Kyron Horman's stepmother is a profile in contradictions....

[Calliope]

Its ok saying that however..after he had asked for a reduction in her payment he never got to see his " son" again. IMO if she wanted the money off of him as he was the guys son then Ecker should have been allowed to have seen his son.

Incidentally all this talk of her spending Kaines money..was she spending her $500 plus a month she was getting from Ecker PLUS Kaines money?

I've never seen anything where she prevented him from seeing his son. IMO, it's HIS fault if he didn't pursue visitation. That's his right and up to him to take the initiative.

 

[cluciano63]

I agree, Emma, there is no reason to think he would be talking about Desiree in that sentence and I am surprised anyone would take it that way.

 

[1Chump]

Yes, exactly. Her father-in-law was planning to buy a boat and she was complaining that he was using up money that would otherwise have gone to her husband after her father-in-law's death.

IMO, it was a joke. I've heard people say that joke so many times. Whenever anyone would say it around my Dad, even if they were saying to his friends, my Dad would always reply "Yep, we cannot take it with us so we have to enjoy it now."

 

[Calliope]

A child with ADD is focused on the here and now and certainly not on the punishment they are going to get at home for behavior at school. They do better with immediate rewards for good behavior than punishment for bad behavior (not to mention how much better positive reinforcement is to the self-esteem of a child who is getting more than their fair share of negative feedback).

I'm curious to know why you asked. Is there any documented proof that Kyron has ADD? I've seen lots of speculation...

You need to take that in context with my entire post, and the post I was answering which mentioned the possibility Kyron was having seizure activity. I'm not saying Kyron had ADD.

Could be ...

My first reaction to this is why then punish him if it's something he can't help but what if she was trying to determine if he COULD help it. IOW, if it stopped because he knew he'd get in trouble at home, then she could rule out it being d/t an organic cause.

I've not had any experience with a child with ADD. Are they able to control their behavior to avoid punishment?

 

[21merc7]

May I also add, to the child support debate, if your income means you can only afford say fifty dollars a month, then that is all you pay. So, don't go wild thinking someone is living off child support, it can be anywhere from one dollar to thousands. Just depends on the income, the amount of children, your bills, and so many more squares to check and accounts to provide. Just saying.

 

[Jade2010]

Examine the sentence in context. This article, is about Terri. James was quoted, and in the same sentence, the writer refers to his mother. J mother is Terri.



The author was not leaving interpretation up to the reader. The article is about Terri, J mother, and what people in her life can tell us about her. J was talking about his family's reaction - they were devastated. J family is Kaine, Terri, and the baby. J family is not Desiree. J is talking about Terri & Kaine here - the hysterical is about Terri.

If J was referring to Desiree here, the reporter would have had the obligation to clarify this sentence and say exactly that. JMHO.

I agree!! I just wish they wouldn't have made Terri's response a sort of afterthought.

 

[BeanE]

From the article:

He described Kaine as calm but strict. "If you didn't follow the rules, you'd get in trouble," J said.

I just felt like posting that.

 

[21merc7]

From the article:

He described Kaine as calm but strict. "If you didn't follow the rules, you'd get in trouble," J said.

I just felt like posting that.

:blowkiss:

 

[Jade2010]

From the article:

He described Kaine as calm but strict. "If you didn't follow the rules, you'd get in trouble," J said.

I just felt like posting that.

And I feel like quoting it.

 

[citigirl]

And I feel like quoting it.

Let us in on the secret--LOL--I don't get it...

 

[For The Kids]

IMO, it was a joke. I've heard people say that joke so many times. Whenever anyone would say it around my Dad, even if they were saying to his friends, my Dad would always reply "Yep, we cannot take it with us so we have to enjoy it now."

In that context different but in the 0ne in the article...its like shes questioning what her in laws are doing with THEIR money because she thinks its money that should be for her son. Seriously I think what she said to the Eckers was bang out of order.

 

[Calliope]

Huh huh..

From the article

"Once when they were shopping online with their son, Horman walked into the room and asked what they were doing. They told her Chuck Ecker wanted to buy a boat. "She said, 'Oh, so you're spending Jxxxx' inheritance,'" Mavis Ecker said. "She was serious."


So for whatever reason she thought the money for the boat was money her son would have got after Ecker Seniors death. It was her sons inheritance she was worried about - not her husbands.

IMO, the comment was a joke. But MIL chooses to assign to it a negative intention, same as she did Terri presenting her with flowers.

 

[For The Kids]

IMO, the comment was a joke. But MIL chooses to assign to it a negative intention, same as she did Terri presenting her with flowers.

To be honest so would I have taken it seriously. It wouldnt have been so bad had she said her hubbys inheritance but to say about it about her son who wasnt even biologically related to them...i just find off.

 

[21merc7]

Let us in on the secret--LOL--I don't get it...

Teen J, TH's son made a comment, that KH was the rule laying parent in the TH and KH home, not TH.

quoting a quote from BeanE:

From the article:

He described Kaine as calm but strict. "If you didn't follow the rules, you'd get in trouble," J said.

I just felt like posting that.

