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

[menmo]

So this would mean that since she is taking him to court that she should be paying HIS attorney bills by using this logic.
From what I have heard about her losing custody in the first place, she has a LOT to overcome. If she is in the same frame of mind now as she was then, there is no way I would let her have the child unsupervised. Yes, she might have overcome some of her obstacles, but then she should in the very least have been providing some kind of minimal support.

I trust your input as you live close enough to hear or know the scuttlebutt of how this relationship was. I hope and pray that if RR does come back into this child's life that she is introduced gradually and cautiously. Kids are usually very forgiving of their parents faults. As for me I'm not sure that I could be if I was that child and found out she walked out and stayed away on her own.

I just would like it to all be fair to everyone. That's all. I trust the Judge to make the right decision as he will hopefully have all facts laid out in front of him.

MOO

 

[menmo]

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be perfectly OK if the outcome of this is that DB does not get custody of JI & RR's child.

Because--all questions of DB's suitability to have the care of small children aside--she is not one of the actual parents, and she is not the legal spouse of one of the parents. Her being involved in taking care of the child will doubtless come into question, as will who would take care of the child if RR was to obtain custody.

Please, those who have experience with family law help me out--how much weight does as babysitter/romantic interest carry in a custody decision vs. the actual parent?

She's more than that, though...she's who he's chose to be his live in, his significant other.

 

[Tuffy]

I don't think he has the income to help her pay, he isn't working right now and just lost his daughter it would be pretty cold if she were to ask him for money after not paying child support for years. How has it been equal for him when she hasn't helped raise her son?

BBM: JI is no longer working? What happened?

 

[Tuffy]

She's more than that, though...she's who he's chose to be his live in, his significant other.

Having a live-in girlfriend is definitely taken into consideration in Missouri family courts. They will look into her background as well. I don't think her drinking/babysitting will go over too well.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

BBM NOT in all parts of the States. There are some places that hang onto a 1950s mentality, fortunately that's not everywhere.

I may have a 1950's mentality. I was married in 1983 and still am to the same man. I also believe in fidelity, love, honor, cherish, respect and a whole lot of other things. I believe in the commitment of marriage, it may only be a piece of paper but that piece of paper has the bonds of steel as far as I am concerned. While some may think infidelity and adultery are a modern way to think and live, I don't.

 

[vlpate]

So this would mean that since she is taking him to court that she should be paying HIS attorney bills by using this logic.
From what I have heard about her losing custody in the first place, she has a LOT to overcome. If she is in the same frame of mind now as she was then, there is no way I would let her have the child unsupervised. Yes, she might have overcome some of her obstacles, but then she should in the very least have been providing some kind of minimal support.

BEM: That's a strong statement, have you a source? All I've ever heard or read was the "ruthless" remark from RR's family when referencing the custody battle.

I also heard she had been deported, but I can't find this information anywhere.

 

[Sparklin]

How is it fair for RR or the child if they can't afford a high profile attorney plus one like he has? The playing field should be leveled and be the same for everyone. Is JI paying for JT? Is he getting paid for all of those interviews like so many think he is? If so then he can afford to pay some or all of this mom's attorney fees, too. I also think and would like to see a GAL assigned to this case for their child. It's only fair.

MOO

Well, if it were me, she could ask until the cows came home, but who in their right mind is going to contribute to someone who is trying to take their child away? Even the nerve to ask would be laughable to me. Jeremy has that lawyer because his child was kidnapped, not because he's wealthy. He couldn't afford their cell bills. He has a family to feed and house and clothe. She apparently has a lawyer already. I could see them splitting the costs for a separate lawyer just for the son, but JI contributing to HER costs for trying to take his child???? :floorlaugh: not a chance!!

Maybe she should have integrated herself into her sons life before now and then there would be no JT to worry about.

 

[Marshmallow]

She's more than that, though...she's who he's chose to be his live in, his significant other.

and while she was either drinking, drunk, or blacked out either she misplaced or harmed Lisa or someone (who either knew she was either drunk, drinking, or blacked out or just frikkin lucky with timing) broke in and stole Lisa.

 

[vlpate]

Having a live-in girlfriend is definitely taken into consideration in Missouri family courts. They will look into her background as well. I don't think her drinking/babysitting will go over too well.

He is living with an adulterer, not a girlfriend. She can't be his "girlfriend" because she's married to her son's father.

In what universe do these details get missed and swept under the rug so easily??? Does anyone truly believe theirs appears to be a healthy relationship? She said a divorce is too expensive....really? Uncontested will cost about $50.

But then she wouldn't get his benefits if she divorced him....IMO, the real reason.

 

[deoneta]

There are some archaic laws on the books that just are no longer enforced, even though they technically are law. I am pretty sure that no one would ever try to enforce something like this.

If Jeremy's name is on the birth certificate, and he claims the baby (and should there be a question - tests prove that he provided his DNA), there is no chance that Debbie's husband would have any claim to that child. 150 years ago when women/children "belonged" to their husbands/fathers, and DNA was not even a concept, yes. But today? Not a chance.

I think it gets brought up a lot to try and mock or shame the family for not living in traditional wedded bliss, or as one more piece of "evidence" that DB is evil or whatever.

This law was actually progressive. It prevented men from simply walking away from a woman and her children claiming that the children weren't his and he had no obligation to them. I've seen this law enforced in recent years. In one case, a man who provided for and bonded for years with a child he assumed was his was able to retain joint custody. Most would say this was a fair application of the law. In another case, a man who was proved by DNA not to be the father of a child was forced to continue to pay support based on this law. Some would say this was an unfair application of the law. Marriage may be a social or religious instituion, but it is also a contract and it evolved as a legal concept to determine inheritance.

I don't think people have issues with DB and JI's living arrangement because they care about who is romantically involved with whom, but rather that having a child with one man while legally married to another muddies the waters when it comes to ensuring the legal protection of children that is usually afforded by marriage. So for me, a legal and common sense issue, not a moral one. All MOO

 

[Karmaa]

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be perfectly OK if the outcome of this is that DB does not get custody of JI & RR's child.

Because--all questions of DB's suitability to have the care of small children aside--she is not one of the actual parents, and she is not the legal spouse of one of the parents. Her being involved in taking care of the child will doubtless come into question, as will who would take care of the child if RR was to obtain custody.

Please, those who have experience with family law help me out--how much weight does as babysitter/romantic interest carry in a custody decision vs. the actual parent?

They are rarely even considered, except to a limited degree. Usually if a significant other is abusive to that particular child, the judge will consider it and maybe ban that person from the home, but in a case like this, I don't think that it would have any weight at all. (At least, if this was not a high-profile case). If they point to a live-in GF as a caregiver, the court is not going to do a lot of checking into her background. They will maybe look for a CPS record or a criminal record. (Again, if it's not a high-profile case).

Basically, once a parent has custody, the parent is free to do whatever they want - so long as they don't infringe on access to the child by the other parent.

It's possible since this case is high-profile, things may be handled differently, but it's not likely that JI will lose custody.

 

[Karmaa]

BEM: That's a strong statement, have you a source? All I've ever heard or read was the "ruthless" remark from RR's family when referencing the custody battle.

I also heard she had been deported, but I can't find this information anywhere.

I believe the deportation information was a rumor.

There is a lot of information about where she has been and why for the past 6 years floating around the internet, but I don't think it's appropriate to link or discuss it here.

 

[In da Middle]

BEM: That's a strong statement, have you a source? All I've ever heard or read was the "ruthless" remark from RR's family when referencing the custody battle.

I also heard she had been deported, but I can't find this information anywhere.

I have had multiple sources state the same thing and the same reason that knew her. The only ruthless remark I saw came from the reporter and the report had absolutely nothing to back it up (again). I just saw another sensational headline with no story to back it up.
Deportation doesn't make much sense either. Why if she was deported is she suddenly legal now? They had one chance encounter with her and I bet it was right here local. I dont think she ever went further than a few miles away.

