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

[Karmaa]

I think most of the cost is for an attorney. She has an attorney.

We didn't pay an attorney and it cost us close to $5k to get him into the US legally. An attorney would have cost another $10 grand or so, but I just did it myself.

But still, the point is that if she had been deported even 6 years ago, and somehow got back to the US, she would be illegal now, since you can't come back to the US for at least 10 years after being departed (I just looked it up). I seriously doubt that she would be trying any kind of legal action if she was illegal, since that would mean almost immediate deportation again.

I would say that the deportation thing is almost certainly just an unfounded rumor.

 

[Nixie]

Somehow, I don't think defrauding the government is okay because a lot of people do it. Hopefully, that was not the case.

I wasn't saying it was ok just saying it happens a lot and not much is done about it.........

 

[Karmaa]

If JI left DB would that make a difference? Just curious if people think he should lose his son because of DB or because they think he is a bad father.

The only way that would be necessary is if the judge demanded it. I am pretty confident that RR is not going to get custody of the boy. The judge may tweak some things, maybe allowing more visitation or whatever, but Debbie is NOT a legal threat to the child. I would say I was almost almost 100% sure if the case was not so high profile, but since there is a lot of emotion about it, there is a small chance that the judge might make some odd decision.

I don't know for sure in MO, but in my state, the courts will do almost anything to avoid removing a child from the custodial parents care. Substance ABUSERS generally won't lose the kid, so long as they are capable of providing "basic needs" and believe me those are very low standards - food, shelter, clothing, and that kind of thing. It really requires a level of neglect that most of us find unimaginable, or actual physical or sexual abuse to get a child out of the home. And then, the number one goal is getting the child back into the home. It's really tough sometimes. DB/JI's kids are like princes compared to how many of these poor children live.

 

[Minette]

OK, mods, please delete this if it goes against the rules. I know there is a rule about not sleuthing non-involved parties, but it seems to me that when questions of defrauding the government are being raised, perhaps that does more harm than good.


At any rate, here's some info from the relevant case I mentioned. SB was ordered by the State of Missouri to provide the following:

12/04/2009
Judgment Entered
Child support in the amount of $206.00 per month and medical support beginning 02-15-2009.

Filing:
Confidential filing info sheet

Administrative Order Filed

Other Final Disposition


As this is public record, it doesn't appear that they were trying to defraud the government. I have no idea why they haven't divorced, but the issue of support is not some under-the-table deal.

My apologies if I have transgressed!

 

[vlpate]

We didn't pay an attorney and it cost us close to $5k to get him into the US legally. An attorney would have cost another $10 grand or so, but I just did it myself.

But still, the point is that if she had been deported even 6 years ago, and somehow got back to the US, she would be illegal now, since you can't come back to the US for at least 10 years after being departed (I just looked it up). I seriously doubt that she would be trying any kind of legal action if she was illegal, since that would mean almost immediate deportation again.

I would say that the deportation thing is almost certainly just an unfounded rumor.

I think it depends on the circumstances of the deportation, and where the illegal immigrant is from. She's from Pakistan? I'm not even sure.

 

[In da Middle]

I don't think he should lose his son, and I don't think he's a bad father, until he leaves the boys with her unsupervised again. She needs to earn that right back.

He shouldn't have any reason to have to leave them unsupervised with her. The boys are in school. He worked over night one night. If needed he could put his son in before and/or after school daycare provided right at the school he goes to. I know he is aware of it as he has lived with a child that went to this very daycare before. It is not very expensive either as the kids are only there for a little bit before school starts and after school is out.

 

[yllek]

I see Jim Spellman is covering a story in London. Hope he's back on Lisa's case if new developments arise... We've had nothing recently except drama with a prayer group, a gag order hearing date set, and a psychic who sees very little...

I think this custody hearing is a very significant development in relation to Lisa's case. It is LE's best hope of Jeremy and Debbi answering questions about what went on in the house that night, Debbi's state, and whether there is a pattern of negligence (or if it was an exception), imo. In family court vs. at the police station, the parents have something to lose by not answering the questions. The judge is impartial and only interested in the childrens' well-being, so abusive questioning techiques cannot be claimed. No doubt imo, the night of Oct 3rd will come up and be a major focus in the custody hearing, as the boy is in the same environment with the same caregiver who claims she was very drunk and it was okay to be in such a condition on the night of his baby's sister's disappearance. Will the parents answer these questions in family court though they won't adress them separately with LE? I hope so for the boy's sake, and because answers could help move Lisa's case foward.

