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

[cluciano63]

I can't find a thread to say this but I am starting to worry that if Terri is guilty, that even if she is convicted of a crime with regards to Kyron, we will never know what happened or where he is. I don't think anyone else knows what happened to Kyron, I really think they would have told LE. I think only one person knows, either Terri or the random perp, and if it is Terri, I can't see her ever admitting to anything.

It is a scary thought and I am going to go make some fresh coffee and try not to think about it.

 

[2goldfish]

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.

to be fair enough, I think lots of people take anything another says the way they want to take it.


lots of misunderstandings in the world


(yes, I love my MIL very much, I cant stand to see all inlaws grouped together in misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise :biglaugh: )

 

[citigirl]

I can't find a thread to say this but I am starting to worry that if Terri is guilty, that even if she is convicted of a crime with regards to Kyron, we will never know what happened or where he is. I don't think anyone else knows what happened to Kyron, I really think they would have told LE. I think only one person knows, either Terri or the random perp, and if it is Terri, I can't see her ever admitting to anything.

It is a scary thought and I am going to go make some fresh coffee and try not to think about it.

I am also worried that whoever is guilty, Terri or someone else, we will never find Kyron. I think of Madeleine McCann, who was never found. But then I think about Jaycee and Elizabeth and realize it is important to keep hope alive. When we find Madeleine and Kyron, and they read these boards, I'd like them to know that we kept trying to find them....

 

[For The Kids]

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.

I am confused tho where that says that Kaine was the only one that disciplined the kids?

 

[human]

IMO, the amount of child support you pay is based on how much you see the child. The more you see the child the less you pay...the less you see the child the more you pay. It sounds like he was not seeing the child which is why TH got the Court to increase his child support.

IMO, if he did not see his child after TH refused to allow him to reduce the amount the Court ordered him to pay....that is HIS FAULT. If he wanted to see HIS child and TH refused, he could have fought to see his child. Obviously, he didn't care enough to fit to see his child so he should not be complaining about it now.

Hm. Never divorced, but where I live it's based on a percentage of income. If you never see your child, you pay anyway.

 

[1Chump]

Legally nope.

Child support is paid whether you choose to see your child or not. It is based on income, and I am certain someone around here can pull up the forms for Oregon that will help show this.

See your child is your option, child support is mandatory regardless.

ETA: That is for mom or dad, and if in jail or unemployed, the custodial parent can get support through SSI, or some other form, but still those payments are reduced from said paying parent. Always the Country for the children here in the U.S.

Actually legally yes...you completely misunderstood what I wrote. I NEVER said a word not paying child support. I was talking about the way they figure the AMOUNT YOU PAY.

I did not mention the income part because I thought that was obvious.

What I said was The MORE you see the child the LESS you pay. The LESS you see the child the MORE you pay.

Hence if you pay more the less you see the child, if you do not see the child at all, you will pay a lot more.

Child support is not based just on income. The part that determines how much of your income is going to child support is the percentage of TIME the child is with you.

If you see your child 40% of the time, then the child support amount is based on you having your child 40% and the other parent having the child 60% of the time. If you NEVER see your child than the child support is based on you having your child 0% of the time and the child being with the other parent 100% of the time.

J's father makes it sound like after he asked TH to reduce the amount of child support he was Court ordered to pay, she not only refused to reduce his child support but then refused to allow him to see the child.

That his child support was increased to triple the amount he was first ordered to pay says that he was not seeing his child.. He NEVER says a word about getting a new job with more income and her taking him back to court. He "leaves" out why she got his child support increased. Since he is implying she is money hungry, IMO he would mention if the increase was related to his income. Since his son was not spending time with him, TH had his child support increased.

IMO, he was not seeing his son and that is why his child support was increased. Yet, he was using the increase to make TH look like this money hungry person who would not let him see his son. Again, if he wanted to see his son, he could have. If she refused, he could have fought her which he did not.

 

[For The Kids]

I am also worried that whoever is guilty, Terri or someone else, we will never find Kyron. I think of Madeleine McCann, who was never found. But then I think about Jaycee and Elizabeth and realize it is important to keep hope alive. When we find Madeleine and Kyron, and they read these boards, I'd like them to know that we kept trying to find them....

Unfortunately I dont think Madeleine will ever be reading these boards given the evidence thats come out For Kyron I really hope its different. Looking at that little smiling face....and knowing within a hour his world had changed as he knew it....is just heart breaking

 

[BeanE]

Quick take: Terri Moulton Horman profile required weeks of gathering documents, banging on doors
Published: Friday, August 20, 2010, 3:13 PM
Updated: Friday, August 20, 2010, 3:15 PM


Our extensive profile would not have been possible without the work of our lead researcher, Lynne Palombo, who dug up background reports, and intern Shane Dixon Kavanaugh, who spent hours dogging Horman’s ex-second husband, Richard Ecker. Bryan Denson, another team member, gathered information from a early interview with Kaine Horman, Terri’s estranged husband.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/quick_take_terri_moulton_horma.html

 

[cluciano63]

I am also worried that whoever is guilty, Terri or someone else, we will never find Kyron. I think of Madeleine McCann, who was never found. But then I think about Jaycee and Elizabeth and realize it is important to keep hope alive. When we find Madeleine and Kyron, and they read these boards, I'd like them to know that we kept trying to find them....

