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

[pufnstuf]

Kaine filed for a RO on his behalf only. All allegations are against him. The stay away orders specify Teri must stay away from Kaine and the places Kaine listed. Nohwere in the order does it state that Teri must stay away from the baby. There is an order that she cannot intimidate, harass, etc the minor child/ren (baby) in Kaine's custody.

Kaine never filed for a RO on the Baby's behalf to keep Teri from the baby.

Yes it does. Absolutely.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/judge_releases_restraining_ord.html

Read the doc at the bottom of the article. Clearly states that Terri cannot have contact with the child/ren.

 

[BeanE]

Just an observation: this thread and the web comment pages to the news stories about this motion are Exhibit #1 in support of why abatement was the right thing to do. Divorce proceedings can be nasty messy things. Here we have people castigating TH for wanting supervised visitation with her own daughter and including pretty standard fee requests in her motion. Imagine what the public reaction will be when she has to start filing and responding to the standard discovery requests. People are (incorrectly) branding the discussions between counsel as criminal violations of the RO. Imagine the public beating TH will take if/when she pursues any line that questions KH's suitability for custody. Yikes.

The thanks button is never enough for your posts, desquire.

Thank you!

 

[ami]

Terri Horman "is not in a position at this time to testify on her own behalf in support of an award of custody and parenting time," her lawyer said, because of the ongoing criminal investigation into 7-year-old Kyron Horman's disappearance.

So why can't Kaine say that he requests a delay in the custody talks (as Terri did for the divorce) as he is not in a position to give evidence at the moment because of the ongoing criminal investigation? If it's enough to keep Terri from talking about her own evidence of innocence, it should be fine for Kaine to use the same reasoning to keep from producing his own evidence of her guilt.

 

[Really]

You make a good point, why can't he??

 

[germaine]

Just an observation: this thread and the web comment pages to the news stories about this motion are Exhibit #1 in support of why abatement was the right thing to do. Divorce proceedings can be nasty messy things. Here we have people castigating TH for wanting supervised visitation with her own daughter and including pretty standard fee requests in her motion. Imagine what the public reaction will be when she has to start filing and responding to the standard discovery requests. People are (incorrectly) branding the discussions between counsel as criminal violations of the RO. Imagine the public beating TH will take if/when she pursues any line that questions KH's suitability for custody. Yikes.

I disagree that they make the abatement the correct thing to do. Legally maybe, but not morally -- and that's jmo. And, for sure, morality isn't always at the heart of our legal system. But I do agree that someone at Houze's office has binders in number sufficient to rival LE with page after page of public sentiment showing why poor TH can't get a fair trial.

I also noticed, though, that there were a lot of comments, on OL at least, favoring TH on this issue. At least a lot more than there have been in the past. jmoo.

 

[Really]

....Kyron's case is still alive here and OL amongst a few other online sites. 98% of the public are going about their daily business. Crime sleuthing is not mainstream. OL has MANY Terri supporters who have supported her since day one. There are supporters here as well. One can't argue about the fair trial issue if there are still 2 sides to the story and both are being fairly represented. If she wants to stand up and defend herself at any point she can do so. Until then, we all speculate with the info that we have....

 

[Calliope]

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

Are you wondering1 ) why he'd keep it on the low when it's obvious he's working with Bunch on the civil case and 2) what sort of plea he could possibly ask for (considering the overwhelmingly negative public perception toward his client)?

Can you imagine the reaction if the DA agreed to a plea? Whoa Nellie!

 

[Calliope]

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

Jmo

If what her attorney did was illegal or against the rules of the court, there would not have been repeated attempts --- just one.

 

[2goldfish]

I just want to say that in my admittedly limited experience in ROs, when the article stated that TH had been trying to work out visitation behind the scenes with KH, that most likely meant HER lawyer talked to HIS lawyer about changing the details of the RO to allow visitation. when that obviously didnt work, she filed a motion to request visitation.


Yes I know when/if charges are brought but based on what we know right now....we cant find fault with her wanting to see her daughter.

 

[Calliope]

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

I don't know what else to say. I've posted the links to the law in Oregon that allows for the parenting time to be modified at any time the RO is in effect. I truly don't know how else to explain this. The wording is crystal clear.

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

You just said you never said the RO would be nullified (which you did, btw "The judge is unlikely to nullify the award to the Petitioners (Kaine and the toddler) that came with Terri not contesting the RO").

This does not nullify the RO. It modifies the parenting time issue by allowing supervised visits. She is STILL otherwise forbidden any contact with the baby, going within a set distance from where baby lives or places she frequents (like daycare, etc.), etc. The RO is still fully in effect for a year or until dismissed.

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

Who said anything about criminals ????

The state of Oregon allows --- by LAW --- for an RO to be modified with regard to parenting time and/or custody at any time that the RO is in effect

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

It's not misleading, IMO. "The answer could be yes" means he's open to Terri having visitation, regardless of the conditions he tries to impose.

 

[grandmaj]

I'm not sure there is anything wrong with Terri trying to work through her attorney who then communicated with Kaine's attorney to seek visitation.

Most lawyers will talk to test the water about matters which might be agreed to before a case moves forward. Kaine's attorney could not agree to something without his approval and could possibly feel it is in his best interests to let this go to a hearing. But that is the proper method to accomplish discussions between the sides. Lawyer to Lawyer.

