The Grand Jury Discussion about the possible Reasons for Seating a GJ

mayagrl said:

I read the order twice, the only mention of a gym that I could see was Kaine listed The Edge on Twin Oaks as an additional place for TH to avoid him. It seems logical to me that is the same gym that the family usually went to, not the Waterhouse location. I'll look it up but I think, and I could be mistaken, that The Edge was where Terri went and requested a call when Kaine came there to work out. So, I really don't understand why she would go to the other location on June 4th. :waitasec: At this point, I need my own timeline and info notes, it's very confusing esp. since LE has not been able to release info. Just one of those confusing details about her timeline. I have to go back and research more, in that I'd like to be clear on what, if any facts have been from LE and what is "unnamed sources" ???? Thanks for linking all that, it helps. mg

Click to expand...

No, there's a place farther down in the RO document that Kaine lists the places Terri frequents, and it listed 24 hour fitness in Beaverton as her gym.

Kaine listed his own gym as The Edge.

mayagrl said:

I read the order twice, the only mention of a gym that I could see was Kaine listed The Edge on Twin Oaks as an additional place for TH to avoid him. It seems logical to me that is the same gym that the family usually went to, not the Waterhouse location. I'll look it up but I think, and I could be mistaken, that The Edge was where Terri went and requested a call when Kaine came there to work out. So, I really don't understand why she would go to the other location on June 4th. :waitasec: At this point, I need my own timeline and info notes, it's very confusing esp. since LE has not been able to release info. Just one of those confusing details about her timeline. I have to go back and research more, in that I'd like to be clear on what, if any facts have been from LE and what is "unnamed sources" ???? Thanks for linking all that, it helps. mg

Click to expand...

PDF page 16. I'm sorry. I meant to put the page # and forgot. Look for where Terri can usually be located.

As I read with interest and consideration those who might argue (peaceably and in accordance with how we discuss in here) for Terri Horman (and in light of her friend saying people are heading for a dead end, whatever that means):

a) possibly not having anything to do with Kyron's disappearance AND
b) the possible "trumping up" of the murder for hire (i.e. where is the proof)

I cannot help but bring myself into remembrance of what we know to be true, along with some of Gitana's reflections.

What we know...

From the Restraining order of June 28th, 2010 (page 11 of 19):
>>"I believe respondent is involved in the disappearance of my son Kyron who has been missing since June 4, 2010. I also recently learned that respondent attempted to hire someone to murder me. The police have provided me with probable cause to believe the above two statements to be true."<<

AND

From the article at this link:
>>His attorney Laura Rackner told the court in a petition for an expedited hearing on the issue that Terri Moulton Horman will not contest the restraining order or filing of divorce papers, but has not said when she&#8217;ll move out of their home on Northwest Sheltered Nook Road.<<

We know that there was a restraining order mentioning that the police provided Kaine with probable cause per Kyron and the murder for hire. We know that Terri did not fight the restraining order.

We also know about the request for abatement -- and the argument therein about the psych evaluation, which I happen to believe was merely a sidestep from going through proceedings (but why?)

I cannot help but think that a person who knew they were innocent in both cases (i.e. that there could BE no probable cause, because they were entirely covered with truth) would NOT fight against the RO AND fight to get a Psych eval immediately so that they could gain custody and/or visitation of/with their 20 month old child. I might guess this would be particularly so of a person who has strong motherly feelings and who has mentioned the importance of the particular child to them. SURELY those advising Terri have explained the difficulty she would have in ever getting custody of that child if she did not immediately fight for it.

Gitana spoke to the "not fighting for custody" I believe -- she was far more clear and understandable about that then I am able to articulate. I may have even "clunked" in my explanation, perhaps she will remind us of her reflections on this.

SO... As early as June 28th, there were some red flares going up in a big way. In my opinion, Law Enforcement knew a scad of things that Terri knew too OR I believe she would have come out swinging for custody of her little girl. She didn't, why not? Could she have lost that fight if she was clean as a whistle? Perhaps someone has an explanation about this to help me -- could she have lost in picking up the fight against the RO and for her little girl right away? What would she have had to lose IF she was innocent, if they could prove nothing pointing to any "probable" guilt in Kyron's disappearance or the murder for hire?

