DCF Shelter Hearings

[Frigga]

I thought it was interesting that the detective at today's bond hearing said they stopped trailing MS by car because he was always with the girls and started driving erratically when he realized he was being followed. I wonder if that allegation of endangerment made it to the DCF petition.

From your mouth to Gods ears AZ! Can you imagine what those girls went through while he was free? Thank goodness they are with Mary Ann and the rest of Teresa's family- they CAN undo the damage- I believe that with all my heart.

 

[Oregonmama]

I thought it was interesting that the detective at today's bond hearing said they stopped trailing MS by car because he was always with the girls and started driving erratically when he realized he was being followed. I wonder if that allegation of endangerment made it to the DCF petition.

I think this is all will come up at the next DCF hearing. LE can be called in to testify and LE has stated several times that they worried about the girls. Mark and his family do not stand a chance. too much of a hostile environment for the girls on the paternal side

 

[beach]

I thought it was interesting that the detective at today's bond hearing said they stopped trailing MS by car because he was always with the girls and started driving erratically when he realized he was being followed. I wonder if that allegation of endangerment made it to the DCF petition.

Could that be one of those allegations (admissions) we were wondering about? If not, I sure hope they amend to add it!

I also found it very telling that the SA specifically got Mark to admit that MAG was named as secondary beneficiary on at least one of the life insurance policies. I'm thinking the point is, you trusted her enough to name her as a beneficiary but you don't trust her to be a decent guardian to your children while you are incarcertated?

 

[DexterMorgan]

This is why relative placements are favored than foster homes because it is cheaper. Relative placements in Oregon rarely get funding unless there is a dire need. They do offer a SNAP (food stamps) card for under $50 a mth. Foster parents get a lot more with the SNAP card such as medical/dental/mental health coverage benefits. They do not offer money for clothes or school supplies but refer them to foster parent closets stores that donate what they need.

Agree.
Temporary custody (depending on how long temporary is ) can provide the caretaker with some options depending on income.

They can claim the kids on their taxes as dependents and get earned income credit for the months of taking care of the kids. Plus they can get temporary food stamps and medical coverage and possibly cash if their income fits the criteria.

Also. AzLawyer is right.

No life insurance payments will be made to the estate until after the case is over in court.

Now the permanent guardian may be able to get some type of back pay if needed once things are cleared.

But no grandmother would never seek back pay for taking care of the grands. Jmo.

Now if the permanent guardian hits hardship once the money clears. Then I'm sure the estate would allocate some funds to keep things rolling until the kiddies become of age. Jmo

 

[Greater Than]

Could that be one of those allegations (admissions) we were wondering about? If not, I sure hope they amend to add it!

I also found it very telling that the SA specifically got Mark to admit that MAG was named as secondary beneficiary on at least one of the life insurance policies. I'm thinking the point is, you trusted her enough to name her as a beneficiary but you don't trust her to be a decent guardian to your children while you are incarcertated?

Allegations in a petition for dependency include abuse, abandonment, and/or neglect. Abandonment is the obvious allegation I would assume DCF made, since MS is unavailable to care for the girls himself and he did not make sufficient arrangements for their care - one's husband had a sexual abuse allegation, another and subsequent shelter had issues with schooling because of work schedules and was only available for two weeks before going on vacation, the BS arrangement was not approved by DCF citing the need for further investigation....and those are just the arrangements made by MS that what we know about. Who knows if there were others that DCF eliminated.

I'm sure the allegation of imminent harm to the girls was made as well. The standard of proof is lower than in criminal court and DCF only has to show that it is more likely than not that the allegations are true. It didn't work the first time when DCF attempted to remove the girls prior to his arrest, but now he's sitting in jail charged with murdering their mother.

Neglect may have been alleged too. I remember reading somewhere that he had failed to provide one of the girls with necessary medical care. I can't remember when or where I read that, but I do remember it was vague.

MS is opening up a can of worms for himself by opposing MAG's petition IMO. I think it will become abundantly clear to the court that his opposition has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the girls, but everything to do with his own personal interest of control.

 

[Dmacky]

Just for accuracy, it was the husband of a woman MS named as a potential caregiver who was found to have a sexual abuse allegation.

Also, many are asking why MS didn't include BS in his original arrangements for the girls. He did. But at the first shelter hearing DCF told the court she needed to be investigated further before they could determine if she's a suitable candidate. Relative placement is always preferred, so there must have been some sort of red flag in her home study for the girls to be placed with a family friend instead. And the fact that the girls have changed shelters since then and BS was still not chosen is very telling IMO.

Anyone here familiar with a POA for care of minor children? I know what a POA is, and I know they are temporary. I just don't know anything about them in terms of "minor children while incarcerated."
Looks to me like they don't carry a lot of weight legally.

