Emergency custody papers filed by mother of JI's son 11/14/11

New Posts

  • #741
  • #742
  • #743
thank you Nixie. I have been holding off on discussing this aspect of Lisa's case all this time til actual custody papers had been filed. Now that it is official, it seems an appropriate discussion.
 
  • #744
I am thinking a gag order issued in this case is a good thing. The public really has no need to know about the custody issues and the privacy of the son is more important than want for the information. 'WE' have no need to know.
 
  • #745
hambirg said:
There is no proof that JB did anything negligent or illegal. In fact, LE has stated that they don't believe that Sky was ever in that car. Julia did not abandon him in that car. . so no crime.

Solomon comes from a wealthy family, he is able to fight these things. We do not know if that's the case with RR, in fact everything I've heard so far leads me to believe that that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Well, JI is obviously not wealthy (their cell phones were cut off), and RR has a lawyer, so I don't think it's an unfair fight.

And in that other case, I am not following it but from what you wrote, it sounds to me like the dad didn't get custody, even with his family's wealth behind him. So I'm not really sure what the connection is?
 
  • #746
Karmaa said:
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think we all know that custody orders can change. :) After all if a parent were to be sent to jail, or to die, the custody would certainly be reevaluated.

In the case you mention, the mother did something not only negligent, but illegal (leaving a baby in the car alone.) Plus the custody order was granted on fraudulent terms, which the father was fighting from the very beginning.

I am not following that case, but IIRC that "mother" is also accused of being a danger to her child, by threatening to kill at least one of the kids, before the little one was "kidnapped". Add in all of the other reports of her erratic behavior, and a judge would have to be insane to give any child back to that woman.

If MO is anything like my state, they do not want the kids in state custody unless absolutely necessary. In my state we would be doing whatever we could to get this child back to her Dad.
Click to expand...
BBM
I'm not trying to be argumentative either but I do love a good discussion to get facts and thoughts out there.

1.Do you not think it's negligent to leave Baby Lisa unchecked for so many hours?? The last I saw of Debbie's ever changing time line was that the last time she even saw Baby Lisa, who was reportedly sick, was 6:40 p.m., and I don't know when she actually checked on the two boys last that night! Holy smokes!! If that is not negligence then I don't know what is.

2. It's obvious to me that Debbie was a danger to Baby Lisa, too, along with those two boys. She put her own self above and over those children's needs on the night Baby Lisa came up missing without seeming to give a thought to what could happen if she didn't oversee them while Jeremy left them to her to tend. What else has gone on in that house under her watch? I'm almost scared to know.

3. RR is a parent to Jeremy's son, too, regardless if he wants to admit or accept it, it is who he chose to conceive a child with.

ETA: Being black out drunk on the porch step with your neighbor and whoever else was there that night does nothing to not prove negligence. Actually to me proves just the opposite. By Debbie's own account she can't remember what went on and she didn't check on her children. Her body may have been there but she was incapable of making good and rational decisions at that time. Unless of course you think being so drunk you can't remember what you did, but you're still in good shape to oversee children. Doesn't work that way for me.



MOO
 
  • #747
I am now wondering if this custody hearing is scheduled to take place tomorrow,or if it's only a gag order hearing that's scheduled for 12/7. I saw it reported on this thread that the custody hearing was set for 12/7. Later, news was reported about the gag order hearing being delayed until 12/7 and I assumed that meant the gag order hearing would take place on 12/7, before the custody hearing begins on 12/7.

Now, when I go back to research, I find a very misleading headline that the custody hearing has been delayed, but the story is actually only about a gag order hearing being delayed.

Anyone know for sure? TIA!

HEAD LINE:
Missing baby Lisa Irwin half brother's custody battle hearing delayed until December 7

LIBERTY, Mo. - A hearing regarding a gag order in the custody battle over one of Lisa Irwin’s half-brothers has been delayed until Dec. 7.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/nation...stody-battle-hearing-delayed-until-december-7
 
  • #748
  • #749
  • #750
yllek said:
Thanks nina! That statement sure does imply that the custody hearing will take place tomorrow. A gag order hearing would not be the place where custody would be decided by a judge. I do wish we had a direct statement that the custody hearing is slated for tomorrow. Guess we'll see!
Click to expand...

I thought both hearings were going to be tomorrow....but the reports are confusing so who knows.
 
  • #751
menmo said:
BBM
I'm not trying to be argumentative either but I do love a good discussion to get facts and thoughts out there.

1.Do you not think it's negligent to leave Baby Lisa unchecked for so many hours?? The last I saw of Debbie's ever changing time line was that the last time she even saw Baby Lisa, who was reportedly sick, was 6:40 p.m., and I don't know when she actually checked on the two boys last that night! Holy smokes!! If that is not negligence then I don't know what is.

