I have to look no further than the Jason Young case where he defaulted on any custody depos and his 5 yr old daughter was (thankfully) transitioned into the care of her maternal aunt and grandmother after he was legally declared 'the slayer' in a civil suit.
He allowed that to happen because he was being investigated for the brutal, heinous murder of his wife, Michele Young (NC) in 2006 and he was trying to save his own skin (and avoid being questioned by any attorney). Anything he said in a custody dispute case (or a wrongful death civil suit) would be discovery and evidence for the DA to use later. So he ignored every summons and defaulted.
He was finally indicted last Dec, is in jail, and is awaiting trial (it took 3 yrs for the DA to finally proceed forward).
Now compare that with the Kyron case and baby K visitation motions...and subsequent motion withdrawals. I see a pattern and that pattern is that TH legally needs to avoid being questioned about any of her activities or that info will be used by the DA in the Kyron case. Those are significant clues to me right there.
Yup.
I wonder if their decision to withdraw is really just a decision to continue negotiations outside of the public eye. That would seem (to me) to be more consistent with a mom protecting her children, then running away with her tail between her legs.
It's pretty clear that they have no intention of backing off...rather just want to do it outside of court.
I also wonder if there is something that TH can hang over KH's head, a barganing chip or something else.
I have heard this theory from the beginning of the RO. It just does not fly. IMO, much can be declared in legal pleadings about a party's intent but the actuality of the relief requested is what matters. TH failed to fight the Ro or even for parental contact in the beginning. She then withdrew a subsequent motion for visitation. That withdrawal clearly evidences the reality of what TH is doing, not her attorney's self-serving posturing within the declaration. It's like saying, "I'm innocent and I'll keep fighting to prove that til' the day I die." "And how do you plead?" "Guilty, your honor."
The bottom line is that out of court maneuverings and negotiations occur when anchored by pending legal proceedings, unless the parties have little with which they disagree. This week, I filed an ex parte. Opposing counsel showed up and said, "Well, listen, why don't you take it off calendar (drop the motion) and we can negotiate out of court." Do you think I took him up on that offer?
There is not one prudent legal strategy that I can conceive of in a child custody and visitation battle that is served by the legal maneuverings, or lack thereof, on the part of TH and her attorneys and there is no secret, back door strategy that I can conceive of that would lead to the preservation of TH's rights to her child. This is not how child custody and visitation cases are fought. I have said this repeatedly but I'll say it again: Failing to fight for contact with Baby K has killed, and is killing TH's chances of ever having substantial contact with her child, in the future. And if they really had something to hold over KH's head that they are now trying to use in some secret out of court negotiations, they would use such in court. Why fail to contest a no contact order, then file a request for visitation later, only to withdraw it a few days after if there was actually something that could be used to get TH what she wants? Simply, it makes no sense and that is just not how the law works.
I see ZERO indication that her lawyers have quit. In fact I see quite the opposite right here:
Respondent does not, and will not, give up her right to seek legal custody and unfettered contact with K. Petitioner's efforts to withhold all parenting time is completely contrary to baby k's healthy development. However, under all of the circumstances, issues regarding parenting time will need to wait for another day, when additional facts can be obtained and presented."
I too, think that just perhaps, Terri's attorney's achieved their goal. Though not being a lawyer, I have no idea what that might be.
They achieved nothing, IMO, but making TH look scared of incriminating herself. They gave it a try, possibly in the hopes that KH would, in fear of sabotaging the on-going investigation, cave, rather than put up or shut up. That attempt failed as it became clear KH would continue to fight. So, they withdrew the motion. The lawyers have to say things that mitigate the damage done by TH's failure to fight. Their statements are meaningless. The withdrawal of TH's request for visitation, though, that says it all.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that either party claims happened in the household should be subject to substantiation - i.e. witnesses and/or verifiable documentation that supports whatever it is that is alleged to have occurred.
IANAL, but without corroborating testimony of any witness(es) or some sort of evidentiary documentation (concerning the alleged observed irresponsible intoxicated behavior of the Respondent - Terri Horman - while in the family home), how can the Court accurately determine the veracity of the claims made on the part of the Petitioner?
Furthermore, since one of the parents has stated that he was present in the home during those times of the alleged intoxication of the other parent, how can the accusation that the mother was intoxicated (in the evening, according to KH's statement)) be considered grounds for denial of visitation?
I'm asking this question based on purely legal grounds - not moral grounds, since we're discussing a legal, civil proceeding in a marriage dissolution concerning parental visitation.
Question: Has KH claimed that he arrived home from work (or elsewhere) earlier in the day to find TH intoxicated/passed out and his toddler daughter unsupervised?
According to the affidavit, KH has stated he was home & was present during those times when TH allegedly became intoxicated in the evening - therefore, it appears that the toddler was not left unsupervised, since her father (her other primary care-giver) was present & able to care for her.
IANAL, but I suspect that these are some of the aspects of KH's motion that the Court will address.
Can one of our fine attorneys weigh in on this?
That's what the discovery process and an evidenitary hearing are for - to allow parties to substantiate any allegations.
The fact that KH may have witnessed TH's intoxication while in the presence of the baby can easily be grounds for denial of certain contact and has been in some cases I have seen. Because while KH was there and could protect the baby, during the marriage, he would not be there to protect her now. Of course this argument does not do much to prevent supervised visitation but it's part of the layers of KH's argument trying to prove that TH is very unstable. In other words, her alleged alcoholism, on its own, may not be grounds to deny supervised visitation but may be a symptom of far greater problems she has with dealing with reality, along with other allegations, that he argues could make even supervised visitation dangerous.