Mark Sievers signed a power of attorney form last year indicating his desire for the girls to be placed with his mother or a family friend who previously had custody of the children, Mummert said..

http://www.winknews.com/2016/04/08/b...vers-children/

 

[MsJosie]

Anyone here familiar with a POA for care of minor children? I know what a POA is, and I know they are temporary. I just don't know anything about them in terms of "minor children while incarcerated."
Looks to me like they don't carry a lot of weight legally.

Mark Sievers signed a power of attorney form last year indicating his desire for the girls to be placed with his mother or a family friend who previously had custody of the children, Mummert said..

http://www.winknews.com/2016/04/08/b...vers-children/

Thanks for trying to post the link....Link not found....not sure why it is not available....but if MS signed this after the murder but before he was arrested, IMO he felt he could be arrested and was trying to make sure anyone as beneficiaries was still within his grasp. I would look at the power of attorney as not signed in good faith especially with what was revealed in court today. His lawyer may use it as an argument but the state will come back hard on it. I think we will aee alot if MS tricks until the end of the trial. JMO

 

[RANCH]

Thanks for trying to post the link....Link not found....not sure why it is not available....but if MS signed this after the murder but before he was arrested, IMO he felt he could be arrested and was trying to make sure anyone as beneficiaries was still within his grasp. I would look at the power of attorney as not signed in good faith especially with what was revealed in court today. His lawyer may use it as an argument but the state will come back hard on it. I think we will aee alot if MS tricks until the end of the trial. JMO

Here's a link.

Mark Sievers signed a power of attorney form last year indicating his desire for the girls to be placed with his mother or a family friend who previously had custody of the children, Mummert said.

http://www.winknews.com/2016/04/08/...o-gain-temporary-custody-of-sievers-children/

 

[IM4TRUTH]

Could that be one of those allegations (admissions) we were wondering about? If not, I sure hope they amend to add it!

I also found it very telling that the SA specifically got Mark to admit that MAG was named as secondary beneficiary on at least one of the life insurance policies. I'm thinking the point is, you trusted her enough to name her as a beneficiary but you don't trust her to be a decent guardian to your children while you are incarcertated?

I wonder if the policy was only in TS name? If so could MAG go ahead and file a claim and collect? I think they said she was the first beneficiary.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I wonder if the policy was only in TS name? If so could MAG go ahead and file a claim and collect? I think they said she was the first beneficiary.

Nobody can collect anything until the criminal case of hubby is finalized.

Now let's say hubby is found guilty. But he named a person that he is trusted friends with to be a beneficiary. Then it still may not matter since the money will likely go to the estate. And not the person the husband specifically requested. Especially if the hubby was found guilty of murder.

But of course Teresa's family may have to contest that in court just to make sure that the insurance company doesn't hand over money to a person that the murderer picked. Especially since it was premeditated murder.

So I doubt anyone will see a penny; Besides the estate and guardians of the girls for allowance purposes. Jmo

 

[IQuestion]

BEACH (You can move this to the other thread too, because it will cross-over 2 related threads... The DCF and bond hearings.)
Do you remember HAMID "I GOT THIS!" HUNTER asking MS about the Jackson National Life "account" and MS was quick to state it "was not a life insurance policy, but a rollover of his wife's 401K from a previous employer." I found it interesting that MS was willing to point out the difference so quickly to the judge. I think MS "fouled up big time"....All he had to do was disclaim the IRA benefits and it would go to the contingent beneficiary. IE, His children and the guardian "he planned" on them being placed with...his friends or his mother, BS?? And, guess what, the "disclaimer" had to be filed within 9 months of Teresa's death!!! That would have to be done by March 2016!!! Now I think I know why MS choked and didn't want to say the "guardian/contingent" of record is currently MAG!! All along, he thought it was going to be his friends or his mother, BS. Maybe that explains the 11th hour filing for guardianship by BS. Well, well, well...I think MS's plan backfired!! :bombshell:
The person who gets the funds can do whatever they want with them, like post bail?? Maybe MS filed the disclaimer in anticipation of his children being placed with someone other than MAG??
What is a Disclaimer? A disclaimer is a refusal by a potential beneficiary to accept benefits given through a transfer of property. In most cases, a primary beneficiary will “disclaim” or refuse to accept the property, the property will then pass gift tax-free to the contingent beneficiary.
http://investorsolutions.com/knowledge-center/estate-planning/disclaiming-an-ira-inheritance/
WOW...It appears Hamid was onto this from the starting gate!

 

[Frigga]

IQuestion- you are a genius- in thought and through the written word! You just made my day.

 

[IQuestion]

IQuestion- you are a genius- in thought and through the written word! You just made my day.

Gosh, thanks FRIGGA:loveyou:, Everybody brings their A game when contributing to this site! I was so excited when I realized what was going down! I wasn't sure I could convey the information in an understandable format....but of course you understood it perfectly.

 

[Alice253]

Gosh, thanks FRIGGA:loveyou:, Everybody brings their A game when contributing to this site! I was so excited when I realized what was going down! I wasn't sure I could convey the information in an understandable format....but of course you understood it perfectly.

