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

[believe09]

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.

IMO, absolutely it does. If they perceive the judge as sympathetic, why not go for broke so to speak? If the judge believes that she will incriminate herself in a civil case because of her "non existent" criminal case, why not ask for something like the right for contact without being asked questions under oath or being evaluated psychologically like the rest of us would be?

 

[believe09]

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.

I respect your opinion of course-I have experienced something different. The experience I have had is that as long as there are additional loving influences in the child's life as well as stability, the loss is not retained. Even later on. Curiosity and questions of course once the child can determine that their family structure is not "conventional" as in with two parents....but no big wounds, no attachment disorder, no depression. Just a normal typical kid.

 

[Billylee]

Since references are being made to what this child will remember and now as to what she'll be asking in her future and what she'll find out, doesn't anyone think that all this degradation of her mother will some day come to haunt her, whether Terri is guilty or not.

I feel for all Terri's children and what they must be enduring with the lynch-mob attitude that has developed in this case. Just as everyone is someone's child, Terri Horman is someone's mother.

Children, especially around J's age can be cruel and heartless and I hope he is in someway sheltered from all of this, but as we are all aware, teenagers can read, they get on line, they FB, they twitter, and they read all the nasty things about J's mother, the majority of which is based on speculation and rumor . No matter who is responsible for Kyron's disappearance, the children don't deserve to be part of this. MOOOO

 

[stmarysmead]

Since references are being made to what this child will remember and now as to what she'll be asking in her future and what she'll find out, doesn't anyone think that all this degradation of her mother will some day come to haunt her, whether Terri is guilty or not.

I feel for all Terri's children and what they must be enduring with the lynch-mob attitude that has developed in this case. Just as everyone is someone's child, Terri Horman is someone's mother.

Children, especially around J's age can be cruel and heartless and I hope he is in someway sheltered from all of this, but as we are all aware, teenagers can read, they get on line, they FB, they twitter, and they read all the nasty things about J's mother, the majority of which is based on speculation and rumor . No matter who is responsible for Kyron's disappearance, the children don't deserve to be part of this. MOOOO

The person with the most power to protect her children from experiencing these sorts of things was Terri herself. The most glaring evidence of how little she cared for how her actions could rebound on her children...was the sexting 4 days after the Murder for Hire sting.

Terri was having her friends buy bat phones so she KNEW she was being watched...she knew she was under surveillance.!!

So , where was her concern for how her children might be hurt or mortified when she was taking graphic pictures of herself? WAs SHE remembering she was someone's mother?

Either she has no self-control or she is phenomenally self-involved!

And when your own attorney says you are the "de facto" suspect...and it's LE who tells your husband they believe you tried to kill him...that is nothing as flimsy as "rumor."

I feel for her children too...and Kyron, the little boy who loved her.

 

[germaine]

The person with the most power to protect her children from experiencing these sorts of things was Terri herself. The most glaring evidence of how little she cared for how her actions could rebound on her children...was the sexting 4 days after the Murder for Hire sting.

Terri was having her friends buy bat phones so she KNEW she was being watched...she knew she was under surveillance.!!

So , where was her concern for how her children might be hurt or mortified when she was taking graphic pictures of herself? WAs SHE remembering she was someone's mother?

Either she has no self-control or she is phenomenally self-involved!

And when your own attorney says you are the "de facto" suspect...and it's LE who tells your husband they believe you tried to kill him...that is nothing as flimsy as "rumor."

I feel for her children too...and Kyron, the little boy who loved her.

bbm~

Good point. I think it's irresponsible for someone to text a virtual stranger under any circumstances. Add to that a mother doing it. Add to that a mother who's the obvious target of a major criminal investigation involving one of her other children and one who also knows her every move is under a microscope. Add to that, this same mother has already been complaining from day one about the negative public attention she has been getting. Even as I type, I grow more astounded. The only thing I'd have been doing if I were her is showing up to Church on Sunday and praying, hard. Either for Kyron to come home, or for my eternal soul, or both. jmoo

 

[ami]

Thing is, there is NO evidence any of us have seen, proving Terri did "yank a little boy from the arms of his mother and dad", but we all know Kaine snuck out of the house with baby K.

My opinion only

He didn't sneak - he left on the advice of the police, and with the agreement of a judge, and with no argument at all from the baby's mother. That's not sneaking. That's broad daylight with plenty of opportunity for the mother to contest it. She did not. She implicitly agreed to him leaving with the baby.

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

She's legally innocent until legally proven guilty. Legal innocence is not the same as ACTUAL innocence. The problem with visitation is that she's either a child killer OR a relatively innocent mother. Would you be willing to place a beloved child in the arms of someone who might be a child killer? Or would you think the child deserved the safety of protection until such a time as the parent was found innocent of child murder?

 

[Dee10]

He didn't sneak - he left on the advice of the police, and with the agreement of a judge, and with no argument at all from the baby's mother. That's not sneaking. That's broad daylight with plenty of opportunity for the mother to contest it. She did not. She implicitly agreed to him leaving with the baby.





She's legally innocent until legally proven guilty. Legal innocence is not the same as ACTUAL innocence. The problem with visitation is that she's either a child killer OR a relatively innocent mother. Would you be willing to place a beloved child in the arms of someone who might be a child killer? Or would you think the child deserved the safety of protection until such a time as the parent was found innocent of child murder?

Ami...didn't you just "Nail" what I & I am sure others have been trying to convey? Child safety comes first or should? Excellent post!

 

[germaine]

Ami...didn't you just "Nail" what I & I am sure others have been trying to convey? Child safety comes first or should?

yes, and I think we all need to ask ourselves whether we, personally, would put our chid into Terri's hands right now if she had been our spouse. Personally, I would not, willingly. jmoo

 

[pufnstuf]

yes, and I think we all need to ask ourselves whether we, personally, would put our chid into Terri's hands right now if she had been our spouse. Personally, I would not, willingly. jmoo

I would no more allow Terri Horman to be alone with my child than I would allow Dede Spicher to be alone with my dog.

 

[germaine]

I would no more allow Terri Horman to be alone with my child than I would allow Dede Spicher to be alone with my dog.

I know many disagree, but I put animals in the same category as other helpless creatures, such as babies and small children. So, for me, animal cruelty isn't that far removed from baby and child cruelty. In both cases the victims have no voice.

 

[pufnstuf]

I know many disagree, but I put animals in the same category as other helpless creatures, such as babies and small children. So, for me, animal cruelty isn't that far removed from baby and child cruelty. In both cases the victims have no voice.

You certainly will hear no disagreements from me. I think you stated it perfectly.

 

[Pensfan]

Numerous sociological and statistical studies show a close connection between abuse of animals and abuse of children and spouses. In homes where children were abused, at least eighty-eight percent of the pets in the home were also abused. Essentially, a person who abuses his child or spouse is more likely to abuse his pet. Arguably, therefore, the reverse could also be true—a person who abuses pets could be more likely to abuse his spouse and children.

Almost all of these studies illustrate correlations linking the types of abuse at higher than seventy percent. Thus, animal abuse can be used to uncover or predict other forms of abuse.
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/43_2/03_TXT.htm

Citations in this journal article:
https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=4ea09b0e5db19a04e9b3b0f08f85a10e

 

[ami]

I was talking with my sister last night - she's a nurse and a GAL for children in the courts in her county - and asked her opinion of this. She says the types of supervised visitation she's involved with include my sister or other health care worker or guardian, a child therapist/social worker, the child and the questionable parent - so 2 professionals besides the parent and child. She said not only do they keep the child safe, the social worker often records impressions of the interactions between parent and child ... in the cases my sister is involved with, it's usually just young parents who don't keep their children safe from the parents' sketchy lifestyles (drugs, etc) and not cases like sibling abduction, but I wonder if there would be similarities in the type of supervised visitation Terri might have?

This is where my mind was going with it: IF Terri's attorney were successful in petitioning for visitation, could Kaine request supervised visitation with a LEO and a psychologist (which would make sense in many ways) and could the LEO and psych also make observations of Terri during the visitations? I wonder if that wouldn't be a sort of sideways way to observe Terri, who they have so little access to at the moment?

 

[believe09]

I was talking with my sister last night - she's a nurse and a GAL for children in the courts in her county - and asked her opinion of this. She says the types of supervised visitation she's involved with include my sister or other health care worker or guardian, a child therapist/social worker, the child and the questionable parent - so 2 professionals besides the parent and child. She said not only do they keep the child safe, the social worker often records impressions of the interactions between parent and child ... in the cases my sister is involved with, it's usually just young parents who don't keep their children safe from the parents' sketchy lifestyles (drugs, etc) and not cases like sibling abduction, but I wonder if there would be similarities in the type of supervised visitation Terri might have?

This is where my mind was going with it: IF Terri's attorney were successful in petitioning for visitation, could Kaine request supervised visitation with a LEO and a psychologist (which would make sense in many ways) and could the LEO and psych also make observations of Terri during the visitations? I wonder if that wouldn't be a sort of sideways way to observe Terri, who they have so little access to at the moment?

BBM-this may be one of the conditions that was offered and Bunch turned down. I did not read anything indicating that there was an out and out no, simply that there were conditions that might have been placed on the contact that Bunch were unwilling to acquiece to.

Ami, if you get a chance, could you ask your sister if they ever move forward with a visitation when there has been no evaluation of the non custodial parent by the court or by a qualified psychologist/counselor/therapist etc? Or even a GAL evaluation? TIA.

 

[Calliope]

I would no more allow Terri Horman to be alone with my child than I would allow Dede Spicher to be alone with my dog.

I'm a cat person, myself.

 

[Aedrys]

He didn't sneak - he left on the advice of the police, and with the agreement of a judge, and with no argument at all from the baby's mother. That's not sneaking. That's broad daylight with plenty of opportunity for the mother to contest it. She did not. She implicitly agreed to him leaving with the baby.





She's legally innocent until legally proven guilty. Legal innocence is not the same as ACTUAL innocence. The problem with visitation is that she's either a child killer OR a relatively innocent mother. Would you be willing to place a beloved child in the arms of someone who might be a child killer? Or would you think the child deserved the safety of protection until such a time as the parent was found innocent of child murder?

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, especially for the second part. Yes, being legally innocent is an important distinction. The judge just cannot ignore the MFH and the Kyron case like they don't exist because she might be innocent. And if she's not willing to get on the stand and refute even the MFH, she is bringing this on herself. Doing that is practically admitting that it did happen but she doesn't want to to admit to any of it.

The only one stopping TH from seeing her child is TH. She can't expect to get special circumstances or be treated special because she might be innocent. The legal system doesn't work on mights, but rights. She has the right to not incriminate herself, and in doing so, she probably will not get to see her daughter, a sacrifice she's willing to make to protect herself. There's no vast conspiracy here, only TH continually shooting herself down over and over again.

She reminds me more and more each day of Casey Anthony, thinking she's something special and deserves to be treated special. TH is not special, she's just another stay at home mom, except she's in a big mess because of her own actions. Where she is right now, not seeing her child, is nobody's fault but her own.

 

[Calliope]

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, especially for the second part. Yes, being legally innocent is an important distinction. The judge just cannot ignore the MFH and the Kyron case like they don't exist because she might be innocent. And if she's not willing to get on the stand and refute even the MFH, she is bringing this on herself. Doing that is practically admitting that it did happen but she doesn't want to to admit to any of it.

s/bbm

Isn't he part of the "legal" system?

 

[Aedrys]

s/bbm

Isn't he part of the "legal" system?

Yes, and as so, he cannot go on "might be innocent". He cannot ignore what is there because there's the chance she could be innocent. That's not how the legal system works. I never said he wasn't part of it. I don't know why there's any confusion here.

 

[mmmagique]

s/bbm

Isn't he part of the "legal" system?

Indeed the judge in this case is of course part of the legal system, but this judge does not have to have things proven to him "beyond a reasonable doubt". He only has to believe one side more than the other.

 

[loves2bmom]

Let's see if I understand the resident lawyers here...

1) Previously we had discussed TH not challenging the restraining order because she did not want to address the MFH allegations

2) She did not seek visitation with the baby because she would have to address the MFH allegations...I believe her lawyer said she would take the 5th(right?)

3) Now she is asking for supervised visitation in a secure setting because this loop hole will allow her to see the baby without addressing the RO or MFH allegations.

Did I get this right? Seems to me what changed in the opinion of some of our lawyers was the word supervised. Whether the judge grants it seems to be leaning on the side of yes.