Ron C. #4

[debs]

Okay, someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old.
Why are there complaints that Crystal's move to show abuse by Ron to the children and possibly start proceedings to gain custody of the children, will delay or harm the search for Haleigh?
Regardless of what the mother and father do or say about each other, does not in my mind, take away from the fact LE is still investigating the disappearance and searching for this little girl. What do you all think, that LE will step away and wait till this family squabble is over before they attemp to solve this crime? I'm sure LE can multi-task.
To me this claim was started by Ron and his family in order to make it seem Crystal is not concerned with finding her daughter. It's just more mud slinging between the two families.
Maybe, I'm wrong. But I really don't see where a custody fight will keep officials from working at finding this missing youngster.
jmo

I'd explain it to you like you were five, but you seem to have a better grasp on things than that! The custody dispute is not detracting from anything regarding the search for Haleigh. It is the focus here because NO ONE has any idea what happened to Haleigh. If there was any ONE CLUE to look at, WS would be tearing it apart. As it is, it's a Mason/Dixon line in the sand approach to whether Ron or Crystal is the better parent. The fact of the matter is, people began telling Crystal and her attorney things about abuse, and they are doing what they should do and have reported it to the authorities. It is not just a matter of taking Ron at his word, especially against the allegations of several people. So, if there's nothing there, it will be discovered quickly.

 

[Indigo]

Has it been said he has done this either before or after that single frantic 911 call? If it has...I would like to find the article or interview.

It has been said that Ron did this before the 911 call, but I know you would find the source unacceptable.

 

[kikid]

With all do respect just because Crystal says Ron didnt have anything to do with his children when they were together doesnt mean a whole to me. Sadly people can say anything they want doesnt mean it true and their so no way for sure to know. Thats goes for Crystal and Ron. Its just plain hearsay.

well I didn't comment on that aspect of the post. Just stated she clearly didn't want to prevent TN & RC from having a relationship with the kids - thus she let them take the kids for visits.

 

[tfrohning]

Has it been said he has done this either before or after that single frantic 911 call? If it has...I would like to find the article or interview.

I guess you can check some of crystal's inveiws. I been around men that are abuser and that their favorite word.
but maybe i was the old school. a little OT i was reading text messages in casey's case and read that the guy was calling her B-word in joking I took it. Maybe it just the way young guys talk today. Sorry where I live now most of the guys are manner. it has not alway been that way. and my post on Ron is JMO.:innocent:

 

[tfrohning]

It has been said that Ron did this before the 911 call, but I know you would find the source unacceptable.

ss i love your posts. you always seem keep us going

 

[debs]

And I hope the court will see that Crystal is doing that very thing now by hurling false abuse and other accusations on national television to attack Ronald's character as a father and alienate him from his children. Rj and Haleigh are the ones who will end up being harmed by her accusations instead of Ronald and it will be for a lifetime.

I hope a judge will put a stop to it and take away anything except supervised visitation for her from now on. Playing mind games with your children and trashing their father on national television is the worst kind of abuse, imo. I doubt Ronald has ever said a bad word against Crystal to his children.

ETA: I agree...she allowed him to take the children to Texas to work not vacation. Either way, only a dedicated father would even consider doing this at their ages, imo.

You know they're false??? You have a LOT of information on this case that no one else seems to have!!!!

 

[Shaymus at The Rock]

What I still can't wrap my head around, and maybe it is because I was in an abusive relationship, is the fact that Crystal is saying how uninvolved Ron was with the children and yet she let Ron take them. No it was not for a vacation. He was going to work in Texas. No it wasn't for a weekend visit. It was to be for weeks to a month. No it wasn't taking the children to his home for a visit. It was to take them not only out of the state but possibly out of the country.
We are talking about a toddler and an infant. A baby that needed diapers changed and bottles made and to be hand fed. How would Crystal expect a man who was not involved with his children expect him to carry out those necessities? It just does not make any sense at all.

I don't understand the trip to Texas at all.

1. Ron said he went there to work for 18 days. What was the skill set Ron had that justified a trip to Texas for 18 days of work ?

2. How was he planning to care for an infant and toddler while he was at work ? Was his skill set so valuable that a Texas employer would arrange child care for him ?

3. Was Ron living with TN when he went to Texas ?

 

[Indigo]

ss i love your posts. you always seem keep us going

We're going on fumes! Need input!

