ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #22

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
There are sealed sections of her divorce proceedings.

On the Idaho Repository there are not sealed sections of their divorce, I just re-read it. You may have another source to give you the details of the case though.

In Idaho cases involving child abuse cases are generally sealed. The entry would state there is a case but there would be no information on the case at all except a notice that it was sealed per court order. The only information one would be able to glean is the name searched is somehow a party to the case and that is it.
 
My husband and I fought hard to get custody of his two boys about 10 years ago. One boy was about 60lbs overweight, both were missing way too many days of school, the youngest had failing grades. To this day, I wouldn't think for a second their "Non" would have ever harmed them, she doesn't even drink so I doubt she'd do drugs.
We spent a lot of money proving that we could provide a better home. And we have.
Sometimes dads get kids.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk
 
I'm sort of a newbie here. I've only ever commented on one other case that was local to me. I know that we're limited to MSM links as far as verified accusations/facts go. What's the accepted policy on seeing comments on links, and asking fellow sluethers if there's any accepted validity to them?
I hope it didn't appear that I was accusing JM of drug use. I did try to phrase my comments as questions, and was genuinely curious if the last 21 threads addressed the possibility of drug use, and if there was any conclusive appropriate evidence to support it.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance."

There's no evidence of drug use. We have speculated about it, but it's pure speculation.
 
This is purely anecdotal, and I am not saying it is the case here. But the only mothers I have known who have willingly signed over there rights did so because they had a current case with dcf/cps for those children and they were pregnant with another child. Signing over their rights closed the case with dcf/cps.

In the three different states these incidents occurred in (none of them Idaho so things could very well work differently there), the mother was now considered to have a "clean slate" when the baby was born and something new would have to happen for dcf/cps to become involved. If the new baby had been born while the mothers had open cases with the other children, they would automatically open a case with the new baby.

Again I have no clue if anything of the sort happened here, just sharing the only instances I have personally witnessed where the mother willingly signed over their rights. Two are cousins of mine and one is an old former childhood friend.

Ohh, great thinking... Yes, you're right about that. Obviously we have no way of knowing whether JM had a CPS file or not, but that's certainly one possible reason for a mother to sign over custody of her kids.
 
Exactly! Most 20-year-olds still have that, "that's mine!" mentality about everything. I'm more disturbed by the idea that she gave up her two children willingly, rather than fighting for them and having them taken away. That tells me that either she knew that if she fought for them in court, they would be taken away, or she didn't really want them. I'm sure there are the occasional 20-year-olds who are that altruistic that they would put what's best for their children ahead of what they want, but I think any 20-year-old who would do that, would have had two children in the first place that she knew she wouldn't be able to care for adequately. One child may be an accident, but a mother who truly is putting what's best for her children first, would've made sure that she didn't have a second child that she couldn't care for. I and much more inclined to believe that she simply did not want them, or did not want them badly enough to go to court and fight for them because she knew she was going to lose. And she did not want them badly enough to fix whatever it was that was preventing her from being able to get them a life as good as their dad could.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OR she thought they would be better off with Dad. Just sayin"... I am so NOT a JM fan. I totally believe LE assessment that she has been less than truthful, AKA to me at least, a big HUGE liar. But, maybe in this situation she thought she was doing best by her kids, maybe she didn't have the money and thought he could support them better and she would be better off visiting. Maybe she didn't want her kids dragged back and forth every weekend to a different home. Would I do it, no way, never ever. But its done more then we know and its not always done because Mom's do not care about their kids. I also can't even begin to imagine how many Mom's have brought more kids into an already impossible situation....brains and babies are not always connected.

While it would be good if not having custody had to do with the disappearance of baby Deoor, I don't think its a qualifier unless, something is being covered up by the Father of these two kids to protect JM for some reason. If that is the case he better step up and speak out. Maybe he already has...JMO.
Edit to add: Or there is something illegal she did that we don't know about that caused this to happen.
 
Also anecdotal, in two cases I have known of personally, the children were of school age and the parent who retained primary custody continued to live in the school district. There was no drug use, no physical abuse, it was just parents divorcing and determining what would be less stressful, more stable for their kids. The other parent retained liberal visitation rights.

I have no idea why JM's other children lived with their father. I do believe she had something to do with DeOrr's disappearance though.
 
This is purely anecdotal, and I am not saying it is the case here. But the only mothers I have known who have willingly signed over there rights did so because they had a current case with dcf/cps for those children and they were pregnant with another child. Signing over their rights closed the case with dcf/cps.

In the three different states these incidents occurred in (none of them Idaho so things could very well work differently there), the mother was now considered to have a "clean slate" when the baby was born and something new would have to happen for dcf/cps to become involved. If the new baby had been born while the mothers had open cases with the other children, they would automatically open a case with the new baby.