2. It's obvious to me that Debbie was a danger to Baby Lisa, too, along with those two boys. She put her own self above and over those children's needs on the night Baby Lisa came up missing without seeming to give a thought to what could happen if she didn't oversee them while Jeremy left them to her to tend. What else has gone on in that house under her watch? I'm almost scared to know.

3. RR is a parent to Jeremy's son, too, regardless if he wants to admit or accept it, it is who he chose to conceive a child with.

ETA: Being black out drunk on the porch step with your neighbor and whoever else was there that night does nothing to not prove negligence. Actually to me proves just the opposite. By Debbie's own account she can't remember what went on and she didn't check on her children. Her body may have been there but she was incapable of making good and rational decisions at that time. Unless of course you think being so drunk you can't remember what you did, but you're still in good shape to oversee children. Doesn't work that way for me.



MOO
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that if DB's account is 100% factual, then she was indeed negligent that night. But to me, that shouldn't be an automatic to take the boy out of the home and into the care of a person who hasn't been part of his life for 6 years simply because she carries the title of 'mother'. At this point, RR is as much a 'parent' to that boy as a grandparent/aunt/uncle/any other family member. In fact those people probably moreso since they've probably had more contact with the boy in the past 6 yrs then the bio mom.
 
  • #752
menmo said:
BBM
I'm not trying to be argumentative either but I do love a good discussion to get facts and thoughts out there.

1.Do you not think it's negligent to leave Baby Lisa unchecked for so many hours?? The last I saw of Debbie's ever changing time line was that the last time she even saw Baby Lisa, who was reportedly sick, was 6:40 p.m., and I don't know when she actually checked on the two boys last that night! Holy smokes!! If that is not negligence then I don't know what is.

2. It's obvious to me that Debbie was a danger to Baby Lisa, too, along with those two boys. She put her own self above and over those children's needs on the night Baby Lisa came up missing without seeming to give a thought to what could happen if she didn't oversee them while Jeremy left them to her to tend. What else has gone on in that house under her watch? I'm almost scared to know.

3. RR is a parent to Jeremy's son, too, regardless if he wants to admit or accept it, it is who he chose to conceive a child with.

ETA: Being black out drunk on the porch step with your neighbor and whoever else was there that night does nothing to not prove negligence. Actually to me proves just the opposite. By Debbie's own account she can't remember what went on and she didn't check on her children. Her body may have been there but she was incapable of making good and rational decisions at that time. Unless of course you think being so drunk you can't remember what you did, but you're still in good shape to oversee children. Doesn't work that way for me.



MOO
Click to expand...

I love a good conversation too, and I have to say, I respect your opinion, even though we don't always agree. (Although we sometimes do, which is interesting, lol). Anyway, here goes:

1. Baby Lisa was in her crib - a safe and secure environment, sleeping for the night. She was not left in an unlocked car on the side of a road, unattended for an hour. BIG difference.

Plus, isn't it time to stop saying "ever-changing time line"? That sounds like she has changed it 20 times. She changed (or clarified it, depending on how you see it) once. Almost two months ago. While the information was still fresh and being sorted out by media.

2. That's an opinion. I have a different take on things. If information comes out about "other things" happening in the house, they will have to be considered. But until then, there is no reason to believe that other things OR negligence happened.

3. RR is the egg donor for the child. While the definition of "parent" technically includes "the person who begets a child", the secondary definition is "one who raises a child." If RR had given the child up for adoption would she still be entitled to be called the "parent"? If not, why should she be entitled when she abandoned the child, and has not contributed anything - physically, emotionally or financially to the child? If RR was the father, would HE be entitled to be called the "parent" or would be be considered the sperm-donor?

Your ETA: I understand that you believe that, however, the things that you state are not supported by facts.

Debbie never explains what she meant by "drunk". (Seriously, I am not nitpicking. What I personally mean by drunk is anything from "happy and giggling" to room-spinning. In happy mode, I would be completely able to handle a crisis - in room-spinning, I am not sure - I recall having trouble finding the potty the one time I got like that, 20 years ago!) Until/unless we have a BAC result from that morning, which could be used to estimate her BAC at 10:30pm, we don't know how drunk she was. Or unless she explains to us what she meant by "drunk".

She has NEVER said that she can't remember "what went on" (only suggested that she can't recall all of the details).

She NEVER said she didn't check on the children. (She said that she didn't recall the details of checking on Lisa, but that she normally did. She recalled checking on the boys.)

She never said that she passed out, or even that she blacked out. (She said that it was "possible" that she could have blacked out - she did not say "passed out".)

She has never said that she was too drunk to remember what she did. And she never made the leap from "I was drunk" to "I don't remember anything".

