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

[Donjeta]

Is there a court date yet?

 

[believe09]

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.

BBM. I dont know if I think that it is leaning in that direction.fwiw.

 

[loves2bmom]

BBM. I dont know if I think that it is leaning in that direction.fwiw.

I should clarify I was talking about what the resident lawyers thought would happen. I think at least 2 of them have chimed in that it's a good possibility she would get supervised visitation. Have to go back and reread...LOL!

 

[loves2bmom]

Is there a court date yet?

Nothing that I've heard so far. Gwen was going to keep an eye on the OJIN site (she has a subscription) It's not showing on the public calendar but the last court date on the 7th didn't show up there either.

 

[wenwe4]

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.

In cases of Child Protection Services - (where a child might be placed in foster or relative care) Federal law requires that the parent and child be able to maintain contact and a relationship, unless the safety of the child is or would be compromised. If child safety is an issue - then appropriate safeguards are to be put into place to ensure child safety. For instance, if the parent is accused of physical and/or emotional abuse - the courts could order that the visits be supervised. The supervision of those visits could be an agreed upon family member or friend, or a 3rd party who does supervised visists. There could also be "monitored" visits - where someone is within hearing distance but doesn't actually watch every moment of the interaction. If the parent has a history of extreme violence - a police officer could be required to "supervise" the visit.

In cases of emotional abuse - often the court will order "therapeutic visits" in the presence of a therapist who is working with the parent to learn better ways to parent their child and begin to have compassion and empathy for their child's state of mind. Rarely, (in my experience) have those therapeutic visits been done in presence of a psychologist or psychiatrist - as it is generally cost prohibitive to pay those fees for visits 2 and 3 times a week. Usually a psych eval is obtained on the parent(s) and the treating therapist is skilled to utilize that information to incorporate working on the parent's specific issues during the ongoing treatment.

A parent/child attachment and bonding assessment is generally obtained when there is question as to whether the quality of the parent/child relationship is compromised. A skilled clinician will then provide treatment goals for the dyad (both parent and child) and work with the family toward ameliorating the underlying issues.

 

[Calliope]

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.

:waitasec:


That seems twisted around a bit. He'd have to presume her innocent. That is how the legal system works. The only thing he can presume, based upon her not contesting the RO within 30 days is that she committed domestic abuse. I don't believe he can make the leap to presuming her guilty of Kyron's disappearance.

 

[desquire]

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.

It's probably more accurate to say that she couldn't contest the RO without abandoning her constitutional protections and there was no strong reason for her to do so. Given that the custody order in the divorce proceeding supercedes the RO, TH had the choice of fighting for custody twice, with all the attendant costs or risks, or fight once in the context of the divorce where she arguably has a more level playing field.

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?).

She is seeking visitation, or more correctly, parenting time. She could have done this at any time but unless/until the court granted the abatement, both parties would have been preparing for an imminent full-blown custody fight. For this and other tactical reasons, it was logical to delay the request for parenting time until after the abatement decision. It's unlikely that TH would have to address the MFH or Kyron allegations in connection with the request to modify the RO to allow parenting time because, for purposes relating to the RO only, the court must presume those allegations to be true.

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.

She's asking for the RO to be modified to permit supervised parenting time because that's all she can reasonable expect to get under the applicable statute. Asking for anything more would have been a waste of time. As stated above, she's not likely to have to address the MFH or Kyron allegations in this context.

 

[pufnstuf]

I'm a cat person, myself.

Then you have something in common with Kaine, as he has a cat in his care.

 

[Calliope]

Then you have something in common with Kaine, as he has a cat in his care.

I knew there was something very cool about him.

 

[Calliope]

It's probably more accurate to say that she couldn't contest the RO without abandoning her constitutional protections and there was no strong reason for her to do so. Given that the custody order in the divorce proceeding supercedes the RO, TH had the choice of fighting for custody twice, with all the attendant costs or risks, or fight once in the context of the divorce where she arguably has a more level playing field.



She is seeking visitation, or more correctly, parenting time. She could have done this at any time but unless/until the court granted the abatement, both parties would have been preparing for an imminent full-blown custody fight. For this and other tactical reasons, it was logical to delay the request for parenting time until after the abatement decision. It's unlikely that TH would have to address the MFH or Kyron allegations in connection with the request to modify the RO to allow parenting time because, for purposes relating to the RO only, the court must presume those allegations to be true.



She's asking for the RO to be modified to permit supervised parenting time because that's all she can reasonable expect to get under the applicable statute. Asking for anything more would have been a waste of time. As stated above, she's not likely to have to address the MFH or Kyron allegations in this context.

Thanks. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain this and in plain English. Reading through all those statutes and whatnot make my head spin.

 

[gwenabob]

Nothing that I've heard so far. Gwen was going to keep an eye on the OJIN site (she has a subscription) It's not showing on the public calendar but the last court date on the 7th didn't show up there either.

Nothing new at this point, but I am wondering if, since there are two motions to be heard on January 6th, maybe one is to hear the suit money issue and the other is for the RO modification.

 

[believe09]

She's asking for the RO to be modified to permit supervised parenting time because that's all she can reasonable expect to get under the applicable statute. Asking for anything more would have been a waste of time. As stated above, she's not likely to have to address the MFH or Kyron allegations in this context.

Respectfully snipped-what is the threshold she will have to meet for supervised parenting time? Any kind of evaluation?

 

[citigirl]

I am not understanding this--the abatement still has not been granted, yet she is asking for visitation...the only difference I hear is that the judge seems somewhat sympathetic to her predicament.

Are you saying that the court has already presumed the MFH to be true and therefor all she can hope for is supervised visitation?

And is supervised visitation normally allowed when a parent has tried to hire someone to kill another parent?

 

[stmarysmead]

:waitasec:


That seems twisted around a bit. He'd have to presume her innocent. That is how the legal system works. The only thing he can presume, based upon her not contesting the RO within 30 days is that she committed domestic abuse. I don't believe he can make the leap to presuming her guilty of Kyron's disappearance.

Let's be clear: that "domestic abuse" was trying to hire a killer. THAT is what the judge must "presume" she committed.

A contract to end another person's life by violence.

This is one reason I try not to abbreviate "Murder for Hire" in this forum. It's too easy to slide by the implication of what that means. How many people has one ever encountered that actually sought out, for pay, the services of someone to end the life of another? Let's not let Terri Horman slide by with "domestic violence" like she threw a frying pan at Kaine.

This is what Terri Horman has not contested.

Murder for Hire.

This is the act that the Judge must "presume" she actually DID.

Now, for that reason, one must envelope Terri Horman in the mindset and the emotional make-up of someone who would end another person's LIFE because that other person disappointed or angered them.

Not leave them.

Not try to take their money.

Have them killed. The Father of her child. The guy she says "Okay, I love you" to...

That's huge.

This person (Terri) feels the death penalty applies to anyone who crosses her.

This is what Terri Horman has not disputed.

This is the context in which the judge must decide if someone who thinks like THAT, who is so devoid of respect for life, who is capable of that sort of retaliation when crossed...should be allowed around a helpless infant.

Let's be clear. That's the scenario here.

 

[loves2bmom]

I am not understanding this--the abatement still has not been granted, yet she is asking for visitation...the only difference I hear is that the judge seems somewhat sympathetic to her predicament.

Are you saying that the court has already presumed the MFH to be true and therefor all she can hope for is supervised visitation?

And is supervised visitation normally allowed when a parent has tried to hire someone to kill another parent?

The abatement was granted. The divorce is delayed until January 6th. She was asking for a delay and got it. But I'm still confused about the new motion because I thought it was for supervised visitation immediately. Nothing scheduled yet as far as anyone can tell. So I guess she is just waiting for January....:waitasec: I'm soooo glad I'm not a lawyer.

 

[pufnstuf]

The hearing could be 30 days or more out from the date that Terri filed her motion to modify:

If you fill out the Motion, Affidavit and Order to Show Cause re: Modifying Restraining Order, the judge will sign an order for the other party to appear. Some courts set a hearing when you file the papers. Some courts do not set a hearing until the other person has been served and given 30 days to respond. Check with the court clerk of the county that issued the order to be sure you follow the right process.

Or the judge could decide not to modify the request, even if Kaine asks for such:



Adding this to this thread just for reference sake:

 

[pufnstuf]

Local Rules
Multnomah County
2010

Attached.

 

[redkatrampant]

Let's be clear: that "domestic abuse" was trying to hire a killer. THAT is what the judge must "presume" she committed.

A contract to end another person's life by violence.

This is one reason I try not to abbreviate "Murder for Hire" in this forum. It's too easy to slide by the implication of what that means. How many people has one ever encountered that actually sought out, for pay, the services of someone to end the life of another? Let's not let Terri Horman slide by with "domestic violence" like she threw a frying pan at Kaine.

This is what Terri Horman has not contested.

Murder for Hire.

This is the act that the Judge must "presume" she actually DID.

Now, for that reason, one must envelope Terri Horman in the mindset and the emotional make-up of someone who would end another person's LIFE because that other person disappointed or angered them.

Not leave them.

Not try to take their money.

Have them killed. The Father of her child. The guy she says "Okay, I love you" to...

That's huge.

This person (Terri) feels the death penalty applies to anyone who crosses her.

This is what Terri Horman has not disputed.

This is the context in which the judge must decide if someone who thinks like THAT, who is so devoid of respect for life, who is capable of that sort of retaliation when crossed...should be allowed around a helpless infant.

Let's be clear. That's the scenario here.

BBM.... may I quote you on this? This right here is basically what MUST be remembered.
The thanks button was not enough.

 

[Calliope]

Not asking for money from Kaine is hardly second-guessing your attorney. It's stating what you would like to have done by the person who is being paid to do so.

Now, if she went around blabbing the way she did before she retained Houze, that would be another matter entirely.

But any attorney who cannot take some direction from their employer is an attorney who will not have many clients.

Well, I wasn't referring to an attorney who just goes rogue on his own.

This case is so frustrating. Anymore now it's hard to determine what's fact, what's rumor or wild speculation.

For example, all along it was assumed Terri was doing nothing to attempt to see the baby. This motion proves otherwise. I suspect Bunch knew it would end up in court, but at least they did try.

The facts --- stuff we absolutely KNOW to be true --- are so few and far between. I wish we had an area strictly for research, where only verifiable facts are presented and sleuthed. I know there's been some threads along these lines, but they devolved into discussion and speculation; maybe a sub-forum within this forum? A Kyron Horman research forum perhaps??

I don't know what to think any more. I feel like this is a good thing for the baby. I really hope the judge allows supervised visitation, and that this doesn't get dragged out for months on end. At this age, baby doesn't know what's happened, she only knows that half her family is missing from her life. (over half, if you count the older boy leaving in January) This has to have a major impact on her.

This is so discouraging. No matter who took Kyron, too many lives are being destroyed.

 

[JBean]

Well, I wasn't referring to an attorney who just goes rogue on his own.

This case is so frustrating. Anymore now it's hard to determine what's fact, what's rumor or wild speculation.

For example, all along it was assumed Terri was doing nothing to attempt to see the baby. This motion proves otherwise. I suspect Bunch knew it would end up in court, but at least they did try.

The facts --- stuff we absolutely KNOW to be true --- are so few and far between. I wish we had an area strictly for research, where only verifiable facts are presented and sleuthed. I know there's been some threads along these lines, but they devolved into discussion and speculation; maybe a sub-forum within this forum? A Kyron Horman research forum perhaps??

I don't know what to think any more. I feel like this is a good thing for the baby. I really hope the judge allows supervised visitation, and that this doesn't get dragged out for months on end. At this age, baby doesn't know what's happened, she only knows that half her family is missing from her life. (over half, if you count the older boy leaving in January) This has to have a major impact on her.

This is so discouraging. No matter who took Kyron, too many lives are being destroyed.

Unfortunately "known fact" is open for debate as well.
Calliope and everyone, there is very little information released from LE, so for a large part we only have speculation open to us. Ideally, speculation should have some basis in known information or things that can be reasonably deduced from anything that has been released.

The parents and others have released information to us, and much of it is based on their own speculation. They are far closer to the case than we are and it is reasonable to assume that they are privy to much and their speculations are based on much more information than we have.

So, unlike the Caylee Anthony murder where every single piece of discovery has been released to the public for consumption and analysis we all must do the best we can with what we are given in this case.



WS is what we make it.