Should baby K be allowed to see TH? ***POLL***

[nursebeeme]

my vote: absolutely no way!

 

[DreamyEye]

I live in a state where parents who have commited all kinds of crimes and even extreme acts of child abuse are allowed to have supervised visitation with their children. When the parent has done or been accused of doing something extremely awful, the visitation takes place in a state-run child care facility with social workers and security people in the same room. Under such extreme circumstances, a typical visit runs for about 2 hours. I happen to have learned about this recently when my cousin's daughter-in-law ended up being the visiting parent. She was under investigation as to whether she had done exteme abuse on the child she was visiting, so she had the toughest guidelines for her visit. And yet she was granted a visit. When my cousin objected to her daughter-in-law being allowed to visit the child at all, the state social worker said that studies show it's better for the child to have visitation, even with a very abusive parent.

My cousin demanded and received the right to be present during the visitation. When the daughter-in-law asked "Can I have a minute alone with my child?" a social worker and a guard said "no" at the same time!

 

[Tink56]

And if Kaine voluntarily agrees to Terri having visitation with K what, if anything, does it mean with regard to his views about Terri's involvement in Kyron's disappearance?

IMO, it would mean that he is more concerned about their daughter than her mother is his son.

I do not mean that to be "snarky," I just think it is so impossible to try to extrapolate anything about deeper, hidden meanings without knowing what LE and KH know.

 

[Trt]

IMO, it would mean that he is more concerned about their daughter than her mother is his son.

I do not mean that to be "snarky," I just think it is so impossible to try to extrapolate anything about deeper, hidden meanings without knowing what LE and KH know.

Ita...it would also mean that Kaine is more concerned than Terri is about their daughter. Kaine would have to file the same type of change request that Terri would, provide reasons for wanting the change, and be prepared to answer questions at a hearing the same way that Terri would. Why should he be the one to do what Terri should have been done, if she truly wanted to see her child? Terri's priorities are HER and her only at this point. Jmo

 

[Calliope]

Maybe if Terri gives up what she knows about Kyron, Kaine will not object to Terri seeing baby K.

I think Terri asked for a 2 year abatement because that is about how long it would take for a trial to complete.

Maybe she would be fond innocent and then she could deal with custody then.

But she didn't ask for 2 years.

 

[grandmaj]

The judge sought a middle ground, ruling the divorce would be stalled until Jan. 6 -- not granting the two-year abatement that Terri Horman's lawyers had sought but also refusing to allow the divorce case to proceed immediately, as Kaine Horman's lawyer had urged.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_delays_terri_and_kaine_h.html

Another one.

Terri Horman is willing to stipulate to an immediate divorce, while asking the court to delay decisions on custody and parenting time for at least two years.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/terri_horman_willing_to_agree.html

 

[Calliope]

The judge sought a middle ground, ruling the divorce would be stalled until Jan. 6 -- not granting the two-year abatement that Terri Horman's lawyers had sought but also refusing to allow the divorce case to proceed immediately, as Kaine Horman's lawyer had urged.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_delays_terri_and_kaine_h.html

Another one.

Terri Horman is willing to stipulate to an immediate divorce, while asking the court to delay decisions on custody and parenting time for at least two years.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/terri_horman_willing_to_agree.html

But that isn't what the lawyer asked for. I posted the link to his motion. Hang on I'll find it again.

 

[grandmaj]

I know Calliope but that is what was argued in court according to the articles I have read.

I don't think a time limit was stipulated in the motion though you are right.

 

[Calliope]

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABATEMENT

Page 3, line 14:

CONCLUSION​

"For the reasons set forth above, Wife respectfully asks the court to enter an order abating the dissolution of marriage proceeding until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."


In his motion, he didn't ask for any specified length of time for the court to hold the case in abatement.

He quotes the law where it says a case can be dismissed if inactive / held in abatement for 2 years. But that's not the same as him asking for a 2 year abatement. Which is what the media and some here have claimed. He didn't ask for a specific time period, but rather "until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."

 

[Calliope]

I know Calliope but that is what was argued in court according to the articles I have read.

I don't think a time limit was stipulated in the motion though you are right.

I get SO aggravated at the media. For heaven's sake, this case is convoluted enough, why in the world can't they just get their facts straight????

ARG

ETA: I don't think Bunch was arguing for 2 years; I think the media read his motion and made this up on their own. JMO

 

[JBean]

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/terri+horman+abate+divorce.pdf

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABATEMENT

Page 3, line 14:

CONCLUSION​

"For the reasons set forth above, Wife respectfully asks the court to enter an order abating the dissolution of marriage proceeding until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."


In his motion, he didn't ask for any specified length of time for the court to hold the case in abatement.

He quotes the law where it says a case can be dismissed if inactive / held in abatement for 2 years. But that's not the same as him asking for a 2 year abatement. Which is what the media and some here have claimed. He didn't ask for a specific time period, but rather "until further agreement of the parties, or further order of the court."

I think I understand why it is interpreted and reported that she was requesting 2 years.
In the body of the motion he cites the reasons for asking for an abatement. She is requesting an abatement for the period of time that she is the target of the criminal investigation and while she is under intense media scrutiny.So as long as their is a criminal investigation and she is their target and/or the media's target, she wants the proceedings abated.

