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

[germaine]

One of the things Kaine does say (in paragraph five, page four of the RO app) is "My wife attempted to hire someone to kill me."

That is the entire statement under that paragraph.

In the preceding paragraph (I believe) Kaine stated that LE has given him reason to believe his wife attempted to hire someone to murder him.

So he says it both ways.

No matter what he said or how he said it, it was enough for the judge. Now we just have to wait and see what he will do with this visitation request.

If the R/o petition says that, than that is an established fact according to my friend's husband. If it's alleged and not responded to in a civil case, it is "conclusive fact" according to him. He recited it to me like he was reading out of a book, without my even going into detail, so I believe he has dealt with that issue enough times to know the law on the subject.

 

[BeanE]

One of the things Kaine does say (in paragraph five, page four of the RO app) is "My wife attempted to hire someone to kill me."

Noting for reference, in the RO document page 3 of 6 (PDF page 12) in items #4, 5, and 7, Kaine wrote:

"Respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me"

http://www.kptv.com/download/2010/0708/24187664.pdf

Item 4 is for listing incidents of abuse prior to the instant time period of six months.

Item 5 is for stating the reason the petitioner feels they or their child(ren) are in imminent danger of further abuse.

Item 7 is for stating the reason the petitioner feels the respondent shouldn't be permitted to possess firearms.


ETA: Restraining order page 2 of 6 (PDF page 11), item 3, which is for listing the incidents of abuse that happened within the past six months, Kaine wrote:

"I believe Respondent is involved in the disappearance of my son Kyron who has been missing since June 4, 2010. I also recently learned that Respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me. The police have provided me with probable cause to believe the above two statements to be true."

 

[NancyA]

I never said that Bunch lied. However, he is her attorney and, while he claims that Terri has tried to see the baby only to be denied by Kaine, the truth of exactly how she sought to see the baby is something that we're not privy to.

If it were her lawyer contacting his lawyer, seeking modification of the FAPA RO months after the fact, then that leaves one to wonder...

Why didn't she contest the visitation portion of the RO when she would have had very good footing to do so, within the 30 days after being served with the FAPA RO?

Why now?

It could be that she genuinely wishes to see the baby. Or it could be that this is a coordination between her criminal attorney and her civil attorney to force the state to tip its evidentiary hand.

Or it could be a combination of the two.

You said that there will be an appropriate time when Terri would refute accusations made against her. The appropriate time, in my opinion, would have been during the 30 days after she was served the FAPA RO, a time in which she had a criminal and a civil attorney, yet she did not seek to contest the allegations made against her in the FAPA RO.

I contend that the hearing on parenting time will be the appropriate time for Kaine to visit the claim made by Bunch that Terri has attempted to see the baby.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your original post, I’m sort of new around here, don’t get a lot of time to browse all the threads so, taken literally, I thought your post indicated that I’d missed somewhere that Bunch might have a rep for prevarication.

Yes, he’s TH’s lawyer and therefore bound to do and say only what is in her best interest, I get that, and lawyers can and do say things which while factually truthful are worded in such a way they can obscure other facts, but in this case I have to admit I see no wiggle room in his statement for any other meaning than TH has attempted to see her daughter. No, we don’t know the circumstances or the context or how she made those attempts but the fact remains she has made the attempts.

As to your other point about the appropriate time for challenging the RO, yes, I’m inclined to agree that it should have been within the normal 30 day time frame allowed but since it wasn’t, as I said, I can only GUESS as to how and when else or even IF it will be addressed at all. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if they can, but Bunch and Houze presumably know what they are doing and think they can.

I’m now curious to find out from lawyers here: does the court even have to address it at all given that the deadline has expired? Reading some of what is said here that not contesting the RO in the time frame means the allegations are now presumed to be fact, can’t the judge just say “No, too late, don’t care about complicated circumstances, move along, next.”?

 

[ThoughtFox]

I’m now curious to find out from lawyers here: does the court even have to address it at all given that the deadline has expired? Reading some of what is said here that not contesting the RO in the time frame means the allegations are now presumed to be fact, can’t the judge just say “No, too late, don’t care about complicated circumstances, move along, next.”?

That would be a really good question for the Attorney Answer Thread. You should post it there:

[ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108830]Questions for our Verified Lawyers[/ame]

 

[NancyA]

That would be a really good question for the Attorney Answer Thread. You should post it there:

Questions for our Verified Lawyers

DOH!

Yes, you're absolutely right, thanks. I will do just that.

 

[desquire]

I’m now curious to find out from lawyers here: does the court even have to address it at all given that the deadline has expired? Reading some of what is said here that not contesting the RO in the time frame means the allegations are now presumed to be fact, can’t the judge just say “No, too late, don’t care about complicated circumstances, move along, next.”?

The RO, in it's current iteration, basically imposes 5 restrictions on Terri: (1) she can't have contact with Kaine, (2) she can't enter the Intel campus where Kaine works, (3) she can't enter Kaine's gym, (4) she can't enter Skyline Elementary, and (5) she can't have contact with baby K. She had to contest items 1-4 within 30 days, the law permits her to contest item 5 at any time. Because she didn't contest the allegations made in support of the RO request, the judge had to presume those allegations to be true for purposes of the restraining order action only - Teri is still free to deny them in other civil or criminal actions.

Kaine filed the restraining order request and the divorce petition simultaneously. The court's custody determination in the divorce proceeding would supercede the RO. So I think what you are seeing is the perfectly logical strategy of avoiding the cost and risk involved in contesting the RO (at this point, does Terri really care if she has to stay away from Kaine and his gym?), fighting for custody in the context of the divorce proceeding instead (where the playing field is more even), and seeking parenting time with the baby, albeit limited, in the meantime.

 

[Billylee]

I find it interesting that it says she can't enter Skyline Elementary school. Kyron isn't there, babyK isn't there. And I find it interesting that it doesn't mention no contact with Kyron. Back, when this was written at least, Kaine and Desiree both said they thought Kyron was still alive. Interesting. Why mention the school, but not Kyron?

 

[Trt]

I find it interesting that it says she can't enter Skyline Elementary school. Kyron isn't there, babyK isn't there. And I find it interesting that it doesn't mention no contact with Kyron. Back, when this was written at least, Kaine and Desiree both said they thought Kyron was still alive. Interesting. Why mention the school, but not Kyron?

An FAPA RO in Oregon can only be filed for joint minor children of the petitioner and the respondent. Additionally, Terri has no legal rights to Kyron, so there would be no need to include him in any legal filings with the court. Kaine has a right to keep his own child away from Terri without court documents. I am not a lawyer, just someone that spent a lot of time reading the statutes related to this RO.

Jmo

 

[NancyA]

The RO, in it's current iteration, basically imposes 5 restrictions on Terri: (1) she can't have contact with Kaine, (2) she can't enter the Intel campus where Kaine works, (3) she can't enter Kaine's gym, (4) she can't enter Skyline Elementary, and (5) she can't have contact with baby K. She had to contest items 1-4 within 30 days, the law permits her to contest item 5 at any time. Because she didn't contest the allegations made in support of the RO request, the judge had to presume those allegations to be true for purposes of the restraining order action only - Teri is still free to deny them in other civil or criminal actions.

Kaine filed the restraining order request and the divorce petition simultaneously. The court's custody determination in the divorce proceeding would supercede the RO. So I think what you are seeing is the perfectly logical strategy of avoiding the cost and risk involved in contesting the RO (at this point, does Terri really care if she has to stay away from Kaine and his gym?), fighting for custody in the context of the divorce proceeding instead (where the playing field is more even), and seeking parenting time with the baby, albeit limited, in the meantime.

Thank you so much for going to the trouble of laying this out so clearly. It makes everything much easier to understand now.

 

[miabellamoure]

I find it interesting that it says she can't enter Skyline Elementary school. Kyron isn't there, babyK isn't there. And I find it interesting that it doesn't mention no contact with Kyron. Back, when this was written at least, Kaine and Desiree both said they thought Kyron was still alive. Interesting. Why mention the school, but not Kyron?

I'd also like to add that I think Skyline Elementary School was included in the RO perhaps because that was a place that Kaine might frequent from time to time...Wall of Hope (before it was moved), etc.

 

[funknut]

I'm not sure what this means, because I can't find a reference anywhere on the web, but I just received this mass email from Portland's KGW news website only 18 minutes ago. What's interesting is that I get daily email updates from KGW, and this is the only one that has ever said "Breaking News".

Screenshot from email:

 

[ladonna]

http://www.kgw.com/news/Kaine-Terri...sed-unimaginable-harm-to-Kyron-105567163.html

 

[BeanE]

It's that Kaine filed a response to Terri's visitation motion.

Here's his response document filed:
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...e7b948/SharpNews_koin.com_20101022_165135.pdf

 

[ladonna]

http://www.koinlocal6.com/content/n...daughter-continue/QYlEqruACkGhA-hFH45jIQ.cspx

 

[BeanE]

From KGW:

Kaine: Terri may have caused 'unimaginable harm' to Kyron
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Kaine...sed-unimaginable-harm-to-Kyron-105567163.html

 

[funknut]

Heh heh, funny... You'd think they'd list the article on their homepage if it was "breaking news". Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[Donjeta]

I didn't understand the end of the pdf document.

The petitioner requests that he be allowed the statutory mandatory period to respond... etc.

If it's mandatory to give him time to respond, why do you have to request to be allowed to have it?

 

[citigirl]

It's that Kaine filed a response to Terri's visitation motion.

Here's his response document filed:
http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib...e7b948/SharpNews_koin.com_20101022_165135.pdf

That is some very interesting reading...he states "he believes" Terri kidnapped and cause unimaginable harm to his son. As for the MFH, he says "she attempted to hire," not "he believes she attempted to hire."

He also asks why she is requesting an expedited hearing after waiting 3 1/2 months to ask to see her daughter. Yet she wants to delay the divorce and won't submit to questioning or evaluation.

 

[citigirl]

I didn't understand the end of the pdf document.

The petitioner requests that he be allowed the statutory mandatory period to respond... etc.

If it's mandatory to give him time to respond, why do you have to request to be allowed to have it?

Because she is trying to expedite the hearing on parenting time?

 

[Donjeta]

Because she is trying to expedite the hearing on parenting time?

Right, thanks.

I completely missed that she asked for one when this http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Terri+Horman+Petition.pdf was discussed. Reading it again it's no wonder because Bunch doesn't really give any reasons why the hearing should be expedited and doesn't even mention it explicitly except under the title.