By definition many of the things in your ETA are assumptions. Since Debbie didn't say them, and LE didn't say them, and witnesses didn't say them, and there is no evidence supporting the statements - they must be assumptions.

What I personally think about a mother who drinks 5 or more glasses of wine while her baby is asleep does not really matter. The baby was supposedly safe and secure, sleeping in her crib, which is not legally negligent.

(Note all comments above are paraphrased from well-known interviews. The wording may be slightly off, but the context is correct AFIK - so JMO) :)
 
  • #753
madge said:
Debbie is living in adultery and I wonder if it's illegal in the state of Missouri?
Click to expand...

Adultery is such an obsolete offense in criminal law and its definition and punishability differ so much by state that it was difficult to find concise information on the subject. I did some digging on various sites and here's my understanding. PLEASE CONSIDER JMO AS THIS IS A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION GLEANED FROM MANY SOURCES AND NO DIRECT LINK.

Technically, there is a criminal law against adultery still on the books in Missouri and 9 other states. Practically, no one in any state is prosecuted for adultery (with very rare exception if the adultery relates to other criminal acts).

Adultery is, however, still very much alive in civil/divorce court, when the judge can consider the act of adultery in making judgements, particularly financial divisions where the judge may consider how much the adulterer spent on the third party.

I understand however that adultery is still ocassionally heard on its own and can be punishable in military court.​
FWIW, I don't think the fact that Debbi is technically committing adultery will/should be considered in this custody case. Focus should be limited to Jeremy's and Debbi's fitness/abilities as caregivers and the safety/well-being of the child. If she is requesting custody for herself, same for Ms. Raim (or anyone who will be suggested to take custody). JMO...
 
  • #754
Nixie said:
I thought both hearings were going to be tomorrow....but the reports are confusing so who knows.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the custody hearing may not be held tomorrow. No matter what happens in the gag order, the courts have to allow the losing side to appeal.

If they rule against the gag order, I am pretty sure that JI's atty will appeal.
If they rule in favor of the gag order, there is a chance that RR won't appeal (But if her motivation for the custody hearing is financial, then she will have to appeal the order, or she will not be able to sell the story.)
 
  • #755
cityslick said:
I have no doubt that if DB's account is 100% factual, then she was indeed negligent that night. But to me, that shouldn't be an automatic to take the boy out of the home and into the care of a person who hasn't been part of his life for 6 years simply because she carries the title of 'mother'. At this point, RR is as much a 'parent' to that boy as a grandparent/aunt/uncle/any other family member. In fact those people probably moreso since they've probably had more contact with the boy in the past 6 yrs then the bio mom.
Click to expand...

I agree and for their son's sake I wish this would just be settled. I can imagine the stress in that home for those two boys due to this custody issue added on top of Baby Lisa missing.

ETA: I'd like to see the court order that neither boy be left in the sole care of DB until parenting classes are complete.

MOO
 
  • #756
Karmaa said:
I love a good conversation too, and I have to say, I respect your opinion, even though we don't always agree. (Although we sometimes do, which is interesting, lol). Anyway, here goes:

1. Baby Lisa was in her crib - a safe and secure environment, sleeping for the night. She was not left in an unlocked car on the side of a road, unattended for an hour. BIG difference.

Plus, isn't it time to stop saying "ever-changing time line"? That sounds like she has changed it 20 times. She changed (or clarified it, depending on how you see it) once. Almost two months ago. While the information was still fresh and being sorted out by media.

2. That's an opinion. I have a different take on things. If information comes out about "other things" happening in the house, they will have to be considered. But until then, there is no reason to believe that other things OR negligence happened.

3. RR is the egg donor for the child. While the definition of "parent" technically includes "the person who begets a child", the secondary definition is "one who raises a child." If RR had given the child up for adoption would she still be entitled to be called the "parent"? If not, why should she be entitled when she abandoned the child, and has not contributed anything - physically, emotionally or financially to the child? If RR was the father, would HE be entitled to be called the "parent" or would be be considered the sperm-donor?

Your ETA: I understand that you believe that, however, the things that you state are not supported by facts.

Debbie never explains what she meant by "drunk". (Seriously, I am not nitpicking. What I personally mean by drunk is anything from "happy and giggling" to room-spinning. In happy mode, I would be completely able to handle a crisis - in room-spinning, I am not sure - I recall having trouble finding the potty the one time I got like that, 20 years ago!) Until/unless we have a BAC result from that morning, which could be used to estimate her BAC at 10:30pm, we don't know how drunk she was. Or unless she explains to us what she meant by "drunk".

She has NEVER said that she can't remember "what went on" (only suggested that she can't recall all of the details).

She NEVER said she didn't check on the children. (She said that she didn't recall the details of checking on Lisa, but that she normally did. She recalled checking on the boys.)

