Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom, stepfather found* #14

[tresir2012]

Yes, I can share a link privately.

Ok, but let LE have it if it shows evidence of toxins as they are investigating the death.

 

[WhereIsWaldo]

Agree completely. But I’m not confident Lori (and Chad?) have the discipline to not bump someone else off if they are provoked enough, either by their own hand or at their direction. And “provoked” to them could be as simple as thinking someone has turned into a Zombie. LE has enough on their plate, the last thing they need is to have to defend why they weren’t already locked up if someone else gets hurt. I hope they have everything they need soon.

MOO

Agree with Colorado303, probably best if you are not identified as a “Zombie”, at this point in time.

 

[mrjitty]

Does Idaho have jurisdiction to grant custody of Arizona residents? Or are they Texas residents?

I'm not a lawyer but I have a hard time believing a state can judge custody simply on short term presence in the state. Idaho may TRY to do so but I doubt that will be the last word.

This is where technical legal procedure becomes important.

Idaho appears to have assumed jurisdiction. To our knowledge, no proceedings in an AZ state court disputes that.

Nor do we believe the respondent has contested jurisdiction before the Court in Idaho.

So I guess it is possible that down the track, LV could try to resist surrender of custody in Hawaii by claiming Idaho has no jurisdiction, but without actual evidence of which state has a better claim for jurisdiction, one suspects Hawaii will simply accede to the Idaho orders. After all, clearly Hawaii does not have jurisdiction.

 

[tresir2012]

Does Idaho have jurisdiction to grant custody of Arizona residents? Or are they Texas residents?

I'm not a lawyer but I have a hard time believing a state can judge custody simply on short term presence in the state. Idaho may TRY to do so but I doubt that will be the last word.

They are from Louisiana I believe. But what if JJ is still in Idaho ? There is no evidence he has left so that gives Idaho the jurisdiction, I guess. But MOO.

 

[WhereIsWaldo]

Agree with Colorado303, probably best if you are not identified as a “Zombie”, at this point in time.

FYI, the last identified zombies, in their world, showed as dead, Charles Vallow, Tammy Daybell and Alexander Cox and those missing, Tylee Ryan and Joshua J Vallow, are at risk because they are considered “zombies”.

 

[indicolite22]

FYI, the last identified zombies, in their world, showed as dead, Charles Vallow, Tammy Daybell and Alexander Cox and those missing, Tylee Ryan and Joshua J Vallow, are at risk because they are considered “zombies”.

Does zombie info come from an approved source? I'm only aware of the alternative one.

 

[mrjitty]

They are from Louisiana I believe. But what if JJ is still in Idaho ? There is no evidence he has left so that gives Idaho the jurisdiction, I guess. But MOO.

It looks like the interstate laws are actually designed to prevent people like LV making these kind of jurisdictional arguments

So for example let's say CV didn't die but was badly injured, and in the meantime LV runs off with JJ to Idaho to defeat CVs claims

CV could dispute Idaho jurisdiction as JJ was not yet in Idaho 6 mths so AZ remains home state.

But in this case it's completely different.

LV & JJ left AZ in the ordinary course and not to defeat any other custodial rights (CV being dead). They clearly established a new domicile in Rex Idaho (school, home, witnesses). Therefore at that point in September, Idaho is clearly the state with jurisdiction as regards JJ.

If LV wants to dispute that, onus would be on her to show JJ moved out of state.

She can't use this rule to claim AZ still had jurisdiction IMO.

 

[Jethro4WS]

Does Idaho have jurisdiction to grant custody of Arizona residents? Or are they Texas residents?

I'm not a lawyer but I have a hard time believing a state can judge custody simply on short term presence in the state. Idaho may TRY to do so but I doubt that will be the last word.

The kids, definitely JJ is a resident of Idaho because Lori ended up a resident of Idaho.

The instant Lori enrolled JJ in a public school she established JJ (and herself) as a resident of Idaho. Under Idaho Statutes:

An individual who has a place of abode in Idaho and is present in Idaho for other than a temporary or transitory purpose is deemed to reside in Idaho.