We are now at August 6th and there have been and are witnesses called to the Grand Jury. My thought is that there was a fairly noteworthy framework in place as early as June 28th (or even earlier) -- the framework is being filled in to secure it as tightly as it can be and to, hopefully, move towards justice for Kyron's sake. My further thought is that LE does not want an innocent redhead in jail.

It certainly seems that only a network of fools would try to build on a foundation of sand. As I read arguments towards Terri's innocence in Kyron's disappearance and the murder for hire, I cannot forget the voice that seems to have spoken so loudly against that, and it is Terri's -- through her attorney -- and her not fighting that RO.

I mostly agree with the above post, except that whether LE will say so not not, she has been and already was a suspect in Kyron's disappearance at the time of the RO, etc. and I doubt any judge was going to give her custody. Also, she would not be able to prove there was no MFH plot,as it is hard to disprove something someone has said about you. So she may have been told by her lawyer to wait out the investigation, that she may soon have even bigger worries than custody issues. Or that LE might find Kyron and who kidnapped him and she would be more in the clear to fight the RO.

Wrinkles said:

sbm~

I cannot help but think that a person who knew they were innocent in both cases (i.e. that there could BE no probable cause, because they were entirely covered with truth) would NOT fight against the RO AND fight to get a Psych eval immediately so that they could gain custody and/or visitation of/with their 20 month old child. I might guess this would be particularly so of a person who has strong motherly feelings and who has mentioned the importance of the particular child to them. SURELY those advising Terri have explained the difficulty she would have in ever getting custody of that child if she did not immediately fight for it.

As early as June 28th, there were some red flares going up in a big way. In my opinion, Law Enforcement knew a scad of things that Terri knew too OR I believe she would have come out swinging for custody of her little girl. She didn't, why not? Could she have lost that fight if she was clean as a whistle? Perhaps someone has an explanation about this to help me -- could she have lost in picking up the fight against the RO and for her little girl right away? What would she have had to lose IF she was innocent, if they could prove nothing pointing to any "probable" guilt in Kyron's disappearance or the murder for hire?

Click to expand...

ITA with all of your post, but just before I read it, I happened to be thinking of how long it has been since TH has even seen or heard her baby girl, so I snipped the above. I would be out of my mind with grief right now if I were her.

I can't think of any good reason she wouldn't have fought the RO other than to avoid testifying. Here's why, imo. If she had fought and won (i.e., shown that the allegations were bogus) she would, at the very least, have gotten 50-50 custody. Also consider that charges have STILL not been filed against her. So it wasn't like she'd have had to overcome actual charges. In the eyes of the court, there are only *mere allegations* pertaining to Kyron and MFH, and whatever supporting evidence that was submitted to the Court. A presumption of innocence doesn't even come into play. She IS currently innocent of any crime as far as the court is concerned.

And, even if she had fought and lost because of a strong bias against her and the allegations/evidence wrt MFH or worse, she couldn't be in any worse position then she is right now with respect to custody, imo. She would have lost it, and she has lost it.

BUT, if she lost custody based on allegations/evidence of MFH/Kidnapping/possible murder, and was later cleared of those charges, a judge would definitely consider that the basis for the "no custody" order turned out to be without merit, and would (imo) likely modify custody in favor of TH (at least somewhat) in the best interests of the child. I think the court would at least provide her with unsupervised parenting time under those circumstances, even if as much as 50-50% was no longer appropriate because a different status quo had been established.

So, imo, the only thing she really had to lose by contesting the RO wrt custody of baby k was having her testimony (or her pleading the 5th) used against her in the criminal trial. She put that on the scale v. ZERO contact with her baby daughter, and the scale tipped in favor of covering her own butt. For me, personally, that says a lot.

Wrinkles said:

It certainly seems that only a network of fools would try to build on a foundation of sand. As I read arguments towards Terri's innocence in Kyron's disappearance and the murder for hire, I cannot forget the voice that seems to have spoken so loudly against that, and it is Terri's -- through her attorney -- and her not fighting that RO.

Click to expand...

I found her divorce attorney's response to be very interesting. They are agreeing not to contest the divorce. Well, if I were her, I wouldn't want to be married to Kaine anymore either, even if I were guilty.

But where IS the money coming from? Stephen Houze does not run a charity. No lawyer who wants to keep paying his mortgage is going to spend the time and money to follow a path that is likely to cost a lot and gain nothing. So why postpone the custody/division of marital assets issue? If Terri is guilty, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. No money to pay the attorneys. Either she paid them in advance, or they took it on contingency, which means they think there is money to be made in defending Terri.