But in the famous cases where kids came back, they weren't initally taken by a parent or guardian and hidden away, but rather a stranger. If a close relative is involved and it is not a pure custodial issue where the parent/guardian is also missing, it is usually a case of murder, sadly enough.
When all of the adults in a child's life are accounted for, then where is the living child? Terri may be manipulative but I can't believe anyone would commit a felony of this kind for her.

 

[human]

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.



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…)

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.

Usually the lawyer takes a cut in these cases such as 30 percent. My guess is that the parents got a chunk of change.Probably the $250,000.

With people that I know that have sued and won, they don't talk about the figure pre their take. They talk about the final amount in hand.

Maybe they invested it and that's where the money is coming from for the new lawyer.

 

[1Chump]

Hm. Never divorced, but where I live it's based on a percentage of income. If you never see your child, you pay anyway.

It is a percentage of income based on how much you have the child.

Say a Mom has the child 100% of the time and the Dad never has the child. That Dad pays more in child support because the Mom has all the expenses of the child.

A Mom who has the child 60% of the time and the Dad 40% of the time, that Dad pay less child support because when the child is with him, he has expenses for the child.

I never said anything about not having to pay child. I actually said the opposite....if you never see your child, you pay a lot more than someone who does see their child.

 

[1Chump]

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.

IMO, that may be how her mil took it as she was not used to joking around like that. But it really is said as a joke.

I heard it all the time when I was growing up. Maybe it is just a joke with those who grow up around money. Because it was said both ways. The kids joked about the parents spending their or the grandkids inheritance. The parents when they would buy something big would joke about spending the kids and/or grandkids inheritance.

With the in-laws thinking flowers were manipulative and her forcing their son to adopt her son against their judgment, I can see that they may not understand her joke.

 

[PaulaF513]

I am a teacher (high school) and if I had to deal with a parent as pushy as Terri, I would flip. She seems to be what I call the "parent from hell". Why want constant updates about Kyron's behavior? She seems obsessive to me and way too controlling.

"She was venting about the teacher and why she should have her job," Desiree said,

I wonder if the teacher had notes written up about Terri specifically and did this way before June 4th. Kyron's teacher seems to be very responsible and reasonable. Calling home when there is a problem with behavior is the expectation. To give daily updates is fanatical. Terri seemed jealous of this teacher, and remember, she said this teacher was NEW and insinuated that she was inexperienced as a teacher. I have to wonder why it was so hard for Terri to find a teaching job? She had a teaching degree since 2000 and got her Master's in 2003. A Master's should guarantee a permanent position in teaching. I wonder if she had any practice teaching while she was earning her degrees and her ratings from her supervisors were not that great. JMO.

I think her DUI and Child Endangerment had much more to do with her failure to land a teaching position than a supervisor's rating. I think it is a shame, but today those sort of charges can derail any professional aspirations having to do with children.

 

[For The Kids]

IMO, that may be how her mil took it as she was not used to joking around like that. But it really is said as a joke.

I heard it all the time when I was growing up. Maybe it is just a joke with those who grow up around money. Because it was said both ways. The kids joked about the parents spending their or the grandkids inheritance. The parents when they would buy something big would joke about spending the kids and/or grandkids inheritance.

With the in-laws thinking flowers were manipulative and her forcing their son to adopt her son against their judgment, I can see that they may not understand her joke.

And then again maybe the in laws knew her a lot more than we did and so have reason to think the way they did.

Rightly or wrongly..Ecker adopting J worked out very well for her that can not be denied.

JMO

 

[eyes4crime]

I never heard this one. Sorry.

ETA: I just found this:

The former bodybuilder is twice divorced. Her first marriage ended amid allegations of adultery. 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://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/12001604928232/

Thanks for this BeanE! The couple sentences explain that her 1st hubby's meth addiction/needles and lack of parenting time as reasons for her first divorce. How does someone go from positive to negative is beyond me. What a mess that must have been, certainly explains why 1st hubby gave up his parantal rights. moo mho

 

[human]

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.

I don't think she could get a job with the DUI. It's in the code of conduct for teachers in Oregon. I don't know what the time limit is before you are clear, but with so many teachers out there wanting jobs without issues, they don't need her. Kind of like natural consequences. The show Beretta, " If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

I can tell you if she had been a substitute in the building I work in, and she had rearranged a teacher's classroom and thrown things away without permission, every teacher in that building would know it and they would tell all of their teacher friends and she would not be asked back. That is for sure.

If she wanted to make some changes in the room, she could have called the teacher and talked it over. What a novel concept! But of course, she knew better.

A classroom is like a second home to a teacher. It would be like Terri coming into your home while you are away, redoing your space , and throwing things away. Seriously, what grown person does that. Arrogance and boundary issues up the wazoo.

