Found Deceased KS - Lucas Hernandez, 5, Wichita, 17 Feb 2018 #19 *Arrest*

[razzledazzle]

In a world where every child needs a mom, and as much as it breaks my heart to know this one year old has no one around right now she is use to, feels comfortable with- I am damn happy EG lost custody. She doesn’t deserve children.

I really hope this she is placed with a wonderful family and soon. She is still young enough to come out of all of this mess unscathed.

 

[margarita25]

Do you think JH is seriously doubting his paternity now of both children?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

(Woooahhhh, this didn't even cross my mind...the paternity relating to the other child...hmmmm...I would guess it's his but who really knows, right?!)

 

[kkdj]

Neither one contested-
This is a little unsettling-
I just would have thought they would have at least “tried” for their daughter.
MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm wondering about Jonathan's frame of mind with all of this. We don't know if he can do something to get his daughter back eventually. I've known parents where their child was placed in state custody until xyz was accomplished. One thing for Jonathan would be his job and a caretaker for MH. Plus we can't forget the CINC report also stated that Jonathan wasn't a suitable caretaker at this time and they didn't state why. Although we know the home was volatile. Jonathan may have some child abuse charges coming up with neglect and child endangerment himself and maybe some charges regarding the incident with EG's son. So, it's best to protect MH right now from him.

 

[margarita25]

I really hope this she is placed with a wonderful family and soon. She is still young enough to come out of all of this mess unscathed.

Thank goodness she made it out of there...

 

[n_6CC]

Do you think JH is seriously doubting his paternity now of both children?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

That is a very good question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chihuahua]

I really hope this she is placed with a wonderful family and soon. She is still young enough to come out of all of this mess unscathed.

I do also.
Maybe a close member of her extended family can take her in.
IMHO that's often best for a child.
And I am sure that there is someone in her life that would love to have her.
:loveyou:

 

[ScarlettLin]

I'm confused too. It did not state that Jonathan lost custody, but that he was there with his own attorney which would indicate to me he has interest. Also, he did not look at Emily which also indicates to me that he is standing on his own with this and not trying to do anything with her.
I guess another question I have is does this mean she lost custody permanently, like removing all of her rights forever?

Losing custody isn’t the same as terminating parental rights. Unless and until parental rights are severed, they’ll have to pay child support and they’ll have visitation and have to undergo things like parenting classes, anger management, and drug testing (depending on what the judge rules is required)
This and also possibly ordering paternity testing is what the rest of the hearing - the closed portion- will be about.

It’s in one of the dcf articles I linked to previously. About the process of removing children from homes. I can link again if necessary


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[margarita25]

Again, thanks to Tim Potter for his msm coverage.

 

[ScarlettLin]

What the attorney is saying is EG was arrested based on improperly obtained evidence and therefore she be immediately released from jail. The premise is that EG turned over her phone to help look for Lucas when the messages were found about the trip to OG. At the time the focus was on finding Lucas so nothing was done about it as most missing kids cases are resolved rather quickly. As time passed and it was looking more and more like something nefarious was going on and Emily was still able to have custody of her daughter, the courts had to find a way to get the daughter out of the home. The only way you can do that in KS is to charge a parent with a crime involving a child, preferably their own child. The endangerment charge is playing two parts, keeping Emily in jail where she can’t interfere with the search and keeping her daughter away from her.

The attorney is trying to get the evidence from the phone thrown out since the judge allowed it to be entered on discovery awhile back. Once she was arrested she was reinterviewed as any discussions with police before that will be considered “off the record”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without seeing the motion that was filed it’s hard to say exactly what the attorney wants thrown out. But since that particular type of hearing relates to confessions I would think it would be whatever she said when faced with the physical evidence of the phone messages.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ESO]

I will try my best to fill in the gaps here: Emily and Jonathan lost custody because the child was considered in police protective custody. That designation can’t continue indefinitely in the state of KS. That means that she is officially a ward of the state, but that does not mean they have lost their rights to her. That process can take years. The reason Jonathan is on record as the “alleged” father is because they were not married when the child was born and there has not been any custody hearings between the two of them. It’s not saying JH isn’t the father or his parentage is being questioned, it’s more of a legal term. Kind of like saying someone is “common law” married.

As far as what happens after the reporter is kicked out of the courtroom, that is typically when the parents will be given their “court orders” in order to get any visitation with their child and guidelines they have to follow in order to continue contact. They will also be given the reasons behind the child continuing to be out of the home and whatever issues are needing to be resolved. The GAL (if there is one) will also speak on behalf of the needs of the child and generally an update on how the child is doing in their placement will be given. It’s common for unmarried couples to each have a lawyer, but if two people are married they are allowed to have their own attorney’s as well. It’s usually an indication that the parents are no longer unified in trying to retain custody together or one parent has more of a responsibility to the child being out of the home than another.

This hearing was more of a formality. Since Emily is still in jail she really doesn’t have much she can really do here. It’s JH that is the big “loser” in this hearing. It’s pretty obvious he isn’t fighting the court to keep custody of his child and that to me is very disturbing. This is where I would hope the family in NM would seek custody of MH now. She had to be considered a ward of the court before that could happen as they are out of state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flute4peace]

Does anyone know if the "alleged" is standard speak in these types of cases? I don't want to read too much into the word if it's SOP, if that makes sense?

@ESO? (Is there a top-level security clearance secret on tagging folk in threads? I'm incapable, apparently. )

Does this mean that Jonathan doesn't get custody either? I am confused by this statement?

Okay I see now than He is the alleged father!

 

[Busylady]

ESO - thank you for the great explanation of the CINC - if family in NM were to obtain custody would there still be restrictions on when JH could see the child such as supervised visits, attending anger management classes, parenting classes etc?

