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

[eyes4crime]

Yet she won't get on the stand and refute anything because it will incriminate her. That's more important than really fighting for baby K.

There's no yanking going on here. Baby K is still with her father by TH's CHOICE. All she has to do is refute the MFH, and she won't. It's not Kaine's fault. He can't force Terri to fight for her child. She has to choose to do that, and so far, she's chosen to stay quiet and not incriminate herself, and put off baby K's welfare for TH's own benefit. TH could have CHOSEN to have supervised visits long before now, and just now she's asking, and nothing can be decided for three more months. It was more important to put off the divorce and not incriminate TH than to see her daughter as soon as possible. Again, that was TH'S CHOICE.

Baby K does have rights. It's too bad TH's rights supercede baby K's by TH's OWN CHOICE. I'd think most child advocates would say the mother should fight for her child anyway she can, not hide behind a lawyer and her own rights and let an expert who doesn't even know her testify that baby K should see her mother.

She's taking the coward's way out to protect herself rather than fight for baby K, who needs a mother in her life. Some loving mother TH is turning out to be.

It doesn't matter what the evidence is or isn't, we could argue all day on that. It matters what TH is choosing to do in light of or in spite of that. And she has CHOSEN to cover herself, guilty or innocent, rather than fight like heck to see her child.

Judgmental America has deemed Terri as 'guilty' with no evidence. If she doesn't carefully tend to her defense, she will be on death row. I know moms in prison can see their babies, but I'm not sure about those on death row. It serves her well to put her defense first. moo mho

 

[Aedrys]

Judgmental America has deemed Terri as 'guilty' with no evidence. If she doesn't carefully tend to her defense, she will be on death row. I know moms in prison can see their babies, but I'm not sure about those on death row. It serves her well to put her defense first. moo mho

But weren't you just saying that baby K needs to/has the right to see her mom? So which is it? Should baby K see her mom ASAP, or should TH tend carefully to her defense, thus denying baby K much need mommy-daughter time? My point is, TH can't have this both ways. It doesn't benefit baby K in any way for TH to make sure she has a good defense. That only benefits TH.

 

[Trident]

Yet she won't get on the stand and refute anything because it will incriminate her. That's more important than really fighting for baby K.
There's no yanking going on here. Baby K is still with her father by TH's CHOICE. All she has to do is refute the MFH, and she won't. It's not Kaine's fault. He can't force Terri to fight for her child. She has to choose to do that, and so far, she's chosen to stay quiet and not incriminate herself, and put off baby K's welfare for TH's own benefit. TH could have CHOSEN to have supervised visits long before now, and just now she's asking, and nothing can be decided for three more months. It was more important to put off the divorce and not incriminate TH than to see her daughter as soon as possible. Again, that was TH'S CHOICE.

Baby K does have rights. It's too bad TH's rights supercede baby K's by TH's OWN CHOICE. I'd think most child advocates would say the mother should fight for her child anyway she can, not hide behind a lawyer and her own rights and let an expert who doesn't even know her testify that baby K should see her mother.

She's taking the coward's way out to protect herself rather than fight for baby K, who needs a mother in her life. Some loving mother TH is turning out to be.

It doesn't matter what the evidence is or isn't, we could argue all day on that. It matters what TH is choosing to do in light of or in spite of that. And she has CHOSEN to cover herself, guilty or innocent, rather than fight like heck to see her child.

What matters to me is a baby girl is missing her mother and it may have long-term consequences in her life.

What concerns me is Kyron, and his needs, are being lost in the disagreements. We have absolutely NO proof of what happened to him and that should be important to us. If anyone feels TH snatched him from his father's arms (which I don't), do two wrongs make a right? I don't think so.

What concerns me is TH is innocent until proven guilty, and not be prohibited from seeing her child until such time as there is real, tanglible proof. If LE had real, tangible proof of the MFH, they really need to arrest her.

I'm honestly wondering if I'm seeing a conspiracy against TH - not sure by whom, but there are a lot of unfounded (so far) rumours and accusations floating around which are ruining her life.

I'm very thankful TH has a good attorney, whomever paid for it.

I'm also glad TH called the police and blew the MFH "stink" out of the water. And that makes me wonder why any judge would take it seriously.

I vote, YES, Terri should have visitation with baby K, and if they don't charge her in a reasonable time, she needs to go for custody, shared at least, if not full.

My opinion only

 

[believe09]

Judgmental America has deemed Terri as 'guilty' with no evidence. If she doesn't carefully tend to her defense, she will be on death row. I know moms in prison can see their babies, but I'm not sure about those on death row. It serves her well to put her defense first. moo mho

BBM-well there you go. Perhaps we can at least agree that she is putting her defense first. I think that is a fair statement.

It is going to be interesting to watch the hearing unfold given this stance.

 

[believe09]

What matters to me is a baby girl is missing her mother and it may have long-term consequences in her life.


My opinion only

Respectfully snipped. I dont know if she is missing her and what the long term consequences might be given that she may have other stable and very loving influences right now in her life. I would think that statements that Baby K is missing mommy might fall under rumor as well. JMVHO.

 

[citigirl]

I wish we had a child advocate speaking to the rights of baby girl...she does have rights you know!

More importantly, I'm not suggesting that a 'he said - she said' discussion take place. If she did this, than he should do that. This isn't a game. Taking a 2yo away from the arms and safety of the mom who has cared for her 24/7 since birth is serious business, and can leave problems for a lifetime. moo moo

I have no idea if Terri disappeared Kyron, there is no evidence, no body, no crime scene and most importantly, no charges, no POI nor any suspects. What you say about Terri being guilty is based on your reading of circumstances. I have no evidence that Terri is guilty or innocent and on that basis, I wonder what the purpose is for advocating that baby girl be removed from her mom's arms.

Once again: What purpose does it serve to yank baby girl from the arms of her mother? What do people believe will happen if baby K is deprived of her mother?

And if it's to punish Terri and show her who has the upper hand, is that in the best interest of baby girl? Is baby girl being used as a means to punish Terri?

We desperately need a child advocate who speaks for the rights of baby girl. She does have rights!!!

I have worked in the area of child advocacy for many years. I am extremely concerned about the possibility of an attachment disorder in this little girl--because of TH's potentially poor parenting and because of the separation from mom she is going through now.

I also believe that TH should retain all her constitutional rights.

But TH needs to answer questions put to her about her parenting and her mental state, given some of the unusual circumstances she has created. Just like any other mother. Then the judge can make a proper decision about what is best for little K.

 

[stmarysmead]

I wish we had a child advocate speaking to the rights of baby girl...she does have rights you know!

Baby K has a "right" to be safe, to be protected from harm. If Caylee were alive would you be arguing she has a "right" to be with Casey? A woman who plots murder and disappears a child is not a proper guardian. A helpless child has a "right" to be protected from that evil.

More importantly, I'm not suggesting that a 'he said - she said' discussion take place. If she did this, than he should do that. This isn't a game. Taking a 2yo away from the arms and safety of the mom who has cared for her 24/7 since birth is serious business, and can leave problems for a lifetime. moo moo

I'm referring to the oft-made dismissal of the Murder for Hire as "he said, she said." If that's ALL it is, nothing CAN or WOULD "incriminate" Terri on that charge. Therefore she should have fought like a wildcat to keep her Baby...especially if she feels as you do...that the Baby is suffering without her.

But she didn't.

And NO, this is no game. The disappearance of a little boy and the attempt to hire someone to murder that little boy's Father are no trivial matters to be shrugged off. They go directly to the guestion...is Baby K dafe with Terri. Since Terri refuses to answer...because her lawyer says those answers will "incriminate" her...Baby K must be kept safe and away from Terri till the matter is resolved.

She refuses to answer questions but wants...what she wants. Her wants to not supercede the safety of that Baby.


I have no idea if Terri disappeared Kyron, there is no evidence, no body, no crime scene and most importantly, no charges, no POI nor any suspects. What you say about Terri being guilty is based on your reading of circumstances. I have no evidence that Terri is guilty or innocent and on that basis, I wonder what the purpose is for advocating that baby girl be removed from her mom's arms.

No, it's not on MY reading of the evidence: it's on LE's reading of the evidence. And THEY know what it is, not you or me. They told Kaine to get himself and Baby K out of that house. I do not presume to advocate for Terri to go near another child, because I would not want the responsibility based on what I know. I will rely on what the professionals INSIDE THIS CASE say they believe.

Once again: What purpose does it serve to yank baby girl from the arms of her mother? What do people believe will happen if baby K is deprived of her mother?

It keeps her from disappearing like her brother. It keeps her from becoming a possible expendable human life to Teri Horman as her Father did. It keeps her safe.

And if it's to punish Terri and show her who has the upper hand, is that in the best interest of baby girl? Is baby girl being used as a means to punish Terri?

We desperately need a child advocate who speaks for the rights of baby girl. She does have rights!!!

Remember the parable of the two Mothers in the Bible..King Solomon, T think...it was the REAL Mother who sacrificed so her Baby would not be "divided" and slain. The other Mother cared only for HERSELF. Anyone who is really thinking of Baby K...thinks first of what MIGHT be possible in light of two horrific allegations that hang over her Mother. They also think that the child has adjusted after 4 months..leave her in peace. This is another act of self-gratification from Terri to disrupt Baby K...Baby K is NOT her priority.