She never said that she passed out, or even that she blacked out. (She said that it was "possible" that she could have blacked out - she did not say "passed out".)

She has never said that she was too drunk to remember what she did. And she never made the leap from "I was drunk" to "I don't remember anything".

By definition many of the things in your ETA are assumptions. Since Debbie didn't say them, and LE didn't say them, and witnesses didn't say them, and there is no evidence supporting the statements - they must be assumptions.

What I personally think about a mother who drinks 5 or more glasses of wine while her baby is asleep does not really matter. The baby was supposedly safe and secure, sleeping in her crib, which is not legally negligent.

(Note all comments above are paraphrased from well-known interviews. The wording may be slightly off, but the context is correct AFIK - so JMO) :)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I respect your opinion as well.

1. Not sure that I think it's a BIG difference because one child was reportedly left in the car unattended verses a child left in the crib unattended while the Mother states she was possibly black out drunk and doesn't remember if she checked on her daughter the night she came up missing. Fact is if both of these things are true about both women's actions then both children were neglected at the whim of their mothers. Anything can happen with a child being unattended in her crib, just as it can being left in a car. Both are completely wrong and show me that the parenting skills in these women are severely lacking to the point that most likely this wasn't just a one time thing.

2. You're right it is my opinion and I stand by it. For every time someone makes a bad decision and gets caught there is usually a lot more times they made the same decision and didn't.

3. Yes, If RR was the father I'd still consider him a parent. Unless and until she gives up her parental rights or they are stripped from her, she's the parent to JI's child, too. To call RR the egg donor is being disrespectful to her son and I disagree with it.


I know all about being young and naive and in the end not having selected someone that is good for your child. I have plenty of guilt over that but to my own defense I had no idea there were people like that out in the world and I only knew my ex a year which is not long enough with most people. I imagine JI feels the same about RR, however I hope that he does realize at some point that without her he wouldn't have his son.
RR may not be paying child support, and if not I'm not sure her reason, but in this day and time I do know that if it's ordered and they can find you that you will go to court and be held accountable. I've seen people lose their license and be put in jail for this. It's not unbelievable to me but I'd like some sort of proof that RR's not been paying for me to fully believe it because it's obvious they know where to find her.

MOO
 
  • #757
What is the criteria required for a woman to be termed an egg donor? Timewise, in the care of their respective infants, RR is less of an egg donor than DB. Not to mention the fact that none of us have any personal knowledge of what standard of care these children were given.
 
  • #758
scmom said:
What is the criteria required for a woman to be termed an egg donor? Timewise, in the care of their respective infants, RR is less of an egg donor than DB. Not to mention the fact that none of us have any personal knowledge of what standard of care these children were given.
Click to expand...

Anyone can be a mother, but not everyone is a mom.
 
  • #759
scmom said:
What is the criteria required for a woman to be termed an egg donor? Timewise, in the care of their respective infants, RR is less of an egg donor than DB. Not to mention the fact that none of us have any personal knowledge of what standard of care these children were given.
Click to expand...

Think about the criteria for a man to be considered a "sperm-donor' rather than a father. Now apply it to the mom. That's the criteria.

If you are not easily offended, you can look it up on urban dictionary.
 
  • #760
Having any termed "sperm donor" is offensive. I'm sure when she gave birth to this child she did not see the future. We don't know why JI have custody. It's obvious however that JI left his son alone with his girlfriend who admitted to drinking and having "adult time" (whatever that may mean) 2 to 3 times a week and then trotting off to bed.

If she is becoming sloshed 2 or 3 times a week I question her ability to provide proper care for the children. It's obvious that night was a school night and it seems she put them in the room with a movie and the neighbors kid. It was supposedly above normal weather so why were they not allowed outside to partake in the nice weather?

Instead we have children closed up in beautiful weather with a movie while mommie had her "adult time". She has admitted the kids were "she thinks" awake at 10:30 pm ...IMO way too late for school age youngsters to even be up! We heard nothing of homework time with the kids, getting kids things ready for school, perhaps even lunchs made early.

When you become a live in with someone who has children you become their custodian and she is guilty of neglect that evening for sure.

I keep thinking, what if the house caught on fire while DB was in one of those 3 night a week drunks? Who knows WHO might have been coming IN AND OUT of the house at night while she was in a stupor.

I think both children need to be removed from her care, she admitted to also taking anxiety meds along with the booze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Niner
Trials & Sentencings for January, 2025
Replies
11
Views
1K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for April, 2023
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for October, 2022
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencing set to begin in April, 2022
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings set to begin in November, 2021
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
Niner
Niner

Members online

... and 114 more.
Total: 1,518 (members: 115, guests: 1,403)

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
1,403
Total visitors
1,518
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,359
Messages
18,625,261
Members
243,109
Latest member
cdevita26
Back
Top