FL FL - Michelle Parker, 33, Orlando, 17 Nov 2011 - #23

[Thor]

Thanks. I appreciate the honesty....Next time you are in town maybe we can grab a slice at Sal's Pizza. Have a good day.

I would certainly hope so Jazz, although after my recent heart attack, Pizza is definitely a no no.

 

[Tennlyn]

They would have arrested DS if they had ping records indicating the Michelle's iPhone was with Dale or within Dale's location ... that is after he supposedly gave statements to the police that she just dropped off the kids and left ... Before or after the last Waterford text from her iPhone at 4:26pm ... How would he explain that? .... Please note that we are speaking using the conditional tense here, I think that I was originally theorizing on the cell pinging in relation to a definite location that could prove a possible involvement of DS in the disappearance ... nothing more then that. I have no idea what the police have or not have in terms of evidence, as I said I tend to believe NeJame when he said on more then one occasion that they have 0 evidence against his client , but I don't consider my gut feeling as evidence of anything, I'm still waiting on actual undisputed evidence before I even attempt to come to a conclusion.

I'm trying to find out what charges you think they should have arrested Dale on: abduction? murder? obstruction of justice? felonious pinging?
all hypothetically of course...

 

[Thor]

I'm trying to find out what charges you think they should have arrested Dale on: abduction? murder? obstruction of justice? felonious pinging?
all hypothetically of course...

Felonious pinging? :floorlaugh: That was deliciously hilarious ... bravo ... Seriously now, I'm not following here, I thought I answered your question already but may be I failed to explain myself clearly enough ... so as succinctly as I can (I'm not generally known for brevity though ), if there were ping records showing Michelle's iPhone say ... in his condo or his parents' house, or his van, and such, and assuming all that after she went missing, then he would be arrested for murder or kidnapping and possibly both I'd suppose, yes? I mean, according to the alleged statement he gave the police, he said that Michelle dropped off the kids at around 4pm and left, then how would he explain her phone pinging at his condo anytime after 4pm ... anytime after when, by his own admission, she had driven away from his condo? Anytime prior or after the "Waterford" text? That would severely contradicts his narrative, aka ... lying, yes? ... And why would he lie about the phone? And perhaps more to the point, how does the phone get to be there in the first place? And what other inference would a jury make in this hypothetical scenario other then DS was involved in her disappearance?

Now, I can't remember exactly how this particular issue got started, but I think it had to do with some poster theorizing whether or not there were cell pinging that could be used as evidence against DS, may be in relation to the upcoming lawsuit ... in any case I hope that I've answered your question. Be well.

 

[Thor]

Thor, I'm gonna post the link for you. There are 39 pages. From the time he and others crashed a party and one of the attendees was murdered, from him beating Shannon while he was drunk, to where Shannon supposedly OD'd at his friends house while he was in prison.

I think the documents will answer your questions. I'm surprised you haven't seen them. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are after you read them. TIA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ssing-dale-smith-shannon-smith_n_1126349.html

Hi Sparky, sorry it took me a while to answer your question ... I read from the link you provided ...

"According to court documents, Dale Smith told police that he had been in a bar fight that night and that his wife became angry when he came home and told her about it."

"He stated that she got mad and started slapping him in the face and calling him a drunk. ... He said he then grabbed her by the leg and [dragged] her outside. Once he had her outside he said she hit her head on the railing to the apartment and started to bleed ..."

Shannon Smith told police that her husband had initiated the altercation, and "threw her against the metal railing." The report further states that Dale Smith "made many comments about wanting to die for hurting his wife." He was determined to have been the primary aggressor, according to the report, because "no visible red or finger marks were noted on his face."

What can anyone say in this instance that would not involve a good dose of disgust? DS clearly has real issues in keeping his control, and that's undoubtedly the stuff many homicides are made of. If you're looking for agreement there you certainly have it from me and I suspect from just about everyone else.

However, to me the issue is not to profess DS guilty or not, it isn't my job, I never applied for it, and that is the way I prefer it to be. I'm only interested in what happened to Michelle Parker, for whatever reason that is ... may be because I'm a father myself, may be because I had more time in my hands then I have a right to, may be both, whatever and no matter ... but yes, if the question is does he have the character to be a potential killer? Then my opinion would be absolutely yes, could I envision DS being responsible for her disappearance? Yes, but to me that is totally irrelevant ... for what I happen to think in respect to making a determination of guilt, is largely irrelevant and what is proven is all but everything, and as I follow my conscience I must be aware of the considerable distinction between the two before I might think of anyone as a murderer or anything else for that matter.

Lastly, it's with profound sadness that I know that when all is said and done, if Michelle is dead, as it is probably the case, it doesn't make a difference who did it, those children would have lost their mother regardless, and a tragedy would not be undone, and where justice is essential and must be found, it is my hope that it doesn't rest with DS's guilt, and that is not because I like him, for I do not, not because I'm his advocate, for I'm not, but because all things being equal I'd prefer that those kids' tragedy would not be compounded by the notion that their father killed their mother, I wouldn't wish that on anyone let alone little kids. I hope that if he's not involved in this crime, that a combination of years that have passed, self-reflection, age, life events in general and this tragedy in particular have forced DS to be a different enough person so to make him at least a viable father and a decently functional human being ... by most accounts he's been caring to his children (notwithstanding whatever issues exist with the grandparents), and he has apparently found a legitimate job and I think that to be generally an hopeful sign where hope is all you can have in the midst of this tragedy outside of the customary well wishes. Thank you for asking for my opinion even as we might disagree sometimes. Be well.

