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

[desquire]

Sorry for butting back in here, but there's just so much misinformation flying around that I couldn't help myself.

I think they'll see this: That Terri doesn't deny any of the "facts" put forth by Kaine.

She said she "takes issue with the vast majority of the allegations" - that's essentially a denial carefully worded to avoid a waiver of her ability to take the 5th.

Any parent in her situation would have to undergo questioning by a judge and some type of evaluation, and without that, she can't have what she wants. And I personally feel this is a good thing.

Parenting time is frequently granted (to people who have been proven to have done really bad things) without any type of evaluation or hearing at all. What Kaine was asking for would have been well outside the norm.

Terri Horman is the one that wants an abatement on the divorce. Kaine was willing to settle it when he first filed.

Kaine was willing to litigate the divorce, I don't think we've seen anything that indicates he was willing to settle.

I remember in the beginning they also said that they wouldn't fight the divorce...then comes an abatement motion.

They originally said that they would not contest the dissolution of the marriage - that's different from saying they wouldn't contest the division of property and custody, which is what has been abated.

Any *behind the scenes* arrangement would place BOTH Kaine and Terri in contempt of court if there is no NEW motion filed to modify the FAPA RO as it relates to parenting time. Terri's lawyers know this and their legal language is trying to make it seem as if all they have to do is come to an agreement behind the scenes and present it to the judge. There still has to be a formal hearing (with a request filed by either petitioner or respondent) and the judge can take their agreement into consideration, but is under no obligation to abide by it, considering that Terri has been labeled and abuser and as such LOST contact with her daughter.

They are blowing smoke, IMO.

The RO does not prevent the parties from reaching an amicable resolution of any issue. The entire civil court system - and particularly the family court system - is premised around parties reaching a settlement prior to trial. Courts actively encourage divorce settlements both directly and indirectly (sometimes almost forcefully). The process also punishes those litigants who do not settle their divorce. This is why you almost never see a divorce trial. Yes, when the parties reach a settlement there must be a brief "nominal" hearing. But this type of hearing is a formality and the domestic relations order embodying the settlement is essentially a rubber stamp.

 

[Trt]

When I said "settle it", I was speaking of settling in a court of law and not a setllement which does not benefit Kaine in anyway.

Terri has not agreed to the dissolution of marriage as of yet so anything her and her lawyers say regarding that is just lip service.

The RO is not a divorce proceeding and the RO is a separate process. Under Oregon law, in order for a modification to an FAPA RO, either the petitioner or the respondent MUST file a request for a hearing. As I conceded before, a judge can and will take a parenting plan signed by both parties into consideration, but the matters that brought about the RO would still need to be addressed before parenting time is granted(and it's the judge's decision). Terri's lawyer's assertions that all Kaine has to do is agree to the plan that they set up to get parenting time is a farce and goes against everything I've read regarding this type of order and how to get it modified. Terri withdrew her request for a hearing to modify the RO. She cannot get the order modified without that request.

Jmo

eta: add link ...under how do I contest? Last paragraph speaks of modification and how judge may not modify order even if both parties
agree to some changes.

http://courts.oregon.gov/Washington/docs/familylaw/7A_Obtain_RO/FapaInstrucsCONTEST-RO.pdf

 

[ThoughtFox]

I think they'll see this: That Terri doesn't deny any of the "facts" put forth by Kaine.

She said she "takes issue with the vast majority of the allegations" - that's essentially a denial carefully worded to avoid a waiver of her ability to take the 5th.

Well, good for her. But in effect, that is what I said.

She isn't denying them because she knows she can't deny them later. Hence pleading the fifth.

Therefore she is never going to agree with any of these allegations, even while not denying them.

That's my opinion, and not me trying to spread misinformation. Just an opinion.

Any parent in her situation would have to undergo questioning by a judge and some type of evaluation, and without that, she can't have what she wants. And I personally feel this is a good thing.

Parenting time is frequently granted (to people who have been proven to have done really bad things) without any type of evaluation or hearing at all. What Kaine was asking for would have been well outside the norm.

I'm not sure I believe that. I think it depends on the laws where you live.

Is "really bad things" a legal term? :angel:

Disappearing a child, then, might be called a "really really really bad thing."

I'm sure a Judge will consider the number of "reallys" needed when deciding the visitation rights of TH.

This is a moot question now that her attorneys have withdrawn her request, however.

No request, no visitation.

 

[Donjeta]

The abatement prevents her from having to testify until at least January. A settlement would mean she would never have to testify. Why wouldn't she want that?

