't extraordinary circumstances, those are unchallenged allegations made by Kaine to obtain sole custody - remember there has been no independent proof put before the court. If Kaine, a competent adult represented by counsel and, presumably, a competent custodian of baby K, comes back before the judge and says he agrees to a reasonable set of conditions for shared parenting, it would be an abuse of discretion for a judge to reject such an agreement.


Sorry, I may have confused you with another poster, but someone suggested repeatedly that it was somehow illegal or improper for the parties to work on settlement while the RO was in place. In any event, I think you are misunderstanding the process to the extent you believe it is likely that a judge would reject an arrangement or settlement agreed to by the parties.


OK, I think this might be the part I was missing in your thinking. Again, I think you are misunderstanding the process. I have no doubt that Bunch has been trying to get Kaine to agree to parenting terms. I'd be willing to bet that Kaine refused to negotiate - why should he at this point? So Bunch filed a contested motion to modify the Ro, probably thinking that they might have a chance at getting a ruling without having to engage in/submit to extensive discover of the sort they just delayed by winning abatement. At some point I'm guessing it became clear to them that the judge was going to allow discovery in connection with the modification of the RO, so the pulled it off the table. It's unlikely that the parties are going to reach any agreement before January but, if they do, all they need to do is submit another motion to modify the RO. It's not like you only get one shot to do that - I think that might be what you are missing. If the parties reach an agreement after January - and the odds are incredibly high that they will settle at some point because the system is set up to strongly encourage that and discourage litigation - it most likely will be a settlement of all of the divorce issues and when the judge issues the DRO it will supercede the RO by its terms - they don't need a separate hearing for that to happen, it can all be simultaneous.

re the bbm~

How do you think that became clear to them, if it wasn't already clear when they filed? Do you think they had a conference call with the court where the judge indicated how he was inclined to rule?

Imo, nothing new that happened between the filing and the withdrawal that made it more or less likely that the judge would allow discovery. I don't think KH's allegations regarding TH's sexting and drinking herself to sleep would make the judge more inclined to allow discovery than the allegations that TH had something to do with Kyron's disappearance and tried to have KH hit would. And the latter allegations were already out there at the time the motion for visitation was filed. jmoo

 

[germaine]

I stated that it would have been illegal for Kaine to allow Terri visitation outside of the order in place.(true) Was corrected by you or another lawyer that this was just a process between their lawyers and not an attempt to circumvent the RO by having Kaine grant Terri parenting time(which he has no authority to do). Haven't revisted that line of thinking since. Still hold on to my opinion that the out-of-court attempts are/were disingenuous since the respondent never filed a motion in those 3.5 months and has since withdrawn a motion finally filed after almost 4 months.(again, necessary even for mutually agreed upon plan).




No, I'm not missing that...I understand that at any time while the RO is in place, either party can request a modification to the RO for parenting time, custody, living arrangements, etc. I also have read the FAPA RO statutes to understand that the RO can ONLY be superseded if the divorce dissolution and the RO are combined...you seem to think that it will be...I'm dealing with what we know at this point. That is that Terri and her lawyers have withdrawn the motion that they would need to file (AT THIS POINT) in order to get the RO modified, instead stating that they would *work something out*. For that reason(among others), I think they are being disingenuous.

I also think they were disingenuous with their assertion that they tried for 3 months to get Kaine to work out a plan and that is why they never filed the motion before. 3.5 months is a long time for a parent not to see their child while that parent tries to get a parent to agree JUST TO MEET to try and agree on a plan. Its not like Kaine and his lawyer and Terri and her lawyers were hammering out a plan for 3.5 months(just as you said, and I agree, Kaine has NO motivation to work out a parenting plan with Terri and her lawyers). I think they knew this, if not by the first day, at least by the first week of trying. So they decided to, instead of just filing a motion to get visitation with K, keep *trying* to get Kaine to work out an out of court arrangement that may or may not be accepted by the judge?


JMO

I agree that the references to "out of court efforts" to agree to visitation are nothing more than spin and lip service. I think that because it is crystal clear to me, and I believe it also is, and has been, crystal clear to TH and her counsel, that KH has no intention of agreeing to visitation unless TH gives up info about Kyron. It is equally crystal clear to all parties, imo, that TH will not be doing that, whether she has the info or not.

So Bunch saying they've been engaged in negotiations to imply that the goal is resolution, when you know for a fact that no resolution will be reached in that manner, is disingenuous.

That's like me saying I'm in the process of appplying to Harvard Law School, when I've already applied and been rejected. But, by golly, I keep on sending them applications ...

spin, bs, pr, etc. imo

 

[Trt]

Germaine, your analogy sums it all up perfectly, IMO!