 

[Sparky]

Hi Sparky, sorry it took me a while to answer your question ... I read from the link you provided ...

"According to court documents, Dale Smith told police that he had been in a bar fight that night and that his wife became angry when he came home and told her about it."

"He stated that she got mad and started slapping him in the face and calling him a drunk. ... He said he then grabbed her by the leg and [dragged] her outside. Once he had her outside he said she hit her head on the railing to the apartment and started to bleed ..."

Shannon Smith told police that her husband had initiated the altercation, and "threw her against the metal railing." The report further states that Dale Smith "made many comments about wanting to die for hurting his wife." He was determined to have been the primary aggressor, according to the report, because "no visible red or finger marks were noted on his face."

What can anyone say in this instance that would not involve a good dose of disgust? DS clearly has real issues in keeping his control, and that's undoubtedly the stuff many homicides are made of. If you're looking for agreement there you certainly have it from me and I suspect from just about everyone else.

However, to me the issue is not to profess DS guilty or not, it isn't my job, I never applied for it, and that is the way I prefer it to be. I'm only interested in what happened to Michelle Parker, for whatever reason that is ... may be because I'm a father myself, may be because I had more time in my hands then I have a right to, may be both, whatever and no matter ... but yes, if the question is does he have the character to be a potential killer? Then my opinion would be absolutely yes, could I envision DS being responsible for her disappearance? Yes, but to me that is totally irrelevant ... for what I happen to think in respect to making a determination of guilt, is largely irrelevant and what is proven is all but everything, and as I follow my conscience I must be aware of the considerable distinction between the two before I might think of anyone as a murderer or anything else for that matter.

Lastly, it's with profound sadness that I know that when all is said and done, if Michelle is dead, as it is probably the case, it doesn't make a difference who did it, those children would have lost their mother regardless, and a tragedy would not be undone, and where justice is essential and must be found, it is my hope that it doesn't rest with DS's guilt, and that is not because I like him, for I do not, not because I'm his advocate, for I'm not, but because all things being equal I'd prefer that those kids' tragedy would not be compounded by the notion that their father killed their mother, I wouldn't wish that on anyone let alone little kids. I hope that if he's not involved in this crime, that a combination of years that have passed, self-reflection, age, life events in general and this tragedy in particular have forced DS to be a different enough person so to make him at least a viable father and a decently functional human being ... by most accounts he's been caring to his children (notwithstanding whatever issues exist with the grandparents), and he has apparently found a legitimate job and I think that to be generally an hopeful sign where hope is all you can have in the midst of this tragedy outside of the customary well wishes. Thank you for asking for my opinion even as we might disagree sometimes. Be well.

Thank you for answering my post. First I'd like to say I'm sorry to hear of your heart attack and wish you a quick recovery.

There has been so much heart ache thru this whole case. Michelle was a wonderful Mother to her children. She worked hard to make sure they had what they needed and that they were well provided for. She was a wonderful person, who had a great sense of humor and a wonderful personality. She would give you the shirt off her back to anyone in need, and if she didn't have it, she would find away to get it. Michelle was a Beautiful person inside and out.

My DH and I remember the good times we had with Michelle, good times that will no longer be. We don't speak of her much anymore, which is sad and when we do it disgusts my DH to know end. I once asked him where he thought she was, and his answer to me was in the woods somewhere, somewhere where she won't be found. Left for the gators like a piece of meat.

I hurt for Michelle's children, her family and friends. I'm sad because there is that possibility she will never be found and a POI will not be arrested.

You and I will agree to disagree. LE has not released all the info they have. They hold it close to the vest. This case was IMO botched at the very beginning. The media couldn't even get her name right. There are things going on behind the scenes, things that can't be discussed at this time, things IMO I believe that go much deeper then just Michelle missing.

With all that being said, I have decided to take a break from Michelle's case. It's time for me to sit back, regroup and look at life a bit differently.

Sparky

 

[Thor]

Thank you for answering my post. First I'd like to say I'm sorry to hear of your heart attack and wish you a quick recovery.

There has been so much heart ache thru this whole case. Michelle was a wonderful Mother to her children. She worked hard to make sure they had what they needed and that they were well provided for. She was a wonderful person, who had a great sense of humor and a wonderful personality. She would give you the shirt off her back to anyone in need, and if she didn't have it, she would find away to get it. Michelle was a Beautiful person inside and out.

My DH and I remember the good times we had with Michelle, good times that will no longer be. We don't speak of her much anymore, which is sad and when we do it disgusts my DH to know end. I once asked him where he thought she was, and his answer to me was in the woods somewhere, somewhere where she won't be found. Left for the gators like a piece of meat.

I hurt for Michelle's children, her family and friends. I'm sad because there is that possibility she will never be found and a POI will not be arrested.

You and I will agree to disagree. LE has not released all the info they have. They hold it close to the vest. This case was IMO botched at the very beginning. The media couldn't even get her name right. There are things going on behind the scenes, things that can't be discussed at this time, things IMO I believe that go much deeper then just Michelle missing.

With all that being said, I have decided to take a break from Michelle's case. It's time for me to sit back, regroup and look at life a bit differently.

Sparky

I hear you Sparky, my heart goes out to you and the families in particular, I can't really imagine what they have been and are going through. I leave you with a thought that I hope it's of help ...

... I don't know whether or not Michelle is going to be found and I don't know if the degenerate that killed her will ever be brought to justice, I hope that on both instances the answer is yes and notwithstanding particular differences of opinions I think I speak for everybody here on that. I also hope, that if it's the case that DS is not involved in this crime, that at some point there might be an effort by all the families involved to come together for the sake of those children. I know it sounds impossible at this time, and I have no illusion as to the difficulty and mental anguish one would face by such an undertaking, but ultimately IMO it's much better to try building bridges then to live in resentment, where resentment always destroys and where forgiveness and dialogue have a chance to build opportunities for a better future if not for Michelle in this case at least for those who are truly innocent and whose lives have been radically changed by this tragedy, namely those three children.

Thank you and be well.

 

[Kamille]

Thank you for answering my post. First I'd like to say I'm sorry to hear of your heart attack and wish you a quick recovery.

There has been so much heart ache thru this whole case. Michelle was a wonderful Mother to her children. She worked hard to make sure they had what they needed and that they were well provided for. She was a wonderful person, who had a great sense of humor and a wonderful personality. She would give you the shirt off her back to anyone in need, and if she didn't have it, she would find away to get it. Michelle was a Beautiful person inside and out.

My DH and I remember the good times we had with Michelle, good times that will no longer be. We don't speak of her much anymore, which is sad and when we do it disgusts my DH to know end. I once asked him where he thought she was, and his answer to me was in the woods somewhere, somewhere where she won't be found. Left for the gators like a piece of meat.

I hurt for Michelle's children, her family and friends. I'm sad because there is that possibility she will never be found and a POI will not be arrested.

You and I will agree to disagree. LE has not released all the info they have. They hold it close to the vest. This case was IMO botched at the very beginning. The media couldn't even get her name right. There are things going on behind the scenes, things that can't be discussed at this time, things IMO I believe that go much deeper then just Michelle missing.

With all that being said, I have decided to take a break from Michelle's case. It's time for me to sit back, regroup and look at life a bit differently.

Sparky

Thank you Sparky, for always being here for your dear friend and for giving her a voice in the face of this tragedy. I don't blame you one bit for needing to take a break. I have taken many myself in this case out of sheer frustration that Michelle has been so well hidden and might never be found. I guess the bottom line for me is that there is a very large and real possibility that her beautiful children are being raised by the very man that took her from them, the prime suspect in her disappearance, who is also keeping them away from the only other family they knew, and that nothing appears to be able to be done about that.

IMO DSJr moved out of Florida to avoid the consequences of the grandparent's bill that YS is working so hard to have establised. Just another low point in his never ending quest to obliterate their mother and her family from those children's lives. The circumstantial evidence in this case alone is overwhelming for me and it pains me to think that he may never face justice and what those children are going to have to deal with when they are old enough to understand.

MOO

 

[Reality Orlando]

Yvonne Stewart, Michelle's mom, has asked that I pass this to anyone who can help with the Grandparent's Rights bill she's trying to get passed in Florida. She asks that anyone who can call Senator Sobel at 850-487-5033 and say "Please put senate bill 384 in the senate schedule for the senate vote." She says she needs lot of help and to please pass this on to anyone you think can help. This has been reported in the news lately and Yvonne is desperate to have regular access to the twins she helped raise. Here's a video of Yvonne and others addressing the Florida senate regarding this bill. This starts at about 29:00 of this video. Thanks for the help.
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/VideoPlayer.aspx?value=EE6AKxJwGlp5B1Qwgui%2F396kDYViQwUqwd78BRtpz5P%2FTQOJ9fTNaeVpu6ILXWEHvDu2HNq%2Fw5PKOcZuUDcRGviRjaCQprAZ09hlZMqWvqZUHd0DUA7%2B7hS30YxpTVx7VkzzkAZpPagVNzYBOEarQLPqa5qDuOnKUTpMhWw%2Fv2hkDEyhnujR3ZM5dfpruGI%2FP9CXj43RsEf8Zww16aVYp9jNUb6UN%2BMHtgb%2BnGR1AuaMU8m5yL3ThvfEFBi1g3C1BWOYI1MB8izjwlt8nOKg7GE9ofNJ5yivz%2BKyEuQQDRLNOMQbpVNNQ80CzcENljH9hzp8sNMxZkRcJVBwt1rtzpEJLw%2FWvKEfwy5qj7GwPI7%2Fo5qIA7604NA9WC%2B5zlY8MB1lqtsNYxYMCDGJwcr71kR%2FnAtomkzQH4yPyNqZb4fA7ZqSCvMgRpXq8rtSa4crEV1cy4V%2FJqkPUwAKGgopDLfo9MUGpkrLn5lOB8Ha1U4XldVLOsP9zWgMSZmoN3kn5BMTdP%2BGSqrZ3ZnNHtsrtFGpbgdE3S5mjFvS%2F6WSJ5%2FnsEnzMRUkqIPOEAsqx8m1TSHgfO%2BVXWD%2BSKARogY6UFa53QlN3bOYi8vigUjYdrQ%3D

 

[Thor]

As I look at the subject of grandparent's rights, I'm trying to educate myself in order to make up my mind on where I stand in this regard.