 

[matou]

I think her DUI and Child Endangerment had much more to do with her failure to land a teaching position than a supervisor's rating. I think it is a shame, but today those sort of charges can derail any professional aspirations having to do with children.

Still, Terri was certified in 2000 and had her Master's in 2003. Her DUI occurred in 2005. I wonder how hard she looked to find a permanent teaching position, especially after the 2nd degree. Absolutely the charges would be a stain on her record and would show up on background checks.

 

[PaulaF513]

Originally Posted by BeanE
Conflicting reports regarding the disciplining at school.

June 25 KGW Full Raw Interview -5:05

Kaine: We've had some concerns...

Desiree: Yeah.

Kaine: ...along with his teacher around listening to instructions from adults while at school.

So we've been working with him to try to understand that we need to work with the faculty there, the parents there, the volunteers there to make sure that when they give him instructions he's following those.

He normally does a very good job at doing that. Just occasionally we get a little bit of that behavior so we've really reinforced with him that if you're at school and you're working with a parent or a teacher, you need to follow their instructions.

So in that particular environment he would be expected to follow the instructions of an adult...
Desiree: Yeah.

Kaine: ...at school. Outside of school he's very well versed in the stranger danger and everything else, but in that one particular setting that's the type of behavior that's been reinforced through all of us.
Desiree: Yeah.



Note: Desiree nods affirmatively throughout this whole thing.


http://www.kgw.com/video/featured-vi...-97177194.html


Funny how things have changed.

Bold and red by me......this is a very important part of this conversation because Kaine is saying "occasionally". Seriously.....many occasions, especially in school if a teacher doesn't take control it's hard for many to listen, IMO!

Does no one else see any significance in those quotes? If anything screams to me that Kyron could easily have been led from the school that morning by a relative stranger, it is those words.

This is probably OT for this thread but, I still think that the account of Kyron's disappearance by his deskmate, TP, rings true.

I think something else is apparent about Kyron that is in conflict with his description as shy, quiet and somewhat fearful. It did not seem amiss for him to have wandered off to the bathroom or to get a drink, without his teacher's permission. When you have a little boy who is actively being taught to obey adult/authority figures while in school and that school is suddenly filled with 300 extra people, a perfect storm of opportunity exists for predators.

OK sorry for the OT. I have a lot of thoughts about that article but most have already been raised by some of our quick minded group.

 

[human]

It is a percentage of income based on how much you have the child.

Say a Mom has the child 100% of the time and the Dad never has the child. That Dad pays more in child support because the Mom has all the expenses of the child.

A Mom who has the child 60% of the time and the Dad 40% of the time, that Dad pay less child support because when the child is with him, he has expenses for the child.

I never said anything about not having to pay child. I actually said the opposite....if you never see your child, you pay a lot more than someone who does see their child.

Interesting. Not that way where I live. I believe it's 30 % for the first child, and then I don't know how the percentages go.

Perhaps you are thinking of custody. If it's 50/50, nobody pays.

But otherwise, it's strictly percentage of income.

 

[tiredblondy]

Actually legally yes...you completely misunderstood what I wrote. I NEVER said a word not paying child support. I was talking about the way they figure the AMOUNT YOU PAY.

I did not mention the income part because I thought that was obvious.

What I said was The MORE you see the child the LESS you pay. The LESS you see the child the MORE you pay.

Hence if you pay more the less you see the child, if you do not see the child at all, you will pay a lot more.

Child support is not based just on income. The part that determines how much of your income is going to child support is the percentage of TIME the child is with you.

If you see your child 40% of the time, then the child support amount is based on you having your child 40% and the other parent having the child 60% of the time. If you NEVER see your child than the child support is based on you having your child 0% of the time and the child being with the other parent 100% of the time.

J's father makes it sound like after he asked TH to reduce the amount of child support he was Court ordered to pay, she not only refused to reduce his child support but then refused to allow him to see the child.

That his child support was increased to triple the amount he was first ordered to pay says that he was not seeing his child.. He NEVER says a word about getting a new job with more income and her taking him back to court. He "leaves" out why she got his child support increased. Since he is implying she is money hungry, IMO he would mention if the increase was related to his income. Since his son was not spending time with him, TH had his child support increased.

IMO, he was not seeing his son and that is why his child support was increased. Yet, he was using the increase to make TH look like this money hungry person who would not let him see his son. Again, if he wanted to see his son, he could have. If she refused, he could have fought her which he did not.

With all due respect that's not the way it works here. I know I'm a single mother who got child support. It was based on his income alone. And yes I could have intervened and agreed to a decrease but would have had to go to court and agree in front of the judge, as I did one time when my ex had to change jobs and was out of work for a period. It must be done through the courts if the child support is paid to the state, which was the situation in my case. If you have custody of your child 50% of the time child support is examined in a different light. Then there's the issue of medical insurance, etc braces, the court can and will determine who pays what. But, here support is never based on the amount of time one spends with the child.

I went through a lot with my situation. Been there,done that.:angel: