Found Deceased CO - Gannon Stauch, 11, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, 27 Jan 2020 *Arrest* #49

[crhedBngr]

Nice to see movement on this case.

Apologies for not posting Wednesday, I was (and still am) recovering from an upper and lower GI exam.

Anyway, here are today's treats.

 

[Niner]

Date Len Name Hearing Type Case # Location Division
12/10/20
9:00 AM 1Hr FARSTVEET, SHERIE Motions Hearing C12020M1924 Adams County DIV 3

2/25/21
8:00 AM 1D FARSTVEET, SHERIE Jury Trial C12020M1924 Adams Cou

link: Seventh Judicial District » Docket Search

 

[Seattle1]

The request was denied. If the psychologist gets to see it, so does the prosecution.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Order - D20 Motion requesting that Dr Grimmett be Permitted to Review the Video.pdf

It seems the People made the request for the evaluation to be video-recorded as a supplement to the evaluation report, and the defense did not object. The check-box request does not seek a video record with the eval report. I agree with the ruling here. There are no take backs in the big league. MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

It seems the People made the request for the evaluation to be video-recorded as a supplement to the evaluation report, and the defense did not object. The check-box request does not seek a video record with the eval report. I agree with the ruling here. There are no take backs in the big league. MOO

BBM

Sort of sounds like the judge would have allowed one particular "take back", maybe was even encouraging it --that of dropping the objection to the original taping!

I do wonder what the defense attorneys are thinking. They seem kind of scattered. I still can't believe they didn't immediately object to the intial request for taping.
JMO

 

[Lovethesouth]

Good morning ..

Colorado Judicial Branch

More docs posted yesterday..

 

[Ontario Mom]

Umm... what?
https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...trial Publicity Order Issued March 5 2020.pdf

 

[missingm]

Umm... what?
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/[O-10] Order Clarifying O-1 Pretrial Publicity Order Issued March 5 2020.pdf

Could it just be a change to any divorce agreement they previously had, possibly including child custody?

But yeah, it looks strange worded that way.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Could it just be a change to any divorce agreement they previously had, possibly including child custody?

But yeah, it looks strange worded that way.

It states clearly this is a hearing regarding a dissolution of marriage action between AS and his first wife LH. This was a divorce hearing.

If that's a mistake and it's supposed to have LS name there, then that's a MASSIVE mistake.

If it's not a mistake, is it saying that AS and LH are still married??
Which, would generate a TON of pre-trial publicity, IMHO.

ETA: we need a legal mind in here telling us what this dissolution of marriage action actually means, between two supposedly divorced and remarried people.

 

[MoeInVA]

It states clearly this is a hearing regarding a dissolution of marriage action between AS and his first wife LH. This was a divorce hearing.

If that's a mistake and it's supposed to have LS name there, then that's a MASSIVE mistake.

If it's not a mistake, it's saying that AS and LH are still married.
Which, would generate a TON of pre-trial publicity, IMHO.

I agree with @missingm. My guess is this is a hearing about changing a divorce agreement. Maybe about alimony or custody or something. And it’s just that the subpoena classifies it as Re: marriage of ES and LH.
If that is the case, though, I am surprised that both the DA and the judge would describe it as appearing to be about dissolution of their marriage. While that may technically be an accurate legal description of a hearing altering alimony terms or whatnot, you would think that both those parties would find another way to put it or just not mention the topic knowing that this would make all of us court watchers confused and freak out!!! (Were they never divorced? Does that mean LS was never legally married to ES? But LS and ES had custody hearings labeling them as married over the years and they seem to have divorce Hearing on docket for March?) Again/ I think just confusing phrases. But no expert... lawyers?? Thoughts??

 

[missingm]

It states clearly this is a hearing regarding a dissolution of marriage action between AS and his first wife LH. This was a divorce hearing.

If that's a mistake and it's supposed to have LS name there, then that's a MASSIVE mistake.

If it's not a mistake, is it saying that AS and LH are still married??
Which, would generate a TON of pre-trial publicity, IMHO.

ETA: we need a legal mind in here telling us what this dissolution of marriage action actually means, between two supposedly divorced and remarried people.

Obviously if they were still married it would be a bombshell, so I would be shocked if that were the case and we aren't hearing about it on the news.

Child support (in addition to alimony, other) agreements seem to be wrapped up in a final divorce decree, at least in some states. In that event, a modification of such a separation agreement may technically be modifying a divorce decree. That is just my guess here as AS seems to have primary custody. I believe GS's mother was not capable of taking custody at the time of their divorce.

 

[Pianoturtle]

It states clearly this is a hearing regarding a dissolution of marriage action between AS and his first wife LH. This was a divorce hearing.

If that's a mistake and it's supposed to have LS name there, then that's a MASSIVE mistake.

If it's not a mistake, is it saying that AS and LH are still married??
Which, would generate a TON of pre-trial publicity, IMHO.

ETA: we need a legal mind in here telling us what this dissolution of marriage action actually means, between two supposedly divorced and remarried people.

