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

[Calliope]

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.

This isn't a motion for custody talks related to the dissolution. It's for a hearing to modify the parenting time in the RO, which Terri has a right to request, by law. I don't believe Kaine can interfere with that process.

 

[grandmaj]

I think we still have to consider after all of the legal wranging if we get a court date for this hearing. Terri still is not going to talk. How is she going to provide the judge with assurances that K. is going to be OK with her?

While I'm not sure that the Sheriff would provide any additional detailed information about the MFH if it is part of the ongoing criminal investigation, what if he were to get on the stand and say somthing like....

I stand behind my original opinion that Terri Horman may be a risk to Baby K. Or something like that? Or, I cannot release information about an ongoing criminal matter but I have reason to believe that Terri Horman may be a riskkkk...... pick your words.

I'm not getting this! How can anything be accomplished without Terri's cooperation. :banghead: A child advocate cannot convince the judge that a child is going to be safe. He/she is going to say it is in the childs best interest, mothers have a bond......etc.

 

[Calliope]

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

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

When an RO is granted, the judge only hears one side of the story.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Considering the reasons for getting an RO in the first place?

Simply having an RO doesn't mean the 'evidence' given to obtain it is factual. Which I believe was her point.

 

[Donjeta]

I think we still have to consider after all of the legal wranging if we get a court date for this hearing. Terri still is not going to talk. How is she going to provide the judge with assurances that K. is going to be OK with her?

While I'm not sure that the Sheriff would provide any additional detailed information about the MFH if it is part of the ongoing criminal investigation, what if he were to get on the stand and say somthing like....

I stand behind my original opinion that Terri Horman may be a risk to Baby K. Or something like that? Or, I cannot release information about an ongoing criminal matter but I have reason to believe that Terri Horman may be a riskkkk...... pick your words.

I'm not getting this! How can anything be accomplished without Terri's cooperation. :banghead: A child advocate cannot convince the judge that a child is going to be safe. He/she is going to say it is in the childs best interest, mothers have a bond......etc.

IMO without having examined Terri's parenting capabilities which I assume she is not willing to agree to since it was one of the main reasons her attorney said they wanted the abatement in the first place, the most any expert can do is testify to the impersonal fact that usually children are better off if they have contact with their parents. But there are always exceptions to every rule which is why there is the possibility for the court to issue a no contact order. So IMO there should be some argument that shows that Terri is not one of those exceptions.

Could they subpoena some of those people who have said she was a good parent and would never do anything?

 

[Really]

This isn't a motion for custody talks related to the dissolution. It's for a hearing to modify the parenting time in the RO, which Terri has a right to request, by law. I don't believe Kaine can interfere with that process.

...Regardless, Terri has requested nothing in regards to the RO.

 

[Calliope]

The RO is the only way that Terri can see her child. Agreeing to meet with Terri's atorneys and then declining the illegal pleadings of allowing Terri to see her child (apart from a court proceeding) isn't circumvention, IMO. Once again, Kaine nor his lawyer can allow Terri to see her child without going through the court system. Therefore, IMO, asking Kaine and his lawyer to allow something that they have no power to allow IS an attempt to circumvent the judicial measures that are already in place with this RO.

Legal wrangling that happens between attornies is a moot point here since a judge's decision (after a motion from either party) is the ONLY thing that can allow Terri access to her child. There are some very specific things that Terri has to do to see her child and speaking with Kaine and his lawyer to try and make it happen is not within her options that she has.

Both Kaine and Laura Rackner would have been in violation of the law had they agreed to allow Terri access to baby K. Thus her request was a circumvention of the system, imo.

Of course it would have been an option. That's obvious, because that's what Bunch attempted to do; had it been outside the rules of procedure, Rackner would have jumped on it. And I don't think the RO prevents Mr. Bunch from contacting or coming within x feet of Ms. Rackner.

In attempting to go this route, they could have then approached the court and given him their agreement hammered out between themselves (the attorneys for both sides), thus saving the judge a lot of headache knowing the parties were in agreement and him not having to sort through motion / response / response to the response, and then conducting a hearing. He would be under no obligation to grant the parenting time, and he could add or delete specific requirements for the supervised visitation, of course.

These attempts by Bunch were not "circumventing" anything. It simply relieves the burden on the court and streamlines the process.

 

[BeanE]

I think we still have to consider after all of the legal wranging if we get a court date for this hearing. Terri still is not going to talk. How is she going to provide the judge with assurances that K. is going to be OK with her?

It all depends on whether Kaine brings evidence, and if he does, what that evidence is, as I understand the process.

While I'm not sure that the Sheriff would provide any additional detailed information about the MFH if it is part of the ongoing criminal investigation, what if he were to get on the stand and say somthing like....

I stand behind my original opinion that Terri Horman may be a risk to Baby K. Or something like that? Or, I cannot release information about an ongoing criminal matter but I have reason to believe that Terri Horman may be a riskkkk...... pick your words.

Couldn't they request that the testimony and/or evidence be reviewed in camera to protect the investigation?