Specifically as a divorced parent and a long time child advocate, I instinctively have serious questions about how laws such as this would effect very delicate and sometimes contentious situations, such as a child's custody in general and visitations in particular.

I know first hand how delicate and hard it can be for divorced parents to work out schedules, mode of conducts, communicate effectively with one another, cooperate with each other and so on, and I'm not sure how and under what circumstances would throwing grandparents statutes in the mix of all that or to create more legal issues would be generally beneficial for a child.

Surely, a child ... any child, would generally benefit first from living in intact families where a child could benefit from a family nucleus that is involved directly in his/her welfare, including its extended members such as grandparents, whose contribution might be of great value, and where no such situation can exist one would hope for a level of communication between the parties that includes cooperating in such a way as to afford that child the least disrupting and problematic situation one can manage, but as the rate of divorces climb to record numbers so do the number of broken families, to add legal statutes and to build yet another layer of legal entitlement may not necessarily be a good thing, at least not in all cases.

Specifically, on the issue of visitations here, in a state where statutes such as a Grandparent's Rights would be in effect, how would it work when a one or two parents household finds it necessary to relocate to another town or state or wherever? Does that mean that now a family nucleus might need to go to court where such a move would infringe in a grandparent's ability to visit the child? It seems to me that it might be problematic both practically as well as constitutionally, where families might need to make a legal case when exercising such a fundamental right as to where to live and/or the circumstances in which a child is to be raised in vis-à-vis extended family members and/or other non-custodial third party with legal standing (except a non-custodial or co-custodial parent).

Lastly, I'm neither for nor against any singular statute without a deeper understanding of the particulars involved in it, and I do recognize the need for the law to intervene when appropriate and jurisdictional, however, issues of custody and visitation it's an area where one must trade carefully for it involves both universal parental and parenting rights as well as children's welfare and where the two are intrinsically dependent on one another; Particularly on parental rights, in what's practical, possession here is the proverbial 9/10 of the law and all things being equal they almost always prevail especially where it involves extended family members as grandparents are, therefore it's always a good idea not to rely entirely or if at all on particular statutes but to turn one's own attention first and foremost to the very hard work that involves effective communication and compromise (and that doesn't involve finger pointing and accusations), something that unfortunately in our ever so litigious society is becoming less and less the norm in favor of legal litigation which generally stand a not so good a chance to achieve results consistent with the welfare of a child then otherwise.

ALL JMO

 

[Kamille]

As I look at the subject of grandparent's rights, I'm trying to educate myself in order to make up my mind on where I stand in this regard.

Specifically as a divorced parent and a long time child advocate, I instinctively have serious questions about how laws such as this would effect very delicate and sometimes contentious situations, such as a child's custody in general and visitations in particular.

I know first hand how delicate and hard it can be for divorced parents to work out schedules, mode of conducts, communicate effectively with one another, cooperate with each other and so on, and I'm not sure how and under what circumstances would throwing grandparents statutes in the mix of all that or to create more legal issues would be generally beneficial for a child.

Surely, a child ... any child, would generally benefit first from living in intact families where a child could benefit from a family nucleus that is involved directly in his/her welfare, including its extended members such as grandparents, whose contribution might be of great value, and where no such situation can exist one would hope for a level of communication between the parties that includes cooperating in such a way as to afford that child the least disrupting and problematic situation one can manage, but as the rate of divorces climb to record numbers so do the number of broken families, to add legal statutes and to build yet another layer of legal entitlement may not necessarily be a good thing, at least not in all cases.

Specifically, on the issue of visitations here, in a state where statutes such as a Grandparent's Rights would be in effect, how would it work when a one or two parents household finds it necessary to relocate to another town or state or wherever? Does that mean that now a family nucleus might need to go to court where such a move would infringe in a grandparent's ability to visit the child? It seems to me that it might be problematic both practically as well as constitutionally, where families might need to make a legal case when exercising such a fundamental right as to where to live and/or the circumstances in which a child is to be raised in vis-à-vis extended family members and/or other non-custodial third party with legal standing (except a non-custodial or co-custodial parent).

Lastly, I'm neither for nor against any singular statute without a deeper understanding of the particulars involved in it, and I do recognize the need for the law to intervene when appropriate and jurisdictional, however, issues of custody and visitation it's an area where one must trade carefully for it involves both universal parental and parenting rights as well as children's welfare and where the two are intrinsically dependent on one another; Particularly on parental rights, in what's practical, possession here is the proverbial 9/10 of the law and all things being equal they almost always prevail especially where it involves extended family members as grandparents are, therefore it's always a good idea not to rely entirely or if at all on particular statutes but to turn one's own attention first and foremost to the very hard work that involves effective communication and compromise (and that doesn't involve finger pointing and accusations), something that unfortunately in our ever so litigious society is becoming less and less the norm in favor of legal litigation which generally stand a not so good a chance to achieve results consistent with the welfare of a child then otherwise.

ALL JMO

I believe if you watch the videos of YS and her legal representative regarding what they are attempting to have passed, you will see that it pertains to grandparent rights when their own child is missing, deceased or in an otherwise vegetative state. And what they are requesting is the right to bring their concerns to court for a judge to decide what is in the best interest of the children to allow visitation rights to the grandparents on the side of the family of the missing, deceased or otherwise vegetative individual. I don't think they're requesting a blanket law that states that all grandparents have visitation rights to their grandchildren regardless of the family situation.

At least that's the way I perceived it. Perhaps anyone else who has watched it can correct me if I'm wrong.

MOO

 

[Thor]

I believe if you watch the videos of YS and her legal representative regarding what they are attempting to have passed, you will see that it pertains to grandparent rights when their own child is missing, deceased or in an otherwise vegetative state. And what they are requesting is the right to bring their concerns to court for a judge to decide what is in the best interest of the children to allow visitation rights to the grandparents on the side of the family of the missing, deceased or otherwise vegetative individual. I don't think they're requesting a blanket law that states that all grandparents have visitation rights to their grandchildren regardless of the family situation.

At least that's the way I perceived it. Perhaps anyone else who has watched it can correct me if I'm wrong.

MOO

Hi Kamille, I wasn't speaking to the narrow confinement of this particular issue, but to the general body of law that might or not might not be effected by it as well as other considerations.

Also as you might have noticed I did say that I'm neither for nor against it, the reasons for which may be more clear to you in the next paragraph, but definitely my own parental instincts as well as my own parental rights predispositions would oppose it by default, since I'm very protective of my parental ability to decide what's in the best interest of my child including but not limited to who my child visit with and under what circumstances, a right which I believe to be fundamental to every parent although not absolute since nothing is that in life clearly.

Now, speaking of the case you're referring to and to the type of case this legislation would apply, I do recognize that, notwithstanding my own prejudices in this type of issues, that there are some compelling and noteworthy considerations that might have legitimacy and most importantly could speak to some intrinsic right of both non-custodial actors (the grandparents here) and the children in question. Namely when kids grow up in non-traditional homes, and where grandparents have made substantial contribution to the welfare of said children, then that needs to be considered in trying to arrive to a just resolution of disputes and more importantly one that is consistent with the children's best interest.

Surely I'm clearly conflicted here, the key to resolving issues is of course to be able to look at a problem from all its potential perspectives and all points of view, thus retaining that level of objectivity crucial to make sound judgements, since I'm emotionally involved I need to be sure I fully comprehend all the facts involved here and look at this statute very closely before I have a clear position on it, although I suspect I will come down against it in its broadest of definition even as applied to specific and limited situations, unless it's changed somewhat to accommodate its possible constitutional deficiencies at least from my point of view.

In sum on this issue and with all these legalese aside, I want to reiterate my continuing disbelief, although certainly not surprise, on how people may rely on courts to solve disputes such as this while utterly failing in fostering the conditions necessary to possibly avoid them in the first place ... actually that's not true, I think I do know how and possibly even why... but that's another issue, one that could fill many libraries on that one singular subject.

Lastly, what i think of this issue is of course of no relevance here and now, and you and the Parkers and all others of the same opinion need and have a right to follow what you believe in, and on this very last point you do have my full support.

Be well

ALL JMO

 

[Jazzmaster]

I believe if you watch the videos of YS and her legal representative regarding what they are attempting to have passed, you will see that it pertains to grandparent rights when their own child is missing, deceased or in an otherwise vegetative state. And what they are requesting is the right to bring their concerns to court for a judge to decide what is in the best interest of the children to allow visitation rights to the grandparents on the side of the family of the missing, deceased or otherwise vegetative individual. I don't think they're requesting a blanket law that states that all grandparents have visitation rights to their grandchildren regardless of the family situation.

At least that's the way I perceived it. Perhaps anyone else who has watched it can correct me if I'm wrong.

MOO

Yes you are correct Kamille...Yvonne is trying to fight for rights during a few specific situations and in no way trying to get blanket rights. In Michelle's case, you have a who was an absent deadbeat father who refused to pay child support. The only way he contributed was after being forced by the court to pay up. Then the mother (Michelle) goes missing shortly after he finally begins payments and coincidently he is the last person to see her and is named the prime suspect. Those children should be with the grandparents who actually know a thing or two about raising kids. Unlike the alcoholic, drug addict who has several violent arrests under his belt... JMO

Yvonne is fighting for the right to have the courts look at the situation and provide the grandparents with visitation to the children she helped raise... IMO Dale moved out of state to avoid the grandparents from seeing the twinners because he knows the grandparents will find out what he did with their mom. This is sad that Dale won't just tell us what he knows...

 

[Jazzmaster]

Hi Kamille, I wasn't speaking to the narrow confinement of this particular issue, but to the general body of law that might or not might not be effected by it as well as other considerations.

Also as you might have noticed I did say that I'm neither for nor against it, the reasons for which may be more clear to you in the next paragraph, but definitely my own parental instincts as well as my own parental rights predispositions would oppose it by default, since I'm very protective of my parental ability to decide what's in the best interest of my child including but not limited to who my child visit with and under what circumstances, a right which I believe to be fundamental to every parent although not absolute since nothing is that in life clearly.

Now, speaking of the case you're referring to and to the type of case this legislation would apply, I do recognize that, notwithstanding my own prejudices in this type of issues, that there are some compelling and noteworthy considerations that might have legitimacy and most importantly could speak to some intrinsic right of both non-custodial actors (the grandparents here) and the children in question. Namely when kids grow up in non-traditional homes, and where grandparents have made substantial contribution to the welfare of said children, then that needs to be considered in trying to arrive to a just resolution of disputes and more importantly one that is consistent with the children's best interest.

Surely I'm clearly conflicted here, the key to resolving issues is of course to be able to look at a problem from all its potential perspectives and all points of view, thus retaining that level of objectivity crucial to make sound judgements, since I'm emotionally involved I need to be sure I fully comprehend all the facts involved here and look at this statute very closely before I have a clear position on it, although I suspect I will come down against it in its broadest of definition even as applied to specific and limited situations, unless it's changed somewhat to accommodate its possible constitutional deficiencies at least from my point of view.

Lastly, all these legalese aside, I want to reiterate my continuing disbelief, although certainly not surprise, on how people may rely on courts to solve disputes such as this while utterly failing in fostering the conditions necessary to possibly avoid them in the first place ... actually that's not true, I think I do know how and possibly even why... but that's another issue, one that could fill many libraries on that one singular subject ... take care and be well.

ALL JMO

I don't think a parent who is named the prime suspect in a disappearance of the other parent should have normal parental rights. Dale gets a win-win-win: no
Michelle, full custody, and no child support. With no grandparent rights all he needed to do was hide the body well which he did IMO. I'm afraid we might have another Josh Powell situation on our hands as Dale moved out of state just like Josh did. There are way too many similarities. I pray those kids go back to the grandparents BEFORE its too late... All jmo

 

[Thor]

I don't think a parent who is named the prime suspect in a disappearance of the other parent should have normal parental rights. Dale gets a win-win-win: no
Michelle, full custody, and no child support. With no grandparent rights all he needed to do was hide the body well which he did IMO. I'm afraid we might have another Josh Powell situation on our hands as Dale moved out of state just like Josh did. There are way too many similarities. I pray those kids go back to the grandparents BEFORE its too late... All jmo

Dear Jazzz, we were not talking about DS in terms of guilt or innocence, but about legislation being enacted possibly giving grandparents visitation rights.

Now, I have the out most respect for your right to express yourself as you see fit and I do understand the prevalent emotions that you have and I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't want to engage you on the issues because of you personally, rather that is solely a decision of mine not to participate in discussions where there are forgone conclusions, in this case specifically is that DS is evil, guilty, a bad person an a bunch of other things I don't feel appropriate for me to repeat , that being the case, a discussion under these circumstances for me becomes unproductive and neither helps me in understanding the issues more clearly nor does it help me believe that I'm conveying ideas that someone may find of use or even consider.

In sum, making a final and unequivocal decision about an issue is not the beginning or the middle of a discussion, is rather the end of it, and all that follows after that is a series of slogans that are an end to themselves as people talk past one another until they get tired of it and move on. That is why I wish not to participate in this particular instance ... not a discussion with you personally assuming there are issues to understand and worthy of debate. I hope you understand and be well.

JMO

 

[What'sThatClue]

I don't think a parent who is named the prime suspect in a disappearance of the other parent should have normal parental rights. Dale gets a win-win-win: no
Michelle, full custody, and no child support. With no grandparent rights all he needed to do was hide the body well which he did IMO. I'm afraid we might have another Josh Powell situation on our hands as Dale moved out of state just like Josh did. There are way too many similarities. I pray those kids go back to the grandparents BEFORE its too late... All jmo

Iirc, SR was following the Josh Powell case just prior to Michelle's disappearance and commented about it on his FB wall. You're right---way too many similarities! And no parent, especially a deadbeat parent who had been behind on his child support payments and subsequently named the Prime Suspect in the Mother's disappearance should have been given custody of those children. Jmo.

 

[Jazzmaster]

Dear Jazzz, we were not talking about DS in terms of guilt or innocence, but about legislation being enacted possibly giving grandparents visitation rights.

Now, I have the out most respect for your right to express yourself as you see fit and I do understand the prevalent emotions that you have and I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't want to engage you on the issues because of you personally, rather that is solely a decision of mine not to participate in discussions where there are forgone conclusions, in this case specifically is that DS is evil, guilty, a bad person an a bunch of other things I don't feel appropriate for me to repeat , that being the case, a discussion under these circumstances for me becomes unproductive and neither helps me in understanding the issues more clearly nor does it help me believe that I'm conveying ideas that someone may find of use or even consider.

In sum, making a final and unequivocal decision about an issue is not the beginning or the middle of a discussion, is rather the end of it, and all that follows after that is a series of slogans that are an end to themselves as people talk past one another until they get tired of it and move on. That is why I wish not to participate in this particular instance ... not a discussion with you personally assuming there are issues to understand and worthy of debate. I hope you understand and be well.

JMO

Well I think when you only have one suspect and a very high probability that he is the one responsible for the crime, it makes all the sense in the world to actually discuss his guilt and where he may have hid Michelle or what happened on 11-17-11. Follow Michelle's trail. The trail ended at Dale's condo. Only he or other witnesses can tell what happened that day. Since the Smiths all clammed up, we must look under every rock and leave no stone unturned...

So in essence, we have a suspect who has refused to fully cooperate in the investigation, had a violent history with the missing, refuses to let the grandparents see the children, and ran from the state of FL to refuse answering more questions. You add all this up and Dale looks pretty guilty IMO.

This is an important aspect of finding Michelle. There is NO DOUBT in my heart that Dale knows what happened that day. It was either something that went too far or he planned it. Either way I believe he was responsible and I would imagine most people familiar with the facts of the case would reach a similar conclusion. That is why it makes NO SENSE that Dale has custody of those precious children. All jmo

 

[Thor]

Well I think when you only have one suspect and a very high probability that he is the one responsible for the crime, it makes all the sense in the world to actually discuss his guilt and where he may have hid Michelle or what happened on 11-17-11. Follow Michelle's trail. The trail ended at Dale's condo. Only he or other witnesses can tell what happened that day. Since the Smiths all clammed up, we must look under every rock and leave no stone unturned...

So in essence, we have a suspect who has refused to fully cooperate in the investigation, had a violent history with the missing, refuses to let the grandparents see the children, and ran from the state of FL to refuse answering more questions. You add all this up and Dale looks pretty guilty IMO.

This is an important aspect of finding Michelle. There is NO DOUBT in my heart that Dale knows what happened that day. It was either something that went too far or he planned it. Either way I believe he was responsible and I would imagine most people familiar with the facts of the case would reach a similar conclusion. That is why it makes NO SENSE that Dale has custody of those precious children. All jmo

I can't begin to address the many ways I believe that a lot of what you say is a matter of opinions and not of facts, if they were facts DS would have been charged and possibly convicted, or at least he would have not gained custody of his children, but that would start the usual back and forth that I've left behind quite sometimes ago and do not wish to return to ... that is why I tried to convey my unwillingness to participate where the discussion steers in that particular direction.

Also, I never said that you or others should not discuss whatever it's on your mind, quite the contrary, please do .... I always find it an interesting reading regardless of my own opinions.

... I just answer out of courtesy your reply to my very own post about the plight of the Parker family in respect to their efforts to pass specific legislation, which had little to do with DS in particular since it effects a wide range of people not necessarily connected to this particular case, and where it had nothing to do with DS being guilty or not guilty, or any adjectives used to describe him ... as I said I'm interested in what happened to Michelle and where she might be and I've spoken of DS as a suspect and any "what if" he's involved only insofar as to understand what might have happened to Michelle, not to profess someone guilty as a matter of opinion, that is not what I wish to do and I might as well leave it in the hands of a jury that if empowered would have a chance to evaluate real evidence and therefore much better situated to make that kind of determination then me.

Lastly, I just said I will not participate if I don't feel it's necessary for me to do so and I have described on more then one occasion what are the circumstances where I would feel this way, namely when my opinion is not needed since a number of assumptions have been made, facts have been established, correctly or incorrectly and possibly both, and conclusions have been clearly drawn or when people, whether DS or anyone else, are referred to with particular adjectives I may not be comfortable with, and again that for me does not require either my wisdom in general or my opinion in particular and I feel that is self evident. I also said previously that this is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong, neither for nor against anybody, nor critical of anyone, not a guideline for others to follow, nothing but the way I'd like to conduct myself.

Be well Jazz.

ALL JMO

 

[southern_comfort]

I wonder why Dale provided Michelle with such an expensive vehicle, but allegedly didn't pay his child support. I wonder if Michelle and Dale could have had some kind of off-the-record agreement between the two of them that worked against him. It looks like there was some kind of financial support there, even it didn't go through the correct channels (which in the end is what matters to the court, as many parents learn the hard way).

I always cringe when I hear about parents making side agreements. I wish everyone could manage to get along without courts, but in situations that can turn hostile on a dime, it's so much more sensible to have it all on the up and up and funneled through the court. I had a friend whose daughter lived with his ex, who was in a position where she and the child were well-supported and she didn't need cash for anything for the child, so they bypassed the court and he paid her "child support" in an alternative form. That was what she wanted, and all was well -- until she got upset with him for something unrelated, became vindictive and decided to seek child support in court. The dollar value of what he had given her over the years far exceeded what he'd have paid in child support, but he was on the hook for a nice chunk of cash because child support is for support of the child... not a car payment, or (as I have actually seen happen) marijuana, or anything else. I see it as different from a true deadbeat situation, though.

This is one of those pesky little head-scratchers that seem to pop up all over this case for me. Maybe it'll be cleared up during the course of the civil case.

 

[Thor]

I wonder why Dale provided Michelle with such an expensive vehicle, but allegedly didn't pay his child support. I wonder if Michelle and Dale could have had some kind of off-the-record agreement between the two of them that worked against him. It looks like there was some kind of financial support there, even it didn't go through the correct channels (which in the end is what matters to the court, as many parents learn the hard way).

I always cringe when I hear about parents making side agreements. I wish everyone could manage to get along without courts, but in situations that can turn hostile on a dime, it's so much more sensible to have it all on the up and up and funneled through the court. I had a friend whose daughter lived with his ex, who was in a position where she and the child were well-supported and she didn't need cash for anything for the child, so they bypassed the court and he paid her "child support" in an alternative form. That was what she wanted, and all was well -- until she got upset with him for something unrelated, became vindictive and decided to seek child support in court. The dollar value of what he had given her over the years far exceeded what he'd have paid in child support, but he was on the hook for a nice chunk of cash because child support is for support of the child... not a car payment, or (as I have actually seen happen) marijuana, or anything else. I see it as different from a true deadbeat situation, though.

This is one of those pesky little head-scratchers that seem to pop up all over this case for me. Maybe it'll be cleared up during the course of the civil case.

I often wondered what's the exact history as far as the child support payments are concerned and by that I mean an independently verifiable history ... did DS miss some payments? If so how many? Or did he fail to pay child support altogether? Did he have a legitimate excuse? Did he make up for those payments? Was he ever sued for non-payment of Child Support? If so when? Was there a court finding or a ruling?

Also I never thought of the Hummer angle in contrast with some missing child support payments ... but why if they had such a contemptuous relationship would DS continue to make payments on the Hummer? Perhaps he did not have a choice for some reason ... was the Hummer in his name or Michelle's? Where is the Hummer now? Who owns it? If somebody already gave an answer to some or all of those questions I apologize, I just can't recall right now.

 

[Kamille]

Hi Kamille, I wasn't speaking to the narrow confinement of this particular issue, but to the general body of law that might or not might not be effected by it as well as other considerations.

Also as you might have noticed I did say that I'm neither for nor against it, the reasons for which may be more clear to you in the next paragraph, but definitely my own parental instincts as well as my own parental rights predispositions would oppose it by default, since I'm very protective of my parental ability to decide what's in the best interest of my child including but not limited to who my child visit with and under what circumstances, a right which I believe to be fundamental to every parent although not absolute since nothing is that in life clearly.

Now, speaking of the case you're referring to and to the type of case this legislation would apply, I do recognize that, notwithstanding my own prejudices in this type of issues, that there are some compelling and noteworthy considerations that might have legitimacy and most importantly could speak to some intrinsic right of both non-custodial actors (the grandparents here) and the children in question. Namely when kids grow up in non-traditional homes, and where grandparents have made substantial contribution to the welfare of said children, then that needs to be considered in trying to arrive to a just resolution of disputes and more importantly one that is consistent with the children's best interest.

Surely I'm clearly conflicted here, the key to resolving issues is of course to be able to look at a problem from all its potential perspectives and all points of view, thus retaining that level of objectivity crucial to make sound judgements, since I'm emotionally involved I need to be sure I fully comprehend all the facts involved here and look at this statute very closely before I have a clear position on it, although I suspect I will come down against it in its broadest of definition even as applied to specific and limited situations, unless it's changed somewhat to accommodate its possible constitutional deficiencies at least from my point of view.

In sum on this issue and with all these legalese aside, I want to reiterate my continuing disbelief, although certainly not surprise, on how people may rely on courts to solve disputes such as this while utterly failing in fostering the conditions necessary to possibly avoid them in the first place ... actually that's not true, I think I do know how and possibly even why... but that's another issue, one that could fill many libraries on that one singular subject.

Lastly, what i think of this issue is of course of no relevance here and now, and you and the Parkers and all others of the same opinion need and have a right to follow what you believe in, and on this very last point you do have my full support.

Be well

ALL JMO

Well the law in question that we are discussing on Michelle Parker's thread is the law regarding her and her children that her mother is working to get passed. I'm not really interested in debating whether this is a good or a bad thing in regards to other family circumstances or future possible offshoots of this law. That can and most likely will be debated in forums designed for that should someone ever choose to try to expand on the law. The only reason this information regarding this particular law is being discussed here is because Michelle's mother is working to get it passed to help in her current situation and to help any future victims in the same situation.

IMO, YS is doing a good thing for parent's of missing, deceased or persons' in a vegetative state in regards to trying to get a law passed that allows their family to have access to the children of that person, who in turn would be their grandchildren. Especially in cases such as this where the children were raised by the mother and maternal family, had little contact with the paternal family and were torn away from the only home and family they have ever known to be placed with the prime suspect in the disappearance and likely death of their mother.

These families should never be required to coddle, please and cowtow to the other parent in an effort to see the children. Especially in a circumstance such as this where they are expected to do this with the prime suspect in their child's disappearance? And from what I understand they actually did do this. Stayed out of the media and tried to get along for the children's sake. It did them absolutely no good. DSJr was still calling the shots and only gave them access a couple of times before deciding he didn't want to do that anymore. Even though his lawyer had promised to get an agreement drawn up for the two families. That never happened either apparently. Or if it did, he reneged on it with no consequences because the grandparent's have no rights. Hence YS's determination to pass this law.

The court made a mistake giving those children to the father in the first place IMO. There should be something in place that allows that situation to be revisited IMO. It is not in the children's best interest to be removed from their maternal family and basically grow up with no knowledge of them or contact with them at all. Something that in this situation, seems to be exactly what DSJr is planning to do. He is in a position to say anything he wants to those children regarding their mother. A situation that is will likely be very damaging.

Passing this law is not an automatic for grandparent's to have rights to see their grandchildren in these cases. It gives the grandparent's rights to try to work things out through the court system in "sticky" situations where the other parent is not co-operating and "playing nice".

MOO