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

[DakotaMayi]

Ahem ... a whack of posts had to be removed this morning.

Sleuthing family is not allowed (unless of course they are an officially named POI or suspect in Lucas' case). If a person is simply referenced/named in MSM, you may discuss what they have said or what is said about them in MSM, but do not sleuth them and post about it here.

Even IF the person was sleuthable, an arrest report must be linked to a a verifiable official source (MSM or LE). A screenshot from a random blog is not an official source. If the individual is not sleuthable under Websleuths rules, their arrest report is OT.

If there are questions about moderation, The Rules, or technical board issues, please Alert mods and wait for an answer rather than derail the thread with off-topic discussion.

I profusely apologize as I am still confused. (It is stupid people like me, that cause you more work, I'm sorry).

Maybe I need to take a minute, come back and re-read ...ugh, my IQ must be low today.

 

[hopingicanhelp]

I don’t think she actually *is* trying to get anything thrown out. Someone speculated that maybe she would try that and I was pointing out there’s not really anything to throw out because even if the judge says ok, we won’t use anything Emily said in interviews, there’s still evidence.

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.

 

[AFTM]

Ahem ... a whack of posts had to be removed this morning.

Sleuthing family is not allowed (unless of course they are an officially named POI or suspect in Lucas' case). If a person is simply referenced/named in MSM, you may discuss what they have said or what is said about them in MSM, but do not sleuth them and post about it here.

If the individual is not sleuthable under Websleuths rules, their arrest report is OT. Even IF the person was sleuthable, an arrest report must be linked to a a verifiable official source (MSM or LE). A screenshot from a random blog is not an official source.

If there are questions about moderation, The Rules, or technical board issues, please Alert mods and wait for an answer rather than derail the thread with off-topic discussion.

Sorry I tried to delete mine although it was not the first post about it. I just found the pic. But i was unable to delete it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[flute4peace]

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html

Excerpts:

The stepmother and caregiver of a 5-year-old Wichita boy missing for more than two months lost custody of her 1-year-old daughter on Friday.
Sedgwick County juvenile court Judge Kevin Smith found that Emily Glass’ daughter is, under state law, a “child in need of care.” The designation puts the girl in the custody of the secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families. The agency will decide where the child will live. The girl had already been placed in police protective custody.

At a hearing Friday morning, neither Glass and nor Lucas' father, Jonathan Hernandez, contested a petition filed by a prosecutor laying out a factual basis for why the 1-year-old girl should be declared a child in need of care by the state.


During the hearing, Glass, wearing an orange jail shirt and pants, dabbed at tears with a tissue. She waived her right to a hearing on whether her daughter should be found a child in need of care. Hernandez, who is listed in the petition as the "alleged father" of the girl, appeared to look straight at the judge rather than at Glass. Glass and Hernandez, who have lived together in recent years, each had their own attorney; a lawyer sat between them. Both said "yes" when asked if they understood their rights. Neither spoke at length during the brief public portion of the hearing.
After Smith ruled that the 1-year-old girl is a child in need of care, he said the rest of the court proceedings with Glass and Hernandez present were closed to an Eagle reporter who was allowed to cover the child-in-need-of-care portion.

 

[kkdj]

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html

Emily lost custody of her daughter.

 

[kkdj]

So, Emily lost custody of her daughter......did Jonathan? The article didn't say, just that it was determined MH was a child in need of care. Does Jonathan still have a chance at a later date?

 

[AFTM]

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html

Excerpts:

The stepmother and caregiver of a 5-year-old Wichita boy missing for more than two months lost custody of her 1-year-old daughter on Friday.
Sedgwick County juvenile court Judge Kevin Smith found that Emily Glass’ daughter is, under state law, a “child in need of care.” The designation puts the girl in the custody of the secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families. The agency will decide where the child will live. The girl had already been placed in police protective custody.

At a hearing Friday morning, neither Glass and nor Lucas' father, Jonathan Hernandez, contested a petition filed by a prosecutor laying out a factual basis for why the 1-year-old girl should be declared a child in need of care by the state.


During the hearing, Glass, wearing an orange jail shirt and pants, dabbed at tears with a tissue. She waived her right to a hearing on whether her daughter should be found a child in need of care. Hernandez, who is listed in the petition as the "alleged father" of the girl, appeared to look straight at the judge rather than at Glass. Glass and Hernandez, who have lived together in recent years, each had their own attorney; a lawyer sat between them. Both said "yes" when asked if they understood their rights. Neither spoke at length during the brief public portion of the hearing.
After Smith ruled that the 1-year-old girl is a child in need of care, he said the rest of the court proceedings with Glass and Hernandez present were closed to an Eagle reporter who was allowed to cover the child-in-need-of-care portion.

Maybe it is showing us something that JH is not even looking at EG. I hope so.

Thank you for this article..
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Jewels53]

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html

Excerpts:

The stepmother and caregiver of a 5-year-old Wichita boy missing for more than two months lost custody of her 1-year-old daughter on Friday.
Sedgwick County juvenile court Judge Kevin Smith found that Emily Glass’ daughter is, under state law, a “child in need of care.” The designation puts the girl in the custody of the secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families. The agency will decide where the child will live. The girl had already been placed in police protective custody.