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,

Please DO NOT continue to post about the arrest of the cousin. It has not been reported in mainstream media.

Even if this is true we have no solid information about any connection to missing Lucas.

If you are reading this and have no idea what I am talking about then that is a good thing.

Please alert if you see any more mention of this topic. Please do not quote the post, respond, and then alert.
This creates a lot more work for the mods.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[ESO]

Does anyone know if the "alleged" is standard speak in these types of cases? I don't want to read too much into the word if it's SOP, if that makes sense?

@ESO? (Is there a top-level security clearance secret on tagging folk in threads? I'm incapable, apparently. )

Hahahaha.....not that I know of! I use Tapatalk and I’m not a huge fan of it [emoji849]

Yes the “alleged” is just legal speak.....because they were not married when M** was born and there has not been any legal custody issues ever filed in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[n_6CC]

I will try my best to fill in the gaps here: Emily and Jonathan lost custody because the child was considered in police protective custody. That designation can’t continue indefinitely in the state of KS. That means that she is officially a ward of the state, but that does not mean they have lost their rights to her. That process can take years. The reason Jonathan is on record as the “alleged” father is because they were not married when the child was born and there has not been any custody hearings between the two of them. It’s not saying JH isn’t the father or his parentage is being questioned, it’s more of a legal term. Kind of like saying someone is “common law” married.

As far as what happens after the reporter is kicked out of the courtroom, that is typically when the parents will be given their “court orders” in order to get any visitation with their child and guidelines they have to follow in order to continue contact. They will also be given the reasons behind the child continuing to be out of the home and whatever issues are needing to be resolved. The GAL (if there is one) will also speak on behalf of the needs of the child and generally an update on how the child is doing in their placement will be given. It’s common for unmarried couples to each have a lawyer, but if two people are married they are allowed to have their own attorney’s as well. It’s usually an indication that the parents are no longer unified in trying to retain custody together or one parent has more of a responsibility to the child being out of the home than another.

This hearing was more of a formality. Since Emily is still in jail she really doesn’t have much she can really do here. It’s JH that is the big “loser” in this hearing. It’s pretty obvious he isn’t fighting the court to keep custody of his child and that to me is very disturbing. This is where I would hope the family in NM would seek custody of M** now. She had to be considered a ward of the court before that could happen as they are out of state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly my thoughts on JH as well-that’s disturbing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ESO]

Exactly my thoughts on JH as well-that’s disturbing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m divorced and I know my ex husband would be beating down doors to keep his kids in his home. Even if it meant quitting his job to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jewels53]

I'm confused too. It did not state that Jonathan lost custody, but that he was there with his own attorney which would indicate to me he has interest. Also, he did not look at Emily which also indicates to me that he is standing on his own with this and not trying to do anything with her.
I guess another question I have is does this mean she lost custody permanently, like removing all of her rights forever?

It just says EG lost custody but not all rights to her daughter. I hope ESO comes in to explain all of this to us. I am not sure about Jonathan, maybe he has to prove he is the father?

 

[ESO]

ESO - thank you for the great explanation of the CINC - if family in NM were to obtain custody would there still be restrictions on when JH could see the child such as supervised visits, attending anger management classes, parenting classes etc?

Yes, it would be handled thru New Mexico tho with Kansas being given some input. I would hope the family has filed for a home study to be done now as they would be the best placement for M**, even if both parents lose rights. The fact she is so young speaks well for how she may come out in the end. I can’t say enough about how great the foster families are here in Wichita, but there just aren’t enough of them and placement with family is always preferred if possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ESO]

I'm confused too. It did not state that Jonathan lost custody, but that he was there with his own attorney which would indicate to me he has interest. Also, he did not look at Emily which also indicates to me that he is standing on his own with this and not trying to do anything with her.
I guess another question I have is does this mean she lost custody permanently, like removing all of her rights forever?

It just says EG lost custody but not all rights to her daughter. I hope ESO comes in to explain all of this to us. I am not sure about Jonathan, maybe he has to prove he is the father?

I’m guessing that Jonathan may be hoping to have his family out of state be able to get M** placed with them. Since he works out of state. My concern with that would be that Jonathan would then have no reason to return to Wichita on a ongoing basis but placement with family is always preferred.

This hearing was more of a formality as M** was removed and placed in protective custody. That happens a lot when say police are called to a house where there is something violent going on, so police remove the child because of immediate concerns for their safety or there is no one available at the moment to take care of the child. There is a time frame in which the parents are either given custody back or the child goes into state custody.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FindLucasAllen]

Yes, it would be handled thru New Mexico tho with Kansas being given some input. I would hope the family has filed for a home study to be done now as they would be the best placement for M**, even if both parents lose rights. The fact she is so young speaks well for how she may come out in the end. I can’t say enough about how great the foster families are here in Wichita, but there just aren’t enough of them and placement with family is always preferred if possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe the judge in the CINC case has said there are no suitable family available to care for her. I'll have to search for the link.

I disagree that family in this situation should have placement. Yes, that's highly preferable in most cases, but this isn't most cases. Emily's family is a complete no-go, in my opinion. All of them. And placing her in NM is risky, imo. Jonathan works close enough for him to have access without Kansas DCF finding out should his family choose to allow him to.

Imo, she's perfectly safe where she is. There's nearly zero risk that anyone will be allowed access to her outside of court ordered visitations.

This isn't a "normal" CINC case, imo. One parent has possibly murdered the child's brother and the other parent is publicly supporting that parent. I think all risk of unauthorized access should be eliminated and unfortunately that means family is unsuitable. In my opinion [emoji4]

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk