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

[Reality Orlando]

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.

What I don't understand is this: IF LE has a credible source that TH did indeed try to hire someone to murder her husband, why has she not been arrested on that charge?

 

[Calliope]

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.

Oh, I know. Just wishful thinking I suppose. It would be nice to get in there and really dig in, ya know?

 

[stmarysmead]

What I don't understand is this: IF LE has a credible source that TH did indeed try to hire someone to murder her husband, why has she not been arrested on that charge?

Here's the counter argument to that: if the charge has been shown to be without merit, if there is no proof anywhere, in any way, that Terri Horman tried to have her husband murdered, Terri Horman and her excellent attorneys have truth on their side and nothing to fear.

Why then do they say that Terri cannot testify because testifying might "incriminate" her?

I can think of reasons why LE might hold off charging her for tactical reasons because of the BIGGER case..the Kyron case.

I cannot think of any tactical reason a great attorney would not face down a baseless , empty charge of murder for hire, when by doing so, his client would not only win a PR battle to regain her reputation and undermine those who accuse her...but also, as a Mother, be reunited with her child.

That does not make sense in this case.

Does anyone believe that Terri Horman would let them allow her to continue to be defamed and to continue to have her Baby kept from her...to be a martyr for some legal principle?

"Oh, I don't care if I see Baby K for another few months... I'm not going to testify and embarrass Kaine and LE...and get my Baby back...because...because...that's my RIGHT!"

Could any Mother be that "noble?"

Also...why did her attorney use the phrase "incriminate herself?"

If there's any question Terri cannot answer, my question is..."WHY?"

If there's any question that Terri did indeed try to have Kaine killed and hurt Kyron...my question is, "WHY, why, why... take any chance with the safety of Baby K?"

 

[desquire]

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

There is no specific threshold, the judge has very broad discretion to act in the interests of the child's welfare. I know some people on here will see "welfare" and just think "safety," while others will see "welfare" and think "time with the mother who has cared for her since birth." Of course, you are all right, which is why I think it is likely that the judge would grant the parenting time under supervised conditions that will ensure the baby's safety.

 

[desquire]

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.

It is immediately, but we're talking "immediately" in court-terms, i.e., as soon as possible after the other party has an opportunity to respond and a hearing can be scheduled. 30-days would be pretty darn fast in legal terms.

Of course, if Kaine does not object, then there doesn't need to be a hearing and it could happen faster. I'm not willing to put any money on that scenario occurring, though.

 

[believe09]

I appreciate your responses desquire!

 

[wenwe4]

There is no specific threshold, the judge has very broad discretion to act in the interests of the child's welfare. I know some people on here will see "welfare" and just think "safety," while others will see "welfare" and think "time with the mother who has cared for her since birth." Of course, you are all right, which is why I think it is likely that the judge would grant the parenting time under supervised conditions that will ensure the baby's safety.

I agree as we also must remember that Baby K also has the "right" to visit with her Mama. Despite what people might believe about TH, Baby K doesn't have any reference to these adult concepts. All she knows is that her Mom and her Brothers are no longer in her life, and that is a huge loss to her - no matter what the circumstances. The Judge must consider the "least restrictive alternative" to what has essentially already ended up in a severation of the parent/child relationship. If Baby K's safety and well being can be ensured by putting safe guards in place (ie: supervising the visits, therapeutic visits, etc); I don't see how the Judge could continue to refuse TH's request for time with her child. Unless some new info comes to light that would support that the visits would be "harmful" to the child.

 

[believe09]

I agree as we also must remember that Baby K also has the "right" to visit with her Mama. Despite what people might believe about TH, Baby K doesn't have any reference to these adult concepts. All she knows is that her Mom and her Brothers are no longer in her life, and that is a huge loss to her - no matter what the circumstances. The Judge must consider the "least restrictive alternative" to what has essentially already ended up in a severation of the parent/child relationship. If Baby K's safety and well being can be ensured by putting safe guards in place (ie: supervising the visits, therapeutic visits, etc); I don't see how the Judge could continue to refuse TH's request for time with her child. Unless some new info comes to light that would support that the visits would be "harmful" to the child.

Or if the judge decides she needs some kind of formal evaluation so that he can make a determination using the present day rather than prior to Baby k's removal.

TH has been through a whole lot of scrutiny. There have been a number of allegations made. That has to mess with anyone, guilty or not. He might need to make sure she is sound before the baby is reintroduced to her. Physically reintroduced if not emotionally reintroduced.

 

[stmarysmead]

I agree as we also must remember that Baby K also has the "right" to visit with her Mama. Despite what people might believe about TH, Baby K doesn't have any reference to these adult concepts. All she knows is that her Mom and her Brothers are no longer in her life, and that is a huge loss to her - no matter what the circumstances. The Judge must consider the "least restrictive alternative" to what has essentially already ended up in a severation of the parent/child relationship. If Baby K's safety and well being can be ensured by putting safe guards in place (ie: supervising the visits, therapeutic visits, etc); I don't see how the Judge could continue to refuse TH's request for time with her child. Unless some new info comes to light that would support that the visits would be "harmful" to the child.

Respectfully, it is opinion that it is a "huge loss" to Baby K.

There are many situations were being removed from a parent is the greater mercy, and a benefit to the child, even if there is a period of asjustment.

If Terri Horman tried to arrange a "hit" on Baby K's father, a man she claims to "love".... if she somehow got rid of, DISPOSED of... Baby K's brother, a little boy who loved her...her presence is of no benefit long term to Baby K. or any other impressionable child.

How could such a person devoid of any respect for human life, capable of such cruelty, be as asset to the rearing of any child? How can we be sure that if Baby K "disappoints" her or impedes her lifestyle, that she might not, at some later date, decide to dispose of her?

We know nothing about the "mothering" provided by Terri Horman..only Facebook pictures that SHE chose. Casey Anthony had darling, loving pictures too. The independent professionals tasked with investigating this case seem to have a different view of Terri Horman. I'll trust them over Facebook.

 

[Trident]

Respectfully, it is opinion that it is a "huge loss" to Baby K. There are many situations were being removed from a parent is the greater mercy, and a benefit to the child, even if there is a period of asjustment.

If Terri Horman tried to arrange a "hit" on Baby K's father, a man she claims to "love".... if she somehow got rid of, DISPOSED of... Baby K's brother, a little boy who loved her...her presence is of no benefit long term to Baby K. or any other impressionable child.

How could such a person devoid of any respect for human life, capable of such cruelty, be as asset to the rearing of any child? How can we be sure that if Baby K "disappoints" her or impedes her lifestyle, that she might not, at some later date, decide to dispose of her?

We know nothing about the "mothering" provided by Terri Horman..only Facebook pictures that SHE chose. Casey Anthony had darling, loving pictures too. The independent professionals tasked with investigating this case seem to have a different view of Terri Horman. I'll trust them over Facebook.

Conversely, but also respectfully, isn't it also "opinion" that losing one's mother isn't a huge lose? Also:

"If Terri Horman tried to arrange a "hit" on Baby K's father, a man she claims to "love".... if she somehow got rid of, DISPOSED of... Baby K's brother, a little boy who loved her...her presence is of no benefit long term to Baby K. or any other impressionable child.''

Too many "IFs" for me to be able to justify tearing a tiny child out of her mother's arms, to even risk the possibility she might be traumatized further down the road, maybe for the rest of her natural life.

I believe if baby K is capable of missing her brother, Kyron, she is more than capable of missing her mother - indeed, I believe she is probably crying for her mother. I know I missed my mother and it made a lasting impression on my life when she went away for a year when I was a toddler. I didn't understand, but I knew she was gone, and I knew I hurt.

The benefits of allowing baby K to see her mother would far outweigh any negatives, in my opinion.

 

[pufnstuf]

Conversely, but also respectfully, isn't it also "opinion" that losing one's mother isn't a great lose? Also:

"Too many "IFs" for me to be able to justify tearing a tiny child out of her mother's arms, to even risk the possibility she might be traumatized further down the road, maybe for the rest of her natural life.

(snipped, BBM)

I hardly believe that refusing to respond to a restraining order in the mandated 30 days constitutes "tearing a tiny child out of her mother's arms."

Terri had 30 days to contest the portion of the restraining order that prohibited her from seeing the baby. She had lawyers at that time. Yet she did nothing.

Here we are, four months later, and her attorney only now files to modify the custody issue.

How exactly can that be termed "tearing" the baby from her mother's arms?

 

[Trident]

I hardly believe that refusing to respond to a restraining order in the mandated 30 days constitutes "tearing a tiny child out of her mother's arms."

Terri had 30 days to contest the portion of the restraining order that prohibited her from seeing the baby. She had lawyers at that time. Yet she did nothing.

Here we are, four months later, and her attorney only now files to modify the custody issue.

How exactly can that be termed "tearing" the baby from her mother's arms?

I believe KH took baby K away from the family home prior to any RO, that's what I'm referring to. It was a complete surprise to TH.

My OPINION only

 

[mmmagique]

We also have to remember that childrens rights in this country are tempered with the need to balance the parents' rights, (the right to keep the children safe, parenting, visitation) the states' rights, (immunizations, schooling, etc.) and even the federal government's rights. (criminal matters, safety of all its citizens)

It is very difficult to determine exactly what childrens rights actually are in this country, as we did not sign the UN's Bill of Rights for Children. It's easy to argue what we feel in our hearts they should be; much more difficult to define them as they ARE.

I believe the best interest of the children should be put before either parents' rights. So that leads us right back to the original question, which is "What is in the best interest of Baby K?"

Many of us believe that a child should never be kept away from his/her mother. (I'm assuming they feel the same way about a father? Even one who is suspected of something heinous, such as child rape or murder of a child?)

Many of us believe that in the best interest of a child, sometimes time with a certain parent has to be minimized or even sacrificed altogether, when it could possibly do more damage than good. Especially if a child's safety is at stake.

I do believe as well, that a compromise is likely to be reached by the judge, in which Terri is given a minimal amount of visitation under supervised conditions. I would be very disappointed if the supervision is done by family or friends; I hope that the supervision is done by a gal, or some other adult educated in the world of parent/child relations. (someone who knows if/when a child is being manipulated and can put a stop to it right then and there.)

I think that's the best either side can hope for.

 

[gwenabob]

I believe KH took baby K away from the family home prior to any RO, that's what I'm referring to. It was a complete surprise to TH.

My OPINION only

That's how it is always done. Why would you give advance warning of an impending RO? Sort of defeats the purpose.

 

[pufnstuf]

I believe KH took baby K away from the family home prior to any RO, that's what I'm referring to. It was a complete surprise to TH.

My OPINION only

Sure he did. I think any of us would do the same thing if we found out that our spouse had attempted to contract our murder.

 

[Calliope]

Here's the counter argument to that: if the charge has been shown to be without merit, if there is no proof anywhere, in any way, that Terri Horman tried to have her husband murdered, Terri Horman and her excellent attorneys have truth on their side and nothing to fear.

Why then do they say that Terri cannot testify because testifying might "incriminate" her?

The Ohio Supreme Court, in 2000, for example, ruled that someone who had denied all guilt or who would deny all guilt to questions posed could not invoke the Fifth Amendment. That decision was soundly reversed by a unanimous US Supreme in 2001 in Ohio v. Reiner. The Court in that case (which contained Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O’Connor, hardly flaming liberals) reaffirmed that one of the Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” The Court went on to add that “truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. ”

I know what you’re thinking: How can truthful answers from an innocent person incriminate that person? The answer lies in the meaning of “incriminate”; it does not mean to prove one guilty as most folks think.

incrimination of oneself; specifically: the giving of testimony which will likely subject one to criminal prosecution”

(emphasis added by [author]).

So that it is an innocent person who might be wrongfully prosecuted through his own testimony that the Amendment tries to protect; not a criminal with something to hide. In fact, the Supreme Court views very expansive protection under the Fifth. In Hoffman v. United States, the Court held that The Fifth does not protect just potential answers to questions that may be enough to support a conviction (“I shot him”, for example) but in fact “embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant.” That’s the ticket: the testimony need only furnish a link needed not to convict but merely to prosecute the potential defendant.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2010/04/on-taking-the-fifth/

 

[believe09]

I believe KH took baby K away from the family home prior to any RO, that's what I'm referring to. It was a complete surprise to TH.

My OPINION only

Prior to it being served, but not prior to being told KH was leaving with the baby. That was her second call on Sat around 11PM right? A domestic dispute, presumably around Kaine leaving the house with Baby K. Both parents have shared custody when married, so he was not really kidnapping his child when he left Sat night.

And everything was fine with Terri on Monday until she was served.

 

[believe09]

The Ohio Supreme Court, in 2000, for example, ruled that someone who had denied all guilt or who would deny all guilt to questions posed could not invoke the Fifth Amendment. That decision was soundly reversed by a unanimous US Supreme in 2001 in Ohio v. Reiner. The Court in that case (which contained Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and O’Connor, hardly flaming liberals) reaffirmed that one of the Amendment’s “basic functions … is to protect innocent men … ‘who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” The Court went on to add that “truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth. ”

I know what you’re thinking: How can truthful answers from an innocent person incriminate that person? The answer lies in the meaning of “incriminate”; it does not mean to prove one guilty as most folks think.

incrimination of oneself; specifically: the giving of testimony which will likely subject one to criminal prosecution”

(emphasis added by [author]).

So that it is an innocent person who might be wrongfully prosecuted through his own testimony that the Amendment tries to protect; not a criminal with something to hide. In fact, the Supreme Court views very expansive protection under the Fifth. In Hoffman v. United States, the Court held that The Fifth does not protect just potential answers to questions that may be enough to support a conviction (“I shot him”, for example) but in fact “embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant.” That’s the ticket: the testimony need only furnish a link needed not to convict but merely to prosecute the potential defendant.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2010/04/on-taking-the-fifth/

The bonus, Calliope, is that criminals with something to hide benefit from this same ammendment. As well.

 

[Calliope]

The bonus, Calliope, is that criminals with something to hide benefit from this same ammendment. As well.

I agree; making sure that the State must prove its case against the accused is a bonus and benefits every one of us.

 

[believe09]

Yup-there are constitutional protections for good guys and bad guys alike.

O/T When you are the victim, the constitutional protections afforded the perps can be very hard to swallow however. Rarely are the victims able to be so completely even handed that they can appreciate the fact that the defendant receives the benefit of most ties. Depending on the circumstances.