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

[n_6CC]

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

Yes, FLA I agree. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mistree]

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

Can you help me understand the difference of MH being I. Police protective custody, foster care and ward of the state?
Aren’t they all the same just different verbiage?

 

[n_6CC]

Most family law attorney’s require a retainer anyway before they will even appear in court for you. I’m assuming they didn’t contest anything because of the nature of this hearing......a child can’t remain in protective custody for an indefinite amount of time. And since EG is still in jail and Jonathan is well......anyway, there is no basis to object with. He’s not saying he’s not supporting EG and therefore would keep his daughter safe from her mother. And that’s what bothers me. This would be the time for him to say on record that he believes EG is abusive and a threat to MH’s safety. I wonder if he realizes he has been accused of being abusive himself and Emily was one who has been on record as saying that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes here- Their Attorney’s are guiding them based on several factors IMO-
To NOT contest something like this would make it much harder down the road to reverse it- and costly. Since JH didn’t contest this, makes me wonder what he bypassed by trying to contest it, and will there be a charge to come for him!?
MOO

 

[Stacy zelepos]

Thank you so much for always explaining things so clearly.

 

[hopingicanhelp]

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...

Right, I understand that -- We were basing our conversation off the understanding that the hearing is to toss out the statement portion of the evidence.

ESO has come in and helped explain further that EG could be contesting all evidence obtained from her phone as well, but my question was related to the idea put forth earlier that tossing her statement would do her no good because the pings, messages to JH, and possibly being seen at OG with MH did enough on their own without her personal statement or admission of wrongdoing. Supposing that the hearing only gets the statement tossed, there's enough other evidence to cook her goose for endangerment when it comes to MH. However... throwing out her statement could give her some wiggle room to offer a new explanation about Lucas's whereabouts while she & MH were at OG...if she's anticipating future charges for endangering him (or worse).

I hope I'm making sense :thinking: maybe I'm thinking too much about something irrelevant?

 

[WildcatRunner]

Right, I understand that -- We were basing our conversation off the understanding that the hearing is to toss out the statement portion of the evidence.

ESO has come in and helped explain further that EG could be contesting all evidence obtained from her phone as well, but my question was related to the idea put forth earlier that tossing her statement would do her no good because the pings, messages to JH, and possibly being seen at OG with MH did enough on their own without her personal statement or admission of wrongdoing. Supposing that the hearing only gets the statement tossed, there's enough other evidence to cook her goose for endangerment when it comes to MH. However... throwing out her statement could give her some wiggle room to offer a new explanation about Lucas's whereabouts while she & MH were at OG...if she's anticipating future charges for endangering him (or worse).

I hope I'm making sense :thinking: maybe I'm thinking too much about something irrelevant?

You are making sense completely. I don't think the attempt being made by her attorney will have a substantial effect. As you've said, they have similar evidence from other sources. But, if there's even a sliver of a chance they could get her confession thrown out, it is the duty of her attorney to try, otherwise she could argue she didn't have good representation, and in the long run, that could do a lot of harm to the case.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[DakotaMayi]

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

Chi, you make my heart full :heartbeat:

Thank you for clicking "Register".

 

[Paddleboarder]

I think being charged with child endangerment against Lucas is the least of her worries at this point. This is about the time where it’s probably hitting her she’s not getting away with this. We haven’t slowed down our searching, even if it means searching places again if we have to. Now her choices are affecting the people around her because they didn’t protect the children over her. I’d love to see the community come together to support Jaime and her family more, and I want EG to see that.

Beyond all this, I am hoping two things will change based on Lucas’s case: one would be any person unable to have unsupervised contact with their own child not be allowed to have unsupervised contact with anyone’s child....including in daycare settings, and that currently isn’t the case.
The other would be legal ramifications for parents like Jonathan, that they be faced with the same charges and consequences as the person who did the abuse.....not protecting a child in your custody should be met with the same consequences as hurting them. Until that changes, this will happen again and again. “It wasn’t me” shouldn’t be a legal excuse anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, everything you said!

 

[DakotaMayi]

ESO, um, you wanna start a class? Cause Imma need to sign up!!! :lamb:


:rolling:

 

[Paddleboarder]

BBM for focus: I would like to see this too. And I know it's not going to happen, but I wish LE would state that Jamie was cleared early on in the investigation.

JMO

Me too

 

[ESO]

Can you help me understand the difference of MH being I. Police protective custody, foster care and ward of the state?
Aren’t they all the same just different verbiage?