It’s definitely LH. So not a typo. This doc lists her as the respondent and states Sgt KS is a witness for the petitioner. Which makes me wonder what went down between AS and LH in the past months, and what KS witnessed.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...xhibit 1 - Subpoena to Attend and Testify.pdf

 

[MoeInVA]

It’s definitely LH. So not a typo. This doc lists her as the respondent and states Sgt KS is a witness for the petitioner. Which makes me wonder what went down between AS and LH in the past months, and what KS witnessed.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Exhibit 1 - Subpoena to Attend and Testify.pdf

I was thinking it may be as simple as Al requiring child support now that he is sole breadwinner and requires a childcare provider. Call sheriff to say that LE found no evidence he was involved in crime and observed him as a caring parent etc.

ETA: Also May be new costs to get her the counseling she should be getting.

 

[NCWatcher]

It’s definitely LH. So not a typo. This doc lists her as the respondent and states Sgt KS is a witness for the petitioner. Which makes me wonder what went down between AS and LH in the past months, and what KS witnessed.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/El_Paso/Stauch/Exhibit 1 - Subpoena to Attend and Testify.pdf

Hard to say. I agree it's not an awkward and unfortunate "typo."

Whatever arrangements they had for two children (including child support) now, sadly, involve only one. And I'm NOT pointing fingers but I know if I were LH, I'd want to revisit the custody issue for that one child (for a variety of reasons.) I'm not sure but expect that if that were done, it would have to be done in CO since that's where AS, the custody-holder, lives. Since AS is listed as the petitioner, that would seem to rule out an action brought by LH but
1. It could be proactive on AS's part if he knew she planned an action
2. If AS was the petitioner in the divorce, maybe he still is on collateral matters?
JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Could it just be a change to any divorce agreement they previously had, possibly including child custody?

But yeah, it looks strange worded that way.

When I first read the post referring to LH, I first thought the reference was LS (under her maiden name).

I recall that GS and his sister were visiting birth mom LS just prior to his disappearance and something about plans for her to regain custodial care.

Could this be a civil hearing scheduled prior to GS remains located?

I would think that LH wanted custodial care of her remaining child ever since January 2020. MOO

 

[MoeInVA]

When I first read the post referring to LH, I first thought the reference was LS (under her maiden name).

I recall that GS and his sister were visiting birth mom LS just prior to his disappearance and something about plans for her to regain custodial care.

Could this be a civil hearing scheduled prior to GS remains located?

I would think that LH wanted custodial care of her remaining child ever since January 2020. MOO

Who knows but they have seemed pretty friendly including LH’s comments at vigil around same time as this hearing. Also definitely seems that Al is petitioner so I assumed he wanted support or relief from payments he is making. They don’t act like a couple in heavy dispute over custody. Seems more financial. JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

Who knows but they have seemed pretty friendly including LH’s comments at vigil around same time as this hearing. Also definitely seems that Al is petitioner so I assumed he wanted support or relief from payments he is making. They don’t act like a couple in heavy dispute over custody. Seems more financial. JMO

Makes sense. But not knowing anything about how these things work, I'd wonder why LE would be called to testify on that sort of matter. But I don't know how these things work.
JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Obviously if they were still married it would be a bombshell, so I would be shocked if that were the case and we aren't hearing about it on the news.

Child support (in addition to alimony, other) agreements seem to be wrapped up in a final divorce decree, at least in some states. In that event, a modification of such a separation agreement may technically be modifying a divorce decree. That is just my guess here as AS seems to have primary custody. I believe GS's mother was not capable of taking custody at the time of their divorce.

The more I think about this, I believe this is the result of two issues that are specific to divorcing a Military Spouse and North Carolina divorce laws where both provide for the dissolution of marriage while some issues are still outstanding including equitable distribution and custody settlements whereas some states only recognize absolute divorce (i.e., nothing left to resolve).

Why You Shouldn't Divorce Before Property is Settled

 

[NCWatcher]

The more I think about this, I believe this is the result of two issues that are specific to divorcing a Military Spouse and North Carolina divorce laws where both provide for the dissolution of marriage while some issues are still outstanding including equitable distribution and custody settlements whereas some states only recognize absolute divorce (i.e., nothing left to resolve).

Why You Shouldn't Divorce Before Property is Settled

I think they divorced in SC didn't they? (Probably laws are similar anyway.)

So are you saying that divorce from TS can't move forward until previous loose ends are tied up? Thanks.

JMO

 

[Seattle1]

I think they divorced in SC didn't they? (Probably laws are similar anyway.)

So are you saying that divorce from TS can't move forward until previous loose ends are tied up? Thanks.

JMO

I think if it involves issues specific to AS military benefits and retirement-- definitely could be holding up the divorce because I think LS would be claiming for some of the same. Not that LS is entitled, legally or otherwise. MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

The more I think about this, I believe this is the result of two issues that are specific to divorcing a Military Spouse and North Carolina divorce laws where both provide for the dissolution of marriage while some issues are still outstanding including equitable distribution and custody settlements whereas some states only recognize absolute divorce (i.e., nothing left to resolve).

Why You Shouldn't Divorce Before Property is Settled

I have no idea what this really pertains to, but if as you say it's to do with divorcing a military spouse, SC divorce laws, etc., what is Sgt. Kurt Smith of the EPCSO being called as a witness for AS in this action? A witness to what, exactly?

Even if it has something to do with custody or support, or some other thing, it doesn't really make sense that the subpoena to testify classifies this as "In re the marriage of" and lists AS and LH. Wouldn't say something like "In re to the minor child custody agreement between" or "In re to the support agreement between", since, they're not actually married?

This is just plain weird.

jmo