OK OK, Veronica Butler 27 & Jilian Kelley 39, Vehicle Abandoned, Texas County, 30 Mar 2024

[MassGuy]

What I recall from the on air interview was that the window referred to was driver side window. Nothing about windshield or passenger side windows or rear door of SUV.

Which makes sense, as that’s the person you need to first incapacitate. Do that, and the second victim can’t use the vehicle to flee.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Yes. Sorry for any confusion. I'm used to using CPS/Child Protective Services. Each State has a slightly different spin on what the agency is called.

I wasn't confused on the agency you meant, but I'm unclear why you'd expect them to remove the kids?
From what I've read here, the grandmother has custody of them. (I've not read any of the court docs posted, just what's been discussed here).
Since there have been zero charges against her or anyone else, it doesn't make sense for a state agency to come in and remove the children from their home.

jmo

 

[Cecelia]

I wasn't confused on the agency you meant, but I'm unclear why you'd expect them to remove the kids?
From what I've read here, the grandmother has custody of them. (I've not read any of the court docs posted, just what's been discussed here).
Since there have been zero charges against her or anyone else, it doesn't make sense for a state agency to come in and remove the children from their home.

jmo

State DCF (or whatever the agency is called) might remove the kids for any of the usual reasons the state might remove kids from their environment, particularly if they have reason to believe the kids are unsafe. If whoever has custody is suspected of [something], for example. ETA, charges might not need to be filed before such removal.

 

[whitelilac]

I wasn't confused on the agency you meant, but I'm unclear why you'd expect them to remove the kids?
From what I've read here, the grandmother has custody of them. (I've not read any of the court docs posted, just what's been discussed here).
Since there have been zero charges against her or anyone else, it doesn't make sense for a state agency to come in and remove the children from their home.

jmo

I am not sure the grandmother has custody, in the legal sense. From what I understand, the father has custody but since he is allegedly in rehab, the children are with his mother. <modsnip: no source link>

 

[NDreu]

I wasn't confused on the agency you meant, but I'm unclear why you'd expect them to remove the kids?
From what I've read here, the grandmother has custody of them. (I've not read any of the court docs posted, just what's been discussed here).
Since there have been zero charges against her or anyone else, it doesn't make sense for a state agency to come in and remove the children from their home.

jmo

Based on the documents available for discussion, imo your question cannot be answered here on WS.

 

[MassGuy]

State DCF (or whatever the agency is called) might remove the kids for any of the usual reasons the state might remove kids from their environment, particularly if they have reason to believe the kids are unsafe. If whoever has custody is suspected of [something], for example. ETA, charges might not need to be filed before such removal.

That generally doesn't seem to happen in cases like this. We've followed ones on here where we knew custody was the probable motive, and with near certainty who the offender was. Even then, the status quo remains until arrest, as law enforcement doesn't want to tip their hand prior to that.

I have my own very strong suspicions as to what happened here, but I'm not concerned at this point.

 

[Ontario Mom]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed> Based on the fact there have been zero charges against anyone with guardianship (thank you @whitelilac for clarifying), there doesn't appear to be a legal reason to remove the children from their home, at this time.

Just because folks online assume certain people are involved in the disappearance of the children's mother and her friend, doesn't mean they actually are. If it turns out certain people are actually involved, then that's a discussion for after the charges are made public.

jmo

 

[Betty P]

I wasn't confused on the agency you meant, but I'm unclear why you'd expect them to remove the kids?
From what I've read here, the grandmother has custody of them. (I've not read any of the court docs posted, just what's been discussed here).
Since there have been zero charges against her or anyone else, it doesn't make sense for a state agency to come in and remove the children from their home.

jmo

Not sure if this was the decision-making process in this case, but in other cases that involved foul play against parents in a custody battle, children were removed to the care of a foster family whose identity and location is confidential. If there's foul play against one parent in the custody battle, LE assumes the other parties in the custody case may try to kidnap or otherwise harm the children. IOW if mom's in a custody battle with dad and happens to get hurt, kidnapped or murdered, babies are hidden away in case dad or his assistants try to kidnap them and do harm to others in the effort. It's a precaution to protect kids.

ETA: Once LE finds out what happened to these women, the courts will make a decision about where children should live in the longer term or if they should have some visitation with family. But until they find the women and/or arrest the person who harmed them, the kids location info will probably remain sealed by the court.

Pike County shootings - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Ontario Mom]

Not sure if this was the decision-making process in this case, but in other cases that involved foul play against parents in a custody battle, children were removed to the care of a foster family whose identity and location is confidential. If there's foul play against one parent in the custody battle, LE assumes the other parties in the custody case may try to kidnap or otherwise harm the children. IOW if mom's in a custody battle with dad and happens to get murdered, babies are hidden away in case dad or his assistants try to kidnap them and do harm to others in the effort.

I can understand that happening in very specific cases where LE have reason to believe the children may be in danger.
In this case, since we haven't heard anything along those lines, my guess would be that either:
They've already been removed and we just haven't heard about it (entirely possible) or,
LE don't have any reason to fear for the safety of the children. Also entirely possible.

 

[Chimera]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>
Hoping for a break soon !
It's already been too long, and tbh I fear the worst ; for two women to be gone for this length of time, and for neither of them to have made contact with anyone ...
Omo.

 

[Cecelia]

Based on the fact there have been zero charges against anyone with guardianship (thank you @whitelilac for clarifying), there doesn't appear to be a legal reason to remove the children from their home, at this time.

