AZ - Isabel Mercedes Celis, 6, Tucson, 20 April 2012 - #12

[jennapuppy]

Also I can read lips really well and now that I have rewatched the video of the Ave Maria she is clearly saying "Bow baby, take a bow." Which he follows by bowing his head when the song is over.

Wow. That seems so inappropriate, considering the circumstances, IMO. For some reason, this made me think of Ronald O'Bryan, who killed his son Timothy with cyanide-laced Halloween candy. He sang an old Baptist hymn at his son's funeral. The lyrics are "this is my story, this is my song", and he sang "this is Tim's story, this is Tim's song." I know that singing when your child is missing/murdered does not equal guilt, but the lack of emotion from either of them seems so strange. Your daughter is missing, you're at a community benefit, and now you're singing a song/hearing your spouse singing (and the nature of music is to produce an emotional response), and nothing. From either of them. He is singing in the emotional affect of an opera singer, but not showing genuine emotion, IMO, and she is motionless.

Having a "benefit concert" for a missing child seems a bit strange. What did they do with the money they raised?

 

[Prof]

If BC was ordered by CPS not to have any contact with her children, I wonder if TMC would not suspend or remove her from her pediatric nurse duties? I would not want a nurse who cannot see her own children per CPS to be around my vulnerable child no matter the circumstances... I am leaning toward the parent being SC.

 

[curiousc]

The issue I have with this is:

1. I can't think of any cases prior to 2008 where someone was convicted of the murder of a child without a body.

2. If Casey's case had never happened....guilty parents would still get rid of the body.

IMO....perhaps the media is focusing on cases where a little kid goes missing, parents might be guilty...to try to re-create the Anthony trial.

The one thing I do see in the states is the fact that they have once chance to have a trial. If a non-guilty verdict is reached in that trial, they cannot go back and charge. I see LE in many cases on here not convicting without a body because there is the chance the evidence is just not all there without a body. So we see many perps roaming free and a victim not being found. It sickens me to see this time and again in so many cases I have followed.

 

[LisaB]

True. I guess I'm still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not involved but it's getting more difficult to do so.

I think mom snapped that night. Perhaps too much to drink. She was the second to last allegedly with Isabel (braiding her hair). Perhaps Isabel was too tired to have her hair braided and just wanted to sleep and mom perhaps with a few beers at the ballgame was not in the mood to have a little girl control her and tell her what to do.

IMO, mom has issues.

In my experience, beer flows freely and company softball games, but not so much at Little League games, which are often held on school grounds or county owned parks and therefore smoke-free and alcohol-free.

 

[taagean]

Can someone answer a question for me? If there is evidence of sexual abuse towards a girl would CPS remove boys from the house and not allow any contact with the parent who was the abuser of the girl? So in other words, are all children then removed no matter what sex they are.

 

[SmoothOperator]

OK there's gotta be someone who has some info that will better make sense...there is always like a back door in every case where we can usually find answers...even tho we may not be able to publicly discuss them.. I just realized we don't have that here and I think that's what's making it all the worse.. atleast for me personally it is. .

 

[curiousc]

Can someone answer a question for me? If there is evidence of sexual abuse towards a girl would CPS remove boys from the house and not allow any contact with the parent who was the abuser of the girl? So in other words, are all children then removed no matter what sex they are.

Yes, because no child is allowed to be near a sex abuser. A sex abuser is not allowed to be near children at all, irregardless of what gender.

ETA: Here in BC CPS will tell you that if your spouse is charged with or accused of sex abuse and you know that he he/she has, all children can be taken away from you. CPS will also interview the children. The accused/charged cannot have any contact with their children if further investigation reveals that the person has committed this crime. Heard it from experience from a friend of mine.

And this is what I do wonder about in this case. CPS may have threatened the mother as they have an idea that Sergio may have been sexually abusing Isa and told her that they would take away all her children. Could the boys not have witnessed something that night, but did at other times when mom was at work? Did they see Dad inappropriately doing things with Isa?

 

[Pensfan]

If BC was ordered by CPS not to have any contact with her children, I wonder if TMS would not suspend or remove her from her pediatric nurse duties? I would not want a nurse who cannot see her own children per CPS to be around my vulnerable child no matter the circumstances... I am leaning toward the parent being SC.

If they suspended an employee without evidence of her committing a crime, they would be open to a huge lawsuit.

 

[Quizzical]

If there was strong evidence of sexual abuse of Isabel or the brothers, why wouldn't the guilty party be arrested?

If it was a domestic violence thing, is it possible someone "rescued" Isabel from the situation (in my wishful thinking that she is still alive and well cared for)?

 

[SpongeBathHotPants]

Just gonna throw my thoughts into the ring. I live in AZ and a friend of a friend moved her three under aged children in with a RSO that she was dating. His offense wasn't against children but still. Someone called CPS and reported it. The launched an investigation but the kids were never removed during the investigation. My point, in AZ CPS has to see something unthinkable to put a no contact on a parent. We are known as one of the worst states for CPS to act. I have only ever heard of them doing this when one of the children's lives were in danger and even then they are known to slack on keeping on top of the family. This order has got to be the result of something extreme other wise CPS wouldn't act.
The only thing that I can see and this is just me thinking outloud, LE knows that Isa has been killed by a parent but as in a lot of cases the DA won't touch the case without a body so the police are searching while trying to find enough evidence for a solid case. Somehow they get wind that the boys are in danger whether it's a comment made by one of them or by the parent and CPS and LE want to cover their butts so they file this order. If the parent breaks the order (which is likely) it would be a great way to arrest him/her and hold him/her to get the truth out.ORRRRR arrest him/her, use a break on jail time for some answers. JMOO....

