NC - Erica Lynn Parsons, 13, Rowan County, 19 Nov 2011 - #5

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
But, what does it mean that they must explain what happened to her without facing criminal charges? Is that true? I mean if they admitted to killing her would the "without criminal charges" still stand?
 
But, what does it mean that they must explain what happened to her without facing criminal charges? Is that true? I mean if they admitted to killing her would the "without criminal charges" still stand?

I took that sentence to mean that they can't have done anything criminal to her, anything that would result in criminal charges. JMO
 
CP has 90 days to create a new tale :liar: of where Erica is or what happened to her. I wonder who's going under this bus this time.
 
I took this as, the Parsons can't have the kids back until they produce Erica.
And they have to produce Erica without having any criminal charges against them by law enforcement.
In other words Erica has to be safe and sound and cared for without anything criminal done towards her by the couple.
I think this is a great win for the children.
 
On Thursday, the judge set a list of requirements that must be met by Casey and Sandy, including drug testing and anger counseling for Sandy Parsons.

The judge also ruled that the Parsons must prove that Erica Parsons is alive or explain what happened to her without facing any criminal charges.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/24473896/parsons-denied-custody-of-youngest-children


The WBTV article above has been updated to say:

The judge also ruled that the Parsons must prove that Erica Parsons is alive or explain what happened to her without sparking any criminal charges.
 
I took this as, the Parsons can't have the kids back until they produce Erica.
And they have to produce Erica without having any criminal charges against them by law enforcement.
In other words Erica has to be safe and sound and cared for without anything criminal done towards her by the couple.
I think this is a great win for the children.

Thank you, this was the first post that made this make any sense to me.
 
I feel that maybe LE are asking for more time to get their info to charge. Keeping the parsons semi happy that they may have a chance to get the kids back so they don't do a runner.. That's just my thoughts anyway. Hopefully the grandparents ARNT saying much to the kids about the court cases so the kids don't have hope lifted about being with mum and dad.
Interesting part will be to see them produce erica now.......
 
What did CP win; a reprieve from taking care of the children?
:floorlaugh:

On Thursday, the judge set a list of requirements that must be met by Casey and Sandy, including drug testing and anger counseling for Sandy Parsons.

The judge also ruled that the Parsons must prove that Erica Parsons is alive or explain what happened to her without facing any criminal charges.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/24473896/parsons-denied-custody-of-youngest-children
Well done that judge!
 
Looks like the adoptive couple are facing a dilemma. Produce a live Erica or explain what happened to her. Hmm, it's been six months and I guess their "search efforts" haven't been successful so far. I don't expect to see anything changing so I hope permanent custody of the two children will be given to the aunt.
And SP has to take anger management classes. Who woulda thunk it?!
 
Are C&S still getting visitation? I don't like the little ones continuing in limbo, and visitation just keeps them wondering if they're going to go back to C&S. I didn't see anything about it in today's articles though.
 
I think they would still have visitation since family reunification is the normal goal when DSS becomes involved. I don't agree that family reunification should be the primary goal; IMO it should be whatever is best for the child which is not always to be returned to the parents.
I don't know if there is a specific time period for the court to decide on permanent placement but I agree that it would seem to keep the children in some state of anxiety to not know for sure where they'll be living.
I'm wondering about the drug testing that the court ordered; that would either be illegal drugs or abuse of prescription medication I guess?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
520
Total visitors
651

Forum statistics

Threads
606,194
Messages
18,200,344
Members
233,767
Latest member
nancydrewmom
Back
Top