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

[mydailyopinions]

I voted no.
It is much easier to tell a child later on in life that you are sorry for keeping them away from their mother, than explaining how you allowed your child to visit with someone who possibly murdered your brother. Some things are much easily forgiven than others.

 

[pufnstuf]

No... because this child has been through enough loss.

She lost her eldest brother when her mother sent him away.
She lost her older brother when her mother disposed of him.
She lost her mother because of her mother's behavior, and, should she be allowed to see her mother now, she'll lose her again when Terri's found guilty of Kyron's murder and sentenced to prison.

She needs stability, and I think that Kaine is on the right track with that.

All my opinion.

 

[DreamyEye]

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

SBM

I'm sure the laws vary slightly from juridiction to jurisdiction, but when the welfare of a child is concerned, a charge or conviction is usually not necessary to take the child away from the parent. The key point is whether a judge has found that there's reason to think the parent poses a threat to the child. This allows the child to be removed from the parent during the investigative phase, and that seems to be what has happened here.

All that is known in the case of my cousin's daughter-in-law is that the child suffered abuse while in the custody of her mother. Did the mother do the abuse, or did someone else do it on the mother's watch? Right now no one knows for sure. It's being investigated. There doesn't have to be a charge or a conviction. The welfare of the child comes ahead of the right of the parent.

 

[pufnstuf]

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

Most women in prison aren't there for killing their stepchildren.

My opinion.

 

[eyes4crime]

Most women in prison aren't there for killing their stepchildren.

My opinion.

Terri hasn't been charged with murdering her step-child...she hasn't been charged with anything as of yet. Not a single thing. She hasn't been named a POI or a suspect. Seems like 'gut feelings' and innuendo are the reasons Terri shouldn't see her baby girl. On what basis should she be denied? speculation? moo

She has no history of abusing her children, matter of fact, all comments speak to her good mothering. I'm not seeing the reason she should be denied visitation with her baby girl. my opinions only.

 

[pufnstuf]

Terri hasn't been charged with murdering her step-child...she hasn't been charged with anything as of yet. Not a single thing. She hasn't been named a POI or a suspect. Seems like 'gut feelings' and innuendo are the reasons Terri shouldn't see her baby girl. On what basis should she be denied? speculation? moo

She has no history of abusing her children, matter of fact, all comments speak to her good mothering. I'm not seeing the reason she should be denied visitation with her baby girl. my opinions only.

Call it what you want, but sending a son off to the bio parent about whom she said such evil things (meth, AIDS), instead of to the adoptive father who was still paying support for him . Sending him away at all--that seems abusive to me.

Oh yeah, and that child endangerment thing while she was driving while plastered--that's abusive.

And now her stepson is missing... sounds like people tend to "go away" in her life when they don't fill her needs...

Beside Carol Moulton and a few other people, I've not read much positive about Terri's child-rearing. And even if a hundred people had come forward to speak of her great child-rearing skills and love for her children, it really is irrelevant, as we can make a list miles long of parents who have killed their children, about whom neighbors, friends, associates said, "But she seemed to be such a good mother."

People who abuse children usually don't do it in front of friends or extended family.

 

[eyes4crime]

Call it what you want, but sending a son off to the bio parent about whom she said such evil things (meth, AIDS), instead of to the adoptive father who was still paying support for him . Sending him away at all--that seems abusive to me.

Oh yeah, and that child endangerment thing while she was driving while plastered--that's abusive.

And now her stepson is missing... sounds like people tend to "go away" in her life when they don't fill her needs...

Beside Carol Moulton and a few other people, I've not read much positive about Terri's child-rearing. And even if a hundred people had come forward to speak of her great child-rearing skills and love for her children, it really is irrelevant, as we can make a list miles long of parents who have killed their children, about whom neighbors, friends, associates said, "But she seemed to be such a good mother."

People who abuse children usually don't do it in front of friends or extended family.

BBM

If profiling people who abuse children was as easy as targeting those with a DUI or those who send their child to live with his/her biological parent - we wouldn't have pedophila! Nor would we have the mile long lists of good mothers who have hurt their children (your example). MOO MHO HOO and all the other stuff.

 

[Bluestars]

I think what is best for baby K is to always be in a safe environment with people who love her and will protect her. Until Terri chooses to answer questions, then I don't think it can be determined if she should be able to have visitation with baby K or not.

