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

[goatman]

Clearly I was referring to the large sum of money required to pay for the expert testimony needed for a custody hearing and the motion for her to be granted visitation rights.

In the motion, however, Bunch asks that if KH contest it that he be ordered to pay.

 

[Calliope]

I do not think the judge can base this only on an expert witness saying a mother should see her child. An RO is issued because there is the accusation that a child may be in danger.

To not prove that the child is not in danger doesn't change anything. KWIM? This isn't about a child/mother seeing one another. It is about, is the child safe with that mother.

And I'm not even sure they can force the judge to hear this motion since they did not contest the RO.

Time will tell but an independent witness cannot attest to whether there is danger to said child. Now if he agreed for her to have a psychiatric evaluation that might be something that could sway the judge. moo

I'm willing to bet Bunch & Co. have that up their sleeve, too.

 

[Pensfan]

I do not think the judge can base this only on an expert witness saying a mother should see her child. An RO is issued because there is the accusation that a child may be in danger.

To not prove that the child is not in danger doesn't change anything. KWIM? This isn't about a child/mother seeing one another. It is about, is the child safe with that mother.

And I'm not even sure they can force the judge to hear this motion since they did not contest the RO.

Time will tell but an independent witness cannot attest to whether there is danger to said child. Now if he agreed for her to have a psychiatric evaluation that might be something that could sway the judge. moo

Yes, time will tell. I think Terri will be advised to have an evaluation from a social worker/psychologist before they address the RO and definitely before they Kaine and Terri try to sort out custody arrangements.

Certainly the visitation rights will not solely depend upon the results of the social worker's evaluation. Terri must prove that the RO was in error.

It is interesting that you stated that the judge may not even hear this motion since they didn't contest the RO. In the State of NY, this is absolutely a truth.
Does anyone know about Oregon and this situation?

 

[Calliope]

I ask what 'large sum of money' the only money I have heard about so far is the $350,000 paid to HOUZE, who is not her divorce attorney.

What money are you talking about?

Yeah. I'm a bit in the dark about this too. I've not seen anything about how much she's paid (or is paying) her civil attorney.

He does seem to be representing her well, though. This motion was very reasonable.

 

[grandmaj]

Attorney Houze is certainly driving these matters in a way to affect any possible criminal case. Even though he is not her divorce attorney I am going to go out on a limb and say he is the one that obtained the attorney for Terri. Houze may want to push the MFH issue to get it out, to get what he wants from LE. But, it may backfire if Terri Can't take the stand.

Let's see if it works. I think there are some hurdles to jump before this is before the judge for a hearing.

 

[Pensfan]

"In many cases, the person restrained should contest the Restraining Order and request a hearing for such purpose. If you do not request a hearing within 30 days, you lose your right to a hearing and the Restraining Order stays in effect for a period of one year. It can then be renewed for an additional year, and another, and another."
http://www.keithwalkerattorney.com/domestic_violence.htm

Terri didn't contest the RO within 30 days, so it certainly appears that she has lost her right to a hearing and the restraining order will stay in effect for a period of a year.

 

[germaine]

yeah, because I'm potentially a kidnapper/murderer whom LE believes you need to get your toddler away from, pronto...I'm entititled to supervised visitation at your expense -- cause remember, I can only afford to pay 100's of thousands of dollars for my criminal defense (oh, wait, I've not been charged -- but they know I did it). So anyway, KH should put my toddler at risk for abduction (hey, I only asked for them to let me know when she was at the gym), or worse, AND PAY FOR IT. Omg, this woman and her attorneys have the character of...well, this woman and her attorneys. Omg, she turns my stomach. To put it mildly. ummm, terri, maybe if you're so all fired up about seeing your dd, you can take some of that $350k and put it toward paying for your own supervised visits.

 

[tragco]

"In many cases, the person restrained should contest the Restraining Order and request a hearing for such purpose. If you do not request a hearing within 30 days, you lose your right to a hearing and the Restraining Order stays in effect for a period of one year. It can then be renewed for an additional year, and another, and another."
http://www.keithwalkerattorney.com/domestic_violence.htm

Terri didn't contest the RO within 30 days, so it certainly appears that she has lost her right to a hearing and the restraining order will stay in effect for a period of a year.

Hmm.. that is bad for TH. I wonder if there are any legal loopholes though regarding the 30 days and extenuating circumstances. Say, for example, the person contesting was involved in an accident and wasn't able to contest due to hospitalization/illness.

Of course TH wasn't in that position, but extenuating circumstances could still be argued if such a loophole exists.

 

[mmmagique]

What extenuating circumstances could they possibly argue?

(besides the one they already used; Terri couldn't ask to see baby K due to some pesky criminal issues about which there is a very good chance she may incriminate herself...)

 

[Calliope]

Hmm.. that is bad for TH. I wonder if there are any legal loopholes though regarding the 30 days and extenuating circumstances. Say, for example, the person contesting was involved in an accident and wasn't able to contest due to hospitalization/illness.

