KY KY - Crystal Rogers, 35, Bluegrass Parkway, 3 July 2015 #1

[karenky]

WHAS11
But in the midst of a community helping there's a pain that can't be filled, Roger's parents tell us her boyfriend Brooks Houck is not letting anyone see Roger's youngest child as Tommy Ballard, Crystal Rogers' father mentioned, "Her boyfriend's got him, he won't let his brother and sisters see him." There are five children total that are without their mother. Tommy Ballard adds, "I can't imagine what that baby is going through not being able to see his brothers or sisters."


http://www.whas11.com/story/news/local/2015/08/01/vigil-held-for-missing-nelson-co-mom-of-five/30977931/

 

[krig101]

WHAS11
But in the midst of a community helping there's a pain that can't be filled, Roger's parents tell us her boyfriend Brooks Houck is not letting anyone see Roger's youngest child as Tommy Ballard, Crystal Rogers' father mentioned, "Her boyfriend's got him, he won't let his brother and sisters see him." There are five children total that are without their mother. Tommy Ballard adds, "I can't imagine what that baby is going through not being able to see his brothers or sisters."


http://www.whas11.com/story/news/local/2015/08/01/vigil-held-for-missing-nelson-co-mom-of-five/30977931/

What an absolute [emoji241]!!!!

It's because that child seen everything, Not a doubt in my mind!

Can her parents take him to court?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[MommyDoll2]

What an absolute [emoji241]!!!!

It's because that child seen everything, Not a doubt in my mind!

Can her parents take him to court?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

The parents have been so focused on finding Crystal but soon they need to file a suit for custody (of 2 yr old) with the hopes of getting partial custody or at least visitation. That baby has not seen his mother or siblings in a month. Terrible situation!

 

[Elle*Bee]

What an absolute [emoji241]!!!!

It's because that child seen everything, Not a doubt in my mind!

Can her parents take him to court?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

According to the Kentucky Legal Aid website, courts can grand grandparents visitation if they feel it's in the best interest of the child. In my personal opinion, maintaining the relationship with the baby's half siblings should weigh strongly in their favor.

http://kyjustice.org/node/1621

 

[krig101]

According to the Kentucky Legal Aid website, courts can grand grandparents visitation if they feel it's in the best interest of the child. In my personal opinion, maintaining the relationship with the baby's half siblings should weigh strongly in their favor.

http://kyjustice.org/node/1621

Thanks for the link [emoji1] I definitely think that the court will rule in the grandparents favor JMO

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[krig101]

The parents have been so focused on finding Crystal but soon they need to file a suit for custody (of 2 yr old) with the hopes of getting partial custody or at least visitation. That baby has not seen his mother or siblings in a month. Terrible situation!

Yes the poor child Shame on his dad.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Elle*Bee]

Thanks for the link [emoji1] I definitely think that the court will rule in the grandparents favor JMO

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I was pleased to see that the KY courts (and many other states) will consider grandparents' rights. I've been out of the loop in this regard for several years, but I do recall LA cases in the late 80's that didn't acknowledge grandparents' right. I hope BF does the right thing and allow Crystal's parents visitation. Otherwise, it will be very hard for him to claim to be a loving, supportive positive adult figure in the lives of Crystal's kids.

 

[travelbug]

Thanks for the link [emoji1] I definitely think that the court will rule in the grandparents favor JMO

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Sadly, IMO it won't matter what decision the court makes because he is the type of guy who won't comply. He will hide the little guy or just disappear with him. :moo:

 

[steelman]

I don't know what BH has against this family, but he seems hell bent on making their lives as miserable as humanly possible, and that includes the disappearance of Crystal along with the rest of it. For whatever reason, he seems intent on making these folks pay for something, we just don't know what that something is.

 

[krig101]

Could be but I'm still partial to thinking he just does not want the poor child to tell Crystal's family that he seen daddy hurting mommy.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[karenky]

I don't know what BH has against this family, but he seems hell bent on making their lives as miserable as humanly possible, and that includes the disappearance of Crystal along with the rest of it. For whatever reason, he seems intent on making these folks pay for something, we just don't know what that something is.

I'm worried that someone is going to get hurt. Crystal's family has been handling this with such class and has gained the respect of people from far and wide. Please pray that they can continue to hang on.

 

[Cricket99]

:lurk:

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

According to the Kentucky Legal Aid website, courts can grand grandparents visitation if they feel it's in the best interest of the child. In my personal opinion, maintaining the relationship with the baby's half siblings should weigh strongly in their favor.

http://kyjustice.org/node/1621

But what about Troxel v. Granville in the Supreme Court? They decided grandparents do not have any legal rights to visitation.

In the case of Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court stated that "the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court."[SUP][2][/SUP] The Supreme Court also made it clear that this fundamental right is implicated in grandparent visitation cases. The plurality opinion stated at the outset that statutes allowing grandparent visitation orders to be imposed over parental objection "present questions of constitutional import." The Supreme Court flatly declared that "the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children", and struck down the Washington visitation statute because it unconstitutionally infringed on that fundamental parental right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville

 

[TeaTime]

No woman voluntarily leaves her unlocked car on the side of the road in the middle of the night, with the keys in the ignition and her purse and cell phone on the passenger seat, flat tire or no flat tire.

She didn't call for help after getting a flat tire which is the first thing she would have done after pulling the car to a stop.

CONCLUSION: She did not drive the car to the scene.

Why do I say this? Because this would require a coincidence of mass proportion meaning that someone just so happened to be hanging out at that exact spot on a long, dark, lonesome highway and was upon her so quickly that she didn't have time to make a call. Preposterous.

The scene was staged with all the 'right' things: purse; keys; phone to make it look like she left the house of her own free will.

What is missing? Her own luggage or bag. If she was going to her cousin's for the night after a fight - she would have brought some things along. There probably was a fight since that is what BF said she has done in the past after an argument as the reason he didn't worry when she was gone. No luggage - she wasn't going to cousin's house.

This is just my opinion.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

What is missing? Her own luggage or bag. If she was going to her cousin's for the night after a fight - she would have brought some things along. There probably was a fight since that is what BF said she has done in the past after an argument as the reason he didn't worry when she was gone. No luggage - she wasn't going to cousin's house.

This is just my opinion.

Very good point!

 

[krig101]

No woman voluntarily leaves her unlocked car on the side of the road in the middle of the night, with the keys in the ignition and her purse and cell phone on the passenger seat, flat tire or no flat tire.

She didn't call for help after getting a flat tire which is the first thing she would have done after pulling the car to a stop.

CONCLUSION: She did not drive the car to the scene.

Why do I say this? Because this would require a coincidence of mass proportion meaning that someone just so happened to be hanging out at that exact spot on a long, dark, lonesome highway and was upon her so quickly that she didn't have time to make a call. Preposterous.

The scene was staged with all the 'right' things: purse; keys; phone to make it look like she left the house of her own free will.

What is missing? Her own luggage or bag. If she was going to her cousin's for the night after a fight - she would have brought some things along. There probably was a fight since that is what BF said she has done in the past after an argument as the reason he didn't worry when she was gone. No luggage - she wasn't going to cousin's house.

This is just my opinion.

Yes yes and yes!!!!

Even if there was no signal on her cell as been suggested as a possibility, it would still show that she attempted to make a call.

The luggage is a fantastic point!

She was never driving that car. IMO

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[cady]

No woman voluntarily leaves her unlocked car on the side of the road in the middle of the night, with the keys in the ignition and her purse and cell phone on the passenger seat, flat tire or no flat tire.

She didn't call for help after getting a flat tire which is the first thing she would have done after pulling the car to a stop.

CONCLUSION: She did not drive the car to the scene.

Why do I say this? Because this would require a coincidence of mass proportion meaning that someone just so happened to be hanging out at that exact spot on a long, dark, lonesome highway and was upon her so quickly that she didn't have time to make a call. Preposterous.

The scene was staged with all the 'right' things: purse; keys; phone to make it look like she left the house of her own free will.

What is missing? Her own luggage or bag. If she was going to her cousin's for the night after a fight - she would have brought some things along. There probably was a fight since that is what BF said she has done in the past after an argument as the reason he didn't worry when she was gone. No luggage - she wasn't going to cousin's house.

This is just my opinion.

Did he say that they had an argument? Did anyone ask him what it was about? I agree. She was not driving that car. JMO

 

[Eileen730]

No woman voluntarily leaves her unlocked car on the side of the road in the middle of the night, with the keys in the ignition and her purse and cell phone on the passenger seat, flat tire or no flat tire.

She didn't call for help after getting a flat tire which is the first thing she would have done after pulling the car to a stop.

CONCLUSION: She did not drive the car to the scene.

Why do I say this? Because this would require a coincidence of mass proportion meaning that someone just so happened to be hanging out at that exact spot on a long, dark, lonesome highway and was upon her so quickly that she didn't have time to make a call. Preposterous.

The scene was staged with all the 'right' things: purse; keys; phone to make it look like she left the house of her own free will.

What is missing? Her own luggage or bag. If she was going to her cousin's for the night after a fight - she would have brought some things along. There probably was a fight since that is what BF said she has done in the past after an argument as the reason he didn't worry when she was gone. No luggage - she wasn't going to cousin's house.

This is just my opinion.

The BBM.. How many timesa day do we read this exact same thing on these threads, Men and women, its always the same. Left all these things behind!

None of them end well but I do not think it was staged. I think she was there and met someone she got out of her car got into the other persons and has never been seen again.

 

[TeaTime]

Cady, not that I know of, just stating that BF's reason for not being concerned when he woke and she was gone and had not returned by Sunday was that she has , in the past, left to go to her cousin's house after they argued. Why would he bring it up if they hadn't? Just to explain why he didn't bother to call LE. Surely, LE followed up on the argument issue.

 

[TeaTime]

The BBM.. How many timesa day do we read this exact same thing on these threads, Men and women, its always the same. Left all these things behind!

None of them end well but I do not think it was staged. I think she was there and met someone she got out of her car got into the other persons and has never been seen again.

So you think she met up with someone she knew and got into another car for a little rendezvous on the side of the highway? I can't see it, but people have done stranger things in the name of 'love'.