Like I said, charges aren't always necessary. I'm not in OK but in my state and other states where I have friends, kids can be removed from a home where abuse or neglect is suspected without actual charges being filed, especially if it's deemed an emergency. It happens all the time, and is controversial (there are whole online communities devoted to CPS abuses, cases where kids were wrongfully removed due to political/personal issues), but it happens quite a lot in the United States. MOO, etc.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Like I said, charges aren't always necessary. I'm not in OK but in my state and other states where I have friends, kids can be removed from a home where abuse or neglect is suspected without actual charges being filed, especially if it's deemed an emergency. It happens all the time, and is controversial (there are whole online communities devoted to CPS abuses, cases where kids were wrongfully removed due to political/personal issues), but it happens quite a lot in the United States. MOO, etc.

Unfortunately it happens here as well.

The original OP never mentioned the kids being removed due to suspicions of abuse or neglect so I wasn't responding based on that. My guess would be folks just simply assume the person in care of the children has something to do with this, therefore the kids should be removed from their care.

If LE have evidence that causes them to also lean that way, then I agree, they should be.
But so far, we haven't heard anything indicating that LE have cause to make such a move.

 

[PommyMommy]

Heading to #Oklahoma searching for answers in a mysterious case. More tomorrow on
@NewsNation as we report on the two #missingmoms, #VeronicaButler & #JillianKelley who vanished under suspicious circumstances in a very remote area . I’ll take you to the scene of the investigation this week

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777023923382620163

 

[MassGuy]

Heading to #Oklahoma searching for answers in a mysterious case. More tomorrow on
@NewsNation as we report on the two #missingmoms, #VeronicaButler & #JillianKelley who vanished under suspicious circumstances in a very remote area . I’ll take you to the scene of the investigation this week

https://twitter.com/x/status/1777023923382620163

View attachment 495739

Good, because I think this is going to be a very big week as far as the investigation goes. I think we’ll see some movement.

 

[Trino]

Based on the fact there have been zero charges against anyone with guardianship (thank you @whitelilac for clarifying), there doesn't appear to be a legal reason to remove the children from their home, at this time.

Just because folks online assume certain people are involved in the disappearance of the children's mother and her friend, doesn't mean they actually are. If it turns out certain people are actually involved, then that's a discussion for after the charges are made public.

jmo

Ah, but the grandmother does NOT have legal custody. She is a guardian. Her son has legal custody. Kids can be swooped up and taken.

 

[NDreu]

Unfortunately it happens here as well.

The original OP never mentioned the kids being removed due to suspicions of abuse or neglect so I wasn't responding based on that. My guess would be folks just simply assume the person in care of the children has something to do with this, therefore the kids should be removed from their care.

If LE have evidence that causes them to also lean that way, then I agree, they should be.
But so far, we haven't heard anything indicating that LE have cause to make such a move.

The motivation for the original statement was that the childrens mother has been missing for a week under suspicious circumstances that LE termed 'foul play'. I've seen children removed in other cases as an abundance of caution where LE has no answers to what is going on with the situation regarding the 'missing' parent where violence is involved.

Seems like such a move might be prudent in this case as OSBI given that they themselves have claimed to still be investigating and as of 2 days ago didn't even have the timing of departure of the 2 women, arrival time in OK, location of arrival in OK and time, understanding of how women's SUV ended up where it was found, any knowledge of WR location, unable to confirm cooperation of WR or family etc. In short, the public statements have said little, most likely by design, but if they are even 1/2 true imo the children should be moved to safety and held in a secure location away from potential danger.

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

The motivation for the original statement was that the childrens mother has been missing for a week under suspicious circumstances that LE termed 'foul play'. I've seen children removed in other cases as an abundance of caution where LE has no answers to what is going on with the situation regarding the 'missing' parent where violence is involved.

Seems like such a move might be prudent in this case as OSBI given that they themselves have claimed to still be investigating and as of 2 days ago didn't even have the timing of departure of the 2 women, arrival time in OK, location of arrival in OK and time, understanding of how women's SUV ended up where it was found, any knowledge of WR location, unable to confirm cooperation of WR or family etc. In short, the public statements have said little, most likely by design, but if they are even 1/2 true imo the children should be moved to safety and held in a secure location away from potential danger.

MOO

If there's any danger to the kids, then they should certainly be in a safe place.

 

[nao]

Moo...I do not see that the children are in any known danger.
I would bet older pickup truck or trucks were used. They will be as common as dirt out there. I think the women saw something ahead on hwy that spooked them so they cut to side road. And that turned into a mistake for them sadly....moo

 

[Betty P]

I can understand that happening in very specific cases where LE have reason to believe the children may be in danger.
In this case, since we haven't heard anything along those lines, my guess would be that either:
They've already been removed and we just haven't heard about it (entirely possible) or,
LE don't have any reason to fear for the safety of the children. Also entirely possible.

True, but its also possible they have removed the children for their safety. Who knows. The fact that they're saying very little about this case, including info about the children, indicates they're concerned about something. Evidence of foul play is also relevant as is the history of violent behavior by the ex husband.

There's a lot the public doesn't know.

 

[CuriousCricket]

If there's any danger to the kids, then they should certainly be in a safe place.

How can they possibly know? This seems unexpected as VB's request for police to accompany her at the exchange was deemed unnecessary -- and now, she's gone. LE and the court system simply can't know at this point, can they?