ME ME - Ayla Reynolds, 20 mnths, Waterville, 17 December 2011 - # 8

[Sparklin]

I believe at the very least they need to do a check on the house and the residents in the house. After all an accident or worse happened there. If DHHS sees no reason to take Gabby from Elisha, I believe they have every obligation to order her to move from that unsafe house and to stay away from unsafe people.

BBM - this is the U.S. right???

 

[menmo]

SBM - I don't see how they could take Elishas daughter ~ there is no history of abuse or neglect and by all accounts she appears to be a good mom, even so far as G's grandma on her comments. I know it may be far fetched but IT IS possible that Elisha does NOT know anything. Why would you want to make another mom suffer for something she has no control over???

I don't want to make another mom and especially another child suffer being apart, but I truly am worried that if she wasn't in on the deed to Ayla that something may truly happen to that baby. I've said earlier on that I wish that if she isn't in on this that she would get the he!! out of that house and environment with her child! Far, far away.
Most of me doesn't believe that she had anything to do with it, but let's face it, from what we've heard Elisha and child was in the home when whatever harm came to Ayla happened.
I think leaving her in this home, with what seems every way I look, like an unsafe environment that baby needs out of that home. Maybe the threat is truly gone with Justin and Courtney being out of that home, and I truly suspect that may really be, but that's his family home. Can she really protect her daughter well enough in that home? I'm scared the answer is no.

MOO

 

[menmo]

bbm - Justin actually shared an apartment with those buddies...and from what I recall, he quit his job in order to move to mom to have Ayla.

Can you tell me what his job was? I really do want to know and would feel so much better knowing he was out there trying to make a living for himself and his daughter.

Why is an unemployed man living in his mom's basement better off regarding custody than an employed man living somewhere else?

Exactly!

BBM - this is the U.S. right???

This is the U.S. and the job of DFS is to protect the children and make sure they're safe, among other things. Just like they were supposed to be doing with Ayla!

MOO

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

With all due respect, Trista is making the custody issue/DHHS a big deal by threatening to sue when her daughter has only been missing for 2 months. Of course people are going to realize and comment on the irony of that. She is faulting the state for not taking care of or protecting her children. That is not the state's job, it's a parent's job. Then to announce the plans of this suit so soon...it's kind of tacky IMO, she does not have a lawyer, but if she did I bet he or she would tell her to cease and desist any kind of talk. Lest she forget that her "timeline" and all of her own contradictory statements will be admitted as evidence to the contrary.

As for hypotheticals, if Ayla had disappeared on TR's watch, then I think people would be characterizing her alcohol problems and seeking help for them quite differently. JMO

Like they say though, If "ifs" were fifths, we'd all be drunk!

Only for two months?? Of course she places blame first and foremost on those that live in the house because she knows what LE is telling her and that is that someone is not telling the truth from that home....but she also knows that her daughter was supposed to be home with her...not there. So of course she is going to be angry that she did what she was advised...NOT court mandated...advised and that was to get treatment...so she does....and those who are supposed to be protecting our children did not do their jobs appropriately when they did not enforce written agreements. IF DHHS was so positive what they did was "in the books" and accurate, then why haven't they spoke out?

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

I find it extremely hard to believe that it would only take two months of someone missing before they are declared 'dead'. I would think it would take at least a year. Is the thought that JD is just going to bide his time, wait it out for as long as it takes (while paying premiums no less) and then cash in?

Most states it is 7 years. However, some exceptions are made and determined state-by-state if it can be done in 3, sometimes 4 years when a case is officially considered a homicide investigation.

 

[C-Squared]

Why is an unemployed man living in his mom's basement better off regarding custody than an employed man living somewhere else?

Maybe I am in the minority but I would much rather have my child placed with his/her father at the home of his/her grandparent vs. at the home of a bunch of young men which is where JD was living before he moved in with his mother. JMO

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

I had thought she was cleared by now. Interesting.....

No person, parent or otherwise, is "cleared" in a criminal investigation until a person of interest is officially named. Thus far, no POI has been named publicly so everybody and anybody that had contact with Ayla is "not cleared." This includes family and friends, as well. Remember...just because someone is miles away does not mean they are 'cleared'...think about Venus Stewart. Her husband was states away..and come to find out he in fact was there and committed the crime. Think of other cases in which someone has clear alibi's but has someone else do the crime. One thing we know for certain, as does the MSP, and that is something happened in that home. The blood was far more than a cut. It was cleaned up. The baby is missing from that home. Blood is analyzed as Ayla's blood. This lessons the capabilities of TR being involved, doesn't clear her...or anybody else...not until the MSP does their complete investigation and makes a determination on naming a suspect. Then and only then they may "clear her" and others, as well. She very well may have already been cleared by the MSP and even at that...they don't always share what they know with the local police agency, of which McClausand is the spokesperson for. That is another point to be made. Nobody is hearing from the MSP...and nobody will...not until an official press conference is made and a suspect in custody...and at that, even then they may not be the ones "speaking out."

 

[naturallyme]

BBM - this is the U.S. right???

Yes this is the US..... not exactly sure why you ask that question. If it was because I used the word order in the post. That is the exact same word that MSM used in reporting on the Logan Marr case where a Maine DHHS case worker adopted a child that had been taken from a Mother. The DHHS case worker then placed the 5 year old in a high chair in the basement and used 42 ft. of duct tape and suffocated the child.
In this article it was stated the case worker had ordered the Mother to stay away from her Mother and other dangerous situations.

DHHS told Trista to get help or loose her children. I think you could substitute the word Order in that.

Yes this is the US ...if this situation should not be checked into then perhaps we need to just not have a DHHS at all.

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

I find it extremely hard to believe that it would only take two months of someone missing before they are declared 'dead'. I would think it would take at least a year. Is the thought that JD is just going to bide his time, wait it out for as long as it takes (while paying premiums no less) and then cash in?

A missing persons case can convert to a homicide investigation within days of missing. However, that does not mean the surviving kin can lay a claim or receive a death certificate. This has to be determined by the state and the least amount I've seen someone declared deceased was a year and that was because they knew the person actually drowned and witnesses were present. (such as a boating accident, etc.) I also know that it has to pass through Federal channels, as well. With that said, nobody knows if the life insurance that JD "took out" also had any "accidental dismemberment" benefits. For example, my entire family is insured should we lose a limb, eyesight, etc. the premiums are higher, but we do not know anything except "life insurance" was taken out.

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

This is what amazes me when folks say that LE needs to clear parents. I can't recall a single case where LE cleared a parent before a perp was caught. It's not SOP. The only way a parent is going to be cleared is if they were nowhere near (by this I mean, states away, not 40 miles) when the event happened. There is definitely no way a parent is going to be cleared before someone else is arrested if the child went missing under their care, no matter how much cooperation they do.

You're absolutely correct. They don't and they won't.

 

[Donjeta]

Maybe I am in the minority but I would much rather have my child placed with his/her father at the home of his/her grandparent vs. at the home of a bunch of young men which is where JD was living before he moved in with his mother. JMO

Employed, he could have gotten his own place that was suitable for a child. Mom's basement is just temporary.

But then so was Ayla's stay with him.

 

[HiHater]

Only for two months?? Of course she places blame first and foremost on those that live in the house because she knows what LE is telling her and that is that someone is not telling the truth from that home....but she also knows that her daughter was supposed to be home with her...not there. So of course she is going to be angry that she did what she was advised...NOT court mandated...advised and that was to get treatment...so she does....and those who are supposed to be protecting our children did not do their jobs appropriately when they did not enforce written agreements. IF DHHS was so positive what they did was "in the books" and accurate, then why haven't they spoke out?

Are you serious? When have you ever heard DHHS/CPS in any case give detailed info? Because of the involvement of minors and family court, confidentiality bars them from confirming pretty much anything. I think TR very well knows that DHHS is not going to speak out, and it's unfair of anyone to characterize their silence as a negative. :twocents::twocents:

We can hold it against JD and ED or even PD for not speaking candidly, but to use that same criteria against a government agency that is bound by local, state, and federal laws? It's just not the same and doesn't hold the same "fire" if you will.

 

[menmo]

Maybe I am in the minority but I would much rather have my child placed with his/her father at the home of his/her grandparent vs. at the home of a bunch of young men which is where JD was living before he moved in with his mother. JMO

As we can see placing Ayla in Phoebe's home with him, his sister Elisha and her baby, didn't keep this baby safe and quite honestly I think that if Grandma was there, I'd come more believing that Ayla was fed and bathed more regularly than if Justin was just taking her to his old apartment.
It's my opinion Justin moved back in with Phoebe for appearance sake and to help him in his quest to get Ayla, for whatever you think his motivations were, I know mine.
In this situation it's my opinion that DFS should have left Ayla alone where her mom, Trista, placed her. Ayla knew them. She'd been around them since birth. She was obviously being fed and cared for there, or they should have taken the baby brother, too.
Sometimes, unfortunately for many involved, if you're going to remove the child from their family they are used to, other family isn't always the best option for said child. It's obvious in this case it was not, as seeing all the things that happened to her in her short time with Justin DiPietro. (I just can't stomach calling him Ayla's dad)

MOO

 

[cluciano63]

Employed, he could have gotten his own place that was suitable for a child. Mom's basement is just temporary.

But then so was Ayla's stay with him.

Yes...Ayla's stay with JD certainly was temporary.

 

[tamild]

As we can see placing Ayla in Phoebe's home with him, his sister Elisha and her baby, didn't keep this baby safe and quite honestly I think that if Grandma was there, I'd come more believing that Ayla was fed and bathed more regularly than if Justin was just taking her to his old apartment.
It's my opinion Justin moved back in with Phoebe for appearance sake and to help him in his quest to get Ayla, for whatever you think his motivations were, I know mine.
In this situation it's my opinion that DFS should have left Ayla alone where her mom, Trista, placed her. Ayla knew them. She'd been around them since birth. She was obviously being fed and cared for there, or they should have taken the baby brother, too.
Sometimes, unfortunately for many involved, if you're going to remove the child from their family they are used to, other family isn't always the best option for said child. It's obvious in this case it was not, as seeing all the things that happened to her in her short time with Justin DiPietro. (I just can't stomach calling him Ayla's dad)

MOO

BBM

I thought Trista wanted Justin to move in with his mother? :waitasec: Let me see if I can find an MSM source.

ETA:

http://www.wmtw.com/video/30033639/detail.html


Reporter: From the kitchen table at her fathers house in Portland, TR says she hasn't slept since the call on Saturday, that her 20 month old baby named Ayla was missing from a Waterville home where she stayed with the father, JD. Reynolds says the couple, who were never married, had no legal custody arrangement, but they did have an agreement. Including around the time Trista was in rehab.
TR: The agreement was, was that if he took Ayla, if I let him take care of Ayla for the time being, for me to get back on my feet, he had to live with his mother because I thought it would have been the safest place for her to be. And..I was wrong.

 

[naturallyme]

Are you serious? When have you ever heard DHHS/CPS in any case give detailed info? Because of the involvement of minors and family court, confidentiality bars them from confirming pretty much anything. I think TR very well knows that DHHS is not going to speak out, and it's unfair of anyone to characterize their silence as a negative. :twocents::twocents:

We can hold it against JD and ED or even PD for not speaking candidly, but to use that same criteria against a government agency that is bound by local, state, and federal laws? It's just not the same and doesn't hold the same "fire" if you will.

Apparently DHHS does speak out---sort of----at least enough to try and persuade the public they are innocent.

See their response below

A DHHS official would not comment on Ayla's case Monday, citing the department's strict confidentiality rules, but confirmed the agency's policies before placing a minor in a person's care.

"If we are placing a child with someone we do background checks and we do a home study," said Therese Cahill-Low, director of the Office of Child and Family Services.

Citing confidentiality rules, Cahill-Low also would not confirm whether DHHS was even working with Ayla's parents.

http://portlanddailysun.me/node/32254/

According to Trista they did not do this study even though 2 attorneys were present when it was promised. DHHS can't talk about a specific case, but they can make a blanket statement proclaiming their innocence, then hide behind privacy laws to make it difficult for the public to learn what really happens.