It is her right to remain silent, but I believe it is the judge's right to make a determination on what is in the best interest of baby K. If Terri has to remain silent to protect herself from possibly incriminating herself, then I don't see how it is in the best interest of baby K to have visitation. Until it is known what Terri is hiding, then there is no way to say for sure if baby K is safe while around her, or even if baby K should be around her.

Right now nobody knows if Terri hired someone to kill her husband, is involved with the disappearance of her son, is involved with drugs, is involved with dangerous people who took her son, or none of the above. I think a judge should err on the side of caution and what is known and do everything possible to continue to make sure the child is in a safe environment. The last thing that needs to happen is for baby K to disappear too.

 

[mmmagique]

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.

My father served in Vietnam and I got a few short visits with him in between tours. I don't think it would have been better for me not to see him at all no matter how it broke my heart during our goodbyes and no matter what eventually happened to him. (he came back and lived a good life.)

My mother was...odd. Abusive, drugging, drinking and exposing me to a lesser element of people. I did have visits with her until she kept me and tried to hide. After that all visits were done. I don't have a problem with that either.

I vote for VERY WELL supervised visits in a building where they are trained to supervise such things. I don't believe Kaine needs to be there during those visits. But I do believe a responsible adult should be in the room so that Terri does not try to say inappropriate things to hurt baby K's relationship with her father.

 

[tlcya]

Call it what you want, but sending a son off to the bio parent about whom she said such evil things (meth, AIDS), instead of to the adoptive father who was still paying support for him . Sending him away at all--that seems abusive to me.
Oh yeah, and that child endangerment thing while she was driving while plastered--that's abusive.

And now her stepson is missing... sounds like people tend to "go away" in her life when they don't fill her needs...

Beside Carol Moulton and a few other people, I've not read much positive about Terri's child-rearing. And even if a hundred people had come forward to speak of her great child-rearing skills and love for her children, it really is irrelevant, as we can make a list miles long of parents who have killed their children, about whom neighbors, friends, associates said, "But she seemed to be such a good mother."

People who abuse children usually don't do it in front of friends or extended family.

It is clear we have very diferent opinions about this case (I am still on the fence and you are squarely seated one one side of it) and I not trying to be snarky or combative but as to the BBM portion of your post can you elaborate?

I have not heard, read, seen anything about the meth/aids thing you are referring to.

As to the BBM portion pertaining to her teen son being sent elsewhere to live, all media coverage I have seen concerning that led me to believe that Terri and Kaine as a couple sent the boy elsewhere to live due to tensions between he and Kaine (not an uncommon phenomenon between a teenage boy and a stepfather).

Do you have some sort of other knowledge or facts that establish that Terri sent the boy away rather than Terri, Kaine and the boy's father made that decision as a family?

TYIA

BTW - my apologies for my since deleted post earlier that upon reflection DID contain snark. Won't happen again.

 

[AbbieNormal]

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.

I wanted to vote under supervision only, but I am one of those that thinks TH is guilty as sin of Kyrons disappearance and continues to keep the secret of what happened to Kyron.
Yes baby K probably misses her Mom and might even need counseling one day to deal with whatever problems might arise from her mother being removed from her life- but that happens everyday to kids whose mothers die, or go to jail....
Its someones responsibility to ensure Baby K is safe. HE77 NO she should not have alone time with the baby. Are you kidding??? Lets find Kyron and establish TH's innocence (or not) before deciding to roll the dice ok baby K's safety.
If TH is guilty, is it really healthy to let baby K have a continued relationship with her mother?
I had to vote No. In the interest of baby K's well being, and thoughtfully considered.
I don't trust TH.

JMO

abbie

 

[Tink56]

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

I initially voted for "visitations if supervised," because I have always heard the maternal bond is so strong and important. Then, I read numerous queries that made sense and caused me to second guess my first reaction. I changed my vote to "undecided, need more information."

I have seen programs on television in which kids get to visit mothers in prison. Most of those individuals (at least the ones featured on the special I saw) were incarcerated for drugs, theft, and/or prostitution. These individuals had to meet certain criteria (counseling, child-rearing courses, etc.) to meet with their children.

TH is a unique situation IMO. I currently perceive her as manipulative based on her "fibs" about her "friendship with DY," her inflated resume, her sexting, and possible MFH. I am skeptical about her motives and want to know more about whether it is more damaging for a 21-month old to reunite with "Mom," then not see her for a while, etc. I would like to know what type of anxiety these could create. Would it make BabyK more anxious? Would it cause her to "backslide" emotionally?