 

[RubyRed]

Another

Terri Horman is a former body builder. She is twice divorced. In 1998 she filed a restraining order against her first husband citing his drug use saying:

"No parenting time due to use of meth - use of needles - was AIDS positive - then said he's negative now."

http://www.kget.com/news/local/stor...-missing-boy-case/8PvZw6D9zUCPbeUHjfixKw.cspx

What a mess this is.

 

[cluciano63]

I think lots of in-laws take everything a daughter-in-law says the way they want to take it. She may have even been baiting them a bit.

 

[ThoughtFox]

1. Would I want Terri to be my child's teacher?-no

2. Would I let Terri babysit my child?-no

3. Would I want Terri to be my DIL?-no

4. Would I have Terri as a friend?-no

She scares the ---- out of me.

I saw your post and it says it all for me, but I'll add my two cents:

Lots of people are substitute teachers, and they may tell everyone they know how much they love kids. That does not make it true.

I've known mothers with lots of kids who appeared well-cared-for (nice clothes, nice house, nice names) but who had lots more problems than you can see on the surface.

I am getting that vibe here - appearance versus stark reality.

And I know some people here are teachers and I have nothing but respect for those in education. My kids have had some wonderful teachers and wonderful parents who were substitutes.

Others? Not so much.

Sometimes teachers are desperate for help in the classroom and will take it from any mother who shows up and wants to do it. They will even give someone a reference so the county will hire them.

But if you could poll the kids or all the other parents in the school, they might see the substitute completely differently and not suitable as a teacher.

Having teacher credentials and actually being in the classroom are two different things.

 

[Emma Peel]

If I can help just a little by sharing my understanding of the $250K settlement - albeit we are not given great detail, I might be able to shed some light on what I gleaned from the article.

This was a lawsuit that was settled. The plaintiffs (Terri & her parents) likely sought compensatory damages for real money lost, and possibly punitive damages. Lawsuit grounds were misrepresentations in a franchise agreement for a Chubby’s restaurant investment. Compensatory damages had to be proven and documented by the plaintiffs (Terri & family) (actual business expenses, etc.) - typically in the form of debt/bills/investments, etc. – they had to actually spend that amount of money.

The article indicates the lawsuit purported that the investment required was misrepresented by Chubby's in the franchise agreement. In other words, there was some sort of question about fraud/misrepresentation of investment costs....
Maybe the initial Chubby’s franchise investment was $20K, (example only) - initially, but eventually investment likely exceeded $250K over time. The business failed (IMO) (i.e. from the article -"did not go well"). And, as a result of the investment and misrepresentations in the franchise agreement, there were hidden costs and, likely unexpected losses sustained by Terri (and her parents).

IMO, That's quite something to win such a lawsuit.

The couple moved to Albany and ran a storage facility for a while before buying into a Chubby's restaurant franchise with money from Horman's parents.

That venture did not go well. In 1994, the couple and Horman's parents sued Chubby's, saying the company misrepresented the investment needed to make the franchise work. The lawsuit ended with a $250,000 settlement, Tarver said.

So, while we don't know the extent of the losses claimed here, we know the case settled (no trial). It’s safe to assume damages (losses) were at or greater than $250,000 - and the final figure for compensatory damages were negotiated between the parties. In other words, Terri's parents recouped at least some of the investment they made in a business that failed and the recouped it through a lawsuit.


There's really no way to know if they received any part of the settlement was beyond compensatory damages, and/or attorney costs - and into punitive amounts. But there is assumed risk inherent in any business venture. It's highly unlikely that either Terri or her parents got rich off that business venture, or that lawsuit. I’m guessing, (due to the fact that they were able to settle the thing), Terri & her parents lost money on this investment, even after the lawsuit. (Plus they had to pay their attorney costs&#8230

Perhaps the most telling thing to me when I read this was that Terri & her parents won a sizeable lawsuit on franchise misrepresentation. To me that says, they know how to hire good legal counsel.

All JMHO.

 

[citigirl]

I saw your post and it says it all for me, but I'll add my two cents:

Lots of people are substitute teachers, and they may tell everyone they know how much they love kids. That does not make it true.

I've known mothers with lots of kids who appeared well-cared-for (nice clothes, nice house, nice names) but who had lots more problems than you can see on the surface.

I am getting that vibe here - appearance versus stark reality.

And I know some people here are teachers and I have nothing but respect for those in education. My kids have had some wonderful teachers and wonderful parents who were substitutes.

Others? Not so much.

Sometimes teachers are desperate for help in the classroom and will take it from any mother who shows up and wants to do it. They will even give someone a reference so the county will hire them.

But if you could poll the kids or all the other parents in the school, they might see the substitute completely differently and not suitable as a teacher.

Having teacher credentials and actually being in the classroom are two different things.

Really well said. That's my gut about Terri's career as a teacher...

 

[wondering1]

To be honest so would I have taken it seriously. It wouldnt have been so bad had she said her hubbys inheritance but to say about it about her son who wasnt even biologically related to them...i just find off.

Good point. I wonder if his parent actually do have any money put away, or property. I noticed that on the MIL list TH wrote for ecker's mother she noted that "livin large" for the MIL was double-coupon night at McD's. So maybe they're big savers.

Seems like she keeps tradin' up in the husband dept, eh? :innocent: