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

[stmarysmead]

You're right, Donjeta!

There were no interviews on the 26th of June. D and K had a media blitz on the 25th where he stated that Terri was cooperating and wanted the same as they all did, for Kyron to be found. It was on the 26th that Kaine was revealed by LE the MFH and the involvement of Terri in Kyron's "disappearance". The only interview on the 26th is the reporter asking Terri in their driveway of the rumor of Kaine moving out and Terri replying, "Everything is fine and that is a rumore that needs to be squashed"... Kaine nor Desiree gave any interviews that weekend and the only thing that was released was a statement from the 3 parents(minus Terri) about that they all were seeking Kyron to be found and were still being briefed by LE... Still nothing negative whatsoever about Terri.

It wasnt until Terri, herself violated the RO by showing to MC and having it photoed, along with sharing Kaine's address, at this time is when the details became public of the RO. Which led to the RO being unsealed and the contempt charges against Terri.

She threw her own self under the bus by violating the order, among other very poorchoices that she's made. Kaine and Desiree spoke about Terri's involvement only afterthefact of Terri's detrimental choices and violations..

Fabulous post! Ties a lot together for me! THANK YOU!

It supports my theory that Kaine was completely supportive of Terri till the MFH bombshell. I believe his "control of the media" etc was all about protecting her, because she was already on the Internet very upset about what people were saying. I think the email at Intel was again for Terri..."don't be bad mouthing my wife."

Therfore it follows that whatever LE told him had to be major and I believe well substantiated.

Whatever that is...keeps Terri from challenging the RO...and essentially forced her to give up her Baby Girl.

Amazing!

And thank you, Gitana! These pieces all dovetail IMO.

 

[Billylee]

I looked on the RO for where it was claimed she committed domestic violence, even passively by not responding. There is no claim of that outside of Kaine's statement that in his opinion Terri tried to hire someone to kill him and kidnapped his son. It seems to me the RO was granted on unsubstantiated statements, which then forces Terri into a civil suit against Kaine at some point in time for defamation.

All very perplexing.

I think it is perplexing, and the reason that it's so perplexing is because Kaine states right on the RO that LE has given him cause to believe those things, and yet, to this date, they have not arrested her for either one. That is what makes the RO, IMO, a very interesting document indeed. I found that terminology very interesting, because it's really not just Kaine saying "I have reason to believe my wife planned my murder, here look at the attached stuff". It's Kaine saying that " Law Enforcement has caused" him to believe that. So if it comes down to a civil suit type thing in the event Terri turns out to be innocent, I wonder if she'd be suing LE as well.

The fact that both Kaine & the judge were convinced by whatever evidence LE has says a lot, BUT it apparently isn't enough to arrest her for either "domestic violence" crime. It's perplexing indeed.

 

[Donjeta]

Can you sue for defamation if you haven't contested the allegations?

 

[gitana1]

I looked on the RO for where it was claimed she committed domestic violence, even passively by not responding. There is no claim of that outside of Kaine's statement that in his opinion Terri tried to hire someone to kill him and kidnapped his son. It seems to me the RO was granted on unsubstantiated statements, which then forces Terri into a civil suit against Kaine at some point in time for defamation.

All very perplexing.

It was granted, apparently, on unsubstantiated allegations. The way for TH to have dealt with that was to request a hearing and contest the allegations. TH could have done that even without actually testifying - that's her right - by merely objecting to hearsay allegations and forcing Kaine to provide actual proof, not just hearsay. My law partner did that in a case where criminal charges were pending for the same alleged DV. He didn't put the client on the stand at all, just ripped apart the so-called evidence.
So answer me this, how would such a strategy act to open TH up to self-incrimination? It wouldn't because she would not be testifying. But she'd be forcing Kaine to put up or shut up and she would show that she's not going to just back down and take having her kid ripped from her. The fact that she didn't, even though challenging the allegations without testifying was an option, speaks volumes to me. She did not want Kaine to outline his evidence for some reason. Why?
In addition, although often unsubstantiated allegations result in an RO when there is no challenge to the request, that is not always the case. The court has to feel the allegations are serious enough and seem to have some merit. I have seen RO's denied even without opposition, when the allegations seemed very far-fetched or illogical. I will admit, however, that this is not often.
BTW, TH cannot sue Kaine for defamation. The statements of party opponents, their allegations as contained within filed pleadings, are protected statements. You can't sue an ex-spouse for example, for making a false allegation in their declarations or affidavits filed with the court.
Also, to prove defamation, one must show that the statements made were false. There's no evidence to prove that in this case and that MUST be shown.
Finally, malice must be shown to prove defamation - i.e. (in this case), that Kaine knew the statements were false when he made them and that he made them solely to harm TH.
Clearly Kaine supported his wife until the day LE told him something that made him change his mind and rush out to get an RO and file for disso. I really think it is incredible to believe Kaine did all of this, not because he believed the allegations but because he wanted to harm TH. My goodness, his kid had just gone missing. If he were to use that as a handy opportunity to ruthlessly hurt the wife he no longer loved - the only explanation I can think of for why a person would so such a thing at such a time - then he is one of the most evil, callous, cold-hearted people I have ever heard of. I have not seen a shred of evidence, not a hint that suggests Kaine is such a person.

 

[gitana1]

Can you sue for defamation if you haven't contested the allegations?

I posted around the same time as you. She couldn't sue for defamation even if she contested the allegations and won.

 

[gitana1]

I think it is perplexing, and the reason that it's so perplexing is because Kaine states right on the RO that LE has given him cause to believe those things, and yet, to this date, they have not arrested her for either one. That is what makes the RO, IMO, a very interesting document indeed. I found that terminology very interesting, because it's really not just Kaine saying "I have reason to believe my wife planned my murder, here look at the attached stuff". It's Kaine saying that " Law Enforcement has caused" him to believe that. So if it comes down to a civil suit type thing in the event Terri turns out to be innocent, I wonder if she'd be suing LE as well.

The fact that both Kaine & the judge were convinced by whatever evidence LE has says a lot, BUT it apparently isn't enough to arrest her for either "domestic violence" crime. It's perplexing indeed.

Not that perplexing to me. Probable cause to arrest is far different than beyond a reasonable doubt - what is necessary to convict. This has been explained on Kyron's threads repeatedly. To arrest prematurely starts the clock ticking when it comes to speedy trial rights, etc. LE simply cannot arrest, even if they have probable cause, without enough to secure a conviction.
And remember, the standard of law in civil court is much easier to meet than in criminal. So what one can prove in civil court they may not be able to in criminal court.

 

[Billylee]

Thank you Gitana, I think I got it.....TH is screwed whether she is innocent or guilty. For this reason, I hope she is guilty.

 

[gitana1]

Thank you Gitana, I think I got it.....TH is screwed whether she is innocent or guilty. For this reason, I hope she is guilty.

Your welcome. And yes, she's screwed now, but she made that choice. She could have contested the RO without incriminating herself, as I stated above. Also, IMO, if she is innocent, she should not ave to worry about incriminating herself in the first place. I do not view the 5th amendment as a means of protecting oneself in the face of over-zealous or corrupt prosecutors who care less about the actual guilt or innocent of the suspect. Instead, it is a constitutional right not to say things that, if true, would lead to an arrest and conviction for a crime committed. The government can't force you to testify against yourself and to help convict yourself. It is such a scared right that juries are instructed not to form any opinions of the defendant's guilt or innocence based on their failure to testify. Defendants may try to interpret it (or have people view it) as a right not have your words twisted and used against you when you are innocent. I don't see it that way. I personally have never seen even one of my law partner's criminal defendant clients refrain from testifying because somehow what they have to say could be seen in a negative light and help convict them criminally, even though they are innocent. They don't testify because they are guilty. Period.

 

[Dee10]

Thank you Gitana1, I think I might have a better grip on this portion of this sad saga. :doh: Thank you.