Thing is, none of this can be settled in her favor until another person is found and a strong enough case made to clear Terri. No point fighting custody and marital assets if she's guilty, she'll spend life in prison (or worse).

So once again, either the most high-powered attorneys in PDX are dumber than dirt, or they know something we don't.

cluciano63 said:

I mostly agree with the above post, except that whether LE will say so not not, she has been and already was a suspect in Kyron's disappearance at the time of the RO, etc. and I doubt any judge was going to give her custody. Also, she would not be able to prove there was no MFH plot,as it is hard to disprove something someone has said about you. So she may have been told by her lawyer to wait out the investigation, that she may soon have even bigger worries than custody issues. Or that LE might find Kyron and who kidnapped him and she would be more in the clear to fight the RO.

Click to expand...

Hello Dear Cluciano,

My daughter in law was busted for being intoxicated, while driving an RV that guns were being fired out of it (by multiple people). Gads, I can hardly believe it happened but OH YEAH! That night, when busted, she went to jail and had to be bailed out (oddly, she wanted my son to bail her out, my son who she had ditched for her boyfriend who was in that RV with her and also in jail). The custody hearing for her children had been scheduled for only two days later at the time of her stupidity (now you would think that a mother would want to walk carefully before something like that?) The judge KNEW FULL WELL what she had done and why she went to jail, he did NOT give her custody (she had abandoned the kids to go live with her boyfriend in the weeks before), but he certainly gave her visitation -- where the children would BE alone with her for certain weekends. For the life of me, I could NOT understand that. I certainly couldn't believe it in terms of the children's safety.

I do not believe that judges take away visitation time from parents lightly -- even the creepiest, scariest, and dangerous parents. PLUS they can give them visitation with supervision if they think this is the smartest route. I also do not believe (but I could be corrected) that the burden of proof would have been on Terri to prove she was innocent, but rather for the judge to have been convinced that there was proof against her innocence -- probable cause. In the case of my daughter in law, there WAS proof that she was doing stupidity -- SHE WAS GUILTY, he knew it. Even so, he let her have visitation alone with the children.

So...WHY didn't Terri go for getting custody and/or visitation? I am blown away.

What am I missing here?

wondering1 said:

--- snipped ---
And, even if she had fought and lost because of a strong bias against her and the allegations/evidence wrt MFH or worse, she couldn't be in any worse position then she is right now with respect to custody, imo. She would have lost it, and she has lost it.

--- snipped ---

So, imo, the only thing she really had to lose by contesting the RO wrt custody of baby k was having her testimony (or her pleading the 5th) used against her in the criminal trial. She put that on the scale v. ZERO contact with her baby daughter, and the scale tipped in favor of covering her own butt. For me, personally, that says a lot.

Click to expand...

Thanks for responding Wondering

I think there is speculation that if she had fought and "stuck her foot in her mouth" that she could be worse off (for a later trial). But really, just how can you stick your foot in your mouth if you are really innocent -- squeaky clean?

You are so right...she is at ZERO contact with her daughter, and I just don't get it. Gitana seemed to be fairly gobsmacked (or perhaps I should say "moved") about this too and I highly respect her opinions and experience, but I should not speak for her. She is a professional who gets what professionals can do to help parents in this situation, I best leave it to her to help us understand further about her thoughts etc.

Terri appears to have opted not to walk in and say, "Woah, wait a minute here folks, don't be messing around with my contact with my child over garbage thoughts on your part." I have to wonder "why" and can only come up with THERE IS A REASON she knows she cannot cut down "probable cause." I can only guess that she has given her attorney reason to believe that she is not squeaky clean. BUT...we have more to learn, I am confounded.

Regarding "fighting" the restraining order, these orders are preliminary and then get resolved as the divorce proceedings go along. It is not uncommon for couples to file ROs on EACH OTHER, as each person looks at the marriage and pending divorce from a different perspective. There may be many reasons why TH, or any woman in her unenviable situation, would not jump right in and fight for custody--one point being that she is now the subject of a grand jury probe. She is fighting for her life and freedom, she is not working, she's lost her home and she may well have had psychological or emotionals problems long before all this started. Perhaps one of her friends, her attorney, or some other smart individual has told her to take things one step at a time.

If she is, in fact, responsible for Kyron's disappearance, she may know that she has a good chance of being tried for a major crime; if she is not, she must concentrate on getting out from under suspicion before she takes on fighting for custody. In other words, I don't think her actions or inactions in this aspect of her life can tell us anything about whether she is guilty or innocent in regard to Kyron's disappearance.

pittsburghgirl said:

Regarding "fighting" the restraining order, these orders are preliminary and then get resolved as the divorce proceedings go along. It is not uncommon for couples to file ROs on EACH OTHER, as each person looks at the marriage and pending divorce from a different perspective. There may be many reasons why TH, or any woman in her unenviable situation, would not jump right in and fight for custody--one point being that she is now the subject of a grand jury probe. She is fighting for her life and freedom, she is not working, she's lost her home and she may well have had psychological or emotionals problems long before all this started. Perhaps one of her friends, her attorney, or some other smart individual has told her to take things one step at a time.

If she is, in fact, responsible for Kyron's disappearance, she may know that she has a good chance of being tried for a major crime; if she is not, she must concentrate on getting out from under suspicion before she takes on fighting for custody. In other words, I don't think her actions or inactions in this aspect of her life can tell us anything about whether she is guilty or innocent in regard to Kyron's disappearance.

Click to expand...

She has an attorney with scads of experience. Right, wrong or indifferent, anything she says right now in a court can be used against her. And, really, being in court fighting for partial custody MIGHT cause her to say something irrational or what-have-you. If she is innocent, I can't imagine how she feels. ..being stuck between a rock and hard place and missing her children.

Hello rnmif,

Good to meet you!

I'm not sure I follow you entirely...or maybe at all, maybe you are speaking beyond my intelligence level

You wrote:
>>But where IS the money coming from? Stephen Houze does not run a charity. No lawyer who wants to keep paying his mortgage is going to spend the time and money to follow a path that is likely to cost a lot and gain nothing. So why postpone the custody/division of marital assets issue? If Terri is guilty, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. No money to pay the attorneys. Either she paid them in advance, or they took it on contingency, which means they think there is money to be made in defending Terri.<<

Well, Houze could be doing it as a kindness/interested party (pro bono), as paid, or with hopes that he can score something in the future (or any combination of the latter). I guess I'm not so concerned about that EXCEPT that if Terri is paying him from "her" pocket, I would like to know if those are marital assets -- even as Kaine would. I think that is only fair. There are such things as equitable splits, but people have to lay those cards on the table (thieves hide the cards.) IF her parents paid, well, I get that, they might think, "We love her, we trust she is innocent, she will pay us back when she gets it AND well, we wanted to give her inheritance and here is some of it early.) Whatever -- how or if Houze is paid doesn't help clear my head about why Terri isn't fighting that RO.

I agree...why postpone custody and assets division? OH...except that they are saying Terri would need a psych eval and they don't think they could get someone capable of doing that properly (without prejudice?) under the circumstances. All of those who could do these evals are incapable? Woah! They also don't seem to feel that they could schedule what is necessary to be done to progress the divorce based on the scrutiny of Terri. Personally, I think the latter is questionable and very. People who go through divorces live very busy lives, some are high profile -- suspicion, cameras, paparazzi. They get through the scheduling of the needs for a divorce or NO ONE would ever manage to get divorced.

Okay...so you wrote:
>>Thing is, none of this can be settled in her favor until another person is found and a strong enough case made to clear Terri. No point fighting custody and marital assets if she's guilty, she'll spend life in prison (or worse).<<

I guess I am feeling thick -- can you help me here? A judge couldn't handle the divorce equitably? It seems that the whole matter is that Terri would have to possibly answer to some things she doesn't want to answer (or her attorney doesn't want her to answer) IF things aren't abated. If that weren't in the way, it certainly seems that things could move forward in short order. So...the question is WHY are these things in the way IF there is no foundation to them?

Finally, you wrote:
>>So once again, either the most high-powered attorneys in PDX are dumber than dirt, or they know something we don't.<<

Well, I certainly don't think they are dumber than dirt. Can you clarify what you mean by the above? Maybe you could give me the "I'm explaining to a thick person" kinda explanation

pittsburghgirl said:

--- snipped ---
If she is, in fact, responsible for Kyron's disappearance, she may know that she has a good chance of being tried for a major crime; if she is not, she must concentrate on getting out from under suspicion before she takes on fighting for custody. In other words, I don't think her actions or inactions in this aspect of her life can tell us anything about whether she is guilty or innocent in regard to Kyron's disappearance.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... Okay, do I understand you to be saying "if she is guilty" she first wants to get out of that (i.e. maybe they won't have enough evidence to prove it), then she can concentrate on getting custody.

So strange...it seems to me that by stepping up to the plate and saying, "I'm ready to go against these preposterous 'probable cause' things -- you will NOT keep me from my daughter based on NOTHING." Seems she could put some big flames out right away by that, but I don't think she can put those flames out using truth?

I guess I am missing something here.

cluciano63 said:

I mostly agree with the above post, except that whether LE will say so not not, she has been and already was a suspect in Kyron's disappearance at the time of the RO, etc. and I doubt any judge was going to give her custody. Also, she would not be able to prove there was no MFH plot,as it is hard to disprove something someone has said about you. So she may have been told by her lawyer to wait out the investigation, that she may soon have even bigger worries than custody issues. Or that LE might find Kyron and who kidnapped him and she would be more in the clear to fight the RO.

Click to expand...

Suspect or not, she has not been convicted nor even arrested. A court, IMO would give her, at the least, visitation rights. A child that age needs her mother, to at least see her mommy once per week or so and know her mommy is still around and loves her.
Again, Kaine would have had to present more than hearsay evidence at the RO hearing. Statements that LE gave him probable cause are not at all enough to get an RO and have custody taken. But TH did not bother to force him to submit his evidence.
Thus, she failed to contest the RO and failed to fight in any way for any custodial and/or visitation rights to her child, setting a precedent via creating a status quo that will make a later award of primary custody to her, incredibly difficult to get. Just like DY did not fight to change the custody orders after she let Kaine have custody when she got sick. Because it is very hard to change the status quo once it's established without a significant change in circumstances justifying such a change.
I see no honest reason for TH to have given up without a fight at this point.

gitana1 said:

Suspect or not, she has not been convicted nor even arrested. A court, IMO would give her, at the least, visitation rights. A child that age needs her mother, to at least see her mommy once per week or so and know her mommy is still around and loves her.
Again, Kaine would have had to present more than hearsay evidence at the RO hearing. Statements that LE gave him probable cause are not at all enough to get an RO and have custody taken. But TH did not bother to force him to submit his evidence.
Thus, she failed to contest the RO and failed to fight in any way for any custodial and/or visitation rights to her child, setting a precedent via status quo that will make a later award of primary custody to her, incredibly difficult to get. Just like DY did not fight to change the custody orders after she let Kaine have custody when she got sick. because it is very hard to change the status quo once it's established without a significant change in circumstances justifying such a change.
I see no honest reason for TH to have given up without a fight at this point.

Click to expand...

I don't know. Doug Stewart tried to get at least supervised visitation and the judge wouldn't even give him phone calls with his little girls. (Venus Stewart case)

pittsburghgirl said:

Regarding "fighting" the restraining order, these orders are preliminary and then get resolved as the divorce proceedings go along. It is not uncommon for couples to file ROs on EACH OTHER, as each person looks at the marriage and pending divorce from a different perspective. There may be many reasons why TH, or any woman in her unenviable situation, would not jump right in and fight for custody--one point being that she is now the subject of a grand jury probe. She is fighting for her life and freedom, she is not working, she's lost her home and she may well have had psychological or emotionals problems long before all this started. Perhaps one of her friends, her attorney, or some other smart individual has told her to take things one step at a time.

If she is, in fact, responsible for Kyron's disappearance, she may know that she has a good chance of being tried for a major crime; if she is not, she must concentrate on getting out from under suspicion before she takes on fighting for custody. In other words, I don't think her actions or inactions in this aspect of her life can tell us anything about whether she is guilty or innocent in regard to Kyron's disappearance.

Click to expand...

I'm sure this will be an unpopular view, but...Desiree, even after regaining her health and remarrying, did not attempt to regain custody of her children from their fathers. Those of us who have not lost custody can't imagine why any parent wouldn't fight for custody. But there are reasons which make it impractical, at least temporarily.