JMO...

 

[4Jacy]

I don't think he should lose his son, and I don't think he's a bad father, until he leaves the boys with her unsupervised again. She needs to earn that right back.

I don't think he should lose his son either, and I also agree he is a good father. However, I don't think DB will ever earn the right to be a responsible parent, (and this because of her own actions and statements.)

 

[In da Middle]

I wonder if child support on her part will now be enforced after these proceedings. If that is done, I wonder if back child support and possible contempt of court proceedings will be enforced. Could open a whole new can-o-worms for bio mom.

 

[Nixie]

I wonder if child support on her part will now be enforced after these proceedings. If that is done, I wonder if back child support and possible contempt of court proceedings will be enforced. Could open a whole new can-o-worms for bio mom.

I wonder the same thing but I am sure her lawyer would have warned her that she could get in trouble so maybe they are prepared for it. I am not sure the laws in MO but I do know here they put you in jail for being behind. A guy my husband worked with got pulled over for speeding and ended up in jail for failure to pay. Maybe JI has never pushed the issue, my dad never did so my mom didn't pay until she joined the military then the military made her pay a low amount but my dad he really didn't care about the money. I hope that they make her pay though same way I hope they make men pay it take 2 to make a baby both parents should pay or sign off on being a parent imo.

 

[Nixie]

I see Jim Spellman is covering a story in London. Hope he's back on Lisa's case if new developments arise... We've had nothing recently except drama with a prayer group, a gag order hearing date set, and a psychic who sees very little...

I think this custody hearing is a very significant development in relation to Lisa's case. It is LE's best hope of Jeremy and Debbi answering questions about what went on in the house that night, Debbi's state, and whether there is a pattern of negligence (or if it was an exception), imo. In family court vs. at the police station, the parents have something to lose by not answering the questions. The judge is impartial and only interested in the childrens' well-being, so abusive questioning techiques cannot be claimed. No doubt imo, the night of Oct 3rd will come up and be a major focus in the custody hearing, as the boy is in the same environment with the same caregiver who claims she was very drunk and it was okay to be in such a condition on the night of his baby's sister's disappearance. Will the parents answer these questions in family court though they won't adress them separately with LE? I hope so for the boy's sake, and because answers could help move Lisa's case foward.

JMO...

I agree with this post but at the same time I hope they aren't using this little boy and putting him in a bad situation. If the boy doesn't have to go to court or be put in the middle of this in a bad way then I am all for it. I just hear so many stories of parents custody battles and how hard it can be on the children involved I hope they aren't hurting one child for another or for evidence in a case because they can't get in with other means. I honestly think if JI is a good father (and he seems to be) he will answer any question to have his son with him even if it hurts DB.

 

[Karmaa]

I see Jim Spellman is covering a story in London. Hope he's back on Lisa's case if new developments arise... We've had nothing recently except drama with a prayer group, a gag order hearing date set, and a psychic who sees very little...

I think this custody hearing is a very significant development in relation to Lisa's case. It is LE's best hope of Jeremy and Debbi answering questions about what went on in the house that night, Debbi's state, and whether there is a pattern of negligence (or if it was an exception), imo. In family court vs. at the police station, the parents have something to lose by not answering the questions. The judge is impartial and only interested in the childrens' well-being, so abusive questioning techiques cannot be claimed. No doubt imo, the night of Oct 3rd will come up and be a major focus in the custody hearing, as the boy is in the same environment with the same caregiver who claims she was very drunk and it was okay to be in such a condition on the night of his baby's sister's disappearance. Will the parents answer these questions in family court though they won't adress them separately with LE? I hope so for the boy's sake, and because answers could help move Lisa's case foward.

JMO...

I'm not really sure that it's going to come up that much. A good lawyer is going to try to block as much of that as possible, saying that it's not relevant since DB is not the stepmother and has no legal relationship to the boy. Not even a REALLY good lawyer, I would expect that from a first-year attorney.

All JI has to say is that DB will not be left as the sole care-taker of the boy over night, and I expect that the judge will rubber-stamp it.

So if this is some kind of trick to get all of the sordid details out in public, it's kind of dumb. But I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that LE already knows everything that could possibly be asked by the judge. The questions that they claim DB/JI wont answer would never be asked in a custody case. And, if they were, DB/JI will both be there, so LE isn't interested in hearing it. (They only want to hear it separately.)

