2010.06.28 - Kyron's Dad files for divorce and restraining order

[GrainneDhu]

This is Friday, so forgive me if it seems silly :crazy:

If I recall from somewhere on this forum, it was thought that TH had possibly taught Kyron sign langauge, and possible then, baby K. So I'm thinking (if it's true), that a further precaution of supervision would be having someone there that would watch for this occuring, and what was being communicated.

Just thinking outloud. Feel free to slap me back to my senses, lol.

The articles I've read and the families I've observed that taught toddler signing tended to stick with very concrete words. Stuff like drink, play, ball, cookie, bedtime, etc. Not exactly conducive to covert communications involving abstract concepts. The most abstract would be "give a hug" or "give a kiss." Maybe "I love you" but without an action attached, it's difficult to say what the baby thinks that sign means.

Additionally, it's pretty common for each caretaker to develop a set of signs on their own that suit their needs and their baby's abilities. So there may well not be anyone else in the world who could tell what TMH and Baby K were saying to each other.

Although what sinister meaning there could be between "had enough juice?" or "play with elephant toy?" there could be, I really cannot imagine.

Since Baby K is well into the age where normal children are speaking, her use of sign language has probably faded quite a bit. I know that as soon as my nephews could speak the words for their signs, their usage of sign language dropped pretty rapidly. Even a toddler can see the advantages of communication that does not require eye contact to initiate!

 

[GrainneDhu]

Do you really believe that child has lost all memory of her mother?

According to my husband, his son had not forgotten his mother after being completely separated from her for something like 14 months.

My husband was given reports of how each visitation went and it was clear that his son remembered his mother and interacted with her as though she were familiar to him.

I would be intensely surprised if Baby K has completely forgotten TMH in just four months.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Not asking for money from Kaine is hardly second-guessing your attorney. It's stating what you would like to have done by the person who is being paid to do so.

Now, if she went around blabbing the way she did before she retained Houze, that would be another matter entirely.

But any attorney who cannot take some direction from their employer is an attorney who will not have many clients.

My ex chose a young, literally just out of law school attorney to represent him. On his demand, she filed many, many motions against me and actually ran my retainer out before we got to court, two years later.

Representing my ex in court was literally the first time his lawyer had ever appeared in court (all her other cases in the meantime had been settled outside of court... or maybe she didn't have any other cases).

The lawyer I chose to represent myself was very experienced and had argued cases all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

After the first couple months of nonsense from my ex's attorney, my lawyer commented to me "she's inexperienced and she has lost control of her client."

Too bad that happened because the judge decided to award my ex all of my lawyer fees (including the retainer). This is a state where each side almost always pays their own fees and it is quite unusual for one side to have to pay both!

And that's what can happen when a lawyer takes direction from a client.

My attorney, far from being short of clients, was constantly at the top of her capacity. She was certainly not a lawyer who believed in letting her clients run their own cases.

His lawyer? So far as I could ascertain, she only had one client: my ex.

Funny how things work out.

 

[gitana1]

Kaine has a RO against Terri as to seeing the baby. If Kaine were to give her visitation outside of the court system, that could possibly nullify the RO, and Terri's attorneys know that. Kaine was most likely advised, correctly, I might add, NOT to agree to any kind of visitation unless a judge orders it.

True, but the attorneys can agree to modify it. For example they can agree that baby K will continue to be part of the no contact order except for peaceful contact via supervised visitation. If they stipulate out of court to such a modification, it will be made into a court order after being signed and submitted to the court. That resolves that.

She has no right to go behind the court's back and get visitation when there is an active RO in place. It HAS to go through the court and her attorney knows that. Doesn't sound like he was giving her very good advice.

See above. If the attorneys talk and agree, they can draft a stipulation that will be made a court order, without a hearing.

