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

[Trident]

He doesn't have to. I'm certain that he has the fortitude to speak for himself.

I'm sure KH has a great deal of fortitude, but he also has a lawyer whom he is paying to speak for him and/or supply experts. I'm sure he, like Terri, will take the advice of his attorney. We've seen the results here on this board to those who don't listen. Misty comes to mind, but there's many another.

 

[Calliope]

<snip>
It's painfully obvious that Terri still only cares about Terri. I think I'm more on the moral side while others are more on the legal side. But we can agree to disagree.

We can.

I guess I'm on the "legal" side, as I don't particularly want to live in a country where its system of jurisprudence is governed by emotion.

 

[stmarysmead]

She's not looking to "get" her baby. She's asking for supervised visitation.

This Baby has had 4 months to adjust to her new surroundings. If Terri is too afraid to testify because it may "incriminate her"...IMO,she full well knows there is a strong chance she will face trial and then, permanent separation from Baby K.

How appallingly self-centered to re-insert herself into this child's life to only gratify HERSELF...to put this child through another long separation. To WHAT BENEFIT to the child? Four months have passed. Leave the Little One ALONE!

God willing, Kaine will marry again and find a woman who knows how to love a child who is not her own with all her heart...something IMO Terri could not do. And Baby K will never face the horrific situation little Kyron did....looking into the eyes of a"mom" he loved and trusted ans seeing the most evil malevolence.

Just my opinion, of course. That's why we are all here.

 

[believe09]

1. Terri has requested Kaine pay her divorce attorney bills.
2. In the motion, Bunch requests Kaine pay the cost of the motion should he choose to contest it.

Either way, Bunch is looking to Kaine for payment.

As desquire (I think) pointed out, this is standard. Basically if Kaine fights the motion, Bunch can ask for attorneys fees. If Terri loses the motion, well then it is unlikely Kaine will be compelled to pay attorneys fees. I mentioned a friend on this thread who had an RO against her now ex. His attorney wanted attorney's fees for defending against the RO. The RO was awarded and then extended twice. He did not recieve his attorney's fees.

 

[stmarysmead]

We can.

I guess I'm on the "legal" side, as I don't particularly want to live in a country where its system of jurisprudence is governed by emotion.

And I do not want to live in one where common sense and the rights of victims, and the terrible injustice to their survivors is devoid.

 

[pufnstuf]

I'm sure KH has a great deal of fortitude, but he also has a lawyer whom he is paying to speak for him and/or supply experts. I'm sure he, like Terri, will take the advice of his attorney. We've seen the results here on this board to those who don't listen. Misty comes to mind, but there's many another.

Of course he'll take the advice of his attorney...and I fully expect him to speak for himself. Nothing is stopping him from testifying--he isn't responsible for the disappearance of his son.

Terri, on the other hand, won't speak for herself. What's stopping her? That she might incriminate herself by speaking for herself.

By not speaking, Terri is speaking volumes.

 

[Trident]

But ultimately, the client decides how to proceed. The client does not hand over all decision-making to the attorney. The attorney suggests strategy; the client must approve or disapprove of said strategy.

Asking for fees isn't a decision the client makes, it is standard procedure. Naturally, the client can say "NO, the ex hubby who took my daughter and moved out should have no obligations at all, it's got to be my fault, and he shouldn't have to pay for making my life a living hell."

At which point the lawyer will say, "This is just standard procedure, don't worry about it," and indeed, she should not - fees are the least of the problems in this case where a little boy's life is at stake.

My opinion only

 

[Calliope]

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.

That's not silly at all. If I understand your post correctly, you're concerned that Terri could 'sign' a warning to baby, or somehow influence her by use of sign language that others may not pick up on?

I'm not sure that would (or could) be the case.

My daughter did the same thing with my grandson; taught him sign early, as an infant/toddler. It was primarily simple one-word signs for emotions and feelings, i.e. "hungry", "happy", "love you", "hurt", etc.

He's 5 now, and still remembers his signs; he will sign "I love you" to her and others. He even signed "eggs" when I took him out to eat one morning LOL (he now knows his sign alphabet and is able to spell out words).

What I'm getting at is I really doubt baby would understand any nefarious communication that Terri could try to get across. Her vocabulary in sign language at this age would be extremely limited, and no doubt limited to the sort of things I spoke of above.

JMO

 

[Trident]

Of course he'll take the advice of his attorney...and I fully expect him to speak for himself. Nothing is stopping him from testifying--he isn't responsible for the disappearance of his son.

Terri, on the other hand, won't speak for herself. What's stopping her? That she might incriminate herself by speaking for herself.

By not speaking, Terri is speaking volumes.

BBM Actually, we don't know that, do we? I would hope he had nothing to do with it, but then I hope the same thing about Terri.

I further find no fault in Terri for NOT speaking out. Only a fool doesn't follow the advice of their attorney.

 

[Calliope]

Or it falls into one of those gray areas...

Not according to our resident attorney

 

[Calliope]

"When a court handling a restraining order case designs the order so that the abusive parent can have contact with the children, this is NOT the same thing as giving the abusive parent visitation rights. Under the law, courts are not supposed to give visitation rights (that is, legally enforceable visitation rights) to a defendant in a restraining order case. Visitation rights can only be established in a family law case such as a divorce or custody case or a case involving determination of paternity for children whose parents are not married to each other. Visitation rights can only be established in a Probate & Family Court."
http://www.masslegalhelp.org/childre...and-visitation
----------------

This is posted on the Verified Lawyers thread and hopefully one of these very nice attorneys will give their opinion on it.

That is a Massachusetts link?