 

[stmarysmead]

Gitana, your posts are so enlightening! After reading them, I would say that if Mr. House is as fine an attorney as his reputation and retainer indicate he is, Terri is well aware that she is NOT screwed if innocent.

That says volumes about her decision to essentially surrender her little girl.

And if House is keeping her from fighting, he has very good reasons.

 

[1Chump]

Except it kind of really just doesn't work that way. It's kind of like saying, "Well, I won't contest the criminal charges against me now but I'll fight later, after I'm convicted." her avenues for fighting the RO at this point are to appeal. That's very hard to win. Essentially, she must show that there was an error in what the court did when it issued the RO. Also, the child custody orders are linked hard and fast to the RO. By not contesting it, she was found to have committed DV. Simply by not contesting it. That impacts her ability to get any kind of custody. I have explained above why I think having an existing dissolution of marriage action that she may litigate in the future, will be unlikely to be helpful in modifying custody. She could get visitation, though, in the future.

IMO, there is absolutely no similarity and/or comparison between not fighting a RO at this time and not fighting criminal charges until after conviction. Not only will not fighting a restraining order at this time result in prison time but it won't even result in never having custody and/or visitation of her child.

IMO, fighting the RO at this time is tantamount to not fighting any potential future criminal case by waiving all Constitutional Rights.

IMO, obviously, at this time any potential future criminal case takes precedent over all other issues. That in effect ties TH's hands from fighting both the RO and/or custody at this time. As changes to child custody can be brought at any time and the RO does not specifically address charges of abuse specific to the baby, TH's attorney should easily be able to argue for changes to custody and/or visitation in the future. If her attorney cannot, she needs to find a new attorney.

As far as why TH did not fight the RO and/or for custody, her attorney explains his reasoning in the Motion for Abatement.

 

[Jade2010]

Does the RO cover Terri not being able to see her little girl? Or could she be seeing her supervised?

 

[debs]

Does the RO cover Terri not being able to see her little girl? Or could she be seeing her supervised?

It states "no contact" per the judge's discretion.

 

[Donjeta]

That's what I've thought sometimes, Gitana. It has often been said that the MFH allegations are without any foundation and the landscaper may have some ulterior motive for saying Terri did it and there is no evidence whatsoever that Terri did anything to Kyron. If I got faced with allegations that have been pulled out of my opponent's pockets which are completely unfounded and unsupported by evidence I would be sorely disappointed if my lawyer that I may have to pay 350 000 dollars to could not point out the flaws in the petitioner's argument and rip my lying opponent to shreds.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

I think it is perplexing, and the reason that it's so perplexing is because Kaine states right on the RO that LE has given him cause to believe those things, and yet, to this date, they have not arrested her for either one. That is what makes the RO, IMO, a very interesting document indeed. I found that terminology very interesting, because it's really not just Kaine saying "I have reason to believe my wife planned my murder, here look at the attached stuff". It's Kaine saying that " Law Enforcement has caused" him to believe that. So if it comes down to a civil suit type thing in the event Terri turns out to be innocent, I wonder if she'd be suing LE as well.

The fact that both Kaine & the judge were convinced by whatever evidence LE has says a lot, BUT it apparently isn't enough to arrest her for either "domestic violence" crime. It's perplexing indeed.

second bbm...


I don't think we have proof that it is a fact that the judge was convinced terri had involvement in kyron's disappearance. Kaine wrote in the ro that he himself believed.

 

[Donjeta]

Did the judge ever even see any evidence from LE to convince him, or not? I thought that Kaine didn't have to present any actual evidence because Terri didn't contest.

 

[debs]

Did the judge ever even see any evidence from LE to convince him, or not? I thought that Kaine didn't have to present any actual evidence because Terri didn't contest.

Kaine got the RO and the divorce filed prior to Terri being served with either. She had no chance to contest before the RO was assigned.

Reading through the RO, the only evidence seems to be Kaine's hand-written statement that LE gave him reason to believe the statements he made in the document (that Terri kidnapped his son and tried to hire someone to murder him) were true.

