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

[citigirl]

Right. ANYTHING she says WILL be used against her.

And, in a civil case, anything she DOESN'T SAY will be used against her...she cannot continue to obstruct this process and expect Kaine will take a chance with Baby K.

 

[debs]

And, in a civil case, anything she DOESN'T SAY will be used against her...she cannot continue to obstruct this process and expect Kaine will take a chance with Baby K.

That seems to be what he's doing, yes.

 

[Adrienne37]

And, in a civil case, anything she DOESN'T SAY will be used against her...she cannot continue to obstruct this process and expect Kaine will take a chance with Baby K.

and I say more power to him. It appears that he is doing everything legally he can to ensure the safety and well being of his only remaining child. It's very evident to me that Kaine's first and foremost concern (after Kyron) is baby K unlike Terri whose first and foremost concern is only of herself. If I had only one thing that I could say to Kaine right now it would be for him to do any and everything within your power to protect that baby from this very unstable and dangerous woman. JMO.

 

[JBean]

I'm not quite sure why this is even being discussed any longer as it is quite obvious that Terri cares nothing about seeing baby K if it means that she might incriminate herself. Her lawyers dropped their motion so why is the continued discussion about this still taking place. How much plainer can it be written? People are trying to make excuses about why Terri did this and why Terri did that when it should be as plain as day that she CARES MORE FOR HERSELF THAN SHE DOES HER DAUGHTER. Does she need to post a Facebook message saying she doesn't care about baby K or walk around with a sign around her neck stating it? -all JMO-

Hi A-37. Maybe she does and maybe she doesn't and what is "plain" to you is not "plain" to others. Personally I don't find anything about this case "plain".
Perhaps she is making sure that she does not do anything that could land her in prison for life or worse. If she were to be convicted, then she would be separated from her child for certain.
if she thinks that her presence in the baby's life is of critical importance, guilty or innocent she is taking advantage of her rights to possibly protect that relationship in the long term.'
Not drawing any conclusions or judgements, just trying to point out that there is more than one way to skin a cat and put in a situation such as this, she may be choosing a better option to be reunited with the baby in the future.
don't know all the ins and outs so this could be her best shot.

 

[Adrienne37]

Hi A-37. Maybe she does and maybe she doesn't and what is "plain" to you is not "plain" to others. Personally I don't find anything about this case "plain".
Perhaps she is making sure that she does not do anything that could land her in prison for life or worse. If she were to be convicted, then she would be separated from her child for certain.
if she thinks that her presence in the baby's life is of critical importance, guilty or innocent she is taking advantage of her rights to possibly protect that relationship in the long term.'
Not drawing any conclusions or judgements, just trying to point out that there is more than one way to skin a cat and put in a situation such as this, she may be choosing a better option to be reunited with the baby in the future.
don't know all the ins and outs so this could be her best shot.

You are right JBean, definitely nothing plain about this case whatsoever. I think in the end, every single one of us wants the same outcome even if we disagree on the way to get there, and that is Kyron being found and the person responsible being held accountable for their actions.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Does she have a right to see her mother? Even if? No matter what?
Please direct me to this.

Yes. I haven't been able to hunt down the Oregon law, but there are similar laws across the country. For example, Nevada:

NRS 125C.220 Presumptions concerning custody and visitation when parent of child is convicted of first degree murder of other parent of child.

1. The conviction of the parent of a child for murder of the first degree of the other parent of the child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody of the child by the convicted parent is not in the best interest of the child. The rebuttable presumption may be overcome only if:

(a) The court determines that:

(1) There is no other suitable guardian for the child;

(2) The convicted parent is a suitable guardian for the child; and

(3) The health, safety and welfare of the child are not at risk; or

(b) The child is of suitable age to signify his or her assent and assents to the order of the court awarding sole or joint custody of the child to the convicted parent.

2. The conviction of the parent of a child for murder of the first degree of the other parent of the child creates a rebuttable presumption that rights to visitation with the child are not in the best interest of the child and must not be granted if custody is not granted pursuant to subsection 1. The rebuttable presumption may be overcome only if:

(a) The court determines that:

(1) The health, safety and welfare of the child are not at risk; and

(2) It will be beneficial for the child to have visitations with the convicted parent; or

(b) The child is of suitable age to signify his or her assent and assents to the order of the court awarding rights to visitation with the child to the convicted parent.

3. Until the court makes a determination pursuant to this section, no person may bring the child into the presence of the convicted parent without the consent of the legal guardian or custodian of the child.

(Added to NRS by 1999, 742; A 1999, 2975)

NRS 125C.230 Presumption concerning custody when court determines that parent or other person seeking custody of child is perpetrator of domestic violence.

1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125C.210 and 125C.220, a determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear and convincing evidence that either parent or any other person seeking custody of a child has engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody of the child by the perpetrator of the domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child. Upon making such a determination, the court shall set forth:

(a) Findings of fact that support the determination that one or more acts of domestic violence occurred; and

(b) Findings that the custody or visitation arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent or other victim of domestic violence who resided with the child.

2. If after an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to subsection 1 the court determines that more than one party has engaged in acts of domestic violence, it shall, if possible, determine which person was the primary physical aggressor. In determining which party was the primary physical aggressor for the purposes of this section, the court shall consider:

(a) All prior acts of domestic violence involving any of the parties;

(b) The relative severity of the injuries, if any, inflicted upon the persons involved in those prior acts of domestic violence;

(c) The likelihood of future injury;

(d) Whether, during the prior acts, one of the parties acted in self-defense; and

(e) Any other factors that the court deems relevant to the determination.

Ê In such a case, if it is not possible for the court to determine which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 1 applies to each of the parties. If it is possible for the court to determine which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 1 applies only to the party determined by the court to be the primary physical aggressor.

3. As used in this section, “domestic violence” means the commission of any act described in NRS 33.018.

(Added to NRS by 1999, 742)

NRS 125C.240 Presumption concerning custody when court determines that parent or other person seeking custody of child has committed act of abduction against child or any other child.

1. A determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear and convincing evidence that either parent or any other person seeking custody of a child has committed any act of abduction against the child or any other child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator of the abduction is not in the best interest of the child. If the parent or other person seeking custody does not rebut the presumption, the court shall not enter an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator and the court shall set forth:

(a) Findings of fact that support the determination that one or more acts of abduction occurred; and

(b) Findings that the custody or visitation arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent or other person from whom the child was abducted.

2. For purposes of subsection 1, any of the following acts constitute conclusive evidence that an act of abduction occurred:

(a) A conviction of the defendant of any violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct;

(b) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the defendant to any violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct; or

(c) An admission by the defendant to the court of the facts contained in the charging document alleging a violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct.

3. If, after a court enters a final order concerning custody of the child, a magistrate determines there is probable cause to believe that an act of abduction has been committed against the child or any other child and that a person who has been awarded sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child has committed the act, the court shall, upon a motion to modify the order concerning custody, reconsider the previous order concerning custody pursuant to subsections 1 and 2.

4. As used in this section, “abduction” means the commission of an act described in NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct.

(Added to NRS by 2009, 225)

Source: http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-125C.html#NRS125CSec220

First off, Terri hasn't even been convicted. Kaine has to prove to the judge that it isn't in the best interests of Baby K to have visitation with Terri. Otherwise, there is a legal presumption that it is in the best interests of the child to have visitation. Even if a parent has been convicted of a crime, even murder, that does not preclude them from visitation with their children.

Regardless of how people feel about Terri's innocence or guilt, she has not been convicted. Therefore, Baby K has a legal right to see her mother.

 

[SuziQ]

Glad I could inspire a chuckle.

I can't get Kyron and his smile out of my mind (not that I want to, but YKWIM). What a dear sweet boy.

It's hinky that Terri took that photo of Kyron at the science fair that day, and then a friend commented that it seemed weird that Terri made a point of showing that photo to her (at the grocery store).

Gosh, I guess they have searched Savie Island but not enough.

I'll be OK, but this case really pizzes me off.

Hey, you know quite a bit. I had completely forgotten about the grocery store/pic incident.

 

[Adrienne37]

<respectfully snipped for space>

Respectfully, this case is taking place in Oregon; therefore, posting a law from Nevada has no bearing whatsoever on this case. JMO.

 

[Cazzie]

Hey, you know quite a bit. I had completely forgotten about the grocery store/pic incident.

In the photos of Terri shown on Dateline, there is one with her on our right, and Kyron on our left. She's looking into the camera and that look on her face and in her eyes gives me the heebie jeebies. I know that photos are a snapshot of a moment, but still!

My gut feeling is that she did "something" with Kyron.

The show also said that she failed 2 lie detector tests and walked out on a 3rd.

But I can totally understand how an innocent person can be manipulated into seeming guilty (thanks, poster whose name I don't recall).

 

[debs]

A child has a right to be with his or her parents. If Kyron has that right, K does too.

The fly in the ointment here is that people are saying Terri did something to Kyron and therefore K's right to her mother should be withdrawn for her safety, without proof she was ever in danger, or would be in danger in the future.

 

[Chablis]

In this motion to dismiss, it is stated quite clearly she is quite concerned for her daughter's well being.

But not concerned enough to prove her fitness to be with her daughter. If shes concerned, state why and get something done about it. What is her biggest gripe with Kaine so far? He didn't know the childs favorite blanket?

Once again, I am glad she stopped this nonsense, she shouldnt be so selfish, she retained a criminal lawyer, shes expecting charges, how selfish of her to attempt to see her child after a 3 month hiatus knowing its a real possibility she could be going away to prison at some point and disrupting the child once again with another absence. jmo

 

[debs]

She's selfish for wanting to see her child and selfish when she withdraws paperwork to attempt to get to see her. The short term goal wasn't going to be achieved. The long term goal is still there.