Wrinkles said:

Hello Dear Cluciano,

My daughter in law was busted for being intoxicated, while driving an RV that guns were being fired out of it (by multiple people). Gads, I can hardly believe it happened but OH YEAH! That night, when busted, she went to jail and had to be bailed out (oddly, she wanted my son to bail her out, my son who she had ditched for her boyfriend who was in that RV with her and also in jail). The custody hearing for her children had been scheduled for only two days later at the time of her stupidity (now you would think that a mother would want to walk carefully before something like that?) The judge KNEW FULL WELL what she had done and why she went to jail, he did NOT give her custody (she had abandoned the kids to go live with her boyfriend in the weeks before), but he certainly gave her visitation -- where the children would BE alone with her for certain weekends. For the life of me, I could NOT understand that. I certainly couldn't believe it in terms of the children's safety.

I do not believe that judges take away visitation time from parents lightly -- even the creepiest, scariest, and dangerous parents. PLUS they can give them visitation with supervision if they think this is the smartest route. I also do not believe (but I could be corrected) that the burden of proof would have been on Terri to prove she was innocent, but rather for the judge to have been convinced that there was proof against her innocence -- probable cause. In the case of my daughter in law, there WAS proof that she was doing stupidity -- SHE WAS GUILTY, he knew it. Even so, he let her have visitation alone with the children.

So...WHY didn't Terri go for getting custody and/or visitation? I am blown away.

What am I missing here?

Click to expand...

BBM. Absolutely nothing.

BeanE said:

I don't know. Doug Stewart tried to get at least supervised visitation and the judge wouldn't even give him phone calls with his little girls. (Venus Stewart case)

Click to expand...

My understanding is he actually did get phone contact.
But, I do not know why he was denied supervised visitation. I'd have to review the court file and the judge's comments. Fact is, it is rare not to give if even supervised visitation. Rarer yet is to deny a mother visitation of her infant without real proof of possible harm. In any event, one case - the Stewart case - has no bearing at all on this one. Except for the fact that Stewart tried. He even tried for custody after his wife went missing, knowing he was a "person of interest". TH did not try at all.

Morag said:

I'm sure this will be an unpopular view, but...Desiree, even after regaining her health and remarrying, did not attempt to regain custody of her children from their fathers. Those of us who have not lost custody can't imagine why any parent wouldn't fight for custody. But there are reasons which make it impractical, at least temporarily.

Click to expand...

This is not the thread for it, but I am very curious as to why two different fathers of two different children felt they could say "no" to Desiree and she was unable/unwilling to challenge them.

Morag said:

I'm sure this will be an unpopular view, but...Desiree, even after regaining her health and remarrying, did not attempt to regain custody of her children from their fathers. Those of us who have not lost custody can't imagine why any parent wouldn't fight for custody. But there are reasons which make it impractical, at least temporarily.

Click to expand...

Desiree never gave up custody. She never gave up the right to see, contact or hold her child. TH did.
Desiree likely has not tried to reverse the custody decision for the very same reason that TH should have contested Kaine's request: Because the status quo is very hard to overcome in custody cases.

pittsburghgirl said:

Regarding "fighting" the restraining order, these orders are preliminary and then get resolved as the divorce proceedings go along. It is not uncommon for couples to file ROs on EACH OTHER, as each person looks at the marriage and pending divorce from a different perspective. There may be many reasons why TH, or any woman in her unenviable situation, would not jump right in and fight for custody--one point being that she is now the subject of a grand jury probe. She is fighting for her life and freedom, she is not working, she's lost her home and she may well have had psychological or emotionals problems long before all this started. Perhaps one of her friends, her attorney, or some other smart individual has told her to take things one step at a time.

If she is, in fact, responsible for Kyron's disappearance, she may know that she has a good chance of being tried for a major crime; if she is not, she must concentrate on getting out from under suspicion before she takes on fighting for custody. In other words, I don't think her actions or inactions in this aspect of her life can tell us anything about whether she is guilty or innocent in regard to Kyron's disappearance.

Click to expand...

If I have already responded to this quote, forgive me.
Restraining orders are not necessarily part of a disso case, unless they are consolidated. If there are custody orders made in a DV case, and then the parties try to get other child custody orders in the context of the disso case, the orders and the reason for those orders, which were issued in the DV case, take precedence. Unless there is a good reason to modify those orders, they will not be changed. They are not later "resolved".
Also, the custody orders issued after the final hearing in a DV case are not considered merely "preliminary" custody orders. They are considered permanent and can only be changed if there is a darn good reason to change them. Of course, they only last as long as the RO does, so usually parties will file another case in conjunction with it, like a disso or paternity case. The RO custody orders are usually simply adopted by the court in connection with the other family law case.