An individual is present in Idaho only for a temporary or transitory purpose if he does not engage in any activity or conduct in Idaho other than that of a vacationer, seasonal visitor, tourist, or guest.
​

Idaho can claim jurisdiction over JJ (and almost certainly Tylee) at a minimum because his last known residency is Idaho. If Lori wants to argue otherwise then she must prove it and the only way to prove it is to reveal where JJ is because he is certainly not with Lori in Hawaii. Arguments of jurisdiction are not predicated on the State having the burden of proof. Each side has to try to prove their case. Idaho has the establishment of a residency by renting the townhouse and enrolling JJ in public school. Lori has to prove Idaho lacks jurisdiction by proving where JJ (and likely Tylee) is.

The State of Idaho can, as authorized by statute, initiate a case on the basis of:

Reason to believe that a child has been abused, neglected or abandoned, or subject to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect​

Lori being in Hawaii without her children is a circumstance that can reasonably be construed to have resulted in neglect and/or abandonment. Thus, the intervention by the State of Idaho and the order by the court to produce the children. The purpose of the order to produce the children almost certainly states that it is to ascertain whether or not the children have been abused or neglected. Notice that the requirement is not that the State has to prove the children were abused, neglected, or abandoned only that there is reason to believe that is the case. Lori is free to refute such allegations and a judge will decide who prevails. It is not a criminal case so the burden of proof does not rest solely on the State.

She doesn't get to avoid this due to "parental rights". States have rights too. Idaho has an interest in the welfare of children and has constitutionally valid laws for intervening on behalf of children in adversarial actions against parents. Judges get to decide the best interests of children when two parties - in this case the State of Idaho and Lori - cannot agree on what is in the best interest of the involved children. That libertarians believe that their own interests carry more weight than the state's interest means little in the scheme of things and much more often than not serves to make their situation worse than it would otherwise be.

Keep in mind that the order to Lori to produce the children is not from an action commenced by the Woodcocks. They only filed a Guardianship case days after Lori was served. There was already a case by the State of Idaho in progress that we have not seen any of the docket to even know when it began since Child Welfare cases are not public information in Idaho and we only were given what the Court decided the State Attorney could release. That is why Lori's battle is with the State of Idaho (i.e. the People of Idaho). Idaho statutes only give legal standing to State Attorney's to file Child Welfare cases so that is how I am certain this is a case by the State of Idaho against Lori.

The Idaho Supreme Court has deemed that it is in the best interests of children that child welfare cases are handled speedily and Idaho statutes and court rules have been promulgated to the achieve this. Failure to meet deadlines or compliance with orders may result in a default judgment and thus dragging out the process is not possible. Pro Se litigants, for example, are warned that delay tactics they often employ in civil cases will not achieve their aims and can lead to a default judgment. The end result of a default is the establishment that the State's allegations are true and the defendant agrees those allegations are true. That is, defendants cannot appeal in order to re-litigate the facts once they have defaulted. It is not known if a default judgment has been entered since we can't see the docket but that is the risk Lori takes with her non-compliance. I suspect she has an attorney litigating but again, we can't see the docket. Either way, the case can't drag out and decisions and orders will be rendered in the near future.

It seems pretty certain that unless she produces the children the State will be granted emergency custody. If that happens Lori faces Custodial Interference charges if she doesn't turn them over to the State.

By the way, if she reveals where JJ and Tylee are, the state where they are will take emergency custody of them and either begin a case against Lori or return the children to Idaho. There is no way that she avoids a court battle with a state over the kids. Whether she retains custody in the long term is another matter but there is zero chance that she retains custody in the short term.

 

[Jethro4WS]

Is that correct? According to what I've read/heard it was MBP that demanded the divorce and it was a devastating shock to BB as up until then he thought he had the perfect and idyllic marriage. For example here's one such article:

How a Gilbert drive-by shooting is tied to the Idaho missing children

"Boudreaux's ex-wife, Melani Boudreaux, is Lori's niece. She began spending time with Lori and the religious group and suddenly demanded a divorce over the summer, Brandon Boudreaux said.

"I thought I had a happy marriage, so it was pretty overwhelming," Brandon said.

Before the divorce was final, someone driving Charles Vallow's vehicle attempted to kill him, Brandon said."

Yes it is correct. Brandon is the Petitioner. Melani is the Respondent.