 

[grandmaj]

This thread is to discuss theory about why Terri withdrew her application for visitation. And the motions of Terri and Kaine combined.

NO bashing.

 

[grandmaj]

Someone bring the motion links over and stay on topic please. This isn't a general discussion thread.

 

[Pensfan]

I think her attorneys realize there is no way she can go through multiple depos and voluminous discovery and still pretend to be innocent. She has to pick. The baby or her own skin. We now know who is number 1 to TH.

ITA and would like to add this: A child custody evaluation will involve an investigation into moral habits, alcohol/drug use, parent's psychiatric health, styles of discipline, and parent's finances. Terri's attorneys took a look at what was going to be discovered in Terri's background and they "threw in the towel".

ISSUES CONSIDERED IN CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES
Continuity. The evaluator should consider which arrangement seems to offer the most stable and permanent arrangement for the child, and also reduces disruption for the family.

Attachments. The evaluator must carefully assess the parent-child connection, recognize and protect the opportunities for the child to maintain continuity with attachment figures, and also appreciate how these attachments will enter into the ultimate forensic recommendations.

Preference. Judges give more weight to a child's stated preference regarding custody when the child is older than age 12. When small children state a preference, the evaluator must assess its meaning and context. Has the child come to this opinion freely, or has a parent rehearsed or heavily influenced the child?

Parental alienation. In a custody dispute a child may appear to be extremely hostile toward one of the parents. The child finds nothing positive in the relationship with that parent and prefers no contact. The evaluator should assess this apparent alienation and hypothesize its origins and meaning, since there are several possible routes to this outcome.

Child's special needs. Some children in a custody evaluation may have handicaps in vision or hearing, mental illness, or chronic physical conditions. The evaluator should address whether either or both parents are attuned sufficiently to the child's needs. Does one parent seem better able to provide special care required by the child? Are there frequent conflicts over choosing doctors and other care-givers?

Education. The evaluator should assess each parent's educational plans for the child and the appropriateness of these plans in regard to the child's educational history and needs. What seems to make most sense for the child? Does the child have any special educational needs? Is one party more sensitive to and realistic about these needs than the other?

Sibling relationships. Commonly, siblings in a family undergoing divorce and custody dispute lend emotional support to each other. The evaluator should examine the sibling bonds and the sensitivity of each parent to these special relationships. It is rare to recommend separating siblings as a solution to a custody dispute, unless the peculiarities of a case warrant this unusual outcome.

Parents' physical and psychiatric health. The evaluator should explore whether either parent suffers from a physical ailment that could directly affect the parent-child relationship or interfere with the parent's ability to care for the child. Does a parent abuse drugs or alcohol, and if so, what is the impact on the child? In child custody disputes it is common for a parent's psychiatric history to be used by the opposing side as an argument against granting custody to that parent. The issue, however, is not the diagnosis, but the effect of psychiatric impairment on the parent's ability to parent effectively, care for the child, and maintain an empathic relationship with the child.

Parents' work schedules. The evaluator should assess how each parent views his or her work and how it interfaces with time spent with the child. The appropriateness of child care plans, and their effect on the child, should also be considered.

Parents' finances. Although the court may separate the financial details of the divorce settlement from the custody case, the clinician should acquire general knowledge of each parent's finances and earnings potential in order to assess any effects upon the child.

Styles of parenting and discipline. The evaluator should avoid making value judgments about which parenting style is better. The focus should be on the "goodness of fit" between each parenting style and the child. At times, parenting style is obvious from joint parent-child interviews and when it is not, the evaluator should explore this area. The evaluator also should assess how each parent views the child's relationship with the other parent.
The evaluator should inquire about each parent's philosophy toward discipline. It is usual for litigating parents to exaggerate the harshness or permissiveness of each other's manner of child-rearing.

Conflict resolution. The evaluator should examine how family members resolve conflicts. It may be possible to assess conflict resolution during family interviews, if conflicts occur between the parent and child or among the siblings. It also is important to assess how conflict between the parents is handled.

Social support systems. The evaluator should take into account the presence or absence of supports for the child that might be in place depending upon the custodial recommendation. For example, grandparents, other relatives, or friends might have a bigger role in the child's life at one location than another. In addition, if a parent has a deficit or disability, can that parent make use of supports that would enhance his or her relationship with the child?

Cultural issues. The evaluator should assess how the final decision would affect issues of culture and ethnicity and their impact on the growth and development of the child.

Ethics and values. The evaluator must guard against imposing his or her own values onto the assessment of the parents' values. When one parent's ethics are clearly suspect (e.g., a parent with antisocial personality disorder or tendencies), the evaluator should advise the court about how this pattern of behavior could affect the child.

Religion. Parental conflict frequently centers on which religious background, if any, will be given to the child. The child may be taken to one church by the mother and another one by the father. The evaluator should warn the parents of the harm that can come from ongoing parental conflict over this issue.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1997), Practice parameters for child custody evaluation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 36(10suppl)

 

[BeanE]

Someone bring the motion links over and stay on topic please. This isn't a general discussion thread.

Kaine accuses Terri of having an affair (contempt motion)
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/b/2/c/b2c0c26c-4221-4fde-a923-fa5788b1ad69/Horman.pdf


Terri Moulton Horman doesn't contest moving out
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/9/3/9/939be717-51bc-4f18-8522-305e2c2a94dc/TerriDIVORCE.pdf


Kaine Horman dismisses contempt claim
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...3511db7b9512/KaineHormanContemptDismissal.pdf


Petition for Terri Horman to move out
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...778e8438f5/Petition_for_Expedited_Hearing.pdf


Restraining order against Terri Moulton Horman
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/e/1/2/e12f2287-ce0b-48e0-8d85-e3955216ae1b/FULLORDER.pdf


Motion for immediate hearing
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...5e8a74f78f1e/Motion_for_immediate_hearing.pdf


Motion to unseal Kaine Horman restraining order against Terri Moulton Horman
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...d6b-bc0a-c97d8f1ac3fd/Motion_to_Intervene.PDF


Motion to unseal Kaine Horman restraining order
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/a/8/1/a81c0ef4-d5e8-4e03-b019-8373ad5a2cd5/Decl.PDF


Kaine Horman files for divorce from Terri Moulton Horman
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...148787/SharpNews_koin_com_20100629_114449.pdf


October 7, 2010 - Terri's response to Kaine's request for the source of her legal fees
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Horman_Court+documents_10_7_2010.pdf


Kaine's objection to abatement/Kaine's deposition:
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/motion1.pdf


Text messages included with document showing Terri responding to question about "how much he (Houze) costs" with "350 k" + sexts:
http://images.bimedia.net/documents/100816_exhibit.pdf


Terri requests visitation:
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...a6-466d-9951-d1946344e2a9/Terri_Paperwork.pdf


Kaine's response to Terri's request for visitation:
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...e7b948/SharpNews_koin.com_20101022_165135.pdf


Terri's response to Kaine's response to Terri's request for visitation:
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/hormanfiling.pdf


Terri withdraws request for visitation:
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...-9159-623a4a9c1130/Terri_withdraws_motion.pdf

 

[citigirl]

In paragraph 14 of the motion to withdraw the request for visitation, Houze and Bunch say the reason they are withdrawing the motions is that Kaine (earlier "the state") will not provide access to information. This is clearly referring to the the MFH investigation and/or the Kyron investigation.

Further, Terri intends to refuse to allow herself or her health care providers to be deposed under the 5th amendment.

Can one refuse to allow ones health care providers to testify under the fifth amendment? Surely not.

If not, Terri withdrew the motion, in part, because she did not want her health care providers deposed. Period. In other words, they have something to share that would provide evidence she should not be near baby K.

 

[BeanE]

In paragraph 14 of the motion to withdraw the request for visitation, Houze and Bunch say the reason they are withdrawing the motions is that Kaine (earlier "the state") will not provide access to information. This is clearly referring to the the MFH investigation and/or the Kyron investigation.

Further, Terri intends to refuse to allow herself or her health care providers to be deposed under the 5th amendment.

Can one refuse to allow ones health care providers to testify under the fifth amendment? Surely not.

If not, Terri withdrew the motion, in part, because she did not want her health care providers deposed. Period. In other words, they have something to share that would provide evidence she should not be near baby K.

Can you tell me the page and maybe item number you're referring to by 'paragraph 14'?

This is what I found:


Item 14, PDF page 6, says:

However, given the fact that Respondent (Terri) cannot obtain the information from law enforcement necessary to protect her rights in view of what should be a simple matter of determining appropriate ground rules for supervised parenting time, Respondent, with very deep and great reluctance, and with grave concern about Baby K's short term development and long term well-being, is compelled to move to dismiss her motion to modify the FAPA order.

Item 10, PDF page 5 says:

Respondent's attorneys have already briefed the court, in a related hearing... snip ...since that hearing, the state has unambiguously stated its intention to move to quash any such discovery attempts by the Respondent.

TIA