I think it's almost 100% certain that the egg-donor mom is hoping to cash in on something. Either she is hoping that Jeremy has some secret stash of donation money that he will pay her off with, or that she will somehow be able to sell her story to a tabloid rag. It's pretty clear that she doesn't give a fig about the boy.

I just thought - if the egg-donor DOES get paid by a tabloid, JI should be right there to freeze the payment, and collect his back child support.

 

[Tuffy]

She has relatives also living in Kansas...and yet no one has seen this little boy in 6 years. No need to miss him if you make an effort to see him....this makes me so angry!!!

I understand, Sparklin, but we don't know why she gave her son up. My hubby was adopted, and I don't for a second believe that his bio-mom did it because she didn't care for him. I think she did what was very hard to do, for him. I also feel that if ever she felt that he were in danger, she would come to the rescue.

Of course, I'm just speculating on all accounts, but I don't automatically go to the "she must not care" belief. I'd have to know more about the circumstances at that time, and I just don't have that info.

 

[menmo]

BBM

I'm not really sure that it's going to come up that much. A good lawyer is going to try to block as much of that as possible, saying that it's not relevant since DB is not the stepmother and has no legal relationship to the boy. Not even a REALLY good lawyer, I would expect that from a first-year attorney.

All JI has to say is that DB will not be left as the sole care-taker of the boy over night, and I expect that the judge will rubber-stamp it.

So if this is some kind of trick to get all of the sordid details out in public, it's kind of dumb. But I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that LE already knows everything that could possibly be asked by the judge. The questions that they claim DB/JI wont answer would never be asked in a custody case. And, if they were, DB/JI will both be there, so LE isn't interested in hearing it. (They only want to hear it separately.)

I think it's almost 100% certain that the egg-donor mom is hoping to cash in on something. Either she is hoping that Jeremy has some secret stash of donation money that he will pay her off with, or that she will somehow be able to sell her story to a tabloid rag. It's pretty clear that she doesn't give a fig about the boy.

I just thought - if the egg-donor DOES get paid by a tabloid, JI should be right there to freeze the payment, and collect his back child support.

I've watched a lot of court cases over the years, and have been in the middle of my own custody issues for over 6 years, and I have to disagree with you about DB not being the stepmom being relevant. I tend to believe that since JI allowed DB to live in this home and being one of the caretakers of his two children on the night Baby Lisa disappeared is very relevant. Then she gets on the news saying she was drunk that night to maybe black out drunk and acts like so what? My ex dragged a just like himself in and lived with her, and our Judge didn't take it lightly. I don't think it's the thought that they weren't married that bothered him, and I know that wasn't it for me, it was the caliber of the person he brought into these kids lives. I don't think it's going to be as easy as saying DB won't be left alone with his son overnight, either. What can happen in the night can happen in the daylight. I fear DB watching over the two boys even in the daylight at this point because she has shown me that she does not have good, solid judgement concerning their well being and care.

You may be right about RR wanting to sell her story, but I personally haven't seen any proof of that. What I have heard is that JI and DB are selling their airtime and while I have no solid proof of that I do have proof of the children being paraded and what I deem as selling them out to the select news stations. Until RR makes her negative move then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

I will agree with you that IF RR is really behind on child support, and IF she does sell her story that the first place that money should go is to pay her back child support.

I just want to say that I am tired of many parents dragging certain types of people into and out of their lives, and having them try and help parent their children. It's really like they take the easiest people to pick up and bring in to their kids lives and I just don't understand. I just wish all parents would be more selective and maybe we wouldn't have all of these missing, murdered, and abused children. Not saying this is what happened with JI and DB, but just one of my many wishes.

MOO

 

[Marshmallow]

I'm not really sure that it's going to come up that much. A good lawyer is going to try to block as much of that as possible, saying that it's not relevant since DB is not the stepmother and has no legal relationship to the boy. Not even a REALLY good lawyer, I would expect that from a first-year attorney.

All JI has to say is that DB will not be left as the sole care-taker of the boy over night, and I expect that the judge will rubber-stamp it.

So if this is some kind of trick to get all of the sordid details out in public, it's kind of dumb. But I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that LE already knows everything that could possibly be asked by the judge. The questions that they claim DB/JI wont answer would never be asked in a custody case. And, if they were, DB/JI will both be there, so LE isn't interested in hearing it. (They only want to hear it separately.)

I think it's almost 100% certain that the egg-donor mom is hoping to cash in on something. Either she is hoping that Jeremy has some secret stash of donation money that he will pay her off with, or that she will somehow be able to sell her story to a tabloid rag. It's pretty clear that she doesn't give a fig about the boy.

I just thought - if the egg-donor DOES get paid by a tabloid, JI should be right there to freeze the payment, and collect his back child support.

calling her an "egg donor" is about as crass as calling Debbie 'the drug taking drunk who put booze ahead of her kids and her boyfriend's son'. Maybe both are true but it seems rather wrong to say it.

 

[yllek]

I'm not really sure that it's going to come up that much. A good lawyer is going to try to block as much of that as possible, saying that it's not relevant since DB is not the stepmother and has no legal relationship to the boy. Not even a REALLY good lawyer, I would expect that from a first-year attorney.

All JI has to say is that DB will not be left as the sole care-taker of the boy over night, and I expect that the judge will rubber-stamp it.

So if this is some kind of trick to get all of the sordid details out in public, it's kind of dumb. But I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that LE already knows everything that could possibly be asked by the judge. The questions that they claim DB/JI wont answer would never be asked in a custody case. And, if they were, DB/JI will both be there, so LE isn't interested in hearing it. (They only want to hear it separately.)

I think it's almost 100% certain that the egg-donor mom is hoping to cash in on something. Either she is hoping that Jeremy has some secret stash of donation money that he will pay her off with, or that she will somehow be able to sell her story to a tabloid rag. It's pretty clear that she doesn't give a fig about the boy.

I just thought - if the egg-donor DOES get paid by a tabloid, JI should be right there to freeze the payment, and collect his back child support.

On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that Lisa's disappearance and Debbi's admission that she was drunk and didn't check the sick baby for hours are the catalyst for this custody motion. There will be much focus and many questions about it. The sick baby was not tended-to or checked for hours while mom was heavily intoxicated, whether on one night or an a regular basis, and harm came to the baby in one form or another.

Imo, the judge charged with evaluating the safety and well-being of the child who lives in the same environment under the same caregivers will need to know if there is a link/correlation between Debbi's behavior and mindset about it on October 3rd and the fact that her 1 year old is nowhere to be found. It relates directly to whether the other children can live safely, in comfort, with peace of mind under the care of Debbi Bradley and Jeremy Irwin. At this point, I don't think Jeremy can just say he'll no longer leave Debbi alone with the children at night and the concerns/case will fade away. No lawyer, good or bad, can stop questions about the behavior to which Debbi admitted and defended from being posed in this custody hearing, imo. It's not speculation, it's not an unsupported statement from a witness with an axe to grind, it's not defammatory. It is a direct statement/admission to heavy intoxication and failure to check a child who has now been missing for 2 months - an admission made to a national audience by the caregiver/witness herself. JMO...

I agree with you that since Debbi is not related to the boy, Jeremy could simply say she won't be in charge of caring for his son - if Debbi was just a girlfriend. However, Jeremy Irwin has chosen her to be a live-in caregiver to his son and she is the mother of his missing baby. She is therefore extremely relevant to this custody case and the issue of the boy's safety. If Debbi is to remain living at the house, which appears to be the case, she and Jeremy will be asked to answer questions, explain, and defend her ability to care (or at least not endanger) his child. JMO...

Imo, the parents' lawyers are sweatin' over this hearing. If LE had all the answers to their questions about that night, they would not be claiming otherwise after 2 months and requesting separate interviews. Picerno is undoubtedly, imo, doing everything possible to get a full gag order issued and he and Tacopina may well be strategizing on how to stall the hearing imo. Since it was a filed as an "emergency motion", that would be more difficult imo. I hope it moves forward as scheduled on 12/7. The lawyers and the parents have to really weigh taking the 5th and continuing to remain silent so as not to incriminate themselves in a possible criminal matter vs. the possible negative effects that their refusal to answer in civil/family court could have on retaining custody. JMO...

So, I'm okay to respectfully disagree about the importance of this custody motion in relation to Lisa's investigation. You may be right that it's really nothing and will fade away with little impact, but at this time I think it is potentially very significant to Lisa's investigation. We will see; hopefully in 4 days.

P.s. I am also unsure of Ms. Raim's true motives. She may not actually want custody, but instead want some action taken to ensure her son's saftey under these conditions is evaluated. Or, she may have been prompted to file it now in order to help further Lisa's investigation. Or, she may have a monetary motive. Or, could be she really wants her son and now is the time to strike. Whatever her motive, I'm happy the boy's safety is being evaluated by unbiased professionals working on behalf of the child's safety. JMO...