The Oregon site refers to it as "parenting time" --- meaning specifically ordered visitation. Semantics aside, that's what it is. Visitation between parent and child.

IIRC, the same phrase ("parenting time") was used in my daughter's divorce decree.

 

[believe09]

She's not looking to "get" her baby. She's asking for supervised visitation.

:waitasec: Now I thought that she was looking for some kind of contact, including supervised visitation.

Baby K was 18 months old when Kaine removed her from contact with her mother, and then received a RO. We know that TH did not contest the RO because she didnt want to be compelled to answer questions. Basically, in my mind, she is looking for a favor. And if Kaine will not grant it (understandably because he will be violating his court order) she is looking to the courts for relief...as long as she does not have to answer any questions.

Sure it is worth a shot. I dont doubt she misses her daughter, but I can't help but FEEL this is a "cake and eat it too" situation.

This is not a black and white issue. Kyron cannot be reasonably removed from the situation, in my mind, because we are talking about suspicions (which may or may not be grounded in fact) that this woman participated in the disappearance of a minor child. And she wants access to another minor child...who shortly will no longer remember her mother. Sad to say.

I can see her sense of urgency around seeing her daughter. I can see why Kaine would be unwilling to comply with that....I think that both are participating in presenting "good face" to the public...that is just my feeling. I am far more empathetic to Kaine though than Terri because I think she did it. I think she took his son and disappeared him. I think it was well planned.

So I can see the urgency in denying her access to her bio child unless there are a set of circumstances that would make sure no harm is done...physical, emotional or mental. JMVHO.

 

[Trident]

And I do not want to live in one where common sense and the rights of victims, and the terrible injustice to their survivors is devoid.

Problem is - one man's common sense may not agree with another's. I believe that's why our justice system relies on evidence.

 

[pufnstuf]

Asking for fees isn't a decision the client makes, it is standard procedure. Naturally, the client can say "NO, the ex hubby who took my daughter and moved out should have no obligations at all, it's got to be my fault, and he shouldn't have to pay for making my life a living hell."

At which point the lawyer will say, "This is just standard procedure, don't worry about it," and indeed, she should not - fees are the least of the problems in this case where a little boy's life is at stake.

My opinion only

This case is anything but standard.

For Terri to be the de facto suspect in the disappearance of Kyron (her attorney's own words) and then have the gall to expect her husband to front her fees for her to contest the visitation portion of a Restraining Order--and to pay the fees for experts because Terri KNOWS that she'll incriminate herself if she speaks at the hearing--nothing but unmitigated gall.

You see it one way, I see it another... I believe that Terri is experiencing great satisfaction by knowing that she's sticking the knife in a little deeper with this request for visitation AND the expectation that Kaine should pay for her lawyer and expert fees.

 

[Dee10]

This case is anything but standard.

For Terri to be the de facto suspect in the disappearance of Kyron (her attorney's own words) and then have the gall to expect her husband to front her fees for her to contest the visitation portion of a Restraining Order--and to pay the fees for experts because Terri KNOWS that she'll incriminate herself if she speaks at the hearing--nothing but unmitigated gall.

You see it one way, I see it another... I believe that Terri is experiencing great satisfaction by knowing that she's sticking the knife in a little deeper with this request for visitation AND the expectation that Kaine should pay for her lawyer and expert fees.

I am glad Kaine has the patience, he does. It's quite amazing actually!

 

[believe09]

Not according to our resident attorney

I do not doubt a resident attorney of course because I am a layperson. But I would love to see the statute that supports this-much of family court law I found to be very, very gray with each attorney seeing it a different way. Hence the need for a judge, lol.

 

[pufnstuf]

snip/

I dont doubt she misses her daughter, but I can't help but FEEL this is a "cake and eat it too" situation.

That axiom has come to my mind numerous times since this news broke. That's exactly how this appears. She wants to see the baby, but she wants Kaine to pay for her to see the baby. Not only attorney fees but also expert fees and supervision fees. This woman's sense of entitlement is astonishing.

 

[Calliope]

Hmmm. This was posted in response to my post about Kaine having the same right as Terri to keep his evidence silent because of the case. Not sure it matters if they are making the same argument based on the same exact thing or the same argument based on related issues, but if it's logical that Terri keeps her evidence hidden because of the potential court case, then Kaine should have the same right to protect his own evidence for the potential court case, IMO.

Your post I responded to implied that there should be a tit-for-tat.


So why can't Kaine say that he requests a delay in the custody talks (as Terri did for the divorce) as he is not in a position to give evidence at the moment because of the ongoing criminal investigation? If it's enough to keep Terri from talking about her own evidence of innocence, it should be fine for Kaine to use the same reasoning to keep from producing his own evidence of her guilt.

I'm saying that she has the right to ask for this modification of the RO, and I do not think Kaine can interfere with this process. If she were doing so in the divorce case, perhaps so.

 

[Calliope]

Asking what they asked is not illegal. It would have been illegal for Kaine and Rackner to agree to the requests. Kaine and his lawyer have zero authority when it comes to granting Terri time with her child.

Jmo

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).

 

[pufnstuf]

I do not doubt a resident attorney of course because I am a layperson. But I would love to see the statute that supports this-much of family court law I found to be very, very gray with each attorney seeing it a different way. Hence the need for a judge, lol.

Regarding attorneys: there are as many different opinions as there are attorneys. The attorney's interpretation is dependent on his area of specialty, his expertise, his history, and especially his experience in Oregon state law. I do appreciate very much the opinions of attorneys who post at WS, but we must keep in mind that family law is the subject of intense debate among the legal community, and it would be wonderful if it could all be decided by one person's opinion.