 

[Indigo]

I don't understand the trip to Texas at all.

1. Ron said he went there to work for 18 days. What was the skill set Ron had that justified a trip to Texas for 18 days of work ?

2. How was he planning to care for an infant and toddler while he was at work ? Was his skill set so valuable that a Texas employer would arrange child care for him ?

3. Was Ron living with TN when he went to Texas ?

Work in Texas and vacation in Mexico. Still bizarre to me...

23 MR. CUMMINGS: I was taking them to Mexico
24 for a vacation. I had to go to work in Texas,
25 so I took them to Mexico.
http://www.cbs47.com/media/news/e/4/.../cummings1.pdf

 

[tfrohning]

With all do respect just because Crystal says Ron didnt have anything to do with his children when they were together doesnt mean a whole to me. Sadly people can say anything they want doesnt mean it true and their so no way for sure to know. Thats goes for Crystal and Ron. Its just plain hearsay.

how true

 

[SeriouslySearching]

You know they're false??? You have a LOT of information on this case that no one else seems to have!!!!

It isn't rocket science when the Principal of the school verified the incident happened at school and she was taken then to the hospital where they again determined her injuries were consistent with the accident which happened at school...not once, but twice. So yes...I can say they are false since they are trying to insinuate or outright say otherwise.

 

[debs]

It isn't rocket science when the Principal of the school verified the incident happened at school and she was taken then to the hospital where they again determined her injuries were consistent with the accident which happened at school...not once, but twice. So yes...I can say they are false since they are trying to insinuate or outright say otherwise.

huh. I guess I heard them discussing OTHER complaints brought to them by OTHER people, not the school.

 

[Tichad3]

huh. I guess I heard them discussing OTHER complaints brought to them by OTHER people, not the school.

Who?

I've only heard of Ron's exes filing complaints. And I take that with a grain of salt. That's what people live on or below the poverty level do, especially when they are young. They file false claims about people. It's something that could hurt a person but you could do it totally anonymously.

 

[kiki the parrot]

No one who wants Junior--and hopefully Haleigh--safe can afford to allow their vision to become so tunneled as to dismiss the possibility that what some are alleging may in truth have happened. For starters the ONLY person who can possibly know whether Crystal's own account of dad's abuse behind closed doors is true or false is CRYSTAL. Secondly she is not the only one who is reporting dad's violence or abuse (neighbor AmandaK eg frequently heard what she described as abusiveness by dad). And third it seems there is inconsistency between the explanations offered by dad eg for an incident at school and the injuries that resulted. And for all of these reasons, it is always best to err on the side of caution where any child's safety is concerned.

A parent who receives what they believe are mounting credible reports of abusiveness toward his or her children has not only the right but an implicit and obvious duty to protect those children--and to act on their behalf. We've crucified this same mother and others for being remiss or not doing enough earlier. When in the past she lacked the means ie was at a disadvantage w/out resources or representation; and because the abuse experienced or witnessed by Crystal during her marriage had been directed toward or previously limited to her, does not mean that w the perspective of time, as more facts and reports emerge which give cause for concern for the children (not the least of which is one child vanishing) in light of new reports or new information, and w finally some representation of her own, that she can or should not reconsider or fight to ensure Junior at least is protected from those risks. First we fault her for not doing more when she lacked proof and couldn't--but then turn around and fault her for doing something once she hears the reports and has the means.

In this situation it isn't "alienation" (if this is how one perceives it) that represents the most immediate threat or gravest danger to either child but the environment, now exposed, from which Junior's sister has already mysteriously "disappeared" from whom no one has since seen or heard for a month and a half. The lives of Mark Klaas, Ed Smart and other parents of children gone missing were subject to the same scrutiny and any threat or risk w/in Polly's or Elizabeth's eg environment would have been identified as well. If there are factors which turn out to have indeed put Haleigh and/or her bro at risk, those who dismiss this, as mere "mind games and trashing" IMO share that burden. What IS clear is that Haleigh's disappearance has brought to light many risk factors and concerns about the environment in which both she and Junior have been living. Of course he has nothing to say about mom now (about whom nobody is alleging any continued high risk behaviors) because he knows he is the one who insisted on taking the children from her and thus the one who bears full responsibility in this situation.

And as debs rightly points out, if there turns out to be no cause for concern or these reports lack merit, the investigation can quickly establish that too--in which case Junior can remain and Lord willing one day Haleigh brought back safe, to what is then a proven safe, stable, abuse- and drug-free home. But everyone should want those issues cleared up or addressed to eliminate continued or further risks to any child. JMO

arrot:

 

[CHICANA]

And I hope the court will see that Crystal is doing that very thing now by hurling false abuse and other accusations on national television to attack Ronald's character as a father and alienate him from his children. Rj and Haleigh are the ones who will end up being harmed by her accusations instead of Ronald and it will be for a lifetime.

I hope a judge will put a stop to it and take away anything except supervised visitation for her from now on. Playing mind games with your children and trashing their father on national television is the worst kind of abuse, imo. I doubt Ronald has ever said a bad word against Crystal to his children.

ETA: I agree...she allowed him to take the children to Texas to work not vacation. Either way, only a dedicated father would even consider doing this at their ages, imo.

I don't know that the accusations are false and it sounds like accusations are being made by numerous people besides CS.
Supervised visits are ordered when there is a risk of physical abuse to a child not because one parent has said negative things about the other.
If anybody gets supervised visits it'll be RC and his teen bride.
I would think that a three year old would consider getting hit with a stick a worse form of abuse than mommy saying negative (and possibly true) things about daddy. RJ wasn't paying attention to a word CS was saying on Geraldo.

Of course this is just my opinion.

 

[radio]

It isn't rocket science when the Principal of the school verified the incident happened at school and she was taken then to the hospital where they again determined her injuries were consistent with the accident which happened at school...not once, but twice. So yes...I can say they are false since they are trying to insinuate or outright say otherwise.

:doh:

The school verified the tumble and the scratch on the nose.
:silenced:

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

:doh:

The school verified the tumble and the scratch on the nose.
:silenced:

And the black eye and everything else IIRC...and they believed the injuries were from the accident, not abuse. I understand this was already investigated and dismissed by DCF and think it's really wrong that they are trying to make the allegations again, based on the same "evidence".

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I don't know that the accusations are false and it sounds like accusations are being made by numerous people besides CS.
Supervised visits are ordered when there is a risk of physical abuse to a child not because one parent has said negative things about the other.If anybody gets supervised visits it'll be RC and his teen bride.
I would think that a three year old would consider getting hit with a stick a worse form of abuse than mommy saying negative (and possibly true) things about daddy. RJ wasn't paying attention to a word CS was saying on Geraldo.

Of course this is just my opinion.

They've already been to Court over this many times, and it is CS that was only allowed visitation.

 

[kiki the parrot]

I'm sure we can all agree then that it is to the advantage of the children for their other parent to ultimately obtain some representation too in fair consideration and ongoing evaluation of risks and determination of the safest custodial arrangement for them. Had she equal resources or representation initially when dad waged his war upon her leaving him things might have gone differently as eloquently explained by BoyTownMom. I mean, we wouldn't want to see anyone railroaded or unfairly disadvantaged by the legal system to the peril or jeopardy of either child now, would we? JMO

arrot:

 

[Tichad3]

I'm sure we can all agree then that it is to the advantage of the children for their other parent to ultimately obtain some representation too in the fair and ongoing evaluation of risks and determination for what is the safest custodial arrangement for them. Had she equal resources or fair representation initially when dad waged his war upon her leaving things might have gone differently as eloquently explained by BoyTownMom. I mean, we wouldn't want to see anyone railroaded, or unfairly disadvantaged by the legal system at the expense of either child, would we? JMO

arrot:

No we cannot agree on any of that.

No offense to Boytwnmom but she was wrong on almost every single one of her points she was attempting to get across.

IMO Crystal was neither railroaded or a victim of the system. She HAD fair representation in the court. She had a lawyer...too bad if they weren't as good as Ron's lawyer.
And about the equal resources???? She could have gotten a job. No one was stopping her but herself.

I believe JR is exactly where he needs to be. Ron has proven himself time and time again that he is the more fit parent to raise the children. The court wanted Crystal to have SUPERVISED VISITATION until Ron spoke up on Crystal's behalf so she could have BETTER visitation. I don't see where he is the "bad guy" in all of this.