Kaine's attorney, Ms. Rackner, is very highly respected in Portland. She is certainly not "in over her head." She is doing just fine. IMO

I agree. Bunch is trying. His motion is interesting - trying to get visitation without any testimony from his client, via declaration or otherwise, but his motion does have evidentiary problems: Lack of foundation, hearsay, and the sloppy but sometimes common tactic of arguing in a declaration rather than in the points and authorities. He intends to use experts to say, I guess, that in general, all babies benefit from regular contact with their primary caregiver, as long as that contact is safe, without specifically addressing the relationship between TH and Baby K. That's a great attempt at getting around having to testify or undergo an evaluation. It could work if the court realizes the unique situation present here. I mean, supervised visitation is mostly safe for babies this age and not detrimental to their well-being. It would be different if say, an abuser wanted visitation.
But even though i think Bunch has found a good way to try get what he wants without compromising his client's rights, (we'll see if he's successful), he's not some scary good attorney that is out-lawyering KH's attorneys. Far from it. If he was, KH would not have the house and the child and he would be paying TH's attorney's fees and child and spousal support right about now. KH holds all the cards in the civil action at present. And TH holds all the cards in the criminal action IMO, because she won't say what she did with Kyron and they cannot find him.

 

[gwenabob]

Thank you for your clarifications.

 

[Dee10]

GrainneDuh, you have been through so much...I can't imagine how difficult your situation was.:grouphug:

We are all counting on /praying etc. the Judge makes the wisest decision regarding Baby K. My fear is he is not going to have all the information he needs into access this unusual situation. Personally, I don't think natural parents are always the be and end all for a child's emotional stability for a child so very young and many times otherwise...but I have absolutely no training...just my .01 opinion and I understand every situation is different. I do not doubt this Judge will be prudent in this unusual but highly public case.

 

[drip~drop]

Do you really believe that child has lost all memory of her mother?

See, that's my only issue with all this. Of course the baby misses her mommy and it's not fair to the baby. Supervised visits should be allowed. imo.
TH hasn't been charged or convicted whatever the truth may be. imo

 

[loves2bmom]

Does anyone know if/when a hearing will be scheduled for this? Gwen..do you see anything showing up on your Oregon Judicial site?

ETA: Found this article from Thursday that says it hasn't been scheduled yet but wondering if it would be something coming up quickly?

http://www.kval.com/news/105040114.html
"According to the court, a hearing date has not yet been set for a judge to hear the motion."

 

[gwenabob]

Does anyone know if/when a hearing will be scheduled for this? Gwen..do you see anything showing up on your Oregon Judicial site?

ETA: Found this article from Thursday that says it hasn't been scheduled yet but wondering if it would be something coming up quickly?

http://www.kval.com/news/105040114.html
"According to the court, a hearing date has not yet been set for a judge to hear the motion."

Right now, there are two motions to be heard on January 6th. One at 9 am estimated to take 3 hrs and one at 2 pm estimated for 3 hrs. I think they both have to do with the suit money. I don't think one is for the visitation issue. It will probably be set to be heard sooner than Jan. 6th, but I don't know for sure.

 

[loves2bmom]

Right now, there are two motions to be heard on January 6th. One at 9 am estimated to take 3 hrs and one at 2 pm estimated for 3 hrs. I think they both have to do with the suit money. I don't think one is for the visitation issue. It will probably be set to be heard sooner than Jan. 6th, but I don't know for sure.

Thanks Gwen, I would assume the visitation they are asking for is more immediate than Jan. 6th...but I don't know. Let us know if you see anything on your site! :blowkiss:

 

[Trt]

No one said that either lawyer has the authority to grant visitation. That is not what Bunch said or even implied by his actions. And it's not illegal for them to hammer out an agreement to take to the judge for his approval (or denial, whichever the case may be).

My post was about whether or not Kaine and his lawyer have any authority to allow visitation to Terri Horman based on repeated requests. That is what Bunch states in the petition (numbered 5 in the reason for petition). Again, my opinion is that the requests for Kaine to ALLOW Terri to see baby K were an attempt at circumvention of the actual process that Terri has to follow in order to gain even limited access to her child.

As well, I've not mentioned the legality of the lawyers coming to an agreement. Just the futility of it considering it wouldn't carry much weight at all in the hearing about the restraining order. Jmo

 

[Trt]

*sigh*

Any agreement between the attorneys of the two parties involved would have then been taken before the judge saving the court (as I stated above) time, expense, headaches and aggravation, and then the judge would have made the final decision on whether or not to grant visitation as the two parties agreed.

I'm sorry hat my disagreement is frustrating you. I do not believe that a judge would consider this agreement in a hearing to have a RO modified. I have read the statutes as well as the procedures and rights that a respondent and a petitioner has when trying to get an RO modified, and I have not seen where a mutual agreement (in or out of court) between the two parties would factor into a judge's decision for this type of RO.

