POLL ADDED Connect The Dots-Working theories thread #2

[Aedrys]

Respectfully, Donjeta...

IMHO, the RO taken against her under these dire circumstances, is an insurmountable obstacle, as long as her role in Kyron's disappearance is in question, even as a de facto suspect. I truly believe there is no way she can challenge it successfully until LE comes right out and declares her to not be suspect.

And yes, in most divorces the children live primarily with one parent. In most cases that parent is the mother, although more fathers nowadays are seeking primary caregiver status. I find it most unusual that a mother would cede primary custody to 2 separate ex husbands. DY and her current husband appear to have a good marriage and they are both gainfully employed. It just seems peculiar to me that DY has not fought harder to obtain custody, at least of little Kyron, particularly in view of her statements that he cried when he had to go back home after his twice a month visits.

And that makes her a bad mom or a criminal? I know lots of moms that love having that dad to send their kid to as many times a month as possible so they get a break. I don't think they'd know what to do if they had to take care of their kids fulltime. Plus, time has passed. Just like it's going to be harder for TH to fight the RO and get custody the more time she lets pass, I'm sure that because eight years or so has gone by, DY has lost a lot of standing on custody issues. Maybe she's decided not to disrupt things they way they are for her kids sake. I don't understand why this makes her the same as TH. We don't know her personally, she didn't do anything wrong to Kyron, and no negativity should be put on a loving mother that is a VICTIM of having lost her very cherished son, most likely because of spiteful and selfish stepmother.

And if she didn't want an insurmountable obstacle on herself, TH shouldn't have tried to get someone to kill her husband and then cancel it. She doesn't want trouble, she shouldn't start it in the first place.

 

[citigirl]

I have heard gitana's feelings before on the restraining order, so I think I understand where she is coming from. As an attorney, gitana knows that Terri's lawyer HAD to tell her that if she does not contest the restraining order she will never get her daughter back. She may never even see her again. And many of you think that if Terri is completely innocent, she would not give up her daughter this way. I agree with you.

But...if we were to take Cypress's argument to the logical conclusion, Terri's emotional issues might mean that she WOULD put herself before her daughter. That if she felt threatened, even if she were completely innocent, she might risk never seeing her daughter again to keep herself out of jail. Maybe this "perfect mother" image has been too difficult to keep up any way....

 

[citigirl]

I have heard gitana's feelings before on the restraining order, so I think I understand where she is coming from. As an attorney, gitana knows that Terri's lawyer HAD to tell her that if she does not contest the restraining order she will never get her daughter back. She may never even see her again. And many of you think that if Terri is completely innocent, she would not give up her daughter this way. I agree with you.

But...if we were to take Cypress's argument to the logical conclusion, Terri's emotional issues might mean that she WOULD put herself before her daughter. That if she felt threatened, even if she were completely innocent, she might risk never seeing her daughter again to keep herself out of jail. Maybe this "perfect mother" image has been too difficult to keep up any way....

sorry, gitana--I posted this at the same time as you posted your response!

 

[Donjeta]

Respectfully, Donjeta...

IMHO, the RO taken against her under these dire circumstances, is an insurmountable obstacle, as long as her role in Kyron's disappearance is in question, even as a de facto suspect. I truly believe there is no way she can challenge it successfully until LE comes right out and declares her to not be suspect.

And yes, in most divorces the children live primarily with one parent. In most cases that parent is the mother, although more fathers nowadays are seeking primary caregiver status. I find it most unusual that a mother would cede primary custody to 2 separate ex husbands. DY and her current husband appear to have a good marriage and they are both gainfully employed. It just seems peculiar to me that DY has not fought harder to obtain custody, at least of little Kyron, particularly in view of her statements that he cried when he had to go back home after his twice a month visits.

The RO may be an insurmountable obstacle now and Terri might not have a choice to fight it but it might be that she is in that position now because of choices that she made in the past.

I don't know why Desiree didn't fight for the primary custody. Maybe it was felt that Kyron had adjusted well and generally had it all right in his present situation. Lots of children from divorced families take the separations hard from time to time and it doesn't always mean that they are suffering where they are and should be better off if they were uprooted from their school, from their friends and shipped off to the other home. What if Kyron had then cried when he had to leave Kaine after the visits? If he didn't cry because he was abused at the other home but because he was going to miss the parent he was leaving he could have cried wherever he lived. Would his living arrangements have been changed again?

