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

[DairyGirl]

The solution is simple: Kaine Horman agrees to a divorce pursuant to whatever laws rule the State of Oregon and they move on. If, after he's obtained his divorce, he chooses to pursue criminal charges against Terri, he does that in a criminal court.

I don't think Kaine has a problem agreeing to a divorce. Isn't the issue at hand custody and financial? Why should he have to wait (and more important why should baby K have to wait) for a criminal case to settle those? For Terri's convenience and so she doesn't "incriminate" herself?

 

[debs]

One problem is (IMO) Kaine wants assured sole custody of baby K & Kyron. The MFH plot (if true) would get him that. So (IMO) Kaine seeks to insert this MFH plot as standing for sole custody...

Does Kaine have proof? He didn't offer any in his preliminary paperwork. He wants only to know how Terri will be paying her high priced criminal attorney. That, in fact, is the only thing we saw today. He wants to know how she's gonna pay that.

He brought nothing forward toward baby K or Kyron's well-being. He said nothing of the MFH.

I wonder why that is. Hmm.

 

[Sherbie]

I don't want to live in a country where someone can be forced to testify against themselves, no matter when or if charges might be brought.

Even if they're guilty.

Especially if they're not.

She doesn't have to testify at all though, Debs. In fact, she can't be forced to testify against herself. She can testify FOR herself if she wants, or she can take the 5th.

As I understand it, anything she says if she actually testifies can be used in a criminal trial (just thought of another can of worms...would that be only for impeachment purposes if she were testify in a criminal trial or could it come in some other way?).

If she takes the 5th, though, that is her choice, so as not to incriminate herself -- and I don't believe the fact that she doesn't testify in a civil case can be brought up against her in a criminal case.

Is she in a crappy position? Oh yeah...boy howdy, is she ever. Is she being forced to testify against herself? No. She can testify for herself or plead the 5th.

I think we need some clarification from a professional on whether taking the 5th in a civil case can be used against a defendant in a future criminal case. That would help us out a lot!

I've really enjoyed the lively debate and thoughtful discussion tonight. I'm off to watch Dexter...just so I'll have extra sweet dreams tonight! :dance:

 

[debs]

One can never testify FOR oneself. Anything one says will be used against them in a court of law.

Watch this video. It is true. http://www.garynorth.com/public/3821.cfm

 

[gitana1]

I admit I'm confused about this.

If my husband tried to kill me and I found out about it, I would likely use that info as grounds for divorce, RO, custody, etc..

In fact, if my husband had physically beat me himself. - I would likely use that info as grounds for divorce, RO, custody, etc..

In either case - if he beat me or MFH'd me, I would divorce him AND press criminal charges.


In the case of my husband beating me:

Should I not allege in my divorce filing that I wanted a divorce because my husband beat me? Would that be considered my attempt to try my husband for a criminal charge in civil court?

Do I really have to wait for criminal court proceeding on my beating to get divorced from this horrible man and get permanent custody of my children?

Maybe this MFH divorce allegation is similar to a spousal abuse divorce allegation - and the answer is simply the same as would be in a typical spousal abuse divorce proceeding?

Anyone know how that works? Because, thank goodness, I do not.

MFH allegations and/or kidnapping and possible murder allegations would be considered domestic violence and grounds for an RO. The allegations here do not make this case different from other domestic violence (which include spousal abuse) proceedings.
I have seen dozens of cases where a party alleges DV in civil court in the absence of criminal charges and then gets an RO against the other party based on those allegations. Sometimes, for whatever reason, domestic violence does not result in an arrest or criminal charges. But the victim still needs to be protected. So, they go the civil route. The standard of proof needed to prevail is also easier to meet in civil court as opposed to criminal court, which may be one reason many DV cases are not prosecuted but are brought instead in a civil setting.
This type of thing - trying a case with criminal implications in a civil setting - happens every day. Where there are concurrent criminal charges, the court usually continues the civil case until after the criminal. This is because in the absence of testimony from the alleged abuser ( if he or she pleads the fifth), the case is framed as one-sided, with the court often simply finding that the allegations are uncontested. So, when the respondent pleads the fifth and refuses to answer the allegations, the judge often simply grants the RO since there is no one answering the allegations.

