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

[nurseratchett]

I'd still like a little more expansion this:

"J.... was camping with his dad when Kyron disappeared. He said the family was devastated."

 

[gwenabob]

Ok, 14 pages into this, I'm surprised nobody has brought this up...

What was behind the sudden fanatical interest in body building?

Now, I've known folks who've suddenly "gotten religion" and started eating healthy and heavily working out - but it's usually something like running, cycling - even weight lifting - but not competitive body building.

Did she do it on a bet or a dare? Was it to get Kaine's (or someone else's) attention? To be honest, I don't think that a lot of people find that "look" to be attractive (especially on a woman).

Whatever she was after - it appears that either it was a short term thing (like a bet), or else it did not achieve the desired reaction, because she quickly gave it up.

Maybe she had a hot trainer.

 

[gwenabob]

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.

How much you see your child is irrelevent. They go by a standard matrix that takes into account income only.

Yes, he could have fought to see the boy, but if Terri is going to call the cops on him for a simple conversation, maybe it just wasn't worth the hassle.

 

[wondering1]

thanks for writing.. I was going to!
That was driving me nuts for no reason.

bbm~

me too!!! I have to say, though, the responses are unprofessional in the extreme, imo. I'm deciding whether to post snippets here or not, since they are google-able. But I am SO thoroughly not impressed. Like really astonished *not impressed.* It's almost as if the reporter thinks she's doing us all a favor by reporting and has a corner on the clarity market. For heaven's sake, didn't People just report that Kaine was Terri's wife. Um...yeah, we have no legitimate questions about reporting :::eyeroll:::

 

[gwenabob]

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.

It may have been a joke in Terri's mind, but we'll never know. The article said the in-laws thought she was totally serious. It was presumptuous and I would have been a little offended as well.

 

[gwenabob]

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.

Ah, I see you are talking about joint custody. How often the child actually "stays" with a parent. Before, you made it sound like you were talking about how often the parent has "visits."

I see what you are saying now. If one parent has custody 100%, the other parent will pay more than if custody were split 50/50.

 

[gwenabob]

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.

I would be surprised if any of that money ended up in their pockets. Probably went to the lenders, whether that included banks or mom and pop.

 

[gwenabob]

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.

I think it is the word "see" that has some of us confused. Just looking at your child or taking him out to the park would not make a dent in child support. The kid has to actually "live" with you some of the time. Custody. Not just coming over to "see" the child.

 

[gwenabob]

I'd like to know what Terri spent wildly on. Certainly not her clothes. They got married on the beaches of Hawaii in their bathing suits, so clothes don't seem like a priority for either one of them. Maybe getting her hair done, styled/cut/colored?

I take it you have not priced swimwear lately? The smaller the suit, the higher the price.

 

[gwenabob]

I'm pretty sure termination of parental rights has to be done through the courts - can't just yell meth use, and it happens. Adoptions in this country rely on the fact that termination of parental rights is permanent. moomho

As human said - the boy has many adults loving him, and that's great! He deserves it! As long as the boy is being cared for and taken care of, I really don't care who is paying who! moo

The article said Tarver was having financial difficulties and not paying child support. That is why Terri switched Daddies. Follow the money.

 

[pufnstuf]

I take it you have not priced swimwear lately? The smaller the suit, the higher the price.

Plus the trip to Hawaii for Terri, Kaine, Kaine's dad, J, and several friends. Plane, hotel... she could have had a rather lavish wedding in Portland for what that Hawaii wedding cost.

I really don't think that the Hawaii wedding attire was about being frugal. I think they wanted to be married in Hawaii, and with both of them in "buff" shape, being married in swimsuits is what they wanted to do. Had nothing to do with trying to be married on the cheap, IMO.

 

[pufnstuf]

The article said Tarver was having financial difficulties and not paying child support. That is why Terri switched Daddies. Follow the money.

How long was she married to Ecker? How long after he adopted J did she and Ecker divorce?

I think I can answer my own question:

Married Ecker 1996.
Ecker adopted J 1998.
Terri/Ecker divorced 2002.

Kaine and Terri begin shacking up 2003.
Divorce 2010 (pending).

 

[gwenabob]

Richard Ecker said he paid for her education, which remains a sore point for his parents.

Wasn't Richard the husband? Not the father-in-law?

I'm sorry to hear he and J are no longer close.

You are right. I am mistaken. The husband paid for her education, putting his off.

 

[wondering1]

Plus the trip to Hawaii for Terri, Kaine, Kaine's dad, J, and several friends. Plane, hotel... she could have had a rather lavish wedding in Portland for what that Hawaii wedding cost.

I really don't think that the Hawaii wedding attire was about being frugal. I think they wanted to be married in Hawaii, and with both of them in "buff" shape, being married in swimsuits is what they wanted to do. Had nothing to do with trying to be married on the cheap, IMO.

No kidding. They got married on the beach at Princeville, which is one of the most exclusive destinations on Kauai, if just going to Kauai isn't exclusive enough for ya' lol. If I'm planning a THIRD wedding in my late 30's, I would be embarassed to consider Princeville. The justice of the peace will have to do at that point.