Family Court Case Information - Case History

 

[Colorado303]

Well, their spouses are both dead, and out of their 8 children, the only ones who can be accounted for are adults. Colby's probably got other reasons for not going, because the odds are probably good that he would survive. Maybe he's been asked not to go, not to give them any warm fuzzies from home???

I imagine CR’s not going out there by choice. His relationship w/Lori obviously has not been close in recent years. I bet throughout his childhood Lori disappointed him countless times. Mothers are supposed to love their kids, and it’s a lot to grapple with if your Mom doesn’t.

It’s a process. Realizing your Mom treats you different from other Moms. Wishing she was more like them. Trying to be good so she’ll like you. Having her get mad or ignore your efforts, then hurt, disappointment and wondering what’s wrong with you.

As a kid gets older, the cycle keeps repeating but anger, resentment and guilt get tossed into the equation. Anger/resentment because the kid understands their mother truly doesn’t care about them—and guilt because you’re supposed to love your mother no matter what, and maybe it’s your fault. Plus, everyone else assumes you love your mother so the kid piles a shameful secret onto the load.

At some point a self-aware adult realizes that they have a toxic/narcissistic parent, and for their own self-esteem and mental health distance themselves. A lot, if not completely. Yet the inclination to try harder “one more time” doesn’t go away so they stick their neck out a few more times until the mother does something so egregious the kid is finally done.

In his interview Colby said when he saw the footage of Lori and Chad in Hawaii “he was done”. That was the last straw. I have no doubt he loves JJ and Tylee and if he thought there was a sliver of a chance Lori would disclose info he’d be on a plane to Hawaii. But whether the kids are safe or not IMO he knows a face-to-face would be futile. And the process of trying and being dismissed yet again would rip the scab he’s spent years building right off.

I’m sure some would say it’s impossible for him to know it’s futile, and he needs to try. Unless someone’s the recovering child of a narc they have every reason to believe the right combination of hope, reason, effort and love would awaken Lori’s motherly love and she’d spill.

Having wrestled w/some of the same dynamics I understand why Colby doesn’t, and why he chooses not to try. Personally I think it’s the right call. Better he help LE as much as possible, concentrate on keeping his family healthy and being in the best mental space possible to help JJ and Tylee heal should they be found alive.

MOO

 

[Colorado303]

I think the part about the stuff left on the curb with a sign was startling. Sorry about that, I have been in a rabbit hole in Utah Public Records along with Idaho and AZ. MOO

When I read the headline I though JJ and Tylee’s stuff had been left on the curb in Idaho and I felt sick. But it was Melani’s kid’s stuff left on a curb in AZ. Heartless, but thankfully we know they with their Dad and alive.

 

[mrjitty]

The kids, definitely JJ is a resident of Idaho because Lori ended up a resident of Idaho.

The instant Lori enrolled JJ in a public school she established JJ (and herself) as a resident of Idaho. Under Idaho Statutes:

An individual who has a place of abode in Idaho and is present in Idaho for other than a temporary or transitory purpose is deemed to reside in Idaho.

An individual is present in Idaho only for a temporary or transitory purpose if he does not engage in any activity or conduct in Idaho other than that of a vacationer, seasonal visitor, tourist, or guest.
​

Idaho can claim jurisdiction over JJ (and almost certainly Tylee) at a minimum because his last known residency is Idaho. If Lori wants to argue otherwise then she must prove it and the only way to prove it is to reveal where JJ is because he is certainly not with Lori in Hawaii. Arguments of jurisdiction are not predicated on the State having the burden of proof. Each side has to try to prove their case. Idaho has the establishment of a residency by renting the townhouse and enrolling JJ in public school. Lori has to prove Idaho lacks jurisdiction by proving where JJ (and likely Tylee) is.

The State of Idaho can, as authorized by statute, initiate a case on the basis of:

Reason to believe that a child has been abused, neglected or abandoned, or subject to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect​

Lori being in Hawaii without her children is a circumstance that can reasonably be construed to have resulted in neglect and/or abandonment. Thus, the intervention by the State of Idaho and the order by the court to produce the children. The purpose of the order to produce the children almost certainly states that it is to ascertain whether or not the children have been abused or neglected. Notice that the requirement is not that the State has to prove the children were abused, neglected, or abandoned only that there is reason to believe that is the case. Lori is free to refute such allegations and a judge will decide who prevails. It is not a criminal case so the burden of proof does not rest solely on the State.