Of course there are exceptions.
My law partner had a civil DV with a concurrent criminal DV case. The civil was set first. The judge offered to continue it until after the criminal but my law partner declined. He won the case without ever having to put our client on the stand to answer the allegations. It was brilliant. He simply asked the petitioner how many times she had been hospitalized for mental problems and how many times she had called the police to allege things like significant others trying to kill her via the use aliens, or whatever, how many times she made unfounded allegations of abuse against others, etc. The judge ruled in favor of our client without hearing a word from him. The client was then was able to concentrate on the criminal case. That was later dismissed.

Bottom line for me is that Kaine is mostly doing what many people do, in DV situations. But he is also, IMO using the system to try to get answers from TH about Kyron and if he feels she has those answers - answers that may help find his son - I cannot blame him. I would walk through fire for my kid as I think anyone on here would. I do not have any reservations about the way he is litigating. It's an intelligent strategy and is not constitutionally impermissible, IMO. He has every right to utilize whatever legal means he can to keep himself and his daughter safe and to help find his son, even if it turns out that ultimately, his beliefs about TH are incorrect. He only knows what he knows now and believes what he believes now and is doing the best he can, IMO with what he has in front of him. However, if he knows TH has done nothing wrong, then I have a huge problem with everything he is doing as that would be plain evil.

 

[gitana1]

Does Kaine have proof? He didn't offer any in his preliminary paperwork. He wants only to know how Terri will be paying her high priced criminal attorney. That, in fact, is the only thing we saw today. He wants to know how she's gonna pay that.

He brought nothing forward toward baby K or Kyron's well-being. He said nothing of the MFH.

I wonder why that is. Hmm.

That's because the RO and custody case have been resolved. TH did not contest the application, it was granted and that case is over. Kaine has no reason now to discuss Kyron of Baby K as far as the MFH or disappearance of Kyron is concerned, in connection with the rest of the case at this time.
And yes, he offered no proof, from what I can see, in his RO application, of his hearsay allegations. But that is also a common tactic. Don't show your hand until you get the other party to respond in writing or until they do or say something that incriminates themselves. Do not reveal your evidence until the hearing because that would allow the other side a lot of time to try to find a way to invalidate the proof, explain things away, make up whatever story to defend against the allegations and evidence. This is standard operating procedure in such a case.
Nevertheless, I think Kaine, although he wants answers from TH, also was in a weird position because providing evidence could derail the investigation. I'd love to know what conversations LE had, if any, with Kaine's attorneys about this strategy.

 

[gitana1]

Taking the fifth in a civil case cannot later be used against a person in a criminal case.

 

[bessie]

I would sit there with my black eye and insist my husband did it. And his attorney would say ... prove it. Hopefully I would have other relevant evidence. Incident Report, Hospital report, witnesses.

Okay then. Terri's attny(s) would also need to say prove it. And Kaine's attorney would have to provide evidence - at the least the LE investigative information Kaine based his decision on.


Why if Kaine believes the MFH was a real attempt on his life, should he not use that as grounds for his divorce filing?

Why don't they (Terri's counsel) want to go ahead and force Kaine to prove it by going forward with divorce hearings? Why seek abatements/delays?

One result of the abatement will be a delay in deciding custody arrangements. If custody issues are considered and decided at this time, Terri doesn't have a prayer. No home, no visible means of support, and being the subject of a criminal investigation places her at a real disadvantage. The abatement, according to her lawyers, would ensure an equitable settlement by postponing the proceedings until such time that Terri is in a more favorable position.

 

[gitana1]

Yup, a jury can, as long as it's entered as testimony from.........anyone. She says she's not guilty to any LE, that's testimony. It will be used against her if any one other person says "uh, well, I think i saw her......."

Don't think it won't happen. It has, and will. Terri cannot say one word that will not be used against her in a court of law.....that is the essence of the Miranda Rights......it isn't about what she says is true; it is about what she says that they WILL use against her.

I do get your meaning, what you are saying but I have to split hairs for a moment in case anyone else gets confused. TH can say all sorts of things that will not be used against her. The only things that will be used against her are things that help to prove a criminal case against her. There should be plenty of things to say in her disso case at a hearing etc., that would not be relevant in a criminal case.

 

[gitana1]

Is Kaine's divorce filing and custody of baby K based only on the MFH allegation? I'm not sure I will ever understand how an accusation of MFH can be used against Terri...help!