Again I have no clue if anything of the sort happened here, just sharing the only instances I have personally witnessed where the mother willingly signed over their rights. Two are cousins of mine and one is an old former childhood friend.

Thank you for that information..it was very informative. It also would fit perfectly with this situation in regards to the timeline. Sadly, this policy seems to save one child(children) at the expense of the unborn child. Where the safety and welfare of children are involved, there should be no deals allowed.

Very interesting.
 
I'm also hesitant to judge JM for giving up her rights. I think we've all seen cases here where the kids would have been much better off with dad, than with mom and new boyfriend! Some of those kids might be alive today if their mother had given up their rights.

Again, I will say that I do think JM is guilty of something with Deorr, but not because she gave up her other two children.
 
But even if you thought your kids would be better off with their father, why give him full custody? Is that like signing over your parental rights? You could agree for the kids to live with dad whilst still having joint custody, couldn't you?
 
But even if you thought your kids would be better off with their father, why give him full custody? Is that like signing over your parental rights? You could agree for the kids to live with dad whilst still having joint custody, couldn't you?

It makes little sense and honestly, JM appears she could benefit from the child support. Regardless, your post is dead on...shared custody perhaps but relinquishing custody comes with a social stigma and a justifiable amount of suspicion. That is simply a fact. This debate is far too familiar...isn't it.
 
I'm also hesitant to judge JM for giving up her rights. I think we've all seen cases here where the kids would have been much better off with dad, than with mom and new boyfriend! Some of those kids might be alive today if their mother had given up their rights.

Again, I will say that I do think JM is guilty of something with Deorr, but not because she gave up her other two children.

Oh, I think JM's children are WAY better off with Dad. It was a good decision she made, but I don't think her good intentions were the primary motivator for that decision. I think she maybe didn't really want her kids (the responsibility, the hassle, the financial burden, the loss of freedom, especially as a single parent), and, as an added benefit, they'd be better off with Dad anyway. I'm not saying she doesn't love them, but I don't think she wanted them and all the burden and tying down that comes with them.

She was barely out of her teens when she made this decision, and WAS a teenager with 2 children and a busted relationship. I have a feeling she felt she was young enough to start fresh, and she had Dad who was willing to take the 2 biggest roadblocks in the way of that happening.

But, I'm glad she did, for the kids' sake.
 
Also anecdotal, in two cases I have known of personally, the children were of school age and the parent who retained primary custody continued to live in the school district. There was no drug use, no physical abuse, it was just parents divorcing and determining what would be less stressful, more stable for their kids. The other parent retained liberal visitation rights.

I have no idea why JM's other children lived with their father. I do believe she had something to do with DeOrr's disappearance though.

When I read this it made me think of how passive JM seems to be (i.e. the first interview, heck the couch interview too). It's not out of the realm of possibilities that she had some issues (possibly relatively minor ones) when she relinquished custody. Some people are very passive (I used to be one of them), and I could understand feeling as though you don't have a leg to stand on, and not feeling strong enough to fight it out in court). I know, these are kids and hopefully all parents would be passionate about getting enough custody as possible, but I think if JM knew she wasn't cut out to be a mother she probably just gave her ex custody without much of a battle.
 
But even if you thought your kids would be better off with their father, why give him full custody? Is that like signing over your parental rights? You could agree for the kids to live with dad whilst still having joint custody, couldn't you?

Maybe it wasn't entirely her decision. It could be her new relationship with Vernal was a deciding factor. Perhaps he didn't want a reminder of her previous marriage entering into their new life together. If I have the timeline correct from reading the public court records, she was pregnant with Deorr when her divorce was finalized.
 
I'm also hesitant to judge JM for giving up her rights. I think we've all seen cases here where the kids would have been much better off with dad, than with mom and new boyfriend! Some of those kids might be alive today if their mother had given up their rights.

Again, I will say that I do think JM is guilty of something with Deorr, but not because she gave up her other two children.

Yes, if she had given DeOrr up for adoption he would still be alive and well...
 
When I read this it made me think of how passive JM seems to be (i.e. the first interview, heck the couch interview too). It's not out of the realm of possibilities that she had some issues (possibly relatively minor ones) when she relinquished custody. Some people are very passive (I used to be one of them), and I could understand feeling as though you don't have a leg to stand on, and not feeling strong enough to fight it out in court). I know, these are kids and hopefully all parents would be passionate about getting enough custody as possible, but I think if JM knew she wasn't cut out to be a mother she probably just gave her ex custody without much of a battle.

That is the interview that sent my hinky meter over the edge. JM is on SM defending herself up a storm, there are pics of her posted getting her hair done, smiling with her other kids, in the snow playing with her Mom and she has a chance to SPEAK out for her missing child in an interview and just sits there with her head down sniffing. That looked like it was all for show and a poor me, have sympathy for me, I am in so much pain I can't speak at all kind of attitude. The family states they want to make this situation about baby Deoor but it appears someone forgot to read her the memo...I didn't buy it then and I don't now. JMO
 
I'm also hesitant to judge JM for giving up her rights. I think we've all seen cases here where the kids would have been much better off with dad, than with mom and new boyfriend! Some of those kids might be alive today if their mother had given up their rights.

Again, I will say that I do think JM is guilty of something with Deorr, but not because she gave up her other two children.

Yep. I'm reminded of "The Lady or The Tiger?" I always believed that the chosen door was the door with the lady because when you love someone, you want the best for them, right? In this case, I'd like to think that JM gave up custody of her older kids because it was best for them.

moo
 
But even if you thought your kids would be better off with their father, why give him full custody? Is that like signing over your parental rights? You could agree for the kids to live with dad whilst still having joint custody, couldn't you?

He has physical custody, but does he have sole legal custody, too?
 
Yep. I'm reminded of "The Lady or The Tiger?" I always believed that the chosen door was the door with the lady because when you love someone, you want the best for them, right? In this case, I'd like to think that JM gave up custody of her older kids because it was best for them.

moo

Yes, and imo it's the most selfless, caring thing a mother can do - give up her own child to someone who will give them a better life. But JM chose to keep DeOrr. And look what happened.
 
But even if you thought your kids would be better off with their father, why give him full custody? Is that like signing over your parental rights? You could agree for the kids to live with dad whilst still having joint custody, couldn't you?

I know of two cases in my "family" where both mother's voluntarily gave up their rights.

I have an adopted daughter from Russia. She was found, severely malnourished and with pneumonia, at the age of 6 months in a cold apartment in Siberia. When neighbors found her, they called an ambulance. The police found the birth mother and basically told her...save yourself the trouble and just relinquish your rights now, because it's going to be a huge pain for us to do it legally but we WILL win and do so if we have to. Thankfully, she agreed to relinquish my daughter and she was placed in an orphanage. Yes, this was Russia, and not the US, but I believe something similar would have happened (exept the child would be placed in foster care, not in an orphanage of course).

The second instance involved my late husband's brother's child. My BIL had died of a drug overdose. When that was confirmed by autopsy, the mother was required to go in for drug testing. They found evidence of cocaine and other drugs in her system. We got temporary custody as she went to rehab and very slowly met the conditions to where she could parent her child again. She again lost custody, and he was returned to our home. She eventually recovered her rights to parent. However, not long after, she was caught drunk driving with the baby lying on the front seat of the car. This time, a meeting was held with CPS, a lawyer, a family therapist, our family, and the baby's mother. It was not very formal, but basically all the cards were laid out on the table. It came down to the same thing...relinquish your child for adoption, or go through a nightmare to have him taken away by the courts, who WOULD succeed. She agreed to adoption, and we agreed she could send letters to him, and that we would provide yearly pictures and updates to her on his life and how he was doing. (We did not end up adopting him as I filed for divorce from my husband, so his brother's family stepped in). Not surprisingly, she had 2 daughters who were around 7 and 8 years old at the time, who she'd lost custody of. She was allowed supervised visits ONLY if there was advance notice and permission granted by her ex-husband. Throughout this mess we talked to him a few times. She had only seen them a few times over the years but was pretty passive about it, knowing the deck was stacked against her. Several times she showed up drunk at his house, and was denied visitation. She however, did want her kids and cried all the time about not being able to see them. Yet she was unable to take care of herself let alone children. At times, she was homeless.

Just sharing two firsthand experiences. It will be interesting to see (and I hope we will) why she does not have physical custody of her other children.
 
I know women who gave up physical custody of their children to the fathers. They did it in the best interest of the children. The women had no money to fight the father, knew that they would have to fight every month for support checks, the father retained the house the children grew up in, grandparents lived close by and the home was close to their school. The women were able to afford only a small 1 bedroom apartment as they were new to the working world. They all had visitation. One parent must have physical custody of the children and maintain the primary residence.

I also know women who left their kids behind when they left their husbands because they were no in a good place in their lives.

There is nothing wrong with fathers raising their children, everyone needs to look past the gender bias in custody matters. When moms get custody and fathers do not, no one thinks the dad is a bad guy. Why do the moms get such a bad response?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
1,310
Total visitors
1,465

Forum statistics

Threads
600,555
Messages
18,110,484
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top