Jmo

 

[gardeness]

My post was about whether or not Kaine and his lawyer have any authority to allow visitation to Terri Horman based on repeated requests. That is what Bunch states in the petition (numbered 5 in the reason for petition). Again, my opinion is that the requests for Kaine to ALLOW Terri to see baby K were an attempt at circumvention of the actual process that Terri has to follow in order to gain even limited access to her child.

As well, I've not mentioned the legality of the lawyers coming to an agreement. Just the futility of it considering it wouldn't carry much weight at all in the hearing about the restraining order. Jmo

It seems that gitana addresses this in post 299 on this thread...

 

[Trt]

Actually, I had that in my first post that the only part of the order that pertains to the baby is the part above. But no where in that part that says what Teri is prohibited from doing to minor child in petitioner's custody does it state anything about no contact..

"Intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing" do not mean no contact.

So how does the RO clearly say Teri is to have no contact.

The Oregon FAPA RO is an order that restrains the respondent from a petitioner and any joint minor children of the petitioner and the respondent. If there were no minor children involved, Kaine would have had to file for a stalking protection order(the only other RO available in Oregon other than one for the elderly). Jmo

 

[Trt]

It seems that gitana addresses this in post 299 on this thread...

yes, gitana's post was helpful. But I'm not sure that it fully addresses what I'm speaking of. I've not read in the statutes that either party can bring a mutual agreement to the judge and have him sign off on it with no questions asked. Jmo

 

[Trt]

Thanks Gwen, I would assume the visitation they are asking for is more immediate than Jan. 6th...but I don't know. Let us know if you see anything on your site! :blowkiss:

Everything I've seen as far as the RO is concerned states that the court has to schedule a hearing within five days of a petition when there are minor children involved. I don't know if that counts for this or not due to the abatement. Jmo

 

[germaine]

yes, gitana's post was helpful. But I'm not sure that it fully addresses what I'm speaking of. I've not read in the statutes that either party can bring a mutual agreement to the judge and have him sign off on it with no questions asked. Jmo

I think in normal cases where both parties agree, the judge would sign off on their agreement. In THIS case, the parties don't agree and bunch's pointing out that Kaine won't agree is posturing to paint him as unreasonable. I think the judge will give terri supervised visitation at kaine's expense, and I hope he doesn't live to regret it.

 

[Trt]

I think in normal cases where both parties agree, the judge would sign off on their agreement. In THIS case, the parties don't agree and bunch's pointing out that Kaine won't agree is posturing to paint him as unreasonable. I think the judge will give terri supervised visitation at kaine's expense, and I hope he doesn't live to regret it.

I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly.

 

[grandmaj]

I think in normal cases where both parties agree, the judge would sign off on their agreement. In THIS case, the parties don't agree and bunch's pointing out that Kaine won't agree is posturing to paint him as unreasonable. I think the judge will give terri supervised visitation at kaine's expense, and I hope he doesn't live to regret it.

I'm not sure. I really hope not. I'm wondering if Kaine's attorney will pull a Houze out of her hat and ask for an abatement since she is not able to ask questions of the petitioner.

 

[GrainneDhu]

GrainneDuh, you have been through so much...I can't imagine how difficult your situation was.:grouphug:

We are all counting on /praying etc. the Judge makes the wisest decision regarding Baby K. My fear is he is not going to have all the information he needs into access this unusual situation. Personally, I don't think natural parents are always the be and end all for a child's emotional stability for a child so very young and many times otherwise...but I have absolutely no training...just my .01 opinion and I understand every situation is different. I do not doubt this Judge will be prudent in this unusual but highly public case.

Two people can look at the same situation and see two different things. I look at my life and think "wow, I never wasted any time in leading an interesting life, did I?" while you see it as something I have endured. I do appreciate your good wishes, I think there can never be too much of that going around.

There is lots of research that shows that even children who have been abused by their parent(s) benefit from carefully structured and supervised visitation with their parents.

I do wish my stepson had been allowed to have the benefit of an ongoing relationship with his mother because I see how it hurt him not to have it. Even though my husband did everything recommended to try to heal that gap, it never really healed. He's over 30 years old and still thinking about why his mother abandoned him.

Arrangements can be made so that supervised visitation with TMH would be less risky for Baby K than the car ride to the place of visitation. Since TMH is willing and apparently eager to have some contact with Baby K, I hope that it can somehow be arranged, so that Baby K doesn't grow up to be 30+ years old and still wondering why her mama abandoned her.