It is a no fault state so it does not matter why he filed for disso. However, the orders requested, in connection with the RO app., appear to be based on the alleged MFH plot and TH's possible involvement in the disappearance of Kyron. I don't think the RO was based on merely an accusation. Kaine apparently believes LE has probable cause of what he has alleged. If TH chose to force his hand, he would have had to provide evidence supporting those allegations. Since she chose not to, Kaine does not have to provide evidence. His allegations are uncontested so they are generally treated as true without need for the production of evidence.

That's because the RO and custody case have been resolved. TH did not contest the application, it was granted and that case is over. Kaine has no reason now to discuss Kyron of Baby K as far as the MFH or disappearance of Kyron is concerned, in connection with the rest of the case at this time.

I want to clarify this post. The question was why Kaine did not present evidence or bring up the MFH plot at the hearing on the 26th (?). That's because custody and ROs were not at issue at that hearing. There is nothing further pending regarding custody at this time. TH could file a motion at any time to modify custody and visitation, but she would necessarily have to address the RO and the allegations within the application at that time. Also, a final trial and judgment at the end of the disso case would regard custody but unless TH is ready, at that time, to address the RO allegations, or unless she can show something else has dramatically changed such that the custody orders should be switched, it is likely, IMO, that the custody orders in the RO would simply be adopted. That's because the RO is different from a regular custody motion made during the pendency of a disso case, which result in TEMPORARY orders. The RO contains what are called "permanent" orders even though they only last for the duration of the RO or until and unless someone files something showing why things are now different such that the orders should be modified. Basically, at least in CA, temporary orders prior to judgment are easier to modify at the time of ultimate trial, than so-called permanent orders which would be issued at trial or in connection with an RO.
So, yes, custody could come up again at any time and will be at least discussed in connection with a final judgment, but the effect of the RO custody orders is more damaging to TH's chances of later modifying custody than temporary orders issued in connection with a regular motion made after the disso has been filed but prior to final judgment. I hope that makes sense.
By the way, (and off topic a bit), at least in CA, TH would never work as a teacher again since a DV RO was issued against her, unless she appealed it and since she did not contest it, there seem to be no grounds for appeal. DV ROs cannot be expunged and are put into a statewide system. They come up in background checks and prevent those who have one against them from things like health care -related jobs, government jobs of any kind and jobs in educational setting with children. This does not hold true for the temporary RO's issued pending the ultimate hearing on the RO. That ultimate hearing came and went in TH and Kaine's case and resulted in a DV RO against her. For whatever that's worth.
I'm off to bed. See you guys tomorrow!

 

[Donjeta]

Oh but it isn't; accusing Terri of a MFH and never offering any substantive proof is hearsay. LE becomes a hearsay witness. What there has to be is solid proof of a MFH. Receipts. Audio tapes. Pictures of money transferring hands. Witnesses. Then the defense gets to counter it. But that all falls into a discovery process, which seems to be something people want to avoid, also, just to get to "justice". A judge better damn well make a ruling on the truth of the accusations. Or that judge needs to lose his/her seat.

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.

 

[stmarysmead]

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.

Brilliant!!!

 

[Donjeta]

It isn't Terri Horman's rights which are the hill I "wish to die on"........it is yours. If because we think Kaine is owed the answers, or because we "know" Terri did "it" or any other subjective emotional drive says "Terri is the one"....... we are wrong, in total. I want nothing more than to find out what happened to this little boy. But I'm not willing to tear apart those things that protect ALL of us to say Terri did it. And there's a lot of that. It isn't tearing Terri's rights as much as it is tearing OUR rights, that makes this offensive to me.

Tell you what, I wouldn't be surprised if she confessed tomorrow. But what I know as of 11:39 (Montana time) says no one has dog doo to say she's harmed this little boy. Prove it to me, or I'll continue to defend the rights of EVERYONE to not be torn apart by what we've been given so far.

I don't think any of us have a right not to be sued in a civil matter, on the off chance that there might be a criminal charge against us later.

Conversely, none of us have an obligation to waive our legal rights to file a civil case, say, petition for a restraining order against someone just because that someone thinks it isn't prudent for him to respond to our civil charge right now.

IMO, the law grants me the right not to answer awkward questions at court if I prefer to plead the fifth or just let the matter go uncontested but it does not translate into a corresponding duty for anyone else to keep from asking me awkward questions that I might prefer not to answer.