At a hearing Friday morning, neither Glass and nor Lucas' father, Jonathan Hernandez, contested a petition filed by a prosecutor laying out a factual basis for why the 1-year-old girl should be declared a child in need of care by the state.


During the hearing, Glass, wearing an orange jail shirt and pants, dabbed at tears with a tissue. She waived her right to a hearing on whether her daughter should be found a child in need of care. Hernandez, who is listed in the petition as the "alleged father" of the girl, appeared to look straight at the judge rather than at Glass. Glass and Hernandez, who have lived together in recent years, each had their own attorney; a lawyer sat between them. Both said "yes" when asked if they understood their rights. Neither spoke at length during the brief public portion of the hearing.
After Smith ruled that the 1-year-old girl is a child in need of care, he said the rest of the court proceedings with Glass and Hernandez present were closed to an Eagle reporter who was allowed to cover the child-in-need-of-care portion.

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!

 

[Jewels53]

So no proof that Jonathan if the father of the baby. I guess it is time for a paternity test. I find it strange that neither EG or he looked at each other. Especially if Jonathan is still supporting her. imo

 

[kkdj]

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

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?

 

[AFTM]

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?

I would hope so. I also wonder how this effects the child she is carrying and what the closed portion of the hearing is about. Does anyone know?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[razzledazzle]

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html

Excerpts:

The stepmother and caregiver of a 5-year-old Wichita boy missing for more than two months lost custody of her 1-year-old daughter on Friday.
Sedgwick County juvenile court Judge Kevin Smith found that Emily Glass’ daughter is, under state law, a “child in need of care.” The designation puts the girl in the custody of the secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families. The agency will decide where the child will live. The girl had already been placed in police protective custody.

At a hearing Friday morning, neither Glass and nor Lucas' father, Jonathan Hernandez, contested a petition filed by a prosecutor laying out a factual basis for why the 1-year-old girl should be declared a child in need of care by the state.


During the hearing, Glass, wearing an orange jail shirt and pants, dabbed at tears with a tissue. She waived her right to a hearing on whether her daughter should be found a child in need of care. Hernandez, who is listed in the petition as the "alleged father" of the girl, appeared to look straight at the judge rather than at Glass. Glass and Hernandez, who have lived together in recent years, each had their own attorney; a lawyer sat between them. Both said "yes" when asked if they understood their rights. Neither spoke at length during the brief public portion of the hearing.
After Smith ruled that the 1-year-old girl is a child in need of care, he said the rest of the court proceedings with Glass and Hernandez present were closed to an Eagle reporter who was allowed to cover the child-in-need-of-care portion.

Generally speaking, can anyone speculate as to what other things might be addressed in a situation like this that the reporter was not allowed to hear?

 

[n_6CC]

http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html

Excerpts:

The stepmother and caregiver of a 5-year-old Wichita boy missing for more than two months lost custody of her 1-year-old daughter on Friday.
Sedgwick County juvenile court Judge Kevin Smith found that Emily Glass’ daughter is, under state law, a “child in need of care.” The designation puts the girl in the custody of the secretary for the Kansas Department for Children and Families. The agency will decide where the child will live. The girl had already been placed in police protective custody.

At a hearing Friday morning, neither Glass and nor Lucas' father, Jonathan Hernandez, contested a petition filed by a prosecutor laying out a factual basis for why the 1-year-old girl should be declared a child in need of care by the state.


During the hearing, Glass, wearing an orange jail shirt and pants, dabbed at tears with a tissue. She waived her right to a hearing on whether her daughter should be found a child in need of care. Hernandez, who is listed in the petition as the "alleged father" of the girl, appeared to look straight at the judge rather than at Glass. Glass and Hernandez, who have lived together in recent years, each had their own attorney; a lawyer sat between them. Both said "yes" when asked if they understood their rights. Neither spoke at length during the brief public portion of the hearing.
After Smith ruled that the 1-year-old girl is a child in need of care, he said the rest of the court proceedings with Glass and Hernandez present were closed to an Eagle reporter who was allowed to cover the child-in-need-of-care portion.

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

 

[kidetect22]

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.

 

[Helpthechildren]

Emily lost custody of her daughter
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article209903884.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AFTM]

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

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

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[kidetect22]

That’s what I’m thinking truly ....

 

[chihuahua]

I profusely apologize as I am still confused. (It is stupid people like me, that cause you more work, I'm sorry).

Maybe I need to take a minute, come back and re-read ...ugh, my IQ must be low today.

Ana dear, and everyone else working so hard in the background, you are doing your very best for Lucas in every way that you can.
You are understandably tired, overworked and lagging at times.
You are never suffering from a lower IQ. I can assure you.
Hang in there for the longhaul everyone. We did it in the CA case and it nearly killed all of us. The waiting game is a cruel game.
Most especially for the families of the missing and the lost.
In this case the "disappeared".:desert:
I do continue to believe that someone will break in this case and Lucas will be recovered.
Sadly, it may not be by the loving hands of the dedicated searchers on the ground.
It could happen at any time by pure accident like in Caylee's case.:sigh:
We will take self-saving timeouts as needed but I know I join everyone in staying committed for Lucas "Luke".
Chi:floating:floating and waiting

 

[ESO]

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.

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

 

[margarita25]

I would hope so. I also wonder how this effects the child she is carrying and what the closed portion of the hearing is about. Does anyone know?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Great questions.