Of course TH wasn't in that position, but extenuating circumstances could still be argued if such a loophole exists.

There must be something that allows Bunch to file such a motion. I don't see him breaking rules OR Rackner (or the court) allowing him to get away with it.

 

[gwenabob]

In the motion, however, Bunch asks that if KH contest it that he be ordered to pay.

That is standard operating procedure for all kinds of motions. Doesn't mean a thing. Just saber rattling.

 

[tragco]

What extenuating circumstances could they possibly argue?

(besides the one they already used; Terri couldn't ask to see baby K due to some pesky criminal issues about which there is a very good chance she may incriminate herself...)

Keep in mind that I am not saying whether or not the arguments hold merit, but here are a couple of possibilities:

They could argue that she was under horrible stress because her stepson was missing and she could not focus on anything else. She was, in a sense, medically ill with stress/depression. She was kicked out of her home, left with no financial resources, and ostracized by the community.

They could argue that because of the allegations made against her by the baby's father that she was involved in her stepson's disappearance, legal counsel had to spend the 30 days investigating that matter before they could properly address the RO. During that time, however, they were in contact with opposing counsel numerous times to request visitation rights.

 

[Pensfan]

What extenuating circumstances could they possibly argue?

(besides the one they already used; Terri couldn't ask to see baby K due to some pesky criminal issues about which there is a very good chance she may incriminate herself...)

Some have said that Terri's life was in imminent danger, so maybe she could tell the judge that she was too scared to come to court to contest the RO, No, wait, that won't work. She was over at MC's home just days after having the RO placed on her and losing custody of her daughter, so she wasn't too scared to leave her home.

 

[gwenabob]

I'm willing to bet Bunch & Co. have that up their sleeve, too.

I think that was the whole point of the abatement.
Terri does not want to undergo an evaluation.

 

[gwenabob]

what a (unusual person), imo..yeah, because I'm potentially a kidnapper/murderer whom LE believes you need to get your toddler away from, pronto...I'm entititled to supervised visitation at your expense -- cause remember, I can only afford to pay 100's of thousands of dollars for my criminal defense (oh, wait, I've not been charged -- but they know I did it). So anyway, KH should put my toddler at risk for abduction (hey, I only asked for them to let me know when she was at the gym), or worse, AND PAY FOR IT. Omg, this woman and her attorneys have the character of...well, this woman and her attorneys. Omg, she turns my stomach. To put it mildly. ummm, terri, maybe if you're so all fired up about seeing your dd, you can take some of that $350k and put it toward paying for your own supervised visits.

Thank you for reading my mind!

 

[gwenabob]

There must be something that allows Bunch to file such a motion. I don't see him breaking rules OR Rackner (or the court) allowing him to get away with it.

He hasn't gotten away with anything yet. He just filed a motion. I could file a motion to declare myself Queen of Pluto. I could ask the court to make Calliope pay if she contests my motion as well. Doesn't mean it will happen.

 

[Pensfan]

There must be something that allows Bunch to file such a motion. I don't see him breaking rules OR Rackner (or the court) allowing him to get away with it.

(I think that something has to do with male genitalia, but I can't explain it right here. ) Bunch can file any motion he wants, Calliope. Heck, someone filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia, alleging that Michael Vick stole two dogs from his client, sold them on eBay, and used the proceeds to buy missles from the Iranian government.

 

[tragco]

(I think that something has to do with male genitalia, but I can't explain it right here. ) Bunch can file any motion he wants, Calliope. Heck, someone filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, Virginia, alleging that Michael Vick stole two dogs from his client, sold them on eBay, and used the proceeds to buy missles from the Iranian government.

LOL, really? That is nuts (no pun intended).

The lawyer who filed that certainly will never rise to one-one thousandth of the caliber of Houze.

Houze is running the show and very involved in the divorce case. His reputation assures he would not file a motion so frivolous that it could not be argued reasonably.

 

[gwenabob]

LOL, really? That is nuts (no pun intended).

The lawyer who filed that certainly will never rise to one-one thousandth of the caliber of Houze.

Houze is running the show and very involved in the divorce case. His reputation assures he would not file a motion so frivolous that it could not be argued reasonably.

I kind of doubt it was an attorney who filed the Michael Vick pleading. Probably a crazy pro se complainant.

 

[germaine]

LOL, really? That is nuts (no pun intended).

The lawyer who filed that certainly will never rise to one-one thousandth of the caliber of Houze.

Houze is running the show and very involved in the divorce case. His reputation assures he would not file a motion so frivolous that it could not be argued reasonably.

He's not arguing, reasonably or otherwise. He's got a full court press on to hide his client behind the 5th amendment. And he's keeping it on the low, because that's what he does. He knows she's guilty, guilty, guilty and he's working on a plea as we speak...or, he's counting on the fact that they won't find a body. He's talking to his insiders to find out what's up with the SI searches. He knows what the witnesses said to the GJ, at least in general. And, most importantly, he's talked to his client. And he's keeping a low public profile....which he does when his clients are GUILTY! jmoo