 

[human]

Plus the trip to Hawaii for Terri, Kaine, Kaine's dad, James, and several friends. Plane, hotel... she could have had a rather lavish wedding in Portland for what that Hawaii wedding cost.

I really don't think that the Hawaii wedding attire was about being frugal. I think they wanted to be married in Hawaii, and with both of them in "buff" shape, being married in swimsuits is what they wanted to do. Had nothing to do with trying to be married on the cheap, IMO.

I can't even imagine the price for that. They stayed in Princeville on Kauai. Hello fun, goodbye money.

I looked at a vacation on Kauai a few years ago, but I was looking for a reasonable place to stay. I remember Princeville as not an option for me.

 

[gwenabob]

I know Terri's parents helped the couple buy a home, but I wasn't aware that Eckers' parents paid for Terri's education. do you have a link please?

J was born in 1994 and adopted in 1998, are you sure they haven't had contact in all these years? J is his son - Ecker doesn't seem angry at all about paying for the upkeep of his son - why do you put it in terms of ''dumping' Eker and 'hitting' him up for money.

Relationships end, that's a fact. People are responsible for their children - that's fact. Are you suggesting the Terri carefully planned the adoption of her son so she could get money? I'm lost.

It was in the article:

"A year later, Horman went to Washington County authorities, asking for more child support. His payments were bumped up to nearly $550 a month. Ecker went to Horman's house to ask for a break on child support, saying the payments were cutting a big chunk out of his salary. She seemed amenable to a reduction, he said, but the next day he got a call from the Washington County Sheriff's Office, telling him to stop harassing his ex-wife.

Ecker has not seen James since that call and still pays child support. He estimates he's contributed about $46,000."

Yes. I am suggesting she transferred "ownership" of her son to the man with the most $. Plain and simple.


ETA: I was mistaken about his parents paying for her education. They only encouraged her choice of degree. Her husband paid for education. Then she dumped him.

 

[Helenstreet]

But the article quoted Kaine as saying that she wanted to ground Kyron if it wasn't "anything but green", "no room for error". The consequence for anything but green, for a seven-year-old, was "grounding him to his room for the evening, eliminating play time or not letting him watch movies".

"No room for error" is an inappropriate, and ineffective, way to shape behavior for anyone, especially a very young boy. (This is different for having "no tv" because of a RED card, for example.) And eliminating all enjoyable activities from a young boy's home life is an ineffective method for increasing his attention at school.

But these facts about her "disciplinary" approach, if true, also reflect an attitude toward the child that is less than compassionate and loving, IMO.

JMO

I had a similar reaction when I read this article. I have 4 children, and my second child is just 7 years old. Also, if you consider Kyron's age, at 7 years old with a September 9th birthday, he would likely be one of the youngest children in his class--if not the youngest. The cut-off in Oregon for kindergarten is 5 years old by September 1st, and Kyron would've been past the cut-off. Also, the classroom was a mixture of second and third graders. If anything, he was probably pretty academically advanced for his age. A child--particularly a boy--at 7 years of age is apt to display periods of inattentiveness and distracted behavior.

I have the feeling that Terri's relationship with Kyron started out loving, and she possibly changed after the birth of their daughter. Remember Kaine's statement that Terri's behavior had drastically changed in the last year? He also mentioned in a previous article that Terri had suffered from postpartum depression. Perhaps she was trying so hard to find fault with Kyron's behavior which would explain her wanting daily behavior reports from his teacher and fighting with Kaine about disciplining Kyron. That sounds to me more like jealousy of Kaine's relationship with his son, Kyron than anything else. That would also explain Kyron wanting to live with his mother. Just my opinion....

 

[gwenabob]

and [/B]
BBM
If the in-laws were against the adoption, that's their business. Their son loves J and has stated such! To be honest, I find it alarming and DISTASTEFUL that adoption is being talked about in such a pejorative manner. MOO MHO

I find it alarming and distasteful for anybody to tell their in-laws how to spend their money and to vocalize and expectation as to who they will include in their will.


Besides, *they* didn't adopt J. And it sounds like they didn't much like or trust Terri. With good reason. Do you suppose Terri still expects their estate to go to James? Even though he has not seen his "dad" in many years? The whole thing is distasteful.

 

[eyes4crime]

The article said Tarver was having financial difficulties and not paying child support. That is why Terri switched Daddies. Follow the money.

There is another article saying her first husband used meth, do you think keeping a baby around a meth user is healthy? I give her credit for getting her baby out of that situation.

The information that daddy #1 changed years later is great for everybody. IMO keeping a baby in a meth environment is child abuse. MOO MHO and an oink.

 

[human]

distasteful is not a term I would use. Opportunistic? Conniving? Revolting?

The in-laws had her number as mature adults who probably had been around the block a time or two.

I'm sure it wasn't just one event that clued them in. I bet it was a lot of events that painted the ugly picture.