It is not selfish to protect your constitutional rights.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Respectfully, this case is taking place in Oregon; therefore, posting a law from Nevada has no bearing whatsoever on this case. JMO.

It's illustrating the legal presumption of a child's right to visitation with their parent, which is what I said in my post. While some of the specifics may be different, most state laws follows the same legal presumptions. A battery is a battery in all states but Louisiana (which historically follows French civil code). The same applies to other civil cases. While the little details may vary from state to state, there is almost always an over-arching history, nationwide, how a legal subject is treated, from battery to abortion to parental rights.

"The fact that the parent of a child has committed a crime and has served a sentence in prison for the offense does not of itself bar his or her visitation rights where he or she has not thereafter led a life of crime. Likewise, present incarceration in a penal institution does not justify denying the parent all access to or visitation with his or her minor children. However, an inmate's right to visitation with his or her children may be restricted where he or she is a convicted sex offender."

Source: AMJUR DIVORCE § 892

 

[Chablis]

She's selfish for wanting to see her child and selfish when she withdraws paperwork to attempt to get to see her. The short term goal wasn't going to be achieved. The long term goal is still there.

It is not selfish to protect your constitutional rights.

Terri has an unknown future, she really does. The child needs stability, and once again, if she solicited someone to kill the childs father, she should get exactly what she has right now, and she is the only one to blame for all of this. For some reason she cant answer questions about Kyron, Terri is not more important than Kyron to anyone in this story, if she cant answer questions about a missing child she has no right to be around them at all. I mean really, she refuses to be evaluated, and I am glad she is so selfish, this time it really is in the best interest of the baby. jmo

 

[AnaTeresa]

Terri has an unknown future, she really does. The child needs stability, and once again, if she solicited someone to kill the childs father, she should get exactly what she has right now, and she is the only one to blame for all of this.

LE doesn't have enough proof that she did this to even charge her. They attempted to have her incriminate herself by sending a man wearing a wire and she called 911. From what we are privy to, the murder for hire is all speculation from a witness who can no longer be located and was going by an alias. Child custody decisions should not be based on speculation and opinion.

 

[gwenabob]

LE doesn't have enough proof that she did this to even charge her. They attempted to have her incriminate herself by sending a man wearing a wire and she called 911. From what we are privy to, the murder for hire is all speculation from a witness who can no longer be located and was going by an alias. Child custody decisions should not be based on speculation and opinion.

bbm

I have never heard that the witness cannot be located. Do you have a source for that?

 

[Adrienne37]

LE doesn't have enough proof that she did this to even charge her. They attempted to have her incriminate herself by sending a man wearing a wire and she called 911. From what we are privy to, the murder for hire is all speculation from a witness who can no longer be located and was going by an alias. Child custody decisions should not be based on speculation and opinion.

Is there a link handy for the BBM part of your post? I was unaware that there was a witness to the murder for hire plot? If you are talking about the landscaper, LE knows very well where he is and I'm sure they also know what his real name is. JMO

 

[AnaTeresa]

Peter Bunch said he's asked for Terri Horman calls to 9-1-1, back to Dec 26th [Note: the Decemeber request my have been mispoken]. But was denied by Sheriff's office saying it's part of "ongoing Investigation." He's tried to serve the landscaper, Rudy Sanchez with subpoena for deposition, but prosecutors wouldn't give him contact information because of the "ongoing investigation." Bunch said Terri called 911 when Sanchez showed up at her house wired "trying to talk to about something". He also said Rudy Sanchez is an AKA (alias).

Source: http://www.katu.com/news/local/104507829.html

You can also see the thread here on Websleuths discussing the fact that the landscaper is going by an alias and the information that is being withheld from Terri's lawyers at this thread: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116448"]Bunch: "Rudy Sanchez is an AKA (alias)" - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Aedrys]

It's being discussed because members want to discuss it. Let's get back on topic because discussing what members do and don't want to discuss isn't a discussion that we discuss.

:crazy:

Wow, say that five times fast, lol! Point taken.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Is there a link handy for the BBM part of your post? I was unaware that there was a witness to the murder for hire plot? If you are talking about the landscaper, LE knows very well where he is and I'm sure they also know what his real name is. JMO

We don't know that - all we know is that LE will not release the information from the 911 call and that Rudy Sanchez was an alias. Given that LE have gained no ground in the alleged murder for hire, it's my opinion that they no longer have contact with him.

Terri can't defend herself against the murder for hire allegations in the civil divorce case unless her lawyers are able to access that information and cross-examine the witness. Otherwise, Kaine can't bring that information in - it's hearsay. Since LE cannot and/or will not produce the landscaper, it's my opinion that he cannot be found.