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

[menmo]

Raim said she has not been able to see her son for years.

Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...irwins-half-brothers-speaks-out#ixzz1fFd9vK5O

Not that she didn't want to...she was "not able".

here is a comment from her attorney also, just to add.

In September 2005, a Clay County judge awarded Irwin sole custody of his son and ordered that any visitation with Raim had to be supervised and arranged through Irwin.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270248/attorneys-trade-barbs-over-baby

(**sorry the link does not work any longer)

BBM and respectfully snipped by me
This speaks volumes to me. I think JI might just have been ruthless enough to deny her every time she asked until she quit asking, and/or made it so impossible to follow his rules for her visitation.

It really does happen, folks. That is one great reason for no Judge to ever, ever leave it up to a parent to set the guidelines. Sometimes the parent and the child's best interest is not followed or even thought of by the controlling parent.

MOO

 

[highflyer]

here is a comment from her attorney also, just to add.



http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270248/attorneys-trade-barbs-over-baby


just as a side note here, as i was looking over my links i found this:

http://fox4kc.com/2011/11/28/custody-battle-for-jeremy-irwins-son-moves-forward/

check out the picture on the right. umm...that isn't baby lisa.

No, not Lisa . But, some of the other pictures of Lisa did not look like the same baby either. The eyes are different and that's always puzzled me.

 

[Sparklin]

I disagree. After fighting for her child and losing to Jeremy, I think that maybe up until now she felt he was in the better place for him to be and she put his best interest first but in light of what has happened, Lisa's going missing while Debbie was allegedly in bed allegedly intoxicated, she now feels that with Jeremy going back to work perhaps Debbie is not the best person for this child to be with. I would not want Debbie to be in charge of any children alone with what she has already stated she is in the habit of doing.

I just cannot judge this mother and attack her but assume Debbie to be an innocent victim of circumstances beyond her control.

I get that she may have though it was in the sons best interest to LIVE with Jeremy, but if she couldn't see that it was also in his best interest to have his mom as part of his life also....either she wasn't trying hard enough or she just didn't care. Either way, the court will decide what's best for the little boy. I just wish that he wasn't subjected to disruption of his life now when she had six years to let him normally and casually get to know her. At this point, I can't imagine it won't be stressed and uncomfortable for the poor little guy. He's already lost his sister and now mom is trying to take him away from everyone else he loves. Why not just exercise her rights to visitation to start off with?? All mo

 

[Sparklin]

BEM: ...respectfully .... because Jeremy, w/Deborah's help, lost his baby while she was so drunk she didn't even remember whether or not she checked on her SICK baby from 6:30 pm until she was startled awake at 4:00 am.

I'm sorry, unless there's another missing child out there that belongs to Jeremy, I can't imagine what the bio mom did that could be worse.

I don't believe Deb or Jeremy lost their daughter. I believe someone took their daughter while mom was sleeping and dad was at work. So, drinking would be Debs sin, and there could be a whole lot worse than that imo

 

[MyBelle]

I don't believe Deb or Jeremy lost their daughter. I believe someone took their daughter while mom was sleeping and dad was at work. So, drinking would be Debs sin, and there could be a whole lot worse than that imo

Deb admits she was drunk. I don't share your opinion that there "could be a whole lot worse." She lost her child or worse, harmed the child herself and is covering it up. DB's drunken state prevented her from providing for the safety and welfare of small children who were in her care. She failed to protect Lisa and I believe she'll be prosecuted.

JMO

 

[vlpate]

I don't believe Deb or Jeremy lost their daughter. I believe someone took their daughter while mom was sleeping and dad was at work. So, drinking would be Debs sin, and there could be a whole lot worse than that imo

Ok, I'll bite - what is worse than a mother getting so tanked up out on the stoop with the neighbors, that the mother passes out... She never checks on the sick baby who has only her mother to depend on for everything. She leaves the 5 and 7 year old boys alone and unattended as well.

Maybe Deborah is a caring mother, in fact, she probably loves/loved Lisa very much - but if she has a drinking problem, which, IMO, she probably does, the drink meant more to her than her baby or those boys while she was sitting on that stoop tipping the box fantastic. She defended her drinking on National TV - sort of indignantly - and that's a true sign there's a problem.

Unless one has been intimately involved with an alcoholic, and I'm not saying that Deborah is, but there's a possibility IMO, it's hard to imagine that a bottle of anything could be more important than family, friends, or earning a living - but that bottle is a leading cause of illness, domestic violence, child abuse, divorce, murder, deadly car crashes.... in fact, alcohol abuse is the third leading cause of death and disability in the world - in the world! That's a pretty formidable statistic. It's also hereditary - Deborah's mother was in AA for years prior to her death - there's always that possibility IMO.

I don't know that DB is an alcoholic or a problem drinker, but it would certainly make sense as to why she was unapologetic for her actions that night. Like a child who still loves their mother after being beaten, so does an alcoholic forgive their vice's indiscretions.

 

[vlpate]

I get that she may have though it was in the sons best interest to LIVE with Jeremy, but if she couldn't see that it was also in his best interest to have his mom as part of his life also....either she wasn't trying hard enough or she just didn't care. Either way, the court will decide what's best for the little boy. I just wish that he wasn't subjected to disruption of his life now when she had six years to let him normally and casually get to know her. At this point, I can't imagine it won't be stressed and uncomfortable for the poor little guy. He's already lost his sister and now mom is trying to take him away from everyone else he loves. Why not just exercise her rights to visitation to start off with?? All mo

BEM: Sorry, but those are NOT the only choices. There are other reasons one parent doesn't see their children, like fear and intimidation. What did it mean when family said Jeremy "ruthlessly" obtained custody? I've seen and heard all kinds of horror stories where a parent tries to find dirt on the other parent to win custody of a child. Sadly, killing the child is much too common solution for enraged and selfish parents.

Custody battles can be more brutal than a simple either/or. Google "father kills child in custody battle" - there are over 4 million results.

This post is not a reflection on anyone, just sayin', custody battles can get super ugly.

 

[vlpate]

http://www.findchristopher.com/

it's Christopher Abeyta. precious babies. they both really do look like average babies, pretty much what i think of when i think "baby." nothing really distinct about them, makes it harder to spot them if they are out there alive Christopher is long past being a baby though *sigh*

Ohhhhh, this picture breaks my heart. No wonder Mr. Abeyta became a titch obsessed with this case. They do resemble one another. God, I can't imagine the pain and anguish. Seems he's always kept his story out there, even with the age progression. Thank you Nina.

 

[lauriej]

Ok, I'll bite - what is worse than a mother getting so tanked up out on the stoop with the neighbors, that the mother passes out... She never checks on the sick baby who has only her mother to depend on for everything. She leaves the 5 and 7 year old boys alone and unattended as well.

Maybe Deborah is a caring mother, in fact, she probably loves/loved Lisa very much - but if she has a drinking problem, which, IMO, she probably does, the drink meant more to her than her baby or those boys while she was sitting on that stoop tipping the box fantastic. She defended her drinking on National TV - sort of indignantly - and that's a true sign there's a problem.

Unless one has been intimately involved with an alcoholic, and I'm not saying that Deborah is, but there's a possibility IMO, it's hard to imagine that a bottle of anything could be more important than family, friends, or earning a living - but that bottle is a leading cause of illness, domestic violence, child abuse, divorce, murder, deadly car crashes.... in fact, alcohol abuse is the third leading cause of death and disability in the world - in the world! That's a pretty formidable statistic. It's also hereditary - Deborah's mother was in AA for years prior to her death - there's always that possibility IMO.

I don't know that DB is an alcoholic or a problem drinker, but it would certainly make sense as to why she was unapologetic for her actions that night. Like a child who still loves their mother after being beaten, so does an alcoholic forgive their vice's indiscretions.

--my problem with deborah is, not only does she get up on national TV ( almost bragging about how much she drank ) "yeah, i was drunk."

--she follows that with-----i kiss their boo-boos, fix them food, blah di blah----- and then when it's time for my 'grown-up time', what does it matter what i do when it's dark?

( ummm-----the kids were up---you were IN care of them..and lisa, and never checked on them--dark or not, kids need someone responsible).

---and follows that with-----yeah i was drunk, "but that has nothing to do with..her".

( pardon me? drunk, kid goes missing--and she won't even admit that the 2 are possibly related.)

 

[josie1986]

Coming in late here,trying to catch up.I just don't know what to think of this one,I defo have concerns whether DB should be left with the other children after admitting to being drunk to the point of possible blackout when she was the sole care giver for 3 children and one of those children go missing. I've been off the fence for a while and think DB/JI are some how involved even if I am wrong that still doesn't excuse her actions on the night of. Oct3rd. On the other hand the little guy hasn't seen his mother is so long that surely it might upset Him. he has prob settled into life and a daily routine (I hope) with DB/JI so I'm stumped on this one.

But I know for sure I wouldn't be leaving my kids in DB'S care.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[cityslick]

Just because she was granted visitation does not mean that JI allowed it to happen or he could have made it so uncomfortable for both the child and the other parent that it wasn't working out. I've seen this happen before and I've also seen a great example of alienation of affection. I say great example because this person pulled it off so well that the children actually believe the untruths they've been fed and now are fearful of being with the other parents own parents...their grandparents. Sad reality sometimes.

MOO

I'm sorry, but if your a parent who wants to see your child, you do everything in your power to do that, uncomfortable or not. If JI was doing something to bar her from seeing her kid, all she had to do is hire a lawyer (like she has now) to enforce the custody agreement about supervised visits. It is laughable to me that somehow whatever this woman's excuse is for not having any contact with her son for 6 years is getting turned around to be JI's fault.

I mean, some things you just can't defend. If the court orders you can see your kids and the ex is preventing you from doing that, you go to court since the ex is in violation of the court agreement. Unless the lady is an axe murderer, I cannot imagine how the court or LE would allow JI to prevent the child's biological mother from any contact whatsoever.

I just don't get it. She's passionate enough to get a lawyer now because she wants to reconnect with her son but yet she never fought trying to see her son for 6 years prior, because big and bad JI was preventing her from doing so, which would be in violation of a court order? That doesn't make sense.

 

[crimecurious]

You're right cityslick, it just doesn't add up... There has to be more to this story.

 

[Marshmallow]

I get that she may have though it was in the sons best interest to LIVE with Jeremy, but if she couldn't see that it was also in his best interest to have his mom as part of his life also....either she wasn't trying hard enough or she just didn't care. Either way, the court will decide what's best for the little boy. I just wish that he wasn't subjected to disruption of his life now when she had six years to let him normally and casually get to know her. At this point, I can't imagine it won't be stressed and uncomfortable for the poor little guy. He's already lost his sister and now mom is trying to take him away from everyone else he loves. Why not just exercise her rights to visitation to start off with?? All mo

it seems any visitation arrangements were ordered to be made through JI. It is as easy for me to see him putting up road blocks as it is for others to fault her for not visiting her child. What's important is now and if my child were going to be in Debbie's care and she had admitted she, as an adult, has a right to her time to drink to the point of allegedly passing out while watching three children and in the recent past one child went missing while she was doing just that, then I too would want my child removed from Debbie's care. With JI standigf stauchly behind Debbie's actions and behaviors then it makes sense to me that this mother might decide to revisit the custody arrangement.

Who would want any child in the care of a woman who drinks to excess, as she has said she does, and who lost a child while in that state?

 

[cityslick]

it seems any visitation arrangements were ordered to be made through JI. It is as easy for me to see him putting up road blocks as it is for others to fault her for not visiting her child. What's important is now and if my child were going to be in Debbie's care and she had admitted she, as an adult, has a right to her time to drink to the point of allegedly passing out while watching three children and in the recent past one child went missing while she was doing just that, then I too would want my child removed from Debbie's care. With JI standigf stauchly behind Debbie's actions and behaviors then it makes sense to me that this mother might decide to revisit the custody arrangement.

Who would want any child in the care of a woman who drinks to excess, as she has said she does, and who lost a child while in that state?

BBM

There are no roadblocks that he can put up that would have legally barred her from seeing her child if she wanted to bad enough. He could of tried to do anything to prevent her from seeing him and all she has to do is get a lawyer, go down to court and tell a judge that he is not honoring the custody agreement. End of story.

 

[Evan's Mom]

Just because she was granted visitation does not mean that JI allowed it to happen or he could have made it so uncomfortable for both the child and the other parent that it wasn't working out. I've seen this happen before and I've also seen a great example of alienation of affection. I say great example because this person pulled it off so well that the children actually believe the untruths they've been fed and now are fearful of being with the other parents own parents...their grandparents. Sad reality sometimes.

MOO

I don't care how the custody arrangements went down.
If for some reason I had lost custody of my kids, there is nothing my ex could do to stop me from trying to see them and eventually get them back. That's what a mother freaking does. I would never assume, "oh they're in a better place, so I'll bow out". They're my kids, I love them, I'm going to see them no matter how uncomfortable someone else tries to make me feel.
Bottom line, there's no excuse to not see your kid for six years. Period.

 

[Evan's Mom]

Raim said she has not been able to see her son for years.

Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...irwins-half-brothers-speaks-out#ixzz1fFd9vK5O

Not that she didn't want to...she was "not able".



(**sorry the link does not work any longer)

BBM and respectfully snipped by me
This speaks volumes to me. I think JI might just have been ruthless enough to deny her every time she asked until she quit asking, and/or made it so impossible to follow his rules for her visitation.

It really does happen, folks. That is one great reason for no Judge to ever, ever leave it up to a parent to set the guidelines. Sometimes the parent and the child's best interest is not followed or even thought of by the controlling parent.

MOO

Then you keep taking his *advertiser censored* back to court. Over and over and over again.
It's not like she had a kid to take care of or was paying child support. Work two jobs, save your money, get your kid back or at least get reasonable visitation.

 

[Marshmallow]

just a thought: how easy it is to attack this little guy's birth mother and say she didn't do what a mother should but not to say Debbie failed her two children and this little boy by putting her selfishness and alcohol ahead of their needs. How is Debbie a picture of motherhood yet this woman is not?


As an aside: I did not fight for custody of my sons and come up short, nor have I ever let them down because my boozing or manhunting was more important than parenting but I did once have to put my divorce procedings on hold because I could not afford to continiously go back to court. My ex had the resources to drag it in and out of court, I did not. Maybe that's why I'm not willing to attack this woman without all of the information, nor am I willing to prop Debbie with no reason to. I just can't say Debbie is so much better than this woman who lost her child in a court of law while Debbie lost her's while she was getting her drinks on.

 

[cityslick]

just a thought: how easy it is to attack this little guy's birth mother and say she didn't do what a mother should but not to say Debbie failed her two children and this little boy by putting her selfishness and alcohol ahead of their needs. How is Debbie a picture of motherhood yet this woman is not?


As an aside: I did not fight for custody of my sons and come up short, nor have I ever let them down because my boozing or manhunting was more important than parenting but I did once have to put my divorce procedings on hold because I could not afford to continiously go back to court. My ex had the resources to drag it in and out of court, I did not. Maybe that's why I'm not willing to attack this woman without all of the information, nor am I willing to prop Debbie with no reason to. I just can't say Debbie is so much better than this woman who lost her child in a court of law while Debbie lost her's while she was getting her drinks on.

I don't think DB is absolved of anything. If she really did get drunk that night, it was wrong and yes, neglectful. But this isn't about DB. DB is not even a party in this action. This is about someone who hasn't seen her child in 6 years and now all of a sudden feels the need to 'get involved'.

 

[cityslick]

Then you keep taking his *advertiser censored* back to court. Over and over and over again.
It's not like she had a kid to take care of or was paying child support. Work two jobs, save your money, get your kid back or at least get reasonable visitation.

That's what I don't understand about the explanation that it could be that JI somehow prevented her from seeing her child. Even if you truly believe that, that still is no excuse as to not having any contact for 6 years. I've never seen or heard of any mother (or father for that matter) simply ignore the child even exists because the ex is being a pain in the butt for visitation. Not if the mother really wants to be a part of that child's life. It wasn't even a small period of time, it's 6 years. That's a long time.

I'm curious to think what the reaction to this story would be if it was the other way around, meaning if it was a father doing this emergency custody order instead of a mother, but with the same circumstances (no contact for 6 years). I'm pretty positive the first question that comes up would be 'is he paying child support'? (mothers can pay child support too).

 

[Karmaa]

Raim said she has not been able to see her son for years.

Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...irwins-half-brothers-speaks-out#ixzz1fFd9vK5O

Not that she didn't want to...she was "not able".



(**sorry the link does not work any longer)

BBM and respectfully snipped by me
This speaks volumes to me. I think JI might just have been ruthless enough to deny her every time she asked until she quit asking, and/or made it so impossible to follow his rules for her visitation.

It really does happen, folks. That is one great reason for no Judge to ever, ever leave it up to a parent to set the guidelines. Sometimes the parent and the child's best interest is not followed or even thought of by the controlling parent.

MOO

You could be right, but exactly what does "was not able to" mean? It could mean that something prevented her (for example only: JI got in her way, or she was in jail).

Or it could be her way of saying that she just didn't feel like it or try. (As in: I wasn't able to get off the couch because I was so tired).

Regardless, judges do not take it well when their orders are not followed. If JI prevented her from seeing the kid, and she went back to court, she might even get custody just because HE prevented her from seeing the kid. That happens fairly often, actually - especially when one parent is trying to protect the child from an abusive ex. Simply refusing to allow that ex their visitation can result in the ex getting custody. That's why, no matter how bad it is, attorneys always advise their clients to follow the judges orders.

If this mom didn't see her son for 6 years, it's really doubtful that JI simply refused to let her.