 

[Calliope]

...Regardless, Terri has requested nothing in regards to the RO.

That is what this motion is all about.

 

[Kat]

Calliope, what are Terri's legal rights in this situation?

Forgive me for not knowing off hand, but she hasn't been officially charged with any crimes yet has she? If she has, would those effect her rights?

Thanks for helping to understand.

 

[MsFacetious]

I knew this would happen this month.

There hasn't been anything "important" to Terri since June to motivate her to do this.

July, August, September are all insignificant months to her.

October?? Now that is important, that is Halloween!

Then you have Baby K's birthday before the end of the year as well.

I am not surprised by the timing at all. I am only surprised that they are cutting it this close to the end of the month. But her attorney can probably get it done like overnight.

I just hope that they don't do further damage to this kid by giving Terri visits, then arresting her... or not supervising these visits well enough.

 

[Kat010]

I knew this would happen this month.

There hasn't been anything "important" to Terri since June to motivate her to do this.

July, August, September are all insignificant months to her.

October?? Now that is important, that is Halloween!

Then you have Baby K's birthday before the end of the year as well.

I am not surprised by the timing at all. I am only surprised that they are cutting it this close to the end of the month. But her attorney can probably get it done like overnight.

I just hope that they don't do further damage to this kid by giving Terri visits, then arresting her... or not supervising these visits well enough.

bbm

Huh? What does Halloween have to do with attorney actions and court schedules? What does it have to do with anything?

Maybe I've missed some article about a family anniversary or something? Yikes.

 

[pufnstuf]

bbm

Huh? What does Halloween have to do with attorney actions and court schedules? What does it have to do with anything?

Maybe I've missed some article about a family anniversary or something? Yikes.

The poster is saying that there are significant child-oriented events coming up in the next few months that may have prodded Terri to make this move now. As Terri's boucoup photos show, she's quite invested in celebrating Halloween, as many parents are.

In my opinion, the timing has nothing to do with that, but all to do with public impression.

MOO.

 

[6angels]

as far as "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."

That could mean many things IMO.

as far as no it could be no not until my son is found safe and sound.
as far as yes it could mean yes when hell freezes over or yes Terri can see her the day she is transfered to prison. We really don't know what he means.

 

[Aedrys]

I understand; we don't necessarily have to see eye to eye. That's what makes this site so cool and stuff. Viva le difference (or whatever --- lol it's late)



Of course she's going to offer proof. That is included in the motion. Bunch states that he will have an expert testify to the benefit of Kiara on seeing her mother on a regular and often basis and if there's money involved so these visits are supervised, Kaine has to pay for it. The motion stated that if Kaine was not satisfied with the expert who will be paid for by Terri, then Kaine should necessarily pay for supervision, since the attorney is attesting to the qualifications of the expert, and Bunch is confident the court will also accept the qualifications.



Except, Terri IS doing what so many (here and elsewhere) have said she SHOULD do if she cared about her child. I'm not sure I understand the 180, getting upset that she's repeatedly attempted to hammer this out with Kaine only to be thwarted over time by his refusal, necessitating her attorney taking this action.



Again, this is what so many have said would go a long way to making them feel less 'hinky' about Terri (in so many words).

Where is the sound argument against this motion? Where is the reasoned and well-thought out determination that Terri should continue to be stripped unconstitutionally (hearsay) of her parental rights because it upsets others if she puts forth a reasonable request to obtain them once again?



This is very confusing. How should she be asking? And who should she clear this through before making the request?

This motion was legally filed, professionally formed, well-reasoned and reasonable, and IMO will result in her getting to see her daughter again.




I didn't read anything outside of making sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed to make Kaine understand that due to his lack of providing evidence to support his 'hearsay' claims in the RO, and due to the agreement of the court that forcing this divorce onto Terri in hopes of getting her to violate her 5th and 6th amendment rights simply (IMO) assist the police in their investigation, regardless of the truth of the matter, that they aren't going to sit back and just take it. The law is the law, and Bunch has called them on it. Kaine himself opened up this possibility (that Terri could have supervised visitation). Why did he do that?


By Nellie, I think she may be awarded this motion as well.

JMO, of course.

I don't think she will. What I meant by HOW she was asking was the tone of this motion. She's not getting up there and begging the court to see her own child and why that would be in baby K's best interests. She's letting some expert who doesn't even know her, and who can only quote on general cases and studies that seeing a child is best for the mother. That's it. No begging, no nothing by Terri herself to see her own child. She doesn't even want to pay for seeing her own child! I haven't seen her lift one finger to do anything to benefit this child. That just isn't right to expect everyone else to get do the work for her. She can't just sit there silently and expect to get what she wants. She has SUCH an attitude of entitlement. It's just crazy that she says she love this child, but doesn't say or actually do anything herself to see her. Let the lawyers, experts, and Kaine handle it. That has been her attitude thus far.

I understand she has the legal right to ask, but that doesn't mean that the judge has to give her the answer she wants. If she's not willing to beg, plead, and do whatever she has to do to see her own child to keep CYAing herself, that is just morally wrong to me. And to expect Kaine to pay for supervised visitation is just reprehensible. So she has a deep pocket for a good defense, but no money whatsover for this supposed, beloved child? Wow, if that isn't blatantly saying where her priorities are, I don't know what else could be more obvious. I'm sure friends and family would help her see her own child. But she'd rather make sure she has a dream defense lawyer instead.

But I understand that this is probably SOP for her lawyer. I understand that she legally has the right to ask. It doesn't mean I agree with how she asked and what she is asking for. I'm just waiting for the judge to answer her with a big, fat NO.

It's painfully obvious that Terri still only cares about Terri. I think I'm more on the moral side while others are more on the legal side. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[Barry]

This is Friday, so forgive me if it seems silly :crazy:

If I recall from somewhere on this forum, it was thought that TH had possibly taught Kyron sign langauge, and possible then, baby K. So I'm thinking (if it's true), that a further precaution of supervision would be having someone there that would watch for this occuring, and what was being communicated.

Just thinking outloud. Feel free to slap me back to my senses, lol.

 

[SurfieTX]

Aedrys, I think she probably has sent her lawyers over to Kaine's lawyers to try to get some form of visitation agreement hashed out, but that was met with "NO!" So, Houze and Bunch decided that the abatement and reiterating her rights in that process would be a better first step. By the judge acknowledging her rights and granting at least a short-term abatement, that puts her on better footing to contest the visitation stipulations in the RO.

He's already put it on record that her rights with regard to being the "de facto suspect" are important. Therefore, the argument flows nicely that her rights to not take the stand about the RO are just as important - she just wants to see her child (supervised or not).

AZLawyer has stated that family court judges have a fairly good amount of discretion. I think this judge will allow her to see K supervised, but if and by whom this is to be paid is up in the air in my mind. It might be a good maneuver for Rackner to pressure Terri to pay at least some fee for supervised visits as a little test regarding: (1) Can she miraculously come up with the money like she did with Houze and (2) how important is seeing her daughter to her? Of course, that could backfire too...

I'm so glad I'm not a lawyer.

 

[ThoughtFox]

The poster is saying that there are significant child-oriented events coming up in the next few months that may have prodded Terri to make this move now. As Terri's boucoup photos show, she's quite invested in celebrating Halloween, as many parents are.

In my opinion, the timing has nothing to do with that, but all to do with public impression.

MOO.

Yes, because it would look really bad if she wasn't able to see her daughter on Halloween or especially on her birthday! (As her attorney probably knows good and well)

Why she didn't immediately think of this and protest when the RO was thrown at her, we'll probably never know. (Concern for herself first, perhaps?)

 

[mmmagique]

When an RO is granted, the judge only hears one side of the story.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Considering the reasons for getting an RO in the first place?

Simply having an RO doesn't mean the 'evidence' given to obtain it is factual. Which I believe was her point.

Ok now we're talking about two different things. When an RO is FIRST granted, it is almost always under an emergency RO, and yes, only one side is heard.
Then a date is given for the second hearing and that is when both sides are allowed to state their case. Terri chose not to state her case. Not fighting such allegations are not exactly admitting it, but close enough for a judge to say it's good enough for him/her. She then had 30 more days after even that second hearing to contest it, but chose not to. And that's when it becomes fact under the law.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I think we still have to consider after all of the legal wranging if we get a court date for this hearing. Terri still is not going to talk. How is she going to provide the judge with assurances that K. is going to be OK with her?

...I'm not getting this! How can anything be accomplished without Terri's cooperation. :banghead: A child advocate cannot convince the judge that a child is going to be safe. He/she is going to say it is in the childs best interest, mothers have a bond......etc.

And it seems to me that no Judge is going to rule based just on an advocate's good words anyway. That Judge is going to want to directly ask Terri herself some really hard questions (that she doesn't want to answer, and which her attorney doesn't want her to answer).

So to me, this is just a ploy to try to save her reputation as a mother and a possibly murderous wife.

And . . . since the Murder for Hire plot and the sexting was mentioned in the original RO thingy, then she better have some answers ready as to how all that fits with being allowed to visit Baby K.

I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to see her daughter, but it's like anyone else who has to prove they are a fit mother - just because she was a well-off suburban Mom doesn't automatically mean the system will work in her favor.

There are many other women in the world who have lost custody over alot less, it seems to me. JMO

 

[gardeness]

And it seems to me that no Judge is going to rule based just on an advocate's good words anyway. That Judge is going to want to directly ask Terri herself some really hard questions (that she doesn't want to answer, and which her attorney doesn't want her to answer).

So to me, this is just a ploy to try to save her reputation as a mother and a possibly murderous wife.

And . . . since the Murder for Hire plot and the sexting was mentioned in the original RO thingy, then she better have some answers ready as to how all that fits with being allowed to visit Baby K.

I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to see her daughter, but it's like anyone else who has to prove they are a fit mother - just because she was a well-off suburban Mom doesn't automatically mean the system will work in her favor.

There are many other women in the world who have lost custody over alot less, it seems to me. JMO

bbm

I don't recall this...