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

Are you serious? When have you ever heard DHHS/CPS in any case give detailed info? Because of the involvement of minors and family court, confidentiality bars them from confirming pretty much anything. I think TR very well knows that DHHS is not going to speak out, and it's unfair of anyone to characterize their silence as a negative. :twocents::twocents:

We can hold it against JD and ED or even PD for not speaking candidly, but to use that same criteria against a government agency that is bound by local, state, and federal laws? It's just not the same and doesn't hold the same "fire" if you will.

I never stated for them to give detailed information. I said that they've not spoken out. There is a difference. This case has national media attention and it is , contrary to your opinion posted, very odd that they've not stepped forth and stated "We have followed all protocols when baby Ayla was placed."....ESPECIALLY since they are a state run agency. They have media spokespersons, they take courses on how to respond to the media...but yet....silence. You don't find that somewhat interesting? I do.

 

[HiHater]

Apparently DHHS does speak out---sort of----at least enough to try and persuade the public they are innocent.

See their response below

A DHHS official would not comment on Ayla's case Monday, citing the department's strict confidentiality rules, but confirmed the agency's policies before placing a minor in a person's care.

"If we are placing a child with someone we do background checks and we do a home study," said Therese Cahill-Low, director of the Office of Child and Family Services.

Citing confidentiality rules, Cahill-Low also would not confirm whether DHHS was even working with Ayla's parents.

http://portlanddailysun.me/node/32254/

According to Trista they did not do this study even though 2 attorneys were present when it was promised. DHHS can't talk about a specific case, but they can make a blanket statement proclaiming their innocence, then hide behind privacy laws to make it difficult for the public to learn what really happens.

That single sentence doesn't seem like trying to convince the public of their innocence, at least to me. Even while speaking out-sort of-it is said that involvement with Ayla will not even be confirmed. That's standard.

The public could learn a lot about what really happened, because Trista is not barred from releasing any documents that she has in her possession and telling the whole truth about the situation. Will she do that? Probably not, and I'm not even sure that she should. The privacy laws are laws for a reason. American people are not entitled to certain information...If DHHS is hiding behind privacy laws, what is Trista hiding behind? (Using your own logic)...just wondering...

 

[Lavanda Dolce]

Apparently DHHS does speak out---sort of----at least enough to try and persuade the public they are innocent.

See their response below

A DHHS official would not comment on Ayla's case Monday, citing the department's strict confidentiality rules, but confirmed the agency's policies before placing a minor in a person's care.

"If we are placing a child with someone we do background checks and we do a home study," said Therese Cahill-Low, director of the Office of Child and Family Services.

Citing confidentiality rules, Cahill-Low also would not confirm whether DHHS was even working with Ayla's parents.

http://portlanddailysun.me/node/32254/

According to Trista they did not do this study even though 2 attorneys were present when it was promised. DHHS can't talk about a specific case, but they can make a blanket statement proclaiming their innocence, then hide behind privacy laws to make it difficult for the public to learn what really happens.

Thank you naturallyme. I did not see that and I am now glad to see that they came forward with a statement. I found it extremely odd that they did not. Naturally this does not give the public any info....nor should it. They will respond in accordance with whatever may transpire down the road. For now...full concentration is and always has been on finding Ayla, contrary to what others may think about TR.

 

[HiHater]

I never stated for them to give detailed information. I said that they've not spoken out. There is a difference. This case has national media attention and it is , contrary to your opinion posted, very odd that they've not stepped forth and stated "We have followed all protocols when baby Ayla was placed."....ESPECIALLY since they are a state run agency. They have media spokespersons, they take courses on how to respond to the media...but yet....silence. You don't find that somewhat interesting? I do.

You're wrong, because they have done that on at least two occasions. I'll find you links then Edit to add

Therese Cahill-Low, director of the DHHS Office of Child and Family Services, could not comment on the case of Ayla Reynolds or even confirm any involvement DHHS has had with her. But she did say the department’s authority is limited whenever a biological parent wants custody of a child who is staying with extended family members, as was the case with Ayla in October.

“A parent has legal rights to their child unless they have an unsafe child protection background,” said Cahill-Low. “Then it’s the parent’s responsibility to make sure the child is safe.”

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/...oing-on-offensive-in-search-for-missing-girl/
http://portlanddailysun.me/node/32254/

There's one occasion where the spokesperson says "We have to have a report", can't find that link at the moment.