 

[believe09]

Remember the parable of the two Mothers in the Bible..King Solomon, T think...it was the REAL Mother who sacrificed so her Baby would not be "divided" and slain. The other Mother cared only for HERSELF. Anyone who is really thinking of Baby K...thinks first of what MIGHT be possible in light of two horrific allegations that hang over her Mother. They also think that the child has adjusted after 4 months..leave her in peace. This is another act of self-gratification from Terri to disrupt Baby K...Baby K is NOT her priority.

Now this quote has me turning my thinking a little because you can apply it two ways.

Terri may actually be conceding that Kaine is the better parent. Hence her choice for some kind of contact vs. a run for custody.

ETA: It also never occurred to me before, but perhaps in not fighting the RO she was also conceding that the concerns of Kaine's outlined in the request were valid.

 

[Adrienne37]

Remember the parable of the two Mothers in the Bible..King Solomon, T think...it was the REAL Mother who sacrificed so her Baby would not be "divided" and slain. The other Mother cared only for HERSELF. Anyone who is really thinking of Baby K...thinks first of what MIGHT be possible in light of two horrific allegations that hang over her Mother. They also think that the child has adjusted after 4 months..leave her in peace. This is another act of self-gratification from Terri to disrupt Baby K...Baby K is NOT her priority.

BBM - baby K is only Terri's accessory. JMO but baby K is someone who Terri parades around so that people can oohhh and aahhh her thereby creating more attention for Terri and her self-serving needs. It's just this plain and simple - had Terri had any concern for that little girl, she would have immediately fought the restraining order and asked for the right to see her daughter, not 4 months later. I'm sure baby K is adjusting just fine in her life with her loving father who it seems truly has her best interest as his priority. We have heard Kaine state previously that baby K is now a happier child since Terri has not been involved in her life so just as I have said before, she doesn't deserve to visit with that precious baby. She will do more harm than she will do good. All JMO.

 

[Jo in Calif]

The day Terri received divorce papers and a restraining order from Kaine, was the day Terri should have retained the best divorce lawyer in Oregon that she could find. Showed the divorce attorney the restraining order and told him that was all a load of crap, told him she wanted to contest it like yesterday, said I'm fighting for my baby, every thing said about me in that RO is BS, I want my baby back and I want it done now. If Terri had done that the day after she was served papers, I would say, you go girl, fight for your rights and what's right for your baby. Her doing it at this point, 3 months later, speaks volumes to me.

 

[For The Kids]

I wish we had a child advocate speaking to the rights of baby girl...she does have rights you know!

More importantly, I'm not suggesting that a 'he said - she said' discussion take place. If she did this, than he should do that. This isn't a game. Taking a 2yo away from the arms and safety of the mom who has cared for her 24/7 since birth is serious business, and can leave problems for a lifetime. moo moo

I have no idea if Terri disappeared Kyron, there is no evidence, no body, no crime scene and most importantly, no charges, no POI nor any suspects. What you say about Terri being guilty is based on your reading of circumstances. I have no evidence that Terri is guilty or innocent and on that basis, I wonder what the purpose is for advocating that baby girl be removed from her mom's arms.

Once again: What purpose does it serve to yank baby girl from the arms of her mother? What do people believe will happen if baby K is deprived of her mother?

And if it's to punish Terri and show her who has the upper hand, is that in the best interest of baby girl? Is baby girl being used as a means to punish Terri?

We desperately need a child advocate who speaks for the rights of baby girl. She does have rights!!!

K has a right to be safe. So did Kyron for that matter. IMO the need for the children to be safe is more important than any that Terri may have.

And yes your correct she has not been charged with any offences. However shes worried she may incriminate herself if she goes on the stand. Well SORRY but if she has done nothing wrong..theres nothing she could incriminate herself for.

 

[For The Kids]

the name of this thread is:

Terri Horman seeks visitation with baby. My responses are addressed to the rights of baby girl and Terri to visit one another. My questions are addressed to the opinions of many who feel Terri has no right to visit with her baby. moo nho

For now, I"m addressing the rights mom and child have to visit and the repercussions if visits are denied. TIA moo mho

How about the rights of the father to have his son with him? Or for the rights of the father to know his child is alive even? My personal opinion is she has no concern how another mother is feeling right now ( Desiree) and for some reason..shes scared of incriminating herself. Why if shes innocent of any charges that could be thrown at her?

 

[Donjeta]

What matters to me is a baby girl is missing her mother and it may have long-term consequences in her life.