We moved to Palo Alto, CA when our daughter was two. I was concerned because she would be leaving a play group/child-care program that she had attended since she was 1-year-old. (I worked 3.5 hrs./day and still feel guilty-LOL) I made a scrapbook filled with pictures of her friends, care givers, our old neighbors, etc. One day I found her on her rocking horse in the new family room, saying, "No more...(insert friend's name," No more...(another name). She would also look at the scrapbook for 30-40 minutes a day.

Soon, we became involved in a new playgroup; I wasn't working; and gradually, I realized, she hadn't looked at the scrapbook in several weeks, never mentioned the "old" friends again, and scampered on...I don't think she was scarred at all.

A friend who is a child psychologist always told me that "kids are much more resilient than adults can imagine." (I've tried to get ahold of her about Baby K, but she's out of the country for a few months.)

So, I do not think that Baby K will be damaged if the court takes its time and carefully evaluates the benefits and complications/negative aspects of TH visiting with Baby K. I would certainly not expect any decision until after the January hearing.

 

[eyes4crime]

Tink56, you sound like such a loving and caring mom. By making that scrapbook, my guess is that you helped your little one to let go when she was ready to do so. :highfive: to you for taking the time to be such a wonderful mom. moo mho

 

[Aedrys]

I initially voted for "visitations if supervised," because I have always heard the maternal bond is so strong and important. Then, I read numerous queries that made sense and caused me to second guess my first reaction. I changed my vote to "undecided, need more information."

I have seen programs on television in which kids get to visit mothers in prison. Most of those individuals (at least the ones featured on the special I saw) were incarcerated for drugs, theft, and/or prostitution. These individuals had to meet certain criteria (counseling, child-rearing courses, etc.) to meet with their children.

TH is a unique situation IMO. I currently perceive her as manipulative based on her "fibs" about her "friendship with DY," her inflated resume, her sexting, and possible MFH. I am skeptical about her motives and want to know more about whether it is more damaging for a 21-month old to reunite with "Mom," then not see her for a while, etc. I would like to know what type of anxiety these could create. Would it make BabyK more anxious? Would it cause her to "backslide" emotionally?

We moved to Palo Alto, CA when our daughter was two. I was concerned because she would be leaving a play group/child-care program that she had attended since she was 1-year-old. (I worked 3.5 hrs./day and still feel guilty-LOL) I made a scrapbook filled with pictures of her friends, care givers, our old neighbors, etc. One day I found her on her rocking horse in the new family room, saying, "No more...(insert friend's name," No more...(another name). She would also look at the scrapbook for 30-40 minutes a day.

Soon, we became involved in a new playgroup; I wasn't working; and gradually, I realized, she hadn't looked at the scrapbook in several weeks, never mentioned the "old" friends again, and scampered on...I don't think she was scarred at all.

A friend who is a child psychologist always told me that "kids are much more resilient than adults can imagine." (I've tried to get ahold of her about Baby K, but she's out of the country for a few months.)

So, I do not think that Baby K will be damaged if the court takes its time and carefully evaluates the benefits and complications/negative aspects of TH visiting with Baby K. I would certainly not expect any decision until after the January hearing.

Excellent post, Tink. You have some of the same worries I do. I do wonder if maybe baby K could be Terri's salvation, but I also worry about baby K being Terri's pawn to protect herself from a crime against baby's K's sibling, and who knows what else she's used baby K as an excuse for. Plus, we don't know how Terri is doing mentally right now, and whether seeing her child would be a good thing or a bad thing. And I wouldn't want baby K to grow up to be like her mom. Whether she's guilty or innocent, Terri is morally bankrupt, and that does not need to passed on to her child.

I guess I'm conflicted somewhat, but if she's mentally cleared, and proves to be the mother she and her friends and family says she is, then let her see baby K. It'd be even better if she was criminally cleared as well. But while all of this is up in the air, let baby K stay in a stable family and be safe from any potential harm while the court determines carefully what is best for her. This should be about baby K's needs, not Terri's.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I am just thankful that thus far it is staying about what is in baby K's best interest and NOT being about what is "right" for Terri.. Thus far IMO the absolute best interest of baby K is being followed and that is for her not to be put back into the negative atmosphere that she was in with her mom before baby K's brother was "disappeared"... There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that baby K is a "different child" and that is a difference for the better.. Any human being no matter what their age is going to be negatively impacted by the influences of an [the following examples are AT THE VERY LEAST OF WHICH baby K was subjected to->]unhappy, angry, full of bitterness individual[especially someone of baby K's age who has no say, nor any means of which to remove themselves from the negative situation]..

