Emergency custody papers filed by mother of JI's son 11/14/11

[Dr. Know?]

I'll wait to read the dockets. I don't think anyone who wasn't there can determine what happened today via the media reports. I can see several things that could have taken place but without being able to see what a judge, attorney or who was needed in court today & who was noted as not present on a court docket, it's all speculation. With the docket not being on Casenet who knows when it was really filed? Does anyone know? tia

I've read biased reporting many times in the past 3 years or more on many cases. Dockets are better!

 

[yllek]

I agree not fighting for visitation, not paying child support and not even filing right away makes it difficult to feel sorry for her. I hope she is sincere and wants to be apart of her child's life (I grew up with a dead beat mom its difficult growing up without a mom) but I think she is going about it in a cruel way. Tearing the boy from the only parent he knows will be traumatizing imo.

But, what if there is a real danger to her son and she does nothing? Better to be perceived as cruel by some than risk real harm or worse happening to the child, imo. If Ms. Raim is wrong and there is no danger or harm in her son being left in the care of Jeremy and Debbi, at least she will know it's been investigated and she can rest more easily. If she is right and there is risk to the boy, she may not be awarded custody if she is not deemed fit, but someone else (hopefully a relative) could be. In this case, Ms. Raim could be responsible for ensuring his safety.

I don't know where this boy belongs. I trust the court/judge because he/she isn't on any one side or the other; just the best interest of the child. That's what matters. JMO...

 

[Just K]

Perhaps, the emergency was perceived as such when it became apparent that JI was moving the child back into that house and that he would possibly be left in the care of DB.

At this point in time, DB has no legal right to either the child or the property. She is not married to JI. Re: the child she has no rights. For all intents and purposes, in the eyes of the law, she is equal in status to a baby sitter and an admitted babysitter who drinks, heavily, while on duty.

 

[Whisperer]

I think this mother is going to be darned if she does and darned if she doesn't. All I can say if one of my children were living in a home where another was abducted, I would be screaming from any roof top I could find that I want my child OUT of that house.

The stats work in her favor that the baby has most likely fallen victim to a family member. There is no reason to ridicule the biological mother.

Natch, we are only going to hear from the criminal defense attorney again and again about this matter. They will continue to be muddy the playing field and news will flow concerning what a wonderful father Jeremy is and how lousy a parent the mother is. Same ole, same ole.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

While his intention was to show the world that Deborah was an honest person because she willingly admitted to being drunk to the point of possibly blacking out, I think that Joe Tacopina did DB and Jeremy a huge disservice by suggesting that media blitz. Deborah's insistence on "adult" time for consuming alcohol, and Jeremy seemingly defending her actions will come back to haunt them. The defense team can say whatever they want about RR, but their clients are on video bragging about bad behavior. jmo

 

[epiphany]

Perhaps, the emergency was perceived as such when it became apparent that JI was moving the child back into that house and that he would possibly be left in the care of DB.

At this point in time, DB has no legal right to either the child or the property. She is not married to JI. Re: the child she has no rights. For all intents and purposes, in the eyes of the law, she is equal in status to a baby sitter and an admitted babysitter who drinks, heavily, while on duty.

Respectfully, BBM

Time for Debbie to get to work filing those papers to divorce her current husband. There may be other things she would rather be doing now, but life is often filled with uncomfortable and unpleasant situations. There are many circumstances that responsible adults and parents would rather not address during the course of their lives. That doesn't mean, we all don't have to address them.

In other words, it's time for Debbie and Jeremy to behave like responsible adults who are also the parents of three. Not necessarily in order to marry, but to at the very least appear to the court that they are mature responsible parents, now in their mid to late 20s, who follow a few of society's basic expectations.

 

[hambirg]

Perhaps, the emergency was perceived as such when it became apparent that JI was moving the child back into that house and that he would possibly be left in the care of DB.

At this point in time, DB has no legal right to either the child or the property. She is not married to JI. Re: the child she has no rights. For all intents and purposes, in the eyes of the law, she is equal in status to a baby sitter and an admitted babysitter who drinks, heavily, while on duty.

A simple thank you wasn't enough.

DB is a legal stranger. Even if she and JI were married, in most US states, she would still be considered a legal stranger to JI's son. RR is still his legal parent and her rights have not been terminated. As such, she is afforded certain rights under the law.

People are entitled to their opinions, but in the end the court will decide. I hope, whatever that is, it's in the best interest of the child.

 

[cityslick]

A simple thank you wasn't enough.

DB is a legal stranger. Even if she and JI were married, in most US states, she would still be considered a legal stranger to JI's son. RR is still his legal parent and her rights have not been terminated. As such, she is afforded certain rights under the law.

People are entitled to their opinions, but in the end the court will decide. I hope, whatever that is, it's in the best interest of the child.