 

[vlpate]

Well, if it were me, she could ask until the cows came home, but who in their right mind is going to contribute to someone who is trying to take their child away? Even the nerve to ask would be laughable to me. Jeremy has that lawyer because his child was kidnapped, not because he's wealthy. He couldn't afford their cell bills. He has a family to feed and house and clothe. She apparently has a lawyer already. I could see them splitting the costs for a separate lawyer just for the son, but JI contributing to HER costs for trying to take his child???? :floorlaugh: not a chance!!

Maybe she should have integrated herself into her sons life before now and then there would be no JT to worry about.

I can't imagine RR knew JI was living with a drunk that didn't take care of her kids properly? It's all well and good until someone slips the baby out from under a passed out mother. I think that would be a game changer for anyone.

I still don't think RR even wants this - I still think it's about gathering information.

 

[In da Middle]

I can't imagine RR knew JI was living with a drunk that didn't take care of her kids properly? It's all well and good until someone slips the baby out from under a passed out mother. I think that would be a game changer for anyone.

I still don't think RR even wants this - I still think it's about gathering information.

Well wouldn't she have an inkling of what was going on if she had even tried to see her son in the last 2-3 years that DB has been around? She has absolutely no good excuse to not know what environment her son is living in or there was no problem.

I don't think she wants this either. Her past inaction tells me this.

 

[vlpate]

]I have had multiple sources state the same thing and the same reason that knew her. [/B]The only ruthless remark I saw came from the reporter and the report had absolutely nothing to back it up (again). I just saw another sensational headline with no story to back it up.
Deportation doesn't make much sense either. Why if she was deported is she suddenly legal now? They had one chance encounter with her and I bet it was right here local. I dont think she ever went further than a few miles away.

IOW, hearsay? Not trying to be argumentative, but there's not enough out there for the rest of us to really opine intelligently about as regards RR. The reporter was quoting a family member - as much back-up as saying one has inside information.

We had a housekeeper, 20 years ago, who gave someone $10,000 to get her family to the states. The low-life took her money and did nothing for her...when she threatened to go to LE, they threatened to turn in the rest of her family without Visas. She ate the loss.

If RR was illegal when JI sued for custody, she wouldn't have shown up for court. He could easily have threatened her with deportation. Illegals are easy marks for criminals because they never report the crimes for fear of being deported.

 

[In da Middle]

And if she was deported (which I don't believe) how did she come up with the funds to get back. I think if she had access to those kind of funds, she could afford to pay child support and find a way to keep in touch.

 

[Sparklin]

“Mrs. Raim has always kept her son … in her thoughts and prayers,” Savory said in a written statement. “Now, more than ever, she is concerned about ‘her baby’s’ comfort and peace of mind. Rasleen misses her son and has always, and will forever, love him.”

Read more: http://www.kansas.com/2011/11/15/2103747/mother-of-lisa-irwins-half-brother.html#ixzz1fKZUA0jt

Has RR married since her and JI broke up I wonder? Or was she married before?? So many questions.

 

[In da Middle]

IOW, hearsay? Not trying to be argumentative, but there's not enough out there for the rest of us to really opine intelligently about as regards RR. The reporter was quoting a family member - as much back-up as saying one has inside information.

We had a housekeeper, 20 years ago, who gave someone $10,000 to get her family to the states. The low-life took her money and did nothing for her...when she threatened to go to LE, they threatened to turn in the rest of her family without Visas. She ate the loss.

If RR was illegal when JI sued for custody, she wouldn't have shown up for court. He could easily have threatened her with deportation. Illegals are easy marks for criminals because they never report the crimes for fear of being deported.

I would have to see this report. Because the one I remember the reporter didn't state who said it, but had family members on tape. I would think that would be a very good sound bite if I was that reporter. So I take that as hearsay.

I have never said what I have heard was not hearsay and I am not quoting anybody. I am just relaying what I have been told by several different people who know the circumstances. One of which knows very well the circumstances on a personal basis but I am not going to get this person involved but there is no way I am going to not believe this person as they have nothing at stake to say any different.

 

[Sparklin]

I can't imagine RR knew JI was living with a drunk that didn't take care of her kids properly? It's all well and good until someone slips the baby out from under a passed out mother. I think that would be a game changer for anyone.

I still don't think RR even wants this - I still think it's about gathering information.

I agree with you there!