Sometimes it takes the stronger and better parent not to fight for custody because custody fights can easily turn a reasonably well functioning amicable blended family situation into a totally toxic one and it's not in the best interest of the children. I'm not sure why mothers who have weekend visitation should be judged by different standards than fathers who have weekend visitation.

 

[Kimster]

I've mentioned this before but it may have gotten lost.

I know for a FACT that if a parent lets the non-custodial parent keep a child for a certain number of days in a row in the State of Oregon, the non-custodial parent can get custody quite easily. I believe it is 60 or 90 days, I can't remember on that? :waitasec: Not only did my ex get custody of one of his kids in that way, I heard that fact coming from his attorney's mouth.

Also, if there is no change in circumstances for two years, in Oregon you cannot try to change custody of a child. After two years, you can go before the judge to try and change custody, but you'd better have a good reason. Oregon believes kids are better off in a stable environment and is loathe to change orders without good reason.

Believe me, my ex had some serious issues with the bio-mom and went round and round with her for years. I've heard it over and over.

 

[cypress]

I've believed Terri to be responsible, but found the theory by Cypress to be very compelling and thought provoking.

But what about the RO that she hasn't challenged? Cypress, you didn't mention that. And, Gitana, I suspect this is your main reason for holding to the view that Terri really is guilty,

Would love to hear more from both sleuths.

I strongly believe if Terri hadn't sexted Michael Cook, Houze and Bunch would be fighting for custody/visitation of baby K. However, because of Terri's overall poor choices regarding Michael Cook, in addition to the general cloud of suspicion surrounding her as a result of Kyron's disappearance, her character was firmly, undeniably called into question. We know the sexting happened, so what else is true? What other poor choices has she made?

IMHO, Houze is going to eventually fight for, at minimum, visitation of the baby. Before then, though, Terri needs a better track record. IMHO, Terri living with her parents, keeping a low profile, staying out of trouble, and abiding by Houze's rules, is Houze's way of establishing that track record. If Terri has several months of living in ways that are deemed normal and acceptable then the situation with Michael Cook can be made an anomaly born out of stress as opposed to a way of life. IMHO, this is why Terri hasn't spoken to the press, made many public appearances, etc. I don't believe for a second Terri is hiding. IMHO, Houze gave Terri a set of guidelines laying out what she needed to do in order for him to work to get her daughter back (or at least see her). IMHO, Terri is working toward that end.

Ideally, Houze and Bunch want the abatement, but IMHO, Terri making the court appearance a few weeks ago was preparatory in nature. Her lawyers want what they want, but they will have a back-up plan, and IMHO, the back-up plan will not involve concessions. IMHO, Kaine and his attorney are expecting Terri and Houze to challenge the RO, which is why he dropped the contempt motion. He wants to be seen in a favorable light. Why would it matter if Kaine and his attorney believed Houze and Terri were going to quietly fade into the background?

I don't expect the abatement to be granted, but I do expect Houze and Bunch to defend Terri's rights and interests. Provided Terri adheres to the rules Houze has set forth and doesn't make any other blunders, I fully expect Houze and Bunch to challenge the RO when the abatement is denied. Time will tell, though.

 

[Donjeta]

The sexting showed bad judgement in the circumstances but it is not a crime and it does not endanger the children if it's strictly between adults in their private moments. IMO mere sexting is not a reason to keep children from seeing their parents.

 

[Aedrys]

I strongly believe if Terri hadn't sexted Michael Cook, Houze and Bunch would be fighting for custody/visitation of baby K. However, because of Terri's overall poor choices regarding Michael Cook, in addition to the general cloud of suspicion surrounding her as a result of Kyron's disappearance, her character was firmly, undeniably called into question. We know the sexting happened, so what else is true? What other poor choices has she made?

IMHO, Houze is going to eventually fight for, at minimum, visitation of the baby. Before then, though, Terri needs a better track record. IMHO, Terri living with her parents, keeping a low profile, staying out of trouble, and abiding by Houze's rules, is Houze's way of establishing that track record. If Terri has several months of living in ways that are deemed normal and acceptable then the situation with Michael Cook can be made an anomaly born out of stress as opposed to a way of life. IMHO, this is why Terri hasn't spoken to the press, made many public appearances, etc. I don't believe for a second Terri is hiding. IMHO, Houze gave Terri a set of guidelines laying out what she needed to do in order for him to work to get her daughter back (or at least see her). IMHO, Terri is working toward that end.

Ideally, Houze and Bunch want the abatement, but IMHO, Terri making the court appearance a few weeks ago was preparatory in nature. Her lawyers want what they want, but they will have a back-up plan, and IMHO, the back-up plan will not involve concessions. IMHO, Kaine and his attorney are expecting Terri and Houze to challenge the RO, which is why he dropped the contempt motion. He wants to be seen in a favorable light. Why would it matter if Kaine and his attorney believed Houze and Terri were going to quietly fade into the background?

I don't expect the abatement to be granted, but I do expect Houze and Bunch to defend Terri's rights and interests. Provided Terri adheres to the rules Houze has set forth and doesn't make any other blunders, I fully expect Houze and Bunch to challenge the RO when the abatement is denied. Time will tell, though.

I agree with this, but with what Kimster said about Oregon laws, she lets this go on too long, she won't get baby K back at all, good track record or not. Here's hoping, if she cares at all about her kids, that she won't let two years go by before fighting for baby K.

That and I do think it goes beyond Michael Cook. I'd add asking someone to murder her husband and being suspected of kidnapping/handing off/killing a child to that as well.

 

[lynmaree]

The theories I've seen on this are primarily that she felt Kyron was abused in the home, Kaine was a bully, etc., so Terri *disappeared* him for his own safety. I've not seen any that put forth that Kyron was possibly abused outside the home. But point taken.

No worries Callope! I agree with you that most who support that theory bellieve it was Kaine or someone in the household...I just dont.

 

[cypress]

I agree with this, but with what Kimster said about Oregon laws, she lets this go on too long, she won't get baby K back at all, good track record or not. Here's hoping, if she cares at all about her kids, that she won't let two years go by before fighting for baby K.

That and I do think it goes beyond Michael Cook. I'd add asking someone to murder her husband and being suspected of kidnapping/handing off/killing a child to that as well.

There's no proof Terri asked someone to murder her husband. It's basically he said/she said, and the he said part of that equation may not be all that reliable. Whatever circumstantial evidence LE have against Terri isn't, at present, enough for an arrest or an indictment. However, LE have proof that Terri sexted Michael Cook. They have proof she violated the RO. Alone, it's not that big of a deal, but with everything else, it is a big deal. It goes to her overall character. Her behavior was inappropriate. IMHO, that's not the question. What is the question, for me and perhaps those who will make decisions with regard to visitation, is her motivation. If Houze can prove that Terri is normally a responsible, level-headed adult who coped in an ugly and unhealthy way while at the center of this investigation, then that's compelling in her favor, but Houze needs to prove that her behavior with Michael Cook was an anomaly. Houze can't just say it was anomaly. Words wouldn't mean much, IMHO. If he can give proof, though, such as Terri living productively and in ways that convey discipline, adherence to rules, and good judgment then that is much more compelling in her favor and only strengthens his argument. It takes time to create that track record, though, which is why there's been such extreme silence, IMHO. I don't believe Houze and Bunch ever expected that the abatement would be granted, but they had to file it. IMHO, they've been preparing for the failure of their motion, and in that regard, every second counts.

 

[Calliope]

I have heard gitana's feelings before on the restraining order, so I think I understand where she is coming from. As an attorney, gitana knows that Terri's lawyer HAD to tell her that if she does not contest the restraining order she will never get her daughter back. She may never even see her again. And many of you think that if Terri is completely innocent, she would not give up her daughter this way. I agree with you.

But...if we were to take Cypress's argument to the logical conclusion, Terri's emotional issues might mean that she WOULD put herself before her daughter. That if she felt threatened, even if she were completely innocent, she might risk never seeing her daughter again to keep herself out of jail. Maybe this "perfect mother" image has been too difficult to keep up any way....

Or, as I suspect her attorney has advised, she can not contest the RO and focus on the (obvious) bigger issue. Once that's put to rest then she can file for custody or visitation or whatever. If she fights the RO, guilty or not, she risks never seeing baby again.

 

[Jo in Calif]

If you mean why (assuming that my theory that TH planned and took Kyron is correct) TH did what I think she did when she did it, then there could be a number of possibilities. I'm not sure what prompts anyone to decide "this is it. I can't take anymore and I'm doing this now.", a la scott peterson, Susan Smith, casey anthony, Diane Downs, etc. But in all of these cases, I believe that the person or persons they disappeared or killed became the source or symbol of their anguish, in their minds, over time, and they began planning how to get rid of the "problem". I think they either look for the best moment
possible to do what they want to do, or something specific happens that makes them determined to create that moment, instead of waiting for the "right" time. For example, I believe casey anthony decided in March 2008 to get rid of Caylee. She began thinking and planning. Then there was a terrible fight between her and her mother. That's when the planning sort of ended and the plan became a sudden reality. Just my theory.

I don't know TH or any of the people involved in this case and unlike some of the others mentioned above, I don't feel I have anywhere near the info I need to create a halfway credible psych profile. So my guesses are based on little things here and there, comments by people who know TH, her own e-mails, FB, etc. It's not enough for me to feel confident as to exactly what makes her tick. But my sense is that she could be the type who needs to feel adored and sexy by the person she's with. Hence, the several marriages - when the excitement of the new relationship ends, she gets out. (I'm just supposing here.) Perhaps the reality of marriage and family with a guy who seems to me not to be too emotive, kind of technical and perhaps wooden, began to press down on the fantasy of creating a family with a guy who left a more attractive woman (JMO), for TH, who maybe never felt attractive enough. "See? I am beautiful. I'm better than this woman who thinks she's so pretty. Her husband left her for me even though she was pregnant!", or whatever.
I have a friend who's like this. It's sad. She flits from man to man, marriage to marriage, very insecure about her looks, constantly getting bigger *advertiser censored*, working out, redying her hair, having extended photo shoots of herself for no reason. And it seems her goal is to prove to herself that the guy she has her eye on, really, really wants her. The sex will be fantastic at first. She'll know this is the one. Everything she does will be to get this guy. And when she does, when he proves he wants her and wants to be committed, within a couple of months, she's done. It stems from her being a mousy but adorable little girl whose parents were cold and withheld love. When she became a teen and realized she could use her sexuality to get attention, boy she was off!
In any event, TH may be someone like this. Now she finds herself in a relationship in which the fantasy has faded and the reality is not so good. Maybe she begins to blame Kaine for the fading of the fantasy. Maybe she begins to also question her own worth and attractiveness as the reason reality is not what she expected. She may not understand that the excitement and passion of any new relationship cannot be sustained for long, especially when bills and problems, babies, barf, illness, and fights, sleep deprivation, work and the guy farting in the bed next to her, become the day to day. But she doesn't understand that this is normal. And due to deep-seated insecurities that she cannot face, she blames others. And due to possible other, more abnormal problems, like PPD, or a personality disorder, or whatever, that blame takes on a dangerous focus: "It's Kyron. He is the reason our life is not so good. He's always been in the way. If it was only me and Baby K and Kaine, things would be better. Kaine doesn't love me and the baby as much as he does Kyron. He needs to go. He's the problem. That will show Kaine too. I'll get him for not giving me what I deserve. Then, he'll learn. And DY too. She thinks she's all that. I know she does. She thinks she's a better mom than me. She thinks she's prettier than me. She probably thinks she can get Kaine back too. Well, I'll show her. She'll never get Kaine back and now she won't get Kyron back either. Then they'll see."
I believe that the thinking or criminals is convoluted and their reasoning complex. It doesn't make sense because it is abnormal. For example, in casey anthony's case, I think she saw Caylee as a burden who prevented her from being free to party, and also as a source of constant criticism and anger by her mother: "You aren't a good mom. You need to get a job and stay home and take care of your own baby." At the same time, she saw Caylee as usurping her place/role as the adored and spoiled princess of the family. And, she was horribly jealous and angry at her mom for trying to take her place as Caylee's mother. So, killing Caylee was a way to get rid of the burden, get back her place as princess, and punish her mother for criticizing her and for trying to be the mother to Caylee that casey was supposed to be. It's a mess.
Similar thinking may have taken place here. I do not believe this was precipitated by any affair on Kaine's part or anything like that. It was probably a combination of things for Terri that led to a growing obsession that Kyron was both the problem and the means for getting back at those TH feels wronged her or posed a threat to her. I believe this was planned but I don't know why, on that day. It could have been opportunity, it could have been a comment, anything, really. It's hard to understand a mind as disordered as that of a person who could harm a child. Who knows.
These are just theories I'm putting out there based on the scant info I have which may or may not be reality. It will be interesting to find out more. The reasoning of criminals and their psychology is something that I'm always trying to figure out. I guess as a way to perhaps protect myself and my loved ones from similar people that may come into our lives. But there is so little actual info in this case that I can only imagine.

I so love it when people type up the these theories for me, I type about 15 WPM. Thank you gitana1, I so totally agree with all of this.

 

[gitana1]

But isn't "giving up her kids" exactly what DY has done? Twice?? From what I've read, she chose to not contest her sons' fathers' custody. Why then is she regarded with such admiration and TH, with scorn? If TH is not responsible for Kyron's disappearance, exactly what situation did she get herself into ?

The way I see it, the temporary RO is something that can wait to be dealt with once the truly damaging factor is over. TH and her attorney are now fully aware that she is a suspect (albeit unnamed) in Kyron's disappearance and probable death. Once that shadow of suspicion is removed from her officially, TH will have no problem with regaining custody of her daughter, if only on a shared basis.

On the other hand, if LE is able to find evidence sufficient to convict her of Kyron's disappearance, she will be imprisoned for a very long time and the baby will most likely never see her mother again.

I keep seeing this comparison and I take issue with it. It is not a fair analogy, IMO. DY did not give up her child. The first time, she was sick. I think she had cancer? She had no choice. After that, she did not fail to contest custody. She chose to not uproot Kyron once again, but she didn't give him up or away. She came up with an agreement that amounts to joint (but not equal) custody. She had Kyron on weekends, she had him for long blocks during vacations, she never gave up legal custody, to my knowledge and she was never barred from contact with her son, at any time. She saw him, she could call him, she had a room for him in which he stayed when with her every other week, she had the right to play a part in decision-making regarding Kyron. Terri Horman has NONE if those rights. She has no right to see, hold, speak to her baby or even be informed about what's happening in Baby K's life - if she gets sick, is hospitalized, enters a daycare, whatever. All TH has now and for the foreseeable future is empty arms and silence when it come to her daughter. That was NEVER the case with DY. The comparison is unfair, IMO. DY did what she thought was right despite her own feelings of wanting her child back with her full time. She decided not to change his environment once again. TH decided to do what was right for herself, with no regard for her babies' need to even have a small visit with her mommy once and a while. That's the difference and IMO it's a huge difference.
And as an attorney, I find the argument that TH has no choice because even if innocent, she opens herself up to prosecution if she contests the RO or custody, to be illogical and nonsensical. If she did not have a child with Kaine, it could make a bit more sense. But she does have a child with him, a child who, by all accounts, was her world. So I well know what her failure to contest that RO means. My opinion is based on my years in family law dealing with a multitude of contentious custody cases, DV RO's and contempts, etc. Such an argument holds no water for me.

 

[lynmaree]

I keep seeing this comparison and I take issue with it. It is not a fair analogy, IMO. DY did not give up her child. The first time, she was sick. I think she had cancer? She had no choice. After that, she did not fail to contest custody. She chose to not uproot Kyron once again, but she didn't give him up or away. She came up with an agreement that amounts to joint (but not equal) custody. She had Kyron on weekends, she had him for long blocks during vacations, she never gave up legal custody, to my knowledge and she was never barred from contact with her son, at any time. She saw him, she could call him, she had a room for him in which he stayed when with her every other week, she had the right to play a part in decision-making regarding Kyron. Terri Horman has NONE if those rights. She has no right to see, hold, speak to her baby or even be informed about what's happening in Baby K's life - if she gets sick, is hospitalized, enters a daycare, whatever. All TH has now and for the foreseeable future is empty arms and silence when it come to her daughter. That was NEVER the case with DY. The comparison is unfair, IMO. DY did what she thought was right despite her own feelings of wanting her child back with her full time. She decided not to change his environment once again. TH decided to do what was right for herself, with no regard for her babies' need to even have a small visit with her mommy once and a while. That's the difference and IMO it's a huge difference.
And as an attorney, I find the argument that TH has no choice because even if innocent, she opens herself up to prosecution if she contests the RO or custody, to be illogical and nonsensical. If she did not have a child with Kaine, it could make a bit more sense. But she does have a child with him, a child who, by all accounts, was her world. So I well know what her failure to contest that RO means. My opinion is based on my years in family law dealing with a multitude of contentious custody cases, DV RO's and contempts, etc. Such an argument holds no water for me.

How I wish there was a way to hit the "thanks" button a million times!!!!

 

[gitana1]

sorry, gitana--I posted this at the same time as you posted your response!

No. Thank you for your post. I have my reasons for thinking the way I do but there are interesting theories on here and the one you mentioned above is thought-provoking. I still hold to my opinion as to why TH failed to contest the RO and what it means. But I'm open to examining other theories for sure.

 

[gitana1]

Or, as I suspect her attorney has advised, she can not contest the RO and focus on the (obvious) bigger issue. Once that's put to rest then she can file for custody or visitation or whatever. If she fights the RO, guilty or not, she risks never seeing baby again.

Actually, legally, failing to contest the RO is a bigger risk to her ability to ever see or have custody of Baby K again.

 

[gitana1]

I feel my post 813 may come across as a bit more testy than I wanted it to. I do not mean to sound testy because I respect everyone's opinions so much. I have had a rough couple of days with three separate women crying in my office, a father who has been fighting since 2007 for a child who has a mentally disordered mother, and we were yet again in court yesterday and have to go yet again, tomorrow, and a poor lady and her extraordinary kids who all suffer from mental issues but are brilliant and loving and doing the best they can, but fighting to keep the state from once again taking the kids from this misunderstood home.
I say this for several reasons. One, because people who conduct themselves appropriately are rare in family law. It is rare that we see both sides willing to try to get along for the sake of their kids or one side willing to sacrifice for the best interest of the child. Those people don't need litigators to represent them so we don't see them much. I think DY was one of those people and I wish I could see more. So I feel testy when good decisions made in a setting that usually holds so much misery (family law), are questioned.
Also, I see so many people who are fighting hard for their kids, for their kids best interests, while the other side fights only for their own needs and wants. It is horrible for the concerned parent and horrible for the children. But it makes it quite obvious to me that good parents, loving parents, fight tooth and nail for their kids when they know that the best interests of those children is to be with and protected by their parent. So when a parent fails to fight for her child's right to be with the previously primary parent or to have that parent play any role in the child's life, on the off chance that she could say something or has done something that may be misconstrued and used against them criminally, especially when they have yet to be charged with anything at all, that speaks volumes to me.
In my case yesterday, this man started in 2007 with only every other Saturday with the son he raised until the divorce. Then I got involved. It has taken years and it has been slow, fighting against a very articulate and disordered mother, who abused the child and stole the child's assets, and a minor's counsel (GAL in other states), who was operating under a bias that her ego couldn't let go of, even after it was proved that her bias was unfounded - but now, my client has sole physical custody, and mom's grip on the child's life (and sanity) is almost totally loosened.
I see how hard the good guys fight for their kids. My client suffered in ways unimaginable. If mom had been okay, he would have been fine with her being involved, maybe even being the primary parent. But she wasn't.
As I have said before, the decision to not contest the RO has ramifications that will be very, very hard to undo, even if TH is someday cleared of wrongdoing in the disappearance of Kyron. Her attorneys know that. Kimster provided more info that supports that fact, regarding OR law. And there is no timetable for any of that. No charges have been brought so TH is facing, at the least, an endless wait to know whether she will ever be cleared. If she is prejudicing her rights to her child now so she can somehow come back one day and fight for the child again, she is also facing and endless wait for that day. Can you imagine?
So, my experience causes me to see things a certain way and to feel strongly about certain things. But I do not want to offend or to allow my biases to preclude other possibilities or opinions.

 

[MarieFaith]

As I have said before, the decision to not contest the RO has ramifications that will be very, very hard to undo, even if TH is someday cleared of wrongdoing in the disappearance of Kyron. Her attorneys know that. Kimster provided more info that supports that fact, regarding OR law. And there is no timetable for any of that. No charges have been brought so TH is facing, at the least, an endless wait to know whether she will ever be cleared. If she is prejudicing her rights to her child now so she can somehow come back one day and fight for the child again, she is also facing and endless wait for that day. Can you imagine?
So, my experience causes me to see things a certain way and to feel strongly about certain things. But I do not want to offend or to allow my biases to preclude other possibilities or opinions.

Respectfully snipped, (I hope I did that right), now that LE is today saying they have no smoking gun and expecting another four months of investigating, it will be interesting to see if Terri comes out of hiding, and ventures to challenge the RO.

Do you think that's a possibility, gitana?

 

[gitana1]

Respectfully snipped, (I hope I did that right), now that LE is today saying they have no smoking gun and expecting another four months of investigating, it will be interesting to see if Terri comes out of hiding, and ventures to challenge the RO.

Do you think that's a possibility, gitana?

My guess is she will absolutely not. It's too late to set aside the RO anyhow but she can contest custody and try to modify that. But I believe there is no way she will.

 

[SacreBleu]

My guess is she will absolutely not. It's too late to set aside the RO anyhow but she can contest custody and try to modify that. But I believe there is no way she will.

This thank you is "landing randomly," as they say: but I so love reading your posts gitana. Thank you for lending your experience and expertise to this forum. I wish I could see you in action in court!

PS - there are lots of great posters here and I enjoy you all, btw. I just happen to think this particular guess as to what may have happend with Terri is a very plausible one.