 

[Donjeta]

Imagine yourself in Terri's shoes. And imagine that you are completely innocent in whatever happened to Kyron. Even though you are innocent, it's clear that police and prosecutors are 100% focused on you as the perpetrator. Even though you are innocent of any crime, you are no Mother Theresa, you've done dumb things and you've done things you aren't proud of. That's a description that fits just about every adult I know; the difference is that for you, every wart and blemish is magnified, published on the front page, teased and broadcast on the 6 AND 10:00 news, and then twisted in ways you never imagined to see how it might be relevant to that crime you didn't commit.

Now imagine that you have to fight with your husband over custody of your daughter and division of your marital assets in a pretty acrimonius divorce. Nobody in a divorce fight comes away looking good. But so what? You're innocent, you have nothing to hide, your husband has his own warts, blemishes and skeletons in the closet; so sticks and stones, right? Wrong. The ugly things that will be said about you won't be left behind deposition room doors or buried in motions only the judge and his clerk reads, even though your dirty laundry will be national news. What's the real harm you ask? It's not like any of it incriminates you or is even relevant to what happened to Kyron. Except every negative, relevant or not, is another damaging brush stroke on the horrible portrait that has been painted of you in the minds of potential criminal trial jurors. Not only that but criminal trial witnesses are hearing all of this too and their recollections will be colored and might even be distorted by what they hear. People who might have spoken up for you stay quiet because, really, who wants to put their reputation on the line for such a bad person. It doesn't even have to be something unflattering that hangs you, look at how you were pilloried when you made the perfectly normal and routine request for money from your marital assets to pay for your move out of the house. What will happen when you ask for spousal support.

You may be innocent but ocassionally innocent people get convicted and if you fight for a fair division of custody and assets in a divorce proceeding with the criminal charges hovering over you, you only increase the risk of losing everything, including your freedom. If, on the other hand, avoid controversy in the divorce proceeding in order to maximize the effectiveness of your defense in the looming criminal case, you risk giving up parental rights and financial security that you could ordinarily expect to receive.

Heads you lose, tails, you lose.

Yes, occasionally innocent people get convicted in criminal court or their reputation suffers unfairly. IMO it is not a reason to keep from people filing for divorces, restraining orders or other civil cases according to their legal rights, just because the people they want to sue might or might not get wrongly convicted for some undefined crime they haven't been charged for yet. None of us could get our divorces and restraining orders if we had to cover for the possibility that there will be some undefined injustice committed at some undefined time by some jury that hasn't been called yet. The respondents might always get charged for something they didn't do later so the danger is inherent in any civil case against anybody.

It would sometimes just mean that we're trying to fix a theoretical injustice with another kind of injustice, because quite often those divorces and restraining orders that couldn't be filed for might be completely justified and who knows, the person being convicted in criminal court might even have done it sometimes.

 

[desquire]

Yes, occasionally innocent people get convicted in criminal court or their reputation suffers unfairly. IMO it is not a reason to keep from people filing for divorces, restraining orders or other civil cases according to their legal rights, just because the people they want to sue might or might not get wrongly convicted for some undefined crime they haven't been charged for yet. None of us could get our divorces and restraining orders if we had to cover for the possibility that there will be some undefined injustice committed at some undefined time by some jury that hasn't been called yet. The respondents might always get charged for something they didn't do later so the danger is inherent in any civil case against anybody.

It would sometimes just mean that we're trying to fix a theoretical injustice with another kind of injustice, because quite often those divorces and restraining orders that couldn't be filed for might be completely justified and who knows, the person being convicted in criminal court might even have done it sometimes.

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.

 

[Herding Cats]

I admit I'm confused about this.

If my husband tried to kill me and I found out about it, I would likely use that info as grounds for divorce, RO, custody, etc..

In fact, if my husband had physically beat me himself. - I would likely use that info as grounds for divorce, RO, custody, etc..

In either case - if he beat me or MFH'd me, I would divorce him AND press criminal charges.


In the case of my husband beating me:

Should I not allege in my divorce filing that I wanted a divorce because my husband beat me? Would that be considered my attempt to try my husband for a criminal charge in civil court?

Do I really have to wait for criminal court proceeding on my beating to get divorced from this horrible man and get permanent custody of my children?

Maybe this MFH divorce allegation is similar to a spousal abuse divorce allegation - and the answer is simply the same as would be in a typical spousal abuse divorce proceeding?

Anyone know how that works? Because, thank goodness, I do not.

Let me see if I can't clear up some of the issues I've read about here. Not simply your post (although it's the clearest "outline"), but of the issues that have been raised.

Oregon is a "No-Fault" state. Meaning, no-one has to prove anything at all to actually get divorced. They just file papers, and get the judge stamp, and they're divorced.

This is important because there is NO need to defend, or prove, anyone's actions, or allegations, or thoughts. They get the divorce simply on asking for it. It is heard in Civil court, by a family court judge. Bing-bang-done.

The MFH allegations, and anything to do with Kyron, are criminal allegations, and are not part of a family court hearing, inasmuch as they do not impact on the divorce.

To use the MFH allegations, one would have to bring that up in a motion outside of a simple divorce; Kaine would have to say "because she tried to have me killed, she deserves NOTHING from me."

The evidence standard is not high in a civil courtroom...preponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. Preponderance was explained to me as 50.1% v. 49.9%...simple as that.

Introducing the MFH plot into a civil case means that Kaine can allege, and say LE gave him pc to think this had been planned. He said...=50%. Terri will say "I never did that." She said...=50%. All Kaine has to do is submit one single piece of evidence - whether valid or not - to tip the scales to the 50.1%...and Terri would have to counter it.

Herein lies the issue. If Terri says word one about the MFH plot, she opens herself up to further questioning (called "opening the door" to questioning). If she takes the 5th, Kaine 'wins', and the issue is decided in his favor. If TH says anything, that will go right to LE, and they'll start investigating it, and it will - WILL - be used against her in a criminal investigation/courtroom.

Same goes for anything heard in a civil case. It's just the way it works...once someone goes on record, even to take the 5th, that's now the record...and it will absolutely be used against someone.

TH is in a losing position. She says anything, it will be investigated by LE and used against her. Period.

Kaine is doing his level best to get some criminal charges heard in a court - ANY court - so that he has something to go on. I think he believes that he can shake a clue loose, and that LE will be able to recover sweet Kyron, either alive or dead. And that is Kaine's goal.

The issue of creating self-incrimination is a huge deal - HUGE. The Constitution says that one has a right to not incriminate themselves, and that has to take precedence somehow. TH is working to keep herself from inside a prison, and has the absolute right to not incriminate herself.

As the divorce is "no fault", the only issues that are in play are visitation and financial. TH has agreed to the divorce; she is simply asking that the rest of things be held out for a while until the risk of her testifying becomes less.

It is all strategy; it is all lawyering. And it's some good lawyering, too...and I would not bat an eye if I find that the judge rules against the abatement, Houze/Bunch appeal, lose the appeal, and this ends up in the Supreme Court.

But the judge really should take the rights of respondent into consideration at this time...and grant the abatement. That protects TH, and her rights must be protected; they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

I know Kaine is operating from a place of grief and hurt. I get that completely, and I have sympathy for him and DY. But that sympathy does nto extend to breeching another person's rights...it cannot.

Just my opinion. I am not a lawyer, and could have some of the above wrong. But...I don't think I am.

Best-
Herding Cats

 

[Aedrys]

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.

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? All she has to do is take the fifth and just let this divorce go through. I don't see why her rights are infringed if she never gets on the stand or never incriminates herself. This doesn't have to be a big deal, but she sure is making it one. It makes me sick that Kaine might have to be tortured even more just so Terri can have her rights protected. I'm not against having rights. I'm against using rights as a weapon against another person. There is just something really wrong with that.

 

[ami]

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.

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?

 

[Beccalynne]

snipped

The issue of creating self-incrimination is a huge deal - HUGE. The Constitution says that one has a right to not incriminate themselves, and that has to take precedence somehow. TH is working to keep herself from inside a prison, and has the absolute right to not incriminate herself.

Terri does have the right to not incriminate herself. That is what pleading the 5th does. I can give what I think is a comparable example that I have witnessed myself on more than one occasion. This is Georgia, may be different procedure in Oregon, but again its just an example.

A parent is arrested for physical abuse of their child. While they will face criminal charges, they will also deal with the juvenile court (civil) when their kids are taken out of their custody. So the state puts up their evidence regarding the abuse. If the parent wants to fight it, they have to testify, right? That will absolutely hurt their criminal case, but they have the opportunity to invoke their 5th amendment rights. You cannot expect the state to put off their hearing regarding the children's custody because it may negatively impact the parents in their criminal trial, right?

 

[SurfieTX]

If she pleads the 5th, can that action be made available to the grand jury?