Being in police protective custody is a temporary designation. For instance if police are called to a scene that is in the evenings or on the weekends and a parent is being arrested and their child is with them, if there is no one immediately available (a suitable person could be a neighbor or relative), the child has to go somewhere in the meantime. It’s not just a physical location but a legal designation too until a hearing can happen in order to decide if the court will need to be involved longer term. So protective custody is just the designation between parental custody and state custody. A child in foster care can still have parents with rights to them whereas a ward of the court is usually a child who’s parents no longer have their parental rights because they were terminated.

Does that make sense? Sometimes it does in my head but in execution it’s much different [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ESO]

ESO, um, you wanna start a class? Cause Imma need to sign up!!! :lamb:


:rolling:

Hahahaha.....I will call it “talking trash and CPS”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DakotaMayi]

Hahahaha.....I will call it “talking trash and CPS”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:floorlaugh:

Just know, my iPhone now has multiple screenshots of your posts LOL. I know I'm gonna need to refer back!

 

[chihuahua]

Hahahaha.....I will call it “talking trash and CPS”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ESO that made me laugh for once today.
Thanks I will sign up also.

 

[Jasper52]

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!

Sorry if this has been answered as I'm still catching up.

From the article today;

"The child-in-need-of-care petition contended that Hernandez was not an appropriate placement for the child either."

Stepmom of missing 5-year-old Lucas Hernandez loses custody of her daughter

 

[Jewels53]

Sorry if this has been answered as I'm still catching up.

From the article today;

"The child-in-need-of-care petition contended that Hernandez was not an appropriate placement for the child either."

Stepmom of missing 5-year-old Lucas Hernandez loses custody of her daughter

There was so much in the article that my mind didn't absorb. I should have gone back and re-read and will do that now. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[raeann]

Sorry if this has been answered as I'm still catching up.

From the article today;

"The child-in-need-of-care petition contended that Hernandez was not an appropriate placement for the child either."

Stepmom of missing 5-year-old Lucas Hernandez loses custody of her daughter

Just a bit of local info to help explain the local CINC process:

The information that will be publicly available is simply that the minor child was declared a child in need of care (CINC). This does not mean that parental rights have been terminated, just that the child is now under DCF/CPS "custody". A relative placement could still be an option, but extensive home studies and evaluations would need to be completed. The child will remain in an undisclosed placement for safety and privacy reasons, regardless of where that is at this time. Any out of state placement is under the control of the local CPS authority. If they consider an out of state placement with family that requires that an ICPC (Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children) be completed. That is a process that takes weeks--if not months---to complete. In the meantime, any parent seeking to regain custody would be set up with a Case Plan in which they would be required to meet various conditions required by the court and CPS. This could range from drug treatment to parenting classes to a specified living and child care plan that is approved and monitored, among other things. Each case plan is specific to the needs of the child and the parental situation. If the implemented plan includes the option of a parent regaining custody after certain requirements are met, the court can determine that at a later time. If the parent does NOT complete or comply with the Case Plan during the specified time, their rights can either be terminated by the court or they can voluntarily sign over their rights. In Sedgwick County, ALL the children in CINC cases have an assigned GAL, all parents have the right to have their own attorney or a court appointed one if needed. Court hearings are generally held at 3 to 4 month intervals to monitor progress and make further decisions regarding placement of the child.

 

[ScarlettLin]

Can you help me understand the difference of MH being I. Police protective custody, foster care and ward of the state?
Aren’t they all the same just different verbiage?

Police protective custody is supposed to be short term, protection from imminent threat. If the child can’t be returned to some family member at that point, they go into short term foster care and go through the child in need of care process and become custody of the dcf head person I can’t remember their title - from there they go into the foster system as foster child and may be put in short term foster (parenting plan/reintegration with family to be competed) or long term (going up for adoption)- in long term the foster parent gets ‘custody’ legally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mistree]

Being in police protective custody is a temporary designation. For instance if police are called to a scene that is in the evenings or on the weekends and a parent is being arrested and their child is with them, if there is no one immediately available (a suitable person could be a neighbor or relative), the child has to go somewhere in the meantime. It’s not just a physical location but a legal designation too until a hearing can happen in order to decide if the court will need to be involved longer term. So protective custody is just the designation between parental custody and state custody. A child in foster care can still have parents with rights to them whereas a ward of the court is usually a child who’s parents no longer have their parental rights because they were terminated.

Does that make sense? Sometimes it does in my head but in execution it’s much different [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does, thank you.

 

[Blef]

So does this mean EG has temporarily or permanently lost custody of MH? I'm presuming temporarily at this point, but I just wanted to make sure.