Yeah... I wonder which terms were included in her extremely reasonable proposal for a settlement. It is hard for me to believe that they think that Kaine would voluntarily agree to give Terri anything he didn't have to without getting anything in return so what could she offer that Kaine possibly could be tempted to agree with?

 

[stmarysmead]

Kaine fears that Baby K may have witnessed the brutal murder of her brother. Anyone ever worked with ADULTS who return from combat with great emotional problems due to the gore and violence they witnessed?

Imagine a child...who does not possess the skills to deal with watching her brother die at the hands of the very person who represents her own safety and security...her Mother.

This is the horror Kaine refers to.

Now Terri refuses to answer any questions, because she values her freedom...so therefore this Mother and her attorneys are essentially asking us to RISK Baby K's mental (and maybe physical health)...risk the trauma of violent recollections...AGAIN...Terri is asking us to value HER freedom...but put NO value on Baby's welfare.

Without any cooperation or input at all...about what happened to Kyron and what Baby may have watched...she and her attorneys are asking SHE be given precedence over a child.

I would like her lawyers to assure us with their professional reputations that they KNOW Baby K cannot be traumatized...in the way many adults have been traumatized by violence in a more impersonal act of war...not your Mother and Brother! I'd like everyone who has such confidence and faith in Terri's innocence to have to be responsible for whatever happens to this child.

Let's hear the attorneys step up and ASSURE us that we can hold them ACCOUNTABLE for whatrever happens now and in years to come to Baby K.

Let's remember if we ever see Terri plead guilty...and find out that Baby witnessed her brother killed...that these lawyers knew this...KNEW it...and cared so little for the welfare of this child. I hope they will carry the stain of that into their own lives in years to come. I am very weary of no accountability. If they even suspect Terri is guilty and Baby witnessed the crime, this legal farce is despicable IMO.

 

[desquire]

When I said "settle it", I was speaking of settling in a court of law and not a setllement which does not benefit Kaine in anyway.

Terri has not agreed to the dissolution of marriage as of yet so anything her and her lawyers say regarding that is just lip service.

The RO is not a divorce proceeding and the RO is a separate process. Under Oregon law, in order for a modification to an FAPA RO, either the petitioner or the respondent MUST file a request for a hearing. As I conceded before, a judge can and will take a parenting plan signed by both parties into consideration, but the matters that brought about the RO would still need to be addressed before parenting time is granted(and it's the judge's decision). Terri's lawyer's assertions that all Kaine has to do is agree to the plan that they set up to get parenting time is a farce and goes against everything I've read regarding this type of order and how to get it modified. Terri withdrew her request for a hearing to modify the RO. She cannot get the order modified without that request.

Jmo

eta: add link ...under how do I contest? Last paragraph speaks of modification and how judge may not modify order even if both parties
agree to some changes.

http://courts.oregon.gov/Washington/docs/familylaw/7A_Obtain_RO/FapaInstrucsCONTEST-RO.pdf

Got it. By "settle" you meant litigate, not settle.

Terri's motion for abatement (affidavit at paragraph 11) stated that she was prepared to stipulate to the entry of a divorce judgment waive claims to certain property rights as a condition to the entry of an abatement order. If, in your mind, the fact that the judge ultimately didn't require such conditions when granting the abatement somehow transforms her willingness to concede them into mere "lip service," so be it.

The restraining order and the divorce are separate but not entirely independent actions. I think you are overlooking the fact that the entry of a domestic relations order in the divorce proceeding vitiates the custody provisions of the RO. If/when Kaine and Terri agree to some sort of joint custody or parenting time terms and these get incorporated into the final DRO, they don't need to go back and separately modify the restraining order.

 

[desquire]

I am very weary of no accountability. If they even suspect Terri is guilty and Baby witnessed the crime, this legal farce is despicable IMO.

Are advocating that if anyone is suspected of wrongdoing, even if it's only based on allegations made by a soon-to-b-ex-spouse, that person should immediately forfeit all their rights, have their children taken from them, and be cast into eternal shame and damnation along with anyone who might speak on their behalf? Because, honestly, that's what it sounds like you just said.

 

[Bethlamb16]

From some of the posts it sounds like some of you are positive her attorneys know what she did (assuming she is guilty). While it is possible, there is a good possibility that her attorneys don't know what she did or didn't do and I don't think you should make this assumption. Many attorneys do not know exactly what their client is or isn't guilty of but are still able to defend them and in fact this is a right each of us has, thank goodness. Also, if our rights could be taken based just on the word of what someone says (particularly with regard to domestic relations case) that would be a very bad thing. I admit this case does have some very different aspects to it but I think it is important to remember our basic rights and why we have them and what would happen if they were taken away. Even guilty people are entitled to them!

 

[stmarysmead]

Are advocating that if anyone is suspected of wrongdoing, even if it's only based on allegations made by a soon-to-b-ex-spouse, that person should immediately forfeit all their rights, have their children taken from them, and be cast into eternal shame and damnation along with anyone who might speak on their behalf? Because, honestly, that's what it sounds like you just said.

This is what I mean. When an architect or a structural engineer use their talents and skills to build ..say..a hotel...with balconies that extend over a dance floor...if those balconies collapse and people are hurt or die...those professionals are held legally responsible.

These-lawyers are "vouching" for Terri...in the way that those architects and engineers vouched for that building. Let's hold the lawyers accountable for their "work" too. If they know Terri is guilty, they may well be "destroying that child's psyche...as certainly as that design of that building hurt those caught under the balcony.

Why shouldn't Terri's lawyers be held legally accountable for how this might effect Baby in later years? Sure defend her, advocate for her, see she has her rights...but that does not include destroying a child in the process.

This is no ordinary divorce. Nor is Baby K "ordinary."Tiny as she is...she may have witnessed something that would bring an adult to his knees. Her Mother refuses to undergo any testing, answer any questions, etc. She wants the fact that she is a suspect to give her special waivers in the divorce. Well, then Baby is entitled to special waivers too..until we know that her mother is not the murderer of her Brother...and that she witnessed no horror. BOTH Terri and Baby need to be treated in this extraordinary case...in an extraordinary way. Sure, protect Terri's rights...but protect Baby's right not to be re-traumatized as well.

Or let these lawyers be held fully accountable!

 

[Trt]

Yes, litigate. I didn't think I had to use the legally appropriate term foe the point of the post to be understood and not taken to task based on semantics. But that is all cleared up now.

Are you suggesting that Kaine nor Terri would have to file a motion to modify the restraining order in order to have this matter resolved? Are you denying that the judge could and does have discretion not to accept any terms that Kaine and Terri arrive at on their own? According to the statutes for filing and obtaining an FAPA RO in Oregon, a custody agreement can only supercede an FAPA RO if the two matters have been combined and if both parties have been informed of such. As I recall, none of those two things have happened, right? If that is the case, the RO modification would still have to be taken care of (or expire) before any custody arrangement can be honored. Jmo

eta: Add link and correct spelling.

http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/docs/OSCA/cpsd/courtimprovement/familylaw/FAPA_Benchguide_4-24-06.pdf

 

[stmarysmead]

Every other profession is held accountable when their professional skills reek havoc or bring harm into the lives of others. I hope, if in years to come, Baby K suffers any ill effects...she and Kaine will find a way, if necessary, to hold THESE lawyers professionally, legally, financially, and publicly responsible for what they chose to do now. If Terri is innocent, no problem. But if she murdered Kyron and Baby K was strapped in a car seat, screaming, forced to watch...these lawyers need to be held accountable for their professional choices too,

 

[stmarysmead]

From some of the posts it sounds like some of you are positive her attorneys know what she did (assuming she is guilty). While it is possible, there is a good possibility that her attorneys don't know what she did or didn't do and I don't think you should make this assumption. Many attorneys do not know exactly what their client is or isn't guilty of but are still able to defend them and in fact this is a right each of us has, thank goodness. Also, if our rights could be taken based just on the word of what someone says (particularly with regard to domestic relations case) that would be a very bad thing. I admit this case does have some very different aspects to it but I think it is important to remember our basic rights and why we have them and what would happen if they were taken away. Even guilty people are entitled to them!

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

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

 

[Trt]

I think the point some are trying to make smm is that Terri's lawyers don't have to know that she is guilty or what exactly that entails to defend her. I don't know whether they know or not, and we would never know since they are bound by lawyer/client privilege and wouldn't tell whether or not they knew anyway.

They are doing their job and I don't begrudge them that. Terri is the one that should/would be legally responsible if she did something with K with her and still proceeded. As well, judges know that children witness spousal abuse (for example) all the time in matters such as these and they still allow parental contact at times.

I don't know that just witnessing something horrible that your parent did would be a legally acceptable reason for you to be kept away from them(not condoning this at all, just don't think her lawyers would be responsible under the law for doing their job).

Jmo

 

[forthelost]

Are advocating that if anyone is suspected of wrongdoing, even if it's only based on allegations made by a soon-to-b-ex-spouse, that person should immediately forfeit all their rights, have their children taken from them, and be cast into eternal shame and damnation along with anyone who might speak on their behalf? Because, honestly, that's what it sounds like you just said.

If that person who is accused then refuses to testify in their own defense because it may incriminate them... yeah.

 

[stmarysmead]

I think the point some are trying to make smm is that Terri's lawyers don't have to know that she is guilty or what exactly that entails to defend her. I don't know whether they know or not, and we would never know since they are bound by lawyer/client privilege and wouldn't tell whether or not they knew anyway.

They are doing their job and I don't begrudge them that. Terri is the one that should/would be legally responsible if she did something with K with her and still proceeded. As well, judges know that children witness spousal abuse (for example) all the time in matters such as these and they still allow parental contact at times.

[B]I don't know that just witnessing something horrible that your parent did would be a legally acceptable reason for you to be kept away from them(not condoning this at all, just don't think her lawyers would be responsible under the law for doing their job).

Does that seem like that should be the case...when every other profession is held responsible? In fact, attorneys are the agents to hold others responsible...but they might know Terri did this horrific crime in front of this child...and they are going to WORK every legal angle to make this Baby endure this sadistic reconciliation? That is truly appalling in the fullest sense of the word.

 

[Trt]

In your example of the architect, that architect would only be held liable or responsible if it could be proven that they acted in bad faith or were negligent when doing their job. If that can't be proven, they can't be held responsible(according to my understanding of how that works).

As ugly as it is, Terri's lawyers aren't acting negligently or in bad faith, even if they know what K witnessed(and I don't think they know), if anything. Jmo

 

[stmarysmead]

In your example of the architect, that architect would only be held liable or responsible if it could be proven that they acted in bad faith or were negligent when doing their job. If that can't be proven, they can't be held responsible(according to my understanding of how that works).

As ugly as it is, Terri's lawyers aren't acting negligently or in bad faith, even if they know what K witnessed(and I don't think they know), if anything. Jmo

Why should lawyers be not held accountable for the damage they do? I believe it is equally "bad faith' to use your skills to force a 2 year old to have to be reunited with the person she may have seen do unimaginable violence to her brother. I submit it is indeed "negligent" to take chance on how THAT might effect that child in the long run.

In time, some case like this might force changes.Maybe an adult Baby K could be the one to make them pay.

Even if the laws are written to exempt lawyers from the havoc they reek with the careless or callous application of their profession...hopefully public opinion will censure them if the law does not.

 

[Billylee]

This is what I mean. When an architect or a structural engineer use their talents and skills to build ..say..a hotel...with balconies that extend over a dance floor...if those balconies collapse and people are hurt or die...those professionals are held legally responsible.

These-lawyers are "vouching" for Terri...in the way that those architects and engineers vouched for that building. Let's hold the lawyers accountable for their "work" too. If they know Terri is guilty, they may well be "destroying that child's psyche...as certainly as that design of that building hurt those caught under the balcony.

Why shouldn't Terri's lawyers be held legally accountable for how this might effect Baby in later years? Sure defend her, advocate for her, see she has her rights...but that does not include destroying a child in the process.

This is no ordinary divorce. Nor is Baby K "ordinary."Tiny as she is...she may have witnessed something that would bring an adult to his knees. Her Mother refuses to undergo any testing, answer any questions, etc. She wants the fact that she is a suspect to give her special waivers in the divorce. Well, then Baby is entitled to special waivers too..until we know that her mother is not the murderer of her Brother...and that she witnessed no horror. BOTH Terri and Baby need to be treated in this extraordinary case...in an extraordinary way. Sure, protect Terri's rights...but protect Baby's right not to be re-traumatized as well.

Or let these lawyers be held fully accountable!

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

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

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

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

 

[stmarysmead]

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

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

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

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

Is it the "job" of a divorce lawyer to conspire with a criminal lawyer to force a child to be reunited with a Mother who may have brutally murdered her brother in front of her? With no regard as to the damage that might do to the child...because they employ their skills to SHIELD the mother, the probable murderess, from tests and exams that would be required in any NORMAL divorce.

So Baby K, whose Brother is missing, whose Father was a Murder target... is LESS protected than someone whose parents just don't get along?

If these attorneys use their craft to harm this child,,,yes...they should be accountable. Why not?

 

[Bethlamb16]

I just want to clarify something because a lot of people and particularly crime shows get this wrong but actually in a court of law you are not found innocent but you are found not guilty. There can be a big difference between the two and often comes down to being not guilty for what you are charged but that doesn't mean you are innocent of the crime. Hope this makes sense but this is something I was taught a long time ago by a criminal attorney I worked for and it really is 2 very different things IMO!!!