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

[JBean]

Nevertheless, some of us are revolted...seeing such a thing unfold before our eyes.

Too many monsters escape justice.

Things are taking their right and natural course through our justice system. The immediate purpose of taking the child away from a potential criminal was done swiftly and without delay. Now TH is requesting a day in court to ask for what she wants. She can ask for anything she wants and the judge can say no. She can ask.

I think that is reasonable because it is how our justice system works.
So far I am not revolted

 

[stmarysmead]

Things are taking their right and natural course through our justice system. The immediate purpose of taking the child away from a potential criminal was done swiftly and without delay. Now TH is requesting a day in court to ask for what she wants. She can ask for anything she wants and the judge can say no. She can ask.

I think that is reasonable because it is how our justice system works.
So far I am not revolted

LOL! Fair enough JBean. Perhaps a little hyperbole in my choice of words.

Let me phrase it this way. I am "offended" by how often legal maneuvers seem to put the victim and his family at a disadvantage. I read just last week that the husband/father (Dr,Petit) of the family slaughtered in the Conn. home invasion feels he must give up his right to make a victim impact statement because too often they have rebounded to the benefit, legally, of the Guilty Party.

To me, it is an outrage that this man does not feel that he can address the man who murdered his wife and daughters...literally burned the daughters alive...without putting the conviction in peril.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-08/...mpact-statements-sentencing-trial?_s=PM:CRIME

I submit it may be great lawyering to force Kaine to possibly sabotage the case being made against Terri...in essence trade justice for Kyron to ensure the safety of Baby K...but it's appalling in my opinion, that the law and Terri's attorney force him into the position.

No, I guess that is "revolting" to me. I'll claim the word. His one child is probably dead; his other child small and helpless.

An unbelievable choice for Kaine.

 

[JBean]

LOL! Fair enough JBean. Perhaps a little hyperbole in my choice of words.

Let me phrase it this way. I am "offended" by how often legal maneuvers seem to put the victim and his family at a disadvantage. I read just last week that the husband/father (Dr,Petit) of the family slaughtered in the Conn. home invasion feels he must give up his right to make a victim impact statement because too often they have rebounded to the benefit, legally, of the Guilty Party.

To me, it is an outrage that this man does not feel that he can address the man who murdered his wife and daughters...literally burned the daughters alive...without putting the conviction in peril.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-08/...mpact-statements-sentencing-trial?_s=PM:CRIME

I submit it may be great lawyering to force Kaine to possibly sabotage the case being made against Terri...in essence trade justice for Kyron to ensure the safety of Baby K...but it's appalling in my opinion, that the law and Terri's attorney force him into the position.

No, I guess that is "revolting" to me. I'll claim the word. His one child is probably dead; his other child small and helpless.

An unbelievable choice for Kaine.

I have been following the Petit case since the beginning, and at this point I do not see a parallel to Dr. Petit's impact statement and TH requesting for a review of the RO.

There are a lot of variables in Kyron's case and each should be carefully weighed and considered.

 

[JBean]

It is revolting. Only in America can a woman disappear her husband's only son, then expect him to pay for her attorneys.

Kind of like a man raping a woman, then expecting her to pay for his defense attorneys when she files charges. After all, he wouldn't need a lawyer if she just kept her mouth shut. So she should pay!

But also in America we have rights and I am grateful that we do. This all has to work its way through the system and imo that is a good thing. Things need to be proven in good time and then all will fall into place. one way or the other.

 

[Jo in Calif]

Now I think "circumvent, in this case, is to get around the normal questions and disclosure required to allow a judge to make a determination of visitation.

In her case she wants some kind of contact without presenting evidence that she is safe to contact the child. Kind of a "just because I said so."

Kaine doesnt have to present evidence supporting the RO any more because the 30 days have passed since he requested it and she had a chance to contest it.

So it appears Bunch has asked for some kind of contact repeatedly and was either told no or there were conditions set that he would not acquiece to. Now they want to take it to a judge. Fair enough, but I dont think she has a prayer.

That is jmvho, because what will the judge be using to determine the advisability of this visitation with a child of such tender years? Let's face it, it may hurt Terri very much not to see her child. But Baby K?

