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

[flute4peace]

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

Sorry, I was typing when you posted this. Thank you for explaining, your insight is so valuable here!

 

[ESO]

The reason JH is being called “alleged” father is because of the laws in the state of Kansas. If a child is born to unmarried parents, the father has to sign a form claiming paternity. Whereas when two people are married, the husband will be considered the legal father unless paternity is questioned in a court of law. If a child is born to unmarried parents, and there has never been any custody hearings before, the paternity is considered to be “alleged” but not proven to a legal certainty.

If it helps, every time you see “alleged” just change it to “assumed”......it means the same thing. It does not mean Jonathan is saying he’s not the father.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flute4peace]

I'm looking at this a different way. I feel like they know the child deserves a better life, one that they can't provide, thus the no-contest. Of course I could be the only one thinking that so...

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

 

[ESO]

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

When I say normal, I mean procedure. It was to change her status from protective custody to either parent custody or ward of the court. Until MH is officially a ward of the court, the only family placement that can be considered is family in the state.

My personal opinion is she needs to stay far away from any family and hopefully be given a chance at a normal life. When talking about what these things I’m not speaking about this case in particular, just in general. But part of the process of severing rights will be all family interested will be considered first. It’s a long process.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jewels53]

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

I wonder if this was why Jonathan wasn't looking at EG it was a ploy to look like he didn't care about her. jmo

I could be reading to much into this also.

 

[Busylady]

I don't know how it works, but I would guess the lawyers advised them not to talk to each other etc. With EG criminal case pending it could be risky for them to have conversations that were not monitored.

 

[kkdj]

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

Gosh, That's so sad. Here you have 2 parents with extended family and there's nobody to be trusted to not allow access to the dysfuntional parents that the courts have thus far deemed unfit. They all know EG harmed Lucas and JH looked the other way. How could they not protect a precious vulnerable little child from them?

 

[Sillybilly]

Please do NOT use the name of a minor child (other than the victim).

Thanks.

 

[NebraskaGirl]

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

But doesn’t the alleged have to do with the birth certificate? If he’s on the birth certificate as the father, then legally he’s the father regardless of whether they’re married.

For example, my unmarried daughter just had a baby. Her BF isn’t on the birth certificate at this point for various reasons. That means he’s the “alleged” father. But if she had put him on at the hospital, he would be the legal father. If they had been married, he would be on the birth certificate whether he’s the father or not. And someone who isn’t the biological father of a child can be put on the birth certificate as long as he’s willing to sign it.

So I’m wondering if the legal docs using “alleged” means he’s not on the birth certificate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FindLucasAllen]

Gosh, That's so sad. Here you have 2 parents with extended family and there's nobody to be trusted to not allow access to the dysfuntional parents that the courts have thus far deemed unfit. They all know EG harmed Lucas and JH looked the other way. How could they not protect a precious vulnerable little child from them?

I'm 100% not saying that any family member would harm her or allow unsupervised access, but I do think the risk of access outside of court orders would be possible. I don't think any of Jonathan's family members would look the other way if he harmed her. Not that he would harm her. But there's so much going on in this case that it's just too risky, imo.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

 

[kkdj]

So......I'm assuming EG also has a court case open in child custody re her 2 sons with her ex. Is that now another separate atty?

 

[ESO]

But doesn’t the alleged have to do with the birth certificate? If he’s on the birth certificate as the father, then legally he’s the father regardless of whether they’re married.

For example, my unmarried daughter just had a baby. Her BF isn’t on the birth certificate at this point for various reasons. That means he’s the “alleged” father. But if she had put him on at the hospital, he would be the legal father. If they had been married, he would be on the birth certificate whether he’s the father or not. And someone who isn’t the biological father of a child can be put on the birth certificate as long as he’s willing to sign it.

So I’m wondering if the legal docs using “alleged” means he’s not on the birth certificate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. It’s confusing to explain, but they aren’t saying his paternity is being questioned......it has to do with the fact they were not married when she was born. When people who are married are divorced, there is a process you go thru because your rights as a parent are legally protected. Whereas in unmarried couples, just being the father on a birth certificate doesn’t necessarily mean you have any legal rights to custody to that child unless it’s been established in a court. The “alleged” thing really throws people, it really just means assumed and not proven to a legal certainty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kkdj]

I'm 100% not saying that any family member would harm her or allow unsupervised access, but I do think the risk of access outside of court orders would be possible. I don't think any of Jonathan's family members would look the other way if he harmed her. Not that he would harm her. But there's so much going on in this case that it's just too risky, imo.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

Gotcha. That makes good sense.

 

[ESO]

I'm 100% not saying that any family member would harm her or allow unsupervised access, but I do think the risk of access outside of court orders would be possible. I don't think any of Jonathan's family members would look the other way if he harmed her. Not that he would harm her. But there's so much going on in this case that it's just too risky, imo.

Sent from my SM-S327VL using Tapatalk

I agree......I don’t want JH to have any reason NOT to have to return to KS on a regular basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lonetraveler]

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!

Just my two cents worth here but I think it's strange that the father didn't even contest losing his "alleged" daughter.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[lonetraveler]

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?

Neither JH nor EG contested the prosecution

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[kkdj]

Just my two cents worth here but I think it's strange that the father didn't even contest losing his "alleged" daughter.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

He was probably advised thru his attorney. He didn't protect our little Lucas from harm and other children are talking about he himself being abusive. How could anybody expect a little one year old to be able to even tell anyone if she was being neglected, unfed, etc. It's really best she's not in his care. He doesn't have a good track record.

 

[ESO]

So......I'm assuming EG also has a court case open in child custody re her 2 sons with her ex. Is that now another separate atty?

Yes that will be a separate case because the children’s father has full custody of them. His children won’t have to go thru this process that MH will. Emily may use the same attorney but a criminal attorney appointed by the state isn’t contractually required to represent her in family court. You don’t have the same right to a court appointed attorney in any court other than criminal. Most parents will want a family law attorney to represent them in those cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WildcatRunner]

Oh I agree and don't think throwing out the confession would do anything for her with other evidence and LL witness, but I was just sort of trying to imagine EG's "new explanation" for why Lucas wasn't at OG (if and only IF both confession is thrown out and attorney can make LL appear "mistaken" or unreliable). I guess my question I'm wanting to discuss it -- what is the point if they succeed in getting the confession thrown out? My guess is that she's already working strategy to prevent a child endangerment arrest for Lucas being left home alone since that wasn't in the messages to JH.

Her current charge has nothing to do with Lucas being at home. It has to do with her driving under the influence with her other child in the car. The current case requires no explanation as to where Lucas was, as he isn't a party in the current charge.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[razzledazzle]

I think JH and EG themselves should both voluntarily request that their parental rights be terminated immediately! No since dragging out some plan for possible unification or visitation. Geez! They need to give this child a chance to be adopted quickly. IMO JMO