 

[katydid23]

If there was strong evidence of sexual abuse of Isabel or the brothers, why wouldn't the guilty party be arrested?

If it was a domestic violence thing, is it possible someone "rescued" Isabel from the situation (in my wishful thinking that she is still alive and well cared for)?

True, if there was strong evidence of a crime. But CPS does not need the same level of evidence that the police need to make those kinds of decisions. If LE is still working on their case and still gathering evidence and waiting for forensics, but they have strong suspicions about one of the parents, I can see why they might go to CPS to get some quick help.

Just for example, just speculation, let's say one of the boys told a teacher that his dad [ or his mom] was asking them to lie to the police about something. Maybe they saw one of the parents messing with the window screen that morning, but were told not to tell the police. That would not be enough to arrest anyone yet, but it may be enough to protect the boys from that parent for now.

 

[PAXIMUS]

Does this place not have a competent website tech this forum has been loading horribly slow and buggy for a few weeks now, it takes all the enjoyment out of it.


I cant imagine there is enough evidence of sexual abuse to warrant a no contact order yet TPD wouldnt be making some arrests but perhaps this weekend they are working to get those ducks lined up for a monday bombshell/arrest.

 

[taagean]

Yes, because no child is allowed to be near a sex abuser. A sex abuser is not allowed to be near children at all, irregardless of what gender.

ETA: Here in BC CPS will tell you that if your spouse is charged with or accused of sex abuse and you know about it, all children can be taken away from you. The accused/charged cannot have any contact with their children if further investigation reveals that the person has committed this crime. Heard it from experience from a friend of mine.

And this is what I do wonder about in this case. CPS may have threatened the mother as they have an idea that Sergio may have been sexually abusing Isa and told her that they would take away all her children. Could the boys not have witnessed something that night, but did at other times when mom was at work? Did they see Dad inappropriately doing things with Isa?

I feel dumb now. Of course you're correct - children aren't allowed around sex abusers. :doh:

 

[curiousc]

Just gonna throw my thoughts into the ring. I live in AZ and a friend of a friend moved her three under aged children in with a RSO that she was dating. His offense wasn't against children but still. Someone called CPS and reported it. The launched an investigation but the kids were never removed during the investigation. My point, in AZ CPS has to see something unthinkable to put a no contact on a parent. We are known as one of the worst states for CPS to act. I have only ever heard of them doing this when one of the children's lives were in danger and even then they are known to slack on keeping on top of the family. This order has got to be the result of something extreme other wise CPS wouldn't act.
The only thing that I can see and this is just me thinking outloud, LE knows that Isa has been killed by a parent but as in a lot of cases the DA won't touch the case without a body so the police are searching while trying to find enough evidence for a solid case. Somehow they get wind that the boys are in danger whether it's a comment made by one of them or by the parent and CPS and LE want to cover their butts so they file this order. If the parent breaks the order (which is likely) it would be a great way to arrest him/her and hold him/her to get the truth out.ORRRRR arrest him/her, use a break on jail time for some answers. JMOO....

You say the RSO offense wasn't against children so that could be why the CPS did not take the children? There wasn't a risk to them.

All I can say is, I am glad they are doing something if in fact Sergio is a threat to the children. I don't want to see another Josh Powell situation.

ETA: Also, thank you for the glimpse into CPS in Arizona. I do think the no contact is because of something extreme else there would be a supervised visit order.

 

[Pensfan]

Morning, peeps.

Just finished catching up and wiping the drool from my chin whilst dreaming of huevos con chorizo.

Stuff I wanna add:

-In light of the fact that the non custodial parent may have NO CONTACT with the boys, I am not of the opinion that this is simply nervous breakdown/self medicating/emotional distress. No contact is a huge deal and IMO, reserved for cases with some seriously bad cheet going on. I am not even convinced substance abuse would do it, unless there was some physical or sexual abuse of the kids while under the influence.

-SC comes off as a total drama queen to me, too. And several times I have noted that BC looked like she wanted to choke him.

Respectfully shortened
BBM
Maybe that is her response to all adults and children that make her angry?

 

[curiousc]

I feel dumb now. Of course you're correct - children aren't allowed around sex abusers. :doh:

Don't feel dumb. Your question was a valid question. Most times perps are only interested in one sex, not both.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

This may seem a bit off the wall, but I'm wondering if one of the parents has been molesting the boys.
Just thinking as to why the boys have been given to one parent.

I am so glad you said this....

I have been thinking this for quite a while......

Molestation would definitely be cause for creating a No Contact decree/order.

 

[FrayedKnot]

Domestic abuse (frequently occurs with alcohol abuse) is a common reason CPS uses to force a non-offending parent to sign an agreement with CPS stating that his/her children will have no contact with the offender. While working with families in my career, I heard this numerous times.

It could be either parent, but I'm leaning towards the mom was removed and the kids are with their father.

So why do you think the mom? My head didn't even go there, lol. I just naturally assumed it would have been Sergio!

Maybe the DUI stuff? Substance abuse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[taagean]

I am so glad you said this....

I have been thinking this for quite a while......

Molestation would definitely be cause for creating a No Contact decree/order.

I woke up in the middle of the night with this scenario on my mind.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Thank you, I realize that. I didn't say that molestation was the only reason, I just wondered if it could be a reason.

I can't get the molestation idea out of my mind either...

Of course it is not the only reason for No Contact... but it is a plausible one at this point in our fact awareness of this case.