Thank you for this.
Kaines statement, depending on the circumstances, maybe yes maybe no.
It looks to me, MOO that it is more of a maybe no, or the motion would have been asking the judge to grant Terri the visitation, supervised or whatnot, because both parties agreed to the visitation.
IMO the circumstances weren't what Kaine, or his lawyer, considered to be in the best interests of baby K.

 

[gwenabob]

I kinda have to differ here. Any attorney worth his/her salt gives direction to the client. Any client who will not take direction from their attorney probably needs to find another one.

The point is, yes you are "employing" the attorney, but you are paying for THEIR expertise. If you had their knowlede and expertise, you could represent yourself. It's a rare, and in my opinion, foolish client, who does not take the advise of the man/woman he or she is paying to represent them in the complicate morass we call the legal system.

Just my opinion.

I work in a law office. We do complex litigation for large corporations. Yes, it is SOP for a moving party to ask for the opposing party to pay for contested motions. But if we had a client who was in the middle of a hurricane of bad press, and they were under attack from the public for something really bad they allegedly did, and all eyes of the community were on their legal wranglings, you can bet they would tread very softly about demanding the perceived victims to pay legal costs.

Think of Exxon and the Valdez spill. How would it look if Exxon were expecting poor fishermen whose lives were wrecked by Exxon's "alleged" wrongdoings to pay legal expenses for Exxon's legal maneuverings?

Terri is in the middle of a you-know-what storm right now, and she needs all the public support she can get. Her attorney should be more wise about the public's perception. SOP is of little to no use right now in this unique case.

Right now, that perception is she should pay her own damm legal bills and visitation expenses, should she be so lucky to see that little girl.

THAT is what a wise attorney would advise her. Perception is everything until the true facts can be made known.

 

[1Chump]

Yes it does. Absolutely.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/judge_releases_restraining_ord.html

Read the doc at the bottom of the article. Clearly states that Terri cannot have contact with the child/ren.

From the order on page 5 towards the bottom:

"Respondent shall not knowingly be or stay within 500 feet of Petitioner unless otherwise ordered by the court as follows: (nothing added.).

Petitioner is Kaine.

On Page 4, section B

B. Existence of other orders concerning the minor children involved:

(Marked) CUSTODY/PARENTING TIME MATTER PENDING

*******
Yes the story at the link you provided does state that Teri is restrained to stay away from Kaine and the baby. But nowhere in the Order does it state that Teri cannot have any contact with the baby.

 

[pufnstuf]

From the order on page 5 towards the bottom:

"Respondent shall not knowingly be or stay within 500 feet of Petitioner unless otherwise ordered by the court as follows: (nothing added.).

Petitioner is Kaine.

On Page 4, section B

B. Existence of other orders concerning the minor children involved:

(Marked) CUSTODY/PARENTING TIME MATTER PENDING

*******
Yes the story at the link you provided does state that Teri is restrained to stay away from Kaine and the baby. But nowhere in the Order does it state that Teri cannot have any contact with the baby.

How can she have contact with the baby if she can't go near the baby?

 

[gwenabob]

From the order on page 5 towards the bottom:

"Respondent shall not knowingly be or stay within 500 feet of Petitioner unless otherwise ordered by the court as follows: (nothing added.).

Petitioner is Kaine.

On Page 4, section B

B. Existence of other orders concerning the minor children involved:

(Marked) CUSTODY/PARENTING TIME MATTER PENDING

*******
Yes the story at the link you provided does state that Teri is restrained to stay away from Kaine and the baby. But nowhere in the Order does it state that Teri cannot have any contact with the baby.

Page 5, B. states:

"Respondent is restrained (prohibited) from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing, or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere, or menace, the minor child/ren in petitioner's custody, directly or through third parties."

So, the RO clearly says Terri is to have no contact with the baby.

 

[stmarysmead]

If I was an attorney, and had a client who second-guessed and overrode my expert advice and standards of protocol and procedure, I'd politely tell them to find themselves another attorney. Or go represent themselves. Either way.

But if I were the Mother of a young child who had already adjusted to a new home and new circumstances...I would politely tell my attorney that my child's emotional health was tantamount to me...that I would rather endure missing HER, then re-enter her life and cause her, over and over, to do through the pain of separation again. And if he thought I needed to pursue her for PR or any advantage to myself...I would politely tell him to find himself a new client.

 

[1Chump]

Page 5, B. states:

"Respondent is restrained (prohibited) from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing, or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere, or menace, the minor child/ren in petitioner's custody, directly or through third parties."

So, the RO clearly says Terri is to have no contact with the baby.

Actually, I had that in my first post that the only part of the order that pertains to the baby is the part above. But no where in that part that says what Teri is prohibited from doing to minor child in petitioner's custody does it state anything about no contact..

"Intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing" do not mean no contact.

So how does the RO clearly say Teri is to have no contact.

 

[gliving]

I thought Baby K was still living in the family home. The home where she lived with her parents and Kyron. Has she moved to a new home? TIA

 

[1Chump]

How can she have contact with the baby if she can't go near the baby?

The Order states that Teri cannot go near Kaine. Teri can have contact with the baby without going near Kaine.

 

[grandmaj]

These legal matters can be complex. I found an article that spells out the part about parenting time.

Terri Horman's attorney also alerted the court Monday that she would not contest her husband's restraining order or his push to force her out of their Portland home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road. The restraining order restricts Terri Horman from any parenting time with their 20-month-old daughter Kiara. Yet, she would have the right to ask the court to reconsider at a later date.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/07/kyrons_stepmom_wont_contest_he.html

It appears by not contesting the RO her parenting time was not amended to allow her to visit with K.

But Houze suggested at the time that he would seek to amend that at a later time.

 

[pufnstuf]

The Order states that Teri cannot go near Kaine. Teri can have contact with the baby without going near Kaine.

The judge checked and initialed every prohibitive measure on the RO which prohibits Terri from having contact with the baby. Therefore, Terri cannot have contact with the baby UNLESS AND UNTIL the order is modified in court.

 

[Jo in Calif]

The Order states that Teri cannot go near Kaine. Teri can have contact with the baby without going near Kaine.

Are you suggesting that the motion that Terri's lawyer filed with the court is frivolous and all she would have to do is get someone to bring the baby to her and she would then be in custody of the baby and Kaine could do nothing?

 

[germaine]

The judge checked and initialed every prohibitive measure on the RO which prohibits Terri from having contact with the baby. Therefore, Terri cannot have contact with the baby UNLESS AND UNTIL the order is modified in court.

kinda goes without saying, imo. I think the houze/bunch brain trust would have mentioned that in their motion if that were the case. Now that I think about it, why would they even need a motion if contact was allowed and the only restrictions were no harassment, etc.?

 

[gwenabob]

Actually, I had that in my first post that the only part of the order that pertains to the baby is the part above. But no where in that part that says what Teri is prohibited from doing to minor child in petitioner's custody does it state anything about no contact..

"Intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing" do not mean no contact.

So how does the RO clearly say Teri is to have no contact.

It says: "Respondent is restrained (prohibited) from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing, or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere, or menace, the minor child/ren in petitioner's custody, directly or through third parties."

I do believe for the purpose of this document, all the words "molest, interfere, or menace" would all be interpreted to mean "contact." It does NOT mean "go ahead and get some guy to go take the baby and bring it to you as long as you do it nicely." IMO.

 

[Jo in Calif]

I thought Baby K was still living in the family home. The home where she lived with her parents and Kyron. Has she moved to a new home? TIA

Not that we are aware of.

 

[ThoughtFox]

It says: "Respondent is restrained (prohibited) from intimidating, molesting, interfering with or menacing, or attempting to intimidate, molest, interfere, or menace, the minor child/ren in petitioner's custody, directly or through third parties."

I do believe for the purpose of this document, all the words "molest, interfere, or menace" would all be interpreted to mean "contact." It does NOT mean "go ahead and get some guy to go take the baby and bring it to you as long as you do it nicely." IMO.

Thank you for quoting the entire sentence! That is clear as a bell, in my opinion.