I am completely satisfied with baby K being priority number 1 and am also extremely thankful that those in charge of making such vitally important decisions[those who determine with whom baby K resides and any visitation schedules]that they are perfectly aware and fully admit to the EXTREME negative behaviors and actions that Terri thus far has shown and done ARE NOT WHAT NEEDS TO BE AROUND THIS PRECIOUS, IMPRESSIONABLE LITTLE GIRL..

 

[gitana1]

Even murderers can have visitation in prison.
My initial thought is that the baby just must have been traumatized to have her mommy just disappeared. Would contact help with that now? It's been what, 3.5 months now?
And what of Kaine's statement that the baby's mood changed for the better after mommy was gone?
Kids need to have contact with both their parents. That's the place I start from. I think she's guilty. I think she may not have been present, emotionally, for the baby for awhile as she obsessed over how to get rid of her "problem".
But, she has not been charged, and clearly TH loved her baby. I guess I think that as long as someone is watching, I really doubt it can hurt the baby to have a few hours a week or so with her mom. And it would likely be a good thing for Baby K to see her mom again and know she hasn't just disappeared, like her brother.
So, I voted undecided even though my first instinct was yes, supervised visitation because I had not thought about it much and because I do think TH harmed Kyron. Now I guess I should change it to yes, supervised.

 

[Dee10]

I haven't weighed in yet, but I hope the judge before deciding would order a psych. evaluation for Terri. I would think Kaine would request it. Would that be something a judge would order? Not sure Terri would do it though on the advice of her lawyer.

 

[BeanE]

I voted yes, with supervision. I can only look at this from the standpoint of the baby's needs.

The baby has been traumatized by suddenly losing her stepbrother, been under the stress and environmental changes surrounding that, been traumatized again by suddenly losing her mother. My heart bleeds for this baby. That's a heck of a lot of trauma to experience at such a young age.

There is no question that babies need their mother, that babies need the people they have spent the most time with.

I can not ignore, however, the possibility that Terri may have been involved in Kyron's disappearance, and possibly even in his murder.

Therefore, to ensure the baby's needs are met, I think she needs visitation with her mother, to heal and repair the damage that's been done by the severance of that relationship and contact, and so that at least some of the baby's needs in term of her mother can be met to avoid further emotional damage, but that it must be supervised, until such time as Terri is cleared, to ensure that the baby is not exposed to any danger of Terri harming her.

Another championship level run on sentence!

 

[grandmaj]

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

family law expert explains several factors are considered when determining visitation, but ultimately it boils down to what is best for the child.

"The issue is not going to be whether the child's mother, Terri deserves to see the child. The issue is what does the child need and how can we be sure the child's needs are being met," said family law attorney Jody Stahancyk.

Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."

He anticipates the visitation issue will be resolved at future hearings.

 

[Kat010]

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

family law expert explains several factors are considered when determining visitation, but ultimately it boils down to what is best for the child.

"The issue is not going to be whether the child's mother, Terri deserves to see the child. The issue is what does the child need and how can we be sure the child's needs are being met," said family law attorney Jody Stahancyk.

Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."

He anticipates the visitation issue will be resolved at future hearings.

I find myself kinda weirded out by Kaine's response. Remember, this is the man who's trashed her for months, nodded as his first ex-wife called TH not really human, the man who said he thinks she harmed his son.

Now suddenly, it's a seemingly calm "could be yes or no" and he has mixed feelings? Although I usually avoid saying "if it were I who"..in this case...if I believed my spouse had harmed my child as well as having a drinking problem and is a chronic liar was maybe going to get to be around my child, I'd say something like "Not only no, but he11 no! I will spend every penny I have and then borrow more to pay lawyers to keep him away from my child under any circumstances. And if need be, I'll stand in front of my child and dare him to come close!No! No! No!" If I believed everything that KH has said about TH, even on national TV, darned if I'd have mixed feelings, and darned if I'd say hmmm..could be yes or no. I think I'd also mention that 106-pound German Shepherd being involved in my "no visitation" policy. Ahem.

So it almost seems to me as though his statement is kind of...back pedaling? I dunno. Very perplexing.