It is after that which this thread addresses why she didn't contest it once served.

 

[SmoothOperator]

It was granted, apparently, on unsubstantiated allegations. The way for TH to have dealt with that was to request a hearing and contest the allegations. TH could have done that even without actually testifying - that's her right - by merely objecting to hearsay allegations and forcing Kaine to provide actual proof, not just hearsay. My law partner did that in a case where criminal charges were pending for the same alleged DV. He didn't put the client on the stand at all, just ripped apart the so-called evidence.
So answer me this, how would such a strategy act to open TH up to self-incrimination? It wouldn't because she would not be testifying. But she'd be forcing Kaine to put up or shut up and she would show that she's not going to just back down and take having her kid ripped from her. The fact that she didn't, even though challenging the allegations without testifying was an option, speaks volumes to me. She did not want Kaine to outline his evidence for some reason. Why?
In addition, although often unsubstantiated allegations result in an RO when there is no challenge to the request, that is not always the case. The court has to feel the allegations are serious enough and seem to have some merit. I have seen RO's denied even without opposition, when the allegations seemed very far-fetched or illogical. I will admit, however, that this is not often.
BTW, TH cannot sue Kaine for defamation. The statements of party opponents, their allegations as contained within filed pleadings, are protected statements. You can't sue an ex-spouse for example, for making a false allegation in their declarations or affidavits filed with the court.
Also, to prove defamation, one must show that the statements made were false. There's no evidence to prove that in this case and that MUST be shown.
Finally, malice must be shown to prove defamation - i.e. (in this case), that Kaine knew the statements were false when he made them and that he made them solely to harm TH.
Clearly Kaine supported his wife until the day LE told him something that made him change his mind and rush out to get an RO and file for disso. I really think it is incredible to believe Kaine did all of this, not because he believed the allegations but because he wanted to harm TH. My goodness, his kid had just gone missing. If he were to use that as a handy opportunity to ruthlessly hurt the wife he no longer loved - the only explanation I can think of for why a person would so such a thing at such a time - then he is one of the most evil, callous, cold-hearted people I have ever heard of. I have not seen a shred of evidence, not a hint that suggests Kaine is such a person.

Once again, THANK YOU GITANA!

Your wealth of knowledge and experience[esp. in these specific areas have been an incredible help to us "lay ppl"]

What speaks the MOST to me is part of what your above post touches on. That yes Kaines allegations of these actions did not make them fact[tho his atty clearly stating that the info that led her client to believe such was per LE- that did make me more likely to believe the allegations but still certainly still were NOT FACT]

But it is what you further explained[as you have before on another thread that had my mind made up] Terri should have contested these allegations and in doing so she DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE THE STAND AND INCRIMINATE HERSELF. Therefor her CHOOSING NOT TO LIFT A FINGER SAYS TO ME WAY MORE THAN WHAT WAS IN THE RO TO BEGIN WITH...

So, again Terri's actions have spoken very loudly and very strongly..imo

 

[Dee10]

Kaine got the RO and the divorce filed prior to Terri being served with either. She had no chance to contest before the RO was assigned.

Reading through the RO, the only evidence seems to be Kaine's hand-written statement that LE gave him reason to believe the statements he made in the document (that Terri kidnapped his son and tried to hire someone to murder him) were true.

It is after that which this thread addresses why she didn't contest it once served.

Isn't that standard procedure? I am asking, as I would assume that is the way it works. You file the papers first, then they are served on the other party. It is then up to the other party to contest, no? If so, Terri chose not to contest.

 

[debs]

Isn't that standard procedure? I am asking, as I would assume that is the way it works. You file the papers first, then they are served on the other party. It is then up to the other party to contest, no? If so, Terri chose not to contest.

Right. But Donjeta's question had to do with why Terri didn't contest the RO as it was in front of the judge. At least, that is what I was responding to in my reply.

As I recall, Kaine had left the house on the 26th and Terri was served on the 28th.