No foul that I can see. Now if Terri approached Kaine directly then yes but I really don't see that as having happened or she would have been in violation of the RO.

 

[Calliope]

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

What other circumvention has she attempted?

 

[Calliope]

I'm not sure there is anything wrong with Terri trying to work through her attorney who then communicated with Kaine's attorney to seek visitation.

Most lawyers will talk to test the water about matters which might be agreed to before a case moves forward. Kaine's attorney could not agree to something without his approval and could possibly feel it is in his best interests to let this go to a hearing. But that is the proper method to accomplish discussions between the sides. Lawyer to Lawyer.

No foul that I can see. Now if Terri approached Kaine directly then yes but I really don't see that as having happened or she would have been in violation of the RO.

Yes. And I have no doubt that if doing so was a violation of law or procedure, Ms. Rackner would have alerted the court and filed the appropriate motions against both Terri and her attorney.

 

[Calliope]

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

I'm quite certain that Mr. Bunch is aware of the law. His motion for Kaine to pay was discussed upthread, regarding professionals or specialists Kaine may want to require to be present.

 

[germaine]

Are you wondering1 ) why he'd keep it on the low when it's obvious he's working with Bunch on the civil case and 2) what sort of plea he could possibly ask for (considering the overwhelmingly negative public perception toward his client)?

Can you imagine the reaction if the DA agreed to a plea? Whoa Nellie!

No, I'm not wondering why he'd keep it on the low. I think both he and Bunch think she's guilty of something. I didn't mean that he's keeping his involvement with Bunch under wraps. I meant he's keeping the whole case, as far as what's going on behind the scenes, close to the vest.

To number 2, I think it depends on what the plea might be. Life v. death penalty for example. Know that I think about it, though, I overstated what I think about him working on a plea. I'm sure it's in the back of his mind. Or maybe even in the front of his mind. But nothing serious until she is charged, or about to be. And I'm not sure she's about to be. I don't think the DA has approached him about it yet, is what I mean. So while I think that's what he eventually will be looking for, I don't think he's had the opportunity yet, upon reflection.

 

[germaine]

....Kyron's case is still alive here and OL amongst a few other online sites. 98% of the public are going about their daily business. Crime sleuthing is not mainstream. OL has MANY Terri supporters who have supported her since day one. There are supporters here as well. One can't argue about the fair trial issue if there are still 2 sides to the story and both are being fairly represented. If she wants to stand up and defend herself at any point she can do so. Until then, we all speculate with the info that we have....

I'm not sure if this is about my post, but I just wanted to say I agree with yours too. I was just meaning that I think Houze has someone keeping track of the social media because he will eventually try to keep the case out of portland. It will be interesting to see what happens with that. If it ever happens. jmoo.

 

[Calliope]

IF he were giving her good advice...

IF she truly cared about K....

She would have been in court within the mandated 30 days after the RO was issued to fight for visitation.

From "Instructions: Contesting a VAPA Restraining Order:"

You have 30 days after you are served with the restraining order to ask the judge to dismiss or change the order, by filing a “Request for Hearing.” The Request for Hearing must be filed with the court within 30 days from the date you were served. If you request a hearing and the judge continues the Restraining Order, federal law may prohibit you from possessing or purchasing any firearm or ammunition (including hunting rifles).

If it has been more than 30 days since the date you were served, the only type of hearing you may request is to make changes to custody and/or parenting time, your removal from the home, your restrictions from other premises, or contact by you in-person, by telephone, or otherwise. Either party may request this type of hearing. You may request such a hearing by asking the clerk at the courthouse for the forms needed to “modify” a restraining order. The judge may schedule a hearing to decide whether or not to change the order. The judge may decide not to change the order even if both sides agree that they want the same changes.

**************


Instead, she waited until public opinion was critical about her not trying to see K. Makes one wonder if she's fighting to see the baby for the baby's sake or for the sake of saving her own face.

bbm, in red

 

[Donjeta]

BBM

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

I know someone else is paying, that's why I referred to the party who got her Houze. :waitasec:

 

[Calliope]

Terri had an opportunity to contest the VAPA RO. It was at that point that she would have been able to defend herself against allegations made against her.

But she didn't. So the judge found in favor of Kaine. Ergo, as it stands now, the info presented in the RO is fact in the eyes of the court. To change those facts, Terri has to file for modification and HOPE the judge hears it. Nothing requires the judge to hear it. He can refuse to hear it. At which time the facts and provisions of the RO stand.

Terri had 30 days to contest. She had attorneys during that 30 days. Yet she did not contest.

Does no one wonder WHY she did not contest? Why almost four months after the RO was served, three months after the cut-off for her to contest, she finally decided to seek modification?

I think it's obvious why. In my opinion, seeking visitation with K is but a mere tool for her to save face.

All my opinion except for what is based in law linked above.

There is no cut-off / time limit for modifying an RO with regard to parenting time.

 

[Calliope]

bbm

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

I did a quick search:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5446276&postcount=873"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Source: Homes of Terri Horman's friends searched[/ame]


They'd posted a link to an article; I too had missed that the first time around.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5388628&postcount=103"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - TH refuses to talk to reporter #2[/ame]