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

[Adrienne37]

I am not a TH fan at all. I also don't think she should be unsupervised around Baby K, but I don't see how the "sexting " scandal- there was only one that we know of right?she was not "serial sexting"??-plays into her fitness as a mother. Maybe taken in context with everything else, yes,but not that alone.
MVHO

Well, apparently she engaged in similar behavior with the landscaper whom she tried to hire to kill her husband as well as her husband's high school friend so who's to say that she doesn't partake in that activity very frequently? And no, I will admit that by itself would hardly disqualify her from having visitation with her daughter but it speaks to character and morals IMO, of which, again IMO, she has absolutely none.

 

[mmmagique]

I may be wrong as the de facto definition has been discussed thoroughly on this board, but in the respect that Bunch (not Houze) used the de facto suspect term, I believe he was saying to the judge that she is being "treated" like a suspect, in reference to her constitutional rights being stepped upon. IANAL, so I'm probably wrong, but maybe someone can ask our lawyers, why Bunch used that term and what he was trying to convey to the judge.

Here's the quote from Oregon Live: "In court papers filed Wednesday, Bunch went further, noting that Terri Horman is a "de facto suspect" in the second-grader's disappearance. Because she's the "center of a police investigation," he argued, she's unable to properly protect her property, support and, particularly, custody and parenting rights."

and here's the link: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/terri_moulton_horman_creates_s.html

It's clear to me that he said himself that she actually is a "de facto suspect", not that she was being treated as one.

 

[wenwe4]

I understand what you're saying but, unless I'm misunderstanding the burdens in the child custody context (and I very well may be), isn't the whole presumption of innocence thing by the boards b/c she's presumed guilty of the allegations in the R/O by not having contested it? And even if not, isn't the burden of overcoming any presumption significantly smaller in a civil case? And does it even apply? lol I think I need legal counsel to participate in this thread!

Whew! OK you win the post of the day! At this point, I feel as if I will need legal counsel just to interpret - let alone answer this (these) questions. I will pass on commenting.

I do think you bring up a great thought though (of what I can make of it). But I think that the continuing need to prevent the visits has not been "proven" to weigh the scales in the favor of essentially severing the relationship between the parent and child.

Also, I think it would be extremely unfair to introduce the child to the parent only for a parenting assessment after they have not seen each other for 4+ months. No matter what, there will be struggles in the relationship initially as Baby K has not had access to her Mother. Over 60 years of research in attachment theory has proven this to be true and any skilled clinician would not perform an assessment until such time they could re-establish and reunite for some period of time.

 

[stmarysmead]

Let's make this simple. Terri Horman is suspected by LE of trying to hire someone to kill her husband.

Terri Horman is suspected by LE of having made a small child that loves her disappear.

Terri Horman's attorney says she can't clear up these matters because she would incriminate herself.

Should we take a chance and let her re-enter Baby K's life?

Does it benefit Baby K to become reattach to (Terri) who may have done these things?

I say no.

 

[germaine]

Whew! OK you win the post of the day! At this point, I feel as if I will need legal counsel just to interpret - let alone answer this (these) questions. I will pass on commenting.

I do think you bring up a great thought though (of what I can make of it). But I think that the continuing need to prevent the visits has not been "proven" to weigh the scales in the favor of essentially severing the relationship between the parent and child.

Also, I think it would be extremely unfair to introduce the child to the parent only for a parenting assessment after they have not seen each other for 4+ months. No matter what, there will be struggles in the relationship initially as Baby K has not had access to her Mother. Over 60 years of research in attachment theory has proven this to be true and any skilled clinician would not perform an assessment until such time they could re-establish and reunite for some period of time.

Sorry I was confusing. I even confused myself :crazy: I think I agree that the continuing need to prevent visits hasn't specifically been proven. But, since the R/O was based on the very same allegations that are now "proven" (I think:waitasec, and those very same allegations were the basis for the no-contact order in the first place, what possible change in circumstances could the court base a change in visitation on at this point? I'm not expecting you to answer. Just thinking out loud and bouncing off your post.

 

[Scamperoo]

Let's make this simple. Terri Horman is suspected by LE of trying to hire someone to kill her husband.

Terri Horman is suspected by LE of having made a small child that loves her disappear.

Terri Horman's attorney says she can't clear up these matters because she would incriminate herself.

Should we take a chance and let her re-enter Baby K's life?

Does it benefit Baby K to become reattach to a (Terri) who may have done these things?

I say no.

Misinterpretation, supposition, conjecture, some fabrication and name calling elicited as fact gives no one the right to decide the fate of a mother's and baby's relationship.

If TH is named a suspect or arrested, allowed to answer charges against her and is found guilty, then maybe, but not now.

Supervised visitation.

 

[mmmagique]

Misinterpretation, supposition, conjecture, some fabrication and name calling elicited as fact gives no one the right to decide the fate of a mother's and baby's relationship.

If TH is named a suspect or arrested, allowed to answer charges against her and is found guilty, then maybe, but not now.

Supervised visitation.

The things she has been accused of in court, which she refused to answer to should absolutely be considered by the judge. (and yes, he DOES have not only the right, but the obligation to decide the fate of this mother and child's relationship. At least for the time being.) This is civil court, not criminal, and there is a much lower burden of proof.

 

[believe09]

Misinterpretation, supposition, conjecture, some fabrication and name calling elicited as fact gives no one the right to decide the fate of a mother's and baby's relationship.

If TH is named a suspect or arrested, allowed to answer charges against her and is found guilty, then maybe, but not now.

Supervised visitation.

BBM-there in lies the rub. Allowed to answer charges...allowed to answer suppositions and hearsay.

Her attorneys advised her against allowing herself the chance to answer the sworn testimony of her now estranged husband.

Seeing as how that is the case, she wants to get relief via the courts without having to answer any charges being made.

K.

desquire notes that she may or may not be required to have an evaluation in order to assist the judge in determining the advisability of granting her those visits without answering those charges.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Baby K is being evaluated for her well being and the kaine is being evaluated for his fitness to continue to be her sole custodian. There will likely be an armful of data presented to assist the judge in determining the advisability of the decisionmaking on this issue being taken from Kaine.

Wishing the playing field was more level. That's all I am saying. I think the last few months would throw anyone. I think that TH should be evaluated....I think it is fair. JMO.

 

[Calliope]

There is also the quote from her lawyer that Terri is a de facto suspect in this case.

Meaning that LE --- and the media and public --- are treating her as one, even though she's not been named as such.

What does it mean to you? I get the feeling that many here seem to believe he was implying that he knows Terri is guilty or somehow involved in Kyron's disappearance. It means nothing of the sort. Not even close.

 

[Scamperoo]

I may be wrong as the de facto definition has been discussed thoroughly on this board, but in the respect that Bunch (not Houze) used the de facto suspect term, I believe he was saying to the judge that she is being "treated" like a suspect, in reference to her constitutional rights being stepped upon. IANAL, so I'm probably wrong, but maybe someone can ask our lawyers, why Bunch used that term and what he was trying to convey to the judge.

I came to the same conclusion, her Lawyer was clearly stating his clients constitutional rights were being jeopardized by having LE focus on her and unsuccessfully attempting to entrap her without charging her.

Information was given to Kain by LE that allowed him to get an RO against Terri. The proof of this allegation remains shrouded in the ambiguity of LE's investigation and an landscaper hiding behind an alias.

 

[Calliope]

Can anyone cite a case where just a statement like this resulted in a woman being charged and prosecuted for a Murder for Hire?

"I really hated my husband enough to say that I wanted him killed" or "My stepson was really getting on my nerves and was interfering in the quality time I had with Baby K."

Or has her child removed from her custody?

If this is all LE has, can you imagine the howls of derison if Teri's excellent attotney called them on their "evidence" and THIS was IT!

The news media would have a field day! Terri would sudden;y receive enourmous sympathy and support! LE would be embarrassed!

No way would a excellent high priced attorney feel his client was incriminated by such a flimsy nothing piece of "evidence." No way would any Mother let such drivel keep her from her child.

But both those things have happened. Terri's excellent attorney says he cannot put her on the stand...she will incriminate herself.

Common sense says...they KNOW there's something HUGE here that they fear.

To borrow a line from one of my favorite movies of all time:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I posted above the definition (and an attorney's discussion) of what exactly "self-incrimination" means, and in the context of the 5th Amendment.

 

[mmmagique]

Meaning that LE --- and the media and public --- are treating her as one, even though she's not been named as such.

What does it mean to you? I get the feeling that many here seem to believe he was implying that he knows Terri is guilty or somehow involved in Kyron's disappearance. It means nothing of the sort. Not even close.

I thought it meant exactly what he said. Nothing more, nothing less. That she IS a de facto suspect.

Of course I wouldn't expect a person's attorney to imply (s)he thought their client was guilty. Even a rookie wouldn't (or shouldn't!) make that mistake. But no one here has implied that.

 

[pufnstuf]

I thought it meant exactly what he said. Nothing more, nothing less. That she IS a de facto suspect.

Of course I wouldn't expect a person's attorney to imply (s)he thought their client was guilty. Even a rookie wouldn't (or shouldn't!) make that mistake. But no one here has implied that.

The only way that Terri can assert the fifth in a civil hearing is if her attorney can convince the judge that she IS INDEED a suspect in a contemporaneous criminal case and that her answers to certain questions may indeed incriminate her.

 

[grandmaj]

Get back on track here please and stop personalizing your posts.

This post lands at Random.

 

[Scamperoo]

BBM-there in lies the rub. Allowed to answer charges...allowed to answer suppositions and hearsay.

Her attorneys advised her against allowing herself the chance to answer the sworn testimony of her now estranged husband.

Seeing as how that is the case, she wants to get relief via the courts without having to answer any charges being made.

K.

desquire notes that she may or may not be required to have an evaluation in order to assist the judge in determining the advisability of granting her those visits without answering those charges.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Baby K is being evaluated for her well being and the kaine is being evaluated for his fitness to continue to be her sole custodian. There will likely be an armful of data presented to assist the judge in determining the advisability of the decisionmaking on this issue being taken from Kaine.

Wishing the playing field was more level. That's all I am saying. I think the last few months would throw anyone. I think that TH should be evaluated....I think it is fair. JMO.

One can answer nothing if one is not charged, the point is her husband has made allegations against her that have never been substantiated. To refute that, she must have all the information available to her, but that has not been forthcoming.

So to successfully answer the allegation she tried to have her husband murdered, " no I didn't" isn't going to cut it when both LE and her husband are professing this.

LE needs to provide proof or her husband needs to provide the details by which he took out that order supported by LE.

If this doesn't happen how can she possibly take the stand.

 

[Scamperoo]

Apologies if I offended. I try not to get too personal.

 

[believe09]

One can answer nothing if one is not charged, the point is her husband has made allegations against her that have never been substantiated. To refute that, she must have all the information available to her, but that has not been forthcoming.

So to successfully answer the allegation she tried to have her husband murdered, " no I didn't" isn't going to cut it when both LE and her husband are professing this.

LE needs to provide proof or her husband needs to provide the details by which he took out that order supported by LE.

If this doesn't happen how can she possibly take the stand.

BBM-see, I see this a little differently..in that he didnt have to substantiate them because the RO was not contested. I doubt that this means the allegations are spurious, but the point of whether or not they are is almost moot because the statements were never contested. JMO

 

[citigirl]

One can answer nothing if one is not charged, the point is her husband has made allegations against her that have never been substantiated. To refute that, she must have all the information available to her, but that has not been forthcoming.

So to successfully answer the allegation she tried to have her husband murdered, " no I didn't" isn't going to cut it when both LE and her husband are professing this.

LE needs to provide proof or her husband needs to provide the details by which he took out that order supported by LE.

If this doesn't happen how can she possibly take the stand.

I just don't think we are at that point yet....The judge has not asked to see what LE has and LE has not refused so TH has not had to testify or not testify about what she is or isn't accused of doing.

At some point this judge is going to have to deal with all this. He is hoping LE will arrest her soon. He can't be hoping LE can clear her, because they have never accused her of anything.

This all needs to play out...the judge has got to make the first move...

If Kaine cannot produce the information then I don't see how the judge can consider it...and TH won't have to answer any questions about it.

At this point it is a Catch-22 situation until the judge acts.

 

[Billylee]

Sorry I was confusing. I even confused myself :crazy: I think I agree that the continuing need to prevent visits hasn't specifically been proven. But, since the R/O was based on the very same allegations that are now "proven" (I think:waitasec, and those very same allegations were the basis for the no-contact order in the first place, what possible change in circumstances could the court base a change in visitation on at this point? I'm not expecting you to answer. Just thinking out loud and bouncing off your post.

Okay, my turn to be confused. What is now proven? Are you saying that Kaine's allegations in the RO have been proven or am I misunderstanding?

 

[believe09]

I just don't think we are at that point yet....The judge has not asked to see what LE has and LE has not refused so TH has not had to testify or not testify about what she is or isn't accused of doing.

At some point this judge is going to have to deal with all this. He is hoping LE will arrest her soon. He can't be hoping LE can clear her, because they have never accused her of anything.

This all needs to play out...the judge has got to make the first move...

If Kaine cannot produce the information then I don't see how the judge can consider it...and TH won't have to answer any questions about it.

At this point it is a Catch-22 situation until the judge acts.

I genuinely believe that Kaine will produce a number of documents and that they may have to be reviewed by the judge in camera. I remember when a friend of mine was divorced. Her ex made allegations that needed to be refuted with material my friend did not want her ex to see. The judge reviewed the material in camera. My friend won that round without having to provide her ex with material that he was not entitled to.