She doesn't get to avoid this due to "parental rights". States have rights too. Idaho has an interest in the welfare of children and has constitutionally valid laws for intervening on behalf of children in adversarial actions against parents. Judges get to decide the best interests of children when two parties - in this case the State of Idaho and Lori - cannot agree on what is in the best interest of the involved children. That libertarians believe that their own interests carry more weight than the state's interest means little in the scheme of things and much more often than not serves to make their situation worse than it would otherwise be.

Keep in mind that the order to Lori to produce the children is not from an action commenced by the Woodcocks. They only filed a Guardianship case days after Lori was served. There was already a case by the State of Idaho in progress that we have not seen any of the docket to even know when it began since Child Welfare cases are not public information in Idaho and we only were given what the Court decided the State Attorney could release. That is why Lori's battle is with the State of Idaho (i.e. the People of Idaho). Idaho statutes only give legal standing to State Attorney's to file Child Welfare cases so that is how I am certain this is a case by the State of Idaho against Lori.

The Idaho Supreme Court has deemed that it is in the best interests of children that child welfare cases are handled speedily and Idaho statutes and court rules have been promulgated to the achieve this. Failure to meet deadlines or compliance with orders may result in a default judgment and thus dragging out the process is not possible. Pro Se litigants, for example, are warned that delay tactics they often employ in civil cases will not achieve their aims and can lead to a default judgment. The end result of a default is the establishment that the State's allegations are true and the defendant agrees those allegations are true. That is, defendants cannot appeal in order to re-litigate the facts once they have defaulted. It is not known if a default judgment has been entered since we can't see the docket but that is the risk Lori takes with her non-compliance. I suspect she has an attorney litigating but again, we can't see the docket. Either way, the case can't drag out and decisions and orders will be rendered in the near future.

It seems pretty certain that unless she produces the children the State will be granted emergency custody. If that happens Lori faces Custodial Interference charges if she doesn't turn them over to the State.

By the way, if she reveals where JJ and Tylee are, the state where they are will take emergency custody of them and either begin a case against Lori or return the children to Idaho. There is no way that she avoids a court battle with a state over the kids. Whether she retains custody in the long term is another matter but there is zero chance that she retains custody in the short term.

Thanks @Jethro4WS

This is very very helpful and makes complete sense.

I don't see any basis to dispute jurisdiction.

 

[Tortoise]

So here is what I could find out about this so far.

It appears in cases of interstate disputes, the so called home state has primacy. The home state appears to be the state the child was living in for the last 6 months. Where a child has been moved out of state, the new state will defer to the homestate. That is actually similar to the UN international conventions on parental kidnapping. It is always preferable that the child be returned home for the dispute to be resolved, rather than one parent kidnapping to a new location to defeat unfavourable court orders.



So this case has an extra special twist as we don't know where JJ lived since he went dark in September

My highly overvalued analysis.

1. It is not disputed that JJ moved permanently form AZ to Idaho beginning September '19
2. There is no evidence before the Court that he left the state of Idaho
3. The respondent has not pleaded a different state has jurisdiction
4. 6 months have nearly elapsed since JJ left AZ
5. He was enrolled in school in Idaho and had a home there
6. Evidence of witnesses was Rex. Idaho was his domicile.
7. No out of state Court is asserting jurisdiction via a competing legal action
8. In view of no evidence to the contrary, a Court may presume he is still in state.
   
   So IMO, the Idaho Court is best placed to asset jurisdiction, and may properly do so.

Right - you can't do this kind of thing in legal proceedings. If you want to assert a different state has jurisdiction, then you must argue that before the Judge. And of course the Judge will simply ask which state then? A mere statement of AZ from the lawyer is not going to be enough. You will need evidence JJ went back to AZ.

Also, you cannot argue that JJ's location is unknown, therefore no state court has jurisdiction. I suspect the Court from his last known residence is going to take jurisdiction.

It seems to me the six months from beginning of September is what's prompted the order to produce the children, getting the ball rolling for the court date scheduled for March.

 

[mrjitty]

The end result of a default is the establishment that the State's allegations are true and the defendant agrees those allegations are true. That is, defendants cannot appeal in order to re-litigate the facts once they have defaulted. It is not known if a default judgment has been entered since we can't see the docket but that is the risk Lori takes with her non-compliance. I suspect she has an attorney litigating but again, we can't see the docket. Either way, the case can't drag out and decisions and orders will be rendered in the near future.

It seems pretty certain that unless she produces the children the State will be granted emergency custody. If that happens Lori faces Custodial Interference charges if she doesn't turn them over to the State.

I am glad you have confirmed this aspect as it would certainly be the case in NZ as well.

Where the defendant simply fails to offer any evidence in explanation, and specifically prevents the wellbeing of the child from being verified, the Court will certainly find for the state. You can't play silly buggers.

 

[Colorado303]

dbm

 

[Tortoise]

If Lori wants to argue otherwise then she must prove it and the only way to prove it is to reveal where JJ is because he is certainly not with Lori in Hawaii. Arguments of jurisdiction are not predicated on the State having the burden of proof. Each side has to try to prove their case. Idaho has the establishment of a residency by renting the townhouse and enrolling JJ in public school. Lori has to prove Idaho lacks jurisdiction by proving where JJ (and likely Tylee) is.

RSBM

Just for interest -

(copied from media thread page 16 post #309) :-

27 Jan 2020

It's not in the print story, but in the video report Jilliana Collina says, "Now this morning I spoke with Vallow and Daybell's attorney who told me, Sean Bartholick who's here in Rexbug, who told me he's still in communication with Vallow even though she is in Hawaii. He was unable to tell me whether or not she planned on presenting the kids. And that he didn't know where the kids were or if they were even alive."

Police confirm Vallow search warrant served - Local News 8

eta to remove smiley face that inserted itself in the place of punctuation.

 

[mrjitty]

It seems to me the six months from beginning of September is what's prompted the order to produce the children, getting the ball rolling for the court date scheduled for March.

Having thought a bit more and having read @Jethro4WS 's excellent post, I think the 6 months has no relevance here.

It exists to prevent a child being swiftly removed from the homestate in order to defeat custodial rights. But that didn't happen here.

Basically, she needs to produce 2 healthy kids from one state or another or she is done

 

[nhmemorymaker]

She trespassed 4 weeks before, by the time she threw stuff away she may have accepted she wasn't going to get custody. We have no idea what she intended for her kids but they are safe so let's keep this about Tylee & Jj, please.

YOu are incorrect. The dates give a very different story, so make sure to go back and check the dates.

 

[indicolite22]

The kids, definitely JJ is a resident of Idaho because Lori ended up a resident of Idaho.

The instant Lori enrolled JJ in a public school she established JJ (and herself) as a resident of Idaho. Under Idaho Statutes:

An individual who has a place of abode in Idaho and is present in Idaho for other than a temporary or transitory purpose is deemed to reside in Idaho.

An individual is present in Idaho only for a temporary or transitory purpose if he does not engage in any activity or conduct in Idaho other than that of a vacationer, seasonal visitor, tourist, or guest.
​

Idaho can claim jurisdiction over JJ (and almost certainly Tylee) at a minimum because his last known residency is Idaho. If Lori wants to argue otherwise then she must prove it and the only way to prove it is to reveal where JJ is because he is certainly not with Lori in Hawaii. Arguments of jurisdiction are not predicated on the State having the burden of proof. Each side has to try to prove their case. Idaho has the establishment of a residency by renting the townhouse and enrolling JJ in public school. Lori has to prove Idaho lacks jurisdiction by proving where JJ (and likely Tylee) is.

The State of Idaho can, as authorized by statute, initiate a case on the basis of:

Reason to believe that a child has been abused, neglected or abandoned, or subject to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect​

Lori being in Hawaii without her children is a circumstance that can reasonably be construed to have resulted in neglect and/or abandonment. Thus, the intervention by the State of Idaho and the order by the court to produce the children. The purpose of the order to produce the children almost certainly states that it is to ascertain whether or not the children have been abused or neglected. Notice that the requirement is not that the State has to prove the children were abused, neglected, or abandoned only that there is reason to believe that is the case. Lori is free to refute such allegations and a judge will decide who prevails. It is not a criminal case so the burden of proof does not rest solely on the State.