 

[yllek]

menmo,

I was posting a comment at the same time as you, with much the same content, but you said it better. Apologies for the duplication of opinion!

 

[Sherbie]

I'm not really sure that it's going to come up that much. A good lawyer is going to try to block as much of that as possible, saying that it's not relevant since DB is not the stepmother and has no legal relationship to the boy. Not even a REALLY good lawyer, I would expect that from a first-year attorney.

It's the basis for seeking a possible change in custody, and it will come up. It makes no difference that DB is not the boy's legal guardian. He is left in her care on a regular basis (in fact, is probably his primary caregiver since dad works and she doesn't).

All JI has to say is that DB will not be left as the sole care-taker of the boy over night, and I expect that the judge will rubber-stamp it.

So, as long as she doesn't look after the child by herself at night, it's okay? The two issues I expect to be argued are DB's drinking (regularly, according to her, and to excess on the night in question) and the biological mom's concern that DB could have been involved in Lisa's disappearance. Simply saying DB wouldn't be a sole caregiver overnight doesn't remedy those concerns since someone could drink as easily during the day or, if involved in disappearing/harming one child, could do it to another any time of day or night. I'm not saying that's what happened, but that it will be the argument.

So if this is some kind of trick to get all of the sordid details out in public, it's kind of dumb. But I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that LE already knows everything that could possibly be asked by the judge. The questions that they claim DB/JI wont answer would never be asked in a custody case. And, if they were, DB/JI will both be there, so LE isn't interested in hearing it. (They only want to hear it separately.)

We don't know what questions LE wants to ask, so I don't think we can say that none of their questions would ever be asked either by the judge or opposing counsel. And of course LE is going to be interested in what is said to see if there's anything new or different than they've previously related to LE, regardless whether their own specific questions are asked.

I think it's almost 100% certain that the egg-donor mom is hoping to cash in on something. Either she is hoping that Jeremy has some secret stash of donation money that he will pay her off with, or that she will somehow be able to sell her story to a tabloid rag. It's pretty clear that she doesn't give a fig about the boy.

I just thought - if the egg-donor DOES get paid by a tabloid, JI should be right there to freeze the payment, and collect his back child support.

I don't have any regard for people who abandon their children, but I don't know the biological mom's circumstances then or now. It could be that she is guilt-ridden, feels afraid for the little boy and (even if she doesn't expect to win custody) is trying to finally step up for him to ensure that if he's left in the home, he's never left alone with DB.

ETA: Was working on my post on and off while doing other things and didn't see yllek's response. I coulda just saved my fingers and said "ditto."

 

[Tuffy]

I'm not really sure that it's going to come up that much. A good lawyer is going to try to block as much of that as possible, saying that it's not relevant since DB is not the stepmother and has no legal relationship to the boy. Not even a REALLY good lawyer, I would expect that from a first-year attorney.

All JI has to say is that DB will not be left as the sole care-taker of the boy over night, and I expect that the judge will rubber-stamp it.

So if this is some kind of trick to get all of the sordid details out in public, it's kind of dumb. But I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that LE already knows everything that could possibly be asked by the judge. The questions that they claim DB/JI wont answer would never be asked in a custody case. And, if they were, DB/JI will both be there, so LE isn't interested in hearing it. (They only want to hear it separately.)

I think it's almost 100% certain that the egg-donor mom is hoping to cash in on something. Either she is hoping that Jeremy has some secret stash of donation money that he will pay her off with, or that she will somehow be able to sell her story to a tabloid rag. It's pretty clear that she doesn't give a fig about the boy.

I just thought - if the egg-donor DOES get paid by a tabloid, JI should be right there to freeze the payment, and collect his back child support.

BBM: I doubt that there would be more than a handful of family court judges that would buy that argument. Living in the same home, there would be a likely chance that she would at some point be alone with his son.

I think the judge would want something more substantial to happen if he/she felt DB were a danger to the child. I can't see them just taking JI's word for it.

 

[annalia]

Haven't both JP and JT referred to DB as JI's fiance?

If so, their own attorneys are acknowledging that she is more than just a girlfriend, and would be a future stepmother.

I don't know what the answer is, I just hope that the judge can see through it all to do what is in the best interest of the little boy.