What concerns me is Kyron, and his needs, are being lost in the disagreements. We have absolutely NO proof of what happened to him and that should be important to us. If anyone feels TH snatched him from his father's arms (which I don't), do two wrongs make a right? I don't think so.

I doubt that's the question. It's not going to fix Kyron's disappearance that TH and the baby are separated but supposing TH did something to Kyron it just might keep the baby safe in case she also has some motive to hurt the baby. I wonder what kind of supervision they're suggesting to have.

What concerns me is TH is innocent until proven guilty, and not be prohibited from seeing her child until such time as there is real, tanglible proof. If LE had real, tangible proof of the MFH, they really need to arrest her.

I'm honestly wondering if I'm seeing a conspiracy against TH - not sure by whom, but there are a lot of unfounded (so far) rumours and accusations floating around which are ruining her life.

I'm very thankful TH has a good attorney, whomever paid for it.

I'm also glad TH called the police and blew the MFH "stink" out of the water. And that makes me wonder why any judge would take it seriously.

I vote, YES, Terri should have visitation with baby K, and if they don't charge her in a reasonable time, she needs to go for custody, shared at least, if not full.

My opinion only

It seems to me that if it's a conspiracy and there's no proof her good attorneys could have argued so months ago and got her the visitation. They could have had Kaine's evidence thrown out as unproven hearsay and unfounded rumors if he really hasn't got anything else besides someone told me so. Terri wouldn't have needed to testify for that, would she?

 

[believe09]

There is no question in my mind that Kaine/his attorneys is/are setting conditions for contact. Bunch does not like the conditions, so he requested a hearing.

I have to ponder this new revelation regarding the possibility that TH is putting her daughter first by not contesting the terms of the RO if they were/are in fact true, and simply requesting contact of some kind...because perhaps she believes that Kaine is the better parent until all of this plays out.

Hmmm

 

[Donjeta]

There is no question in my mind that Kaine/his attorneys is/are setting conditions for contact. Bunch does not like the conditions, so he requested a hearing.

I have to ponder this new revelation regarding the possibility that TH is putting her daughter first by not contesting the terms of the RO if they were/are in fact true, and simply requesting contact of some kind...because perhaps she believes that Kaine is the better parent until all of this plays out.

Hmmm

It seems quite likely that Kaine is in a better position to provide for the baby and to be the primary caretaker in her circumstances but if she thought of herself as a bad enough parent that she couldn't have seen the baby in supervised short visits four months ago I'm not sure what's changed now.

 

[believe09]

It seems quite likely that Kaine is in a better position to provide for the baby and to be the primary caretaker in her circumstances but if she thought of herself as a bad enough parent that she couldn't have seen the baby in supervised short visits four months ago I'm not sure what's changed now.

Now this must be part of my confusion..I thought she was looking for any kind of contact, up to some kind of visitation, supervised or otherwise.

 

[sarah7855]

The day Terri received divorce papers and a restraining order from Kaine, was the day Terri should have retained the best divorce lawyer in Oregon that she could find. Showed the divorce attorney the restraining order and told him that was all a load of crap, told him she wanted to contest it like yesterday, said I'm fighting for my baby, every thing said about me in that RO is BS, I want my baby back and I want it done now. If Terri had done that the day after she was served papers, I would say, you go girl, fight for your rights and what's right for your baby. Her doing it at this point, 3 months later, speaks volumes to me.

AMEN. But rather, on the day she's served and Kaine leaves with Baby K, she's giving a reporter the thumbs up, saying "everything's good". :waitasec:

 

[Donjeta]

Now this must be part of my confusion..I thought she was looking for any kind of contact, up to some kind of visitation, supervised or otherwise.

Now she is looking for contact, so what's changed since four months ago when she didn't?

I had wondered if the judge's acknowledgement that she faces substantial legal risk in the dissolution case because of the overlapping evidence has anything to do with their decision to bring the matter in front of the court at this point of time.

 

[mmmagique]

Now this must be part of my confusion..I thought she was looking for any kind of contact, up to some kind of visitation, supervised or otherwise.

I believe she isn't seeking custody because her attorney told her (quite rightly) that there is NO WAY in (hello!) she is getting custody, and the request would be thrown out of court.

I don't think it's any deeper than that.

 

[rnmif]

I get what you are saying, I just disagree that it will last long. I am sure intitially she asked for her mother and for Kyron. But as long as she has adequate love and care, the memories are going to fade. At least at her age, they are very likely too.

I am not advocating for it-I am simply saying I am sceptical that a baby will remember someone who has not been in her life for almost a third of it.

They can remember for years afterward at that age. It's one of the most heartbreaking parts of fostering toddlers. They remember, but they can't process.