She doesn't get to avoid this due to "parental rights". States have rights too. Idaho has an interest in the welfare of children and has constitutionally valid laws for intervening on behalf of children in adversarial actions against parents. Judges get to decide the best interests of children when two parties - in this case the State of Idaho and Lori - cannot agree on what is in the best interest of the involved children. That libertarians believe that their own interests carry more weight than the state's interest means little in the scheme of things and much more often than not serves to make their situation worse than it would otherwise be.

Keep in mind that the order to Lori to produce the children is not from an action commenced by the Woodcocks. They only filed a Guardianship case days after Lori was served. There was already a case by the State of Idaho in progress that we have not seen any of the docket to even know when it began since Child Welfare cases are not public information in Idaho and we only were given what the Court decided the State Attorney could release. That is why Lori's battle is with the State of Idaho (i.e. the People of Idaho). Idaho statutes only give legal standing to State Attorney's to file Child Welfare cases so that is how I am certain this is a case by the State of Idaho against Lori.

The Idaho Supreme Court has deemed that it is in the best interests of children that child welfare cases are handled speedily and Idaho statutes and court rules have been promulgated to the achieve this. Failure to meet deadlines or compliance with orders may result in a default judgment and thus dragging out the process is not possible. Pro Se litigants, for example, are warned that delay tactics they often employ in civil cases will not achieve their aims and can lead to a default judgment. The end result of a default is the establishment that the State's allegations are true and the defendant agrees those allegations are true. That is, defendants cannot appeal in order to re-litigate the facts once they have defaulted. It is not known if a default judgment has been entered since we can't see the docket but that is the risk Lori takes with her non-compliance. I suspect she has an attorney litigating but again, we can't see the docket. Either way, the case can't drag out and decisions and orders will be rendered in the near future.

It seems pretty certain that unless she produces the children the State will be granted emergency custody. If that happens Lori faces Custodial Interference charges if she doesn't turn them over to the State.

By the way, if she reveals where JJ and Tylee are, the state where they are will take emergency custody of them and either begin a case against Lori or return the children to Idaho. There is no way that she avoids a court battle with a state over the kids. Whether she retains custody in the long term is another matter but there is zero chance that she retains custody in the short term.

What happens if Tylee reaches adulthood before the process is over? Does her status change, even if she's still missing by that time?

 

[indicolite22]

I imagine CR’s not going out there by choice. His relationship w/Lori obviously has not been close in recent years. I bet throughout his childhood Lori disappointed him countless times. Mothers are supposed to love their kids, and it’s a lot to grapple with if your Mom doesn’t.

It’s a process. Realizing your Mom treats you different from other Moms. Wishing she was more like them. Trying to be good so she’ll like you. Having her get mad or ignore your efforts, then hurt, disappointment and wondering what’s wrong with you.

As a kid gets older, the cycle keeps repeating but anger, resentment and guilt get tossed into the equation. Anger/resentment because the kid understands their mother truly doesn’t care about them—and guilt because you’re supposed to love your mother no matter what, and maybe it’s your fault. Plus, everyone else assumes you love your mother so the kid piles a shameful secret onto the load.

At some point a self-aware adult realizes that they have a toxic/narcissistic parent, and for their own self-esteem and mental health distance themselves. A lot, if not completely. Yet the inclination to try harder “one more time” doesn’t go away so they stick their neck out a few more times until the mother does something so egregious the kid is finally done.

In his interview Colby said when he saw the footage of Lori and Chad in Hawaii “he was done”. That was the last straw. I have no doubt he loves JJ and Tylee and if he thought there was a sliver of a chance Lori would disclose info he’d be on a plane to Hawaii. But whether the kids are safe or not IMO he knows a face-to-face would be futile. And the process of trying and being dismissed yet again would rip the scab he’s spent years building right off.

I’m sure some would say it’s impossible for him to know it’s futile, and he needs to try. Unless someone’s the recovering child of a narc they have every reason to believe the right combination of hope, reason, effort and love would awaken Lori’s motherly love and she’d spill.

Having wrestled w/some of the same dynamics I understand why Colby doesn’t, and why he chooses not to try. Personally I think it’s the right call. Better he help LE as much as possible, concentrate on keeping his family healthy and being in the best mental space possible to help JJ and Tylee heal should they be found alive.

MOO

I think if the police thought Colby facing off Lori in Hawaii could help finding the children, they would have suggested it to him.