Yes! [emoji177] You explained it perfectly. Thank you!

Sent from Wonderland

 

[Greater Than]

So the most recent DCF shelter hearing was on 4/8. The night before, BS reportedly filed a motion to have the girls placed in her custody, and a notice of hearing (scheduled for 5/11/16) on the change in custody motion and in camera testimony of the minor children motion was filed in MAG's custody case on 4/8.

Fast forward to MS's bond reduction hearing on 4/21, which was denied. A notice of cancellation of hearing (5/11/16) in MAG's case was filed the next day, on 4/22.

Even though that cancellation notice was filed, the 5/11 motion hearing is still listed in the events for MAG's case and it's also still on the judge's docket, but I'm curious about that notice of cancellation. Could the fact that the cancellation notice was filed the day after the failed bond reduction hearing just be a coincidence? Or is there something more to the timing cancellation...?

04/08/2016 Notice of Hearing 5-11-16 at 9am
04/18/2016 Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena
04/19/2016 Notice of Production from Non-Party
04/19/2016 Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing
04/22/2016 Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 5-11-16 at 9am
04/25/2016 Subpoena Served
04/25/2016 Subpoena Served
04/26/2016 Notice of Clerk's Review Mailed
5/11/2016 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Branning, Robert)
Petition for Temporary Custody

http://freesearch.leeclerk.org/default.aspx

Judge's docket:
http://www.ca.cjis20.org/schedules/docket1.asp?judgeID=1&dateselect=5/11/2016&css=1

 

[IQuestion]

So the most recent DCF shelter hearing was on 4/8. The night before, BS reportedly filed a motion to have the girls placed in her custody, and a notice of hearing (scheduled for 5/11/16) on the change in custody motion and in camera testimony of the minor children motion was filed in MAG's custody case on 4/8.

Fast forward to MS's bond reduction hearing on 4/21, which was denied. A notice of cancellation of hearing (5/11/16) in MAG's case was filed the next day, on 4/22.

Even though that cancellation notice was filed, the 5/11 motion hearing is still listed in the events for MAG's case and it's also still on the judge's docket, but I'm curious about that notice of cancellation. Could the fact that the cancellation notice was filed the day after the failed bond reduction hearing just be a coincidence? Or is there something more to the timing cancellation...?

04/08/2016 Notice of Hearing 5-11-16 at 9am
04/18/2016 Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena
04/19/2016 Notice of Production from Non-Party
04/19/2016 Notice of Confidential Information within Court Filing
04/22/2016 Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 5-11-16 at 9am
04/25/2016 Subpoena Served
04/25/2016 Subpoena Served
04/26/2016 Notice of Clerk's Review Mailed
5/11/2016 Motion Hearing (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Branning, Robert)
Petition for Temporary Custody

http://freesearch.leeclerk.org/default.aspx

Judge's docket:
http://www.ca.cjis20.org/schedules/docket1.asp?judgeID=1&dateselect=5/11/2016&css=1

GREATERTHAN aka GATORTHAN:blushing: Maybe, just maybe the cancellation has to do with the my previously addressed thought: IF MS "disclaimed himself" as the first/primary beneficiary of TS's (rolled over 401K acct) Jackson National Life IRA account. And, He had not been charged with a crime, named as a POI, nor arrested....I can see not reason a disclaimer would not be valid or legal at the time it was executed. IE, If his mother, BS, was not going to be the beneficiary or guardian, why continue the process?? (Please realize I am extremely suspicious of all the motivations concerning MS as I think he is capable of making long range financial strategies that are to his benefit. But, I also recall Sheriff MS stating, "They had no "plan B." I think the cancellation of the court date is indicative of another failure to account for "plan B.")

 

[Greater Than]

The 5/11 motion hearing has now been removed from the events and hearings list in MAG's case file. It still appears on the judge's docket, but I imagine that will be removed soon as well.

It sure seems to me that it is no coincidence the hearing was cancelled the day after MS's motion to reduce bond was denied, and equally no coincidence that a week after the denial, a motion was filed declaring MS indigent.

I can't help but think he needed to be released from jail in order to have access to certain funds. Maybe from the life insurance policy the ASA mentioned one of the girls is a beneficiary of? I'm not sure that the insurance company would've paid out to her with his case still pending anyway, but the sudden cancellation of BS's motion hearing and the subsequent filing of MS's indigency motion seems very fishy to me.

 

[concernedmother]

So does this mean that BS is not going to try to get the girls?

 

[Frigga]

So does this mean that BS is not going to try to get the girls?

Anyone???

 

[Oregonmama]

Anyone???

I really don't think BS would be approved anyways. Both sets of grandparents or relatives are given equal chances to step up. We have only seen Mary step up and relocate to get her grandchildren. The other relatives were all talk and no action. Other posters said BS'S timing of filing for the motion was in hope of MS getting out on a lower bond.

Mary and her legal team played beautifully along with DCF.