BBM

While this is indeed correct, we also don't know what the circumstances are that explain why RR had no contact with her son for 6 years prior, even with supervised visits. Were there issues in the RR home that caused the court to rule that way initially? I would think RR would need to prove to the court that whatever situation she was in 6 years ago is better, not only for her but for a child.

 

[hambirg]

BBM

While this is indeed correct, we also don't know what the circumstances are that explain why RR had no contact with her son for 6 years prior, even with supervised visits. Were there issues in the RR home that caused the court to rule that way initially? I would think RR would need to prove to the court that whatever situation she was in 6 years ago is better, not only for her but for a child.

in the end the court will decide

I'm sure that will be looked at.

 

[Nixie]

I hope that whatever happens both boys make it through this case and are happy and healthy! No matter what happens this has got to be so hard on them and they have to be suffering in so many ways. I hope the judge also makes counseling for the family mandatory so that way at least the child will have some coping skills and whoever he lives with will also have the skills to help him deal with everything that has been going on.

 

[vlpate]

I think this mother is going to be darned if she does and darned if she doesn't. All I can say if one of my children were living in a home where another was abducted, I would be screaming from any roof top I could find that I want my child OUT of that house.

The stats work in her favor that the baby has most likely fallen victim to a family member. There is no reason to ridicule the biological mother.

Natch, we are only going to hear from the criminal defense attorney again and again about this matter. They will continue to be muddy the playing field and news will flow concerning what a wonderful father Jeremy is and how lousy a parent the mother is. Same ole, same ole.

BEM: As would I, whisperer

As for why bio mom hasn't visited - there could be several reasons - unfit mother, blackmail, intimidation by JI, some sort of trade or deal between them, citizen status of her family members.

 

[stephen40]

I agree not fighting for visitation, not paying child support and not even filing right away makes it difficult to feel sorry for her. I hope she is sincere and wants to be apart of her child's life (I grew up with a dead beat mom its difficult growing up without a mom) but I think she is going about it in a cruel way. Tearing the boy from the only parent he knows will be traumatizing imo.

Maybe it's worse for the boy to be in the same house with his dad's gf (who was heavily drinking) the night the boys sister vanished. His dad was working, his dad's gf was drunk, not watching the children and one goes missing. Not a safe home imo.

 

[stephen40]

I think this mother is going to be darned if she does and darned if she doesn't. All I can say if one of my children were living in a home where another was abducted, I would be screaming from any roof top I could find that I want my child OUT of that house.

The stats work in her favor that the baby has most likely fallen victim to a family member. There is no reason to ridicule the biological mother.

Natch, we are only going to hear from the criminal defense attorney again and again about this matter. They will continue to be muddy the playing field and news will flow concerning what a wonderful father Jeremy is and how lousy a parent the mother is. Same ole, same ole.

Or I could have said 'I agree'.
bbm/imo

 

[cityslick]

BEM: As would I, whisperer

As for why bio mom hasn't visited - there could be several reasons - unfit mother, blackmail, intimidation by JI, some sort of trade or deal between them, citizen status of her family members.

But she did have allowed supervised visits, so she wasn't barred from seeing her child as far as the court was concerned.

I still think this is a family/private matter between the two parties. Unfortunately I get the feeling a lot of dirty laundry is going to get aired if it becomes public.

 

[stephen40]

ps Why are the page numbers 2 pages behind? tia Sorry OT.

IF anyone can see my post, please send me a pm stating so.

 

[Donjeta]

I totally agree with the bad media stories, but if the media was aware enough of this then I think I can assume it had advance notice. I don't care if her side wasn't 'required' to be there. They filed this "emergency" custody hearing a full 6 weeks after a danger could have been posed upon the child and that was a full 6 years after she last saw him. My point is that there sure doesn't seem to be any "emergency" on her part at all. People are screaming for the parents to go to LE AGAIN to be interviewed, but think this lady has a pass at not even going to court for a custody hearing and then not even seeing her son for 6 full years. Then waits all this time to even think he is in a possible bad situation. I could have given her a pass if this was filed within the first week or two as seeing there was a reason, but not after 6 weeks.

The drunk caretaker thing didn't come out in the first week though. Not in the public, anyway.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Maybe me and you have a different idea about what an emergency is in regards to the well being of a child. In this case there seems to be no hurry. 6 weeks- 8 weeks no big deal.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. It seems to be a few folks involved in this case that 6 weeks-8 weeks, no big deal, when it comes to the well being and whereabouts of a child.

 

[stephen40]

ps why are the page numbers 2 pages behind? Tia sorry ot.

if anyone can see my post, please send me a pm stating so.

bumb,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[stephen40]

PH UCK salem

 

[stephen40]

Ph uck salem again