As an abatement can have a shelf life for up to 2 years and there has been concern expressed that this investigation and possible charges and/or the possibility of a trial could easily take that long,it is reasonable to conclude that she was hoping for a period of time closer to the 2 years, but most assuredly longer than january.
However, it is also reasonable to assume that if they were to find Kyron and completely clear TH, they would probably proceed by way of an agreement of the parties any time after that happened, ie in less than 2 years.

ETA: and we are not even on topic are we? LOL. oops.

 

[Calliope]

True. I think it's reasonable to assume that Bunch wasn't asking for 2 years, because I don't see the judge agreeing to that regardless of the circumstances. What I think will happen is that he will 'renew' his order in 90 days if things haven't changed.

 

[Jo in Calif]

This is such a heart wrenching situation.
Everyone can agree that the baby needs her mother. But with giving Terri limited supervised visits, who would that be better for? How is that baby going to react when she sees her mother for a few hours, then is taken away.
Baby K is going to have absolutely no understanding as to why she sees Mommy for a few hours and not be able to stay with her.
I am so torn on this, with a baby of that age.
I voted for supervised visitation, but did it with a heavy heart.

 

[PaulaF513]

This is such a heart wrenching situation.
Everyone can agree that the baby needs her mother. But with giving Terri limited supervised visits, who would that be better for? How is that baby going to react when she sees her mother for a few hours, then is taken away.
Baby K is going to have absolutely no understanding as to why she sees Mommy for a few hours and not be able to stay with her.
I am so torn on this, with a baby of that age.
I voted for supervised visitation, but did it with a heavy heart.

Even if Terri is completely exonerated in the Kyron case, little K is going to have to get used to that, much the same as Kyron. Divorce is frequently harder on children than the parents. She is facing a childhood and adolescence of being bounced between Mom and Dad. Poor baby.

 

[carbuff]

Absolutely nothing has been proven, or even officially alleged, against TH, but the nature of the charges is serious enough that until more is known, supervised visits are reasonable.

 

[BeanE]

Absolutely nothing has been proven, or even officially alleged, against TH, but the nature of the charges is serious enough that until more is known, supervised visits are reasonable.

And that is what Terri's attorney said will be requested - supervised visits:

The stepmother of Kyron Horman wants supervised visitation of her 22-month old daughter, as she battles her estranged husband in a divorce case.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Terri-Horman-Seeks-Visitation--104610209-missing-kyron-portland.html

 

[miabellamoure]

My vote: No, baby K is not safe around TH!!!

I agree that "a" baby should not be separated from it's Mother...however, the Mother in question IMO...lost that right the moment she attempted a MFH on her babies Father, disappeared this babies 7 yr old sibling (very likely in front of her) and, then to put the cherry right up on top...stopped cooperating with LE.

When baby K's Mother decides to do the right thing and become a human being again...then, I think baby K should have only tightly supervised visitation with her Mother... but, until then IMO, it would not be in this babies best interest to be around such a human being!

Even then, I would feel such pity for a baby (child) who has to grow up possibly visiting a Monster Of a Mother who could do such atrocities to an innocent child...especially, baby K's own sibling!

What a life for baby K to have to look forward to...

 

[loves2bmom]

I go back and forth on this. The uncertainty of the whole mess, the tension...I just can't see how exposing Baby to more stress would be good for her. I am not an expert in child development so it's hard for me to say what would be best. Do we have someone on the board who could speak to this? What do you tell an almost two year old who gets a temporary visit with her mother and then goes back home without her again? Isn't that more harmful than waiting until this plays out to see what makes sense in terms of custody, visitation (in jail or otherwise) I'm being serious and not snarky. Isn't it too volatile right now? I vote for waiting until more facts are known.

 

[loves2bmom]

This is such a heart wrenching situation.
Everyone can agree that the baby needs her mother. But with giving Terri limited supervised visits, who would that be better for? How is that baby going to react when she sees her mother for a few hours, then is taken away.
Baby K is going to have absolutely no understanding as to why she sees Mommy for a few hours and not be able to stay with her.
I am so torn on this, with a baby of that age.
I voted for supervised visitation, but did it with a heavy heart.

LOL...will you stop hiding out in my brain!

 

[eyes4crime]

My vote: No, baby K is not safe around TH!!!

I agree that "a" baby should not be separated from it's Mother...however, the Mother in question IMO...lost that right the moment she attempted a MFH on her babies Father, disappeared this babies 7 yr old sibling (very likely in front of her) and, then to put the cherry right up on top...stopped cooperating with LE.

When baby K's Mother decides to do the right thing and become a human being again...then, I think baby K should have only tightly supervised visitation with her Mother... but, until then IMO, it would not be in this babies best interest to be around such a human being!

Even then, I would feel such pity for a baby (child) who has to grow up possibly visiting a Monster Of a Mother who could do such atrocities to an innocent child...especially, baby K's own sibling!

What a life for baby K to have to look forward to...

I'm certain that most of the women in prison, the felons who give birth in prison, and those who have regular visits with their babies, toddlers, pre-post adolescent children would completely disagree with you. These are women charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced in a court of law. Terri has not been charged with a single thing by LE or convicted in a court of law. Her charges and convictions come from the people only. moo mho