777 users online (110 members and 667 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 75 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1114
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge, WA
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocco View Post
    Clip of WM's attorney speaking about the child custody hearing.

    https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Sh...457233973.html

    He apparently had requested that WMs be transported to the court for the hearing today but that didn't happen. WM is not seeking visitation.
    From this article, Sini's lawyer's statement.
    Attorney Mitchell Nolte, who represents Sini Mathews, released the following statement after the hearing.
    For the record:
    We are pleased with Judge Shannon’s decision to continue the hearing and give us more time to address the allegations against Ms. Mathews in the CPS case. We are still waiting on the CPS home study report and for the Ad Litem to make her report to the court. Then we’ll know where [her daughter] will be placed for the immediate future.
    The wording of this statement is important, I think. This was a written statement submitted by the lawyer, not an off the cuff remark. What are the allegations against Sini in the CPS case?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge, WA
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by MsMarple View Post
    http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us-...n-girls-sister

    “...aggravated circumstances” which could hurt his chances of regaining custody in the long run. Oy vey. What an understatement.

    Interesting though that the attorney said "children" and not "daughter" or "child." Slip of the tongue, misreporting or said on purpose?
    Also in this article and video, another lawyer not involved in the case, said this:
    Attorney Bree West, who is not involved in this case, says she's not surprised the state is challenging the parental rights of both parents in light of the criminal circumstances, even though the mom has not been charged. “She was in the home at the time when whatever happened, happened,” West said. “And so did she fail to protect Sherin Mathews? Then if so, that's going to be an extension to her failing to potentially protect her biological child.”
    So NEW info is that the state is challenging the parental rights of both SM and WM. I wonder if this is a way to try to get SM to tell more...

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiajean View Post
    From this article, Sini's lawyer's statement.

    The wording of this statement is important, I think. This was a written statement submitted by the lawyer, not an off the cuff remark. What are the allegations against Sini in the CPS case?
    I've been thinking about this statement all day today. I'm wondering, because of the wording, did they ask for the continuance, so that they might have more time to address 'allegations..'? And, does allegations imply more than one, as opposed to allegation (not plural), or is this just legal jargon? I'm glad you posted this statement, because I couldn't figure out how to copy and paste it!

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge, WA
    Posts
    1,974
    Aggravated Circumstances, Texas family code. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...htm/FA.262.htm
    Sec. 262.2015. AGGRAVATED CIRCUMSTANCES. (a) The court may waive the requirement of a service plan and the requirement to make reasonable efforts to return the child to a parent and may accelerate the trial schedule to result in a final order for a child under the care of the Department of Family and Protective Services at an earlier date than provided by Subchapter D, Chapter 263, if the court finds that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances.
    (b) The court may find under Subsection (a) that a parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances if:
    (1) the parent abandoned the child without identification or a means for identifying the child;
    (2) the child or another child of the parent is a victim of serious bodily injury or sexual abuse inflicted by the parent or by another person with the parent's consent;
    (3) the parent has engaged in conduct against the child or another child of the parent that would constitute an offense under the following provisions of the Penal Code:
    (A) Section 19.02 (murder);
    (B) Section 19.03 (capital murder);
    (C) Section 19.04 (manslaughter);
    (D) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);
    (E) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);
    (F) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);
    (G) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);
    (H) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual);
    (I) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering child);
    (J) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual conduct);
    (K) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child);
    (L) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child pornography);
    (M) Section 21.02 (continuous sexual abuse of young child or children);
    (N) Section 43.05(a)(2) (compelling prostitution); or
    (O) Section 20A.02(a)(7) or (8) (trafficking of persons);
    (4) the parent voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another person not the parent of the child for at least six months without expressing an intent to return and without providing adequate support for the child;
    (5) the parent's parental rights with regard to another child have been involuntarily terminated based on a finding that the parent's conduct violated Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) or a substantially equivalent provision of another state's law;
    (6) the parent has been convicted for:
    (A) the murder of another child of the parent and the offense would have been an offense under 18 U.S.C. Section 1111(a) if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
    (B) the voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent and the offense would have been an offense under 18 U.S.C. Section 1112(a) if the offense had occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
    (C) aiding or abetting, attempting, conspiring, or soliciting an offense under Paragraph (A) or (B); or
    (D) the felony assault of the child or another child of the parent that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent;
    (7) the parent's parental rights with regard to another child of the parent have been involuntarily terminated; or
    (8) the parent is required under any state or federal law to register with a sex offender registry.
    (c) On finding that reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to safely return to the child's home are not required, the court shall at any time before the 30th day after the date of the finding, conduct an initial permanency hearing under Subchapter D, Chapter 263. Separate notice of the permanency plan is not required but may be given with a notice of a hearing under this section.
    (d) The Department of Family and Protective Services shall make reasonable efforts to finalize the permanent placement of a child for whom the court has made the finding described by Subsection (c). The court shall set the suit for trial on the merits as required by Subchapter D, Chapter 263, in order to facilitate final placement of the child.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiajean View Post
    Also in this article and video, another lawyer not involved in the case, said this:


    So NEW info is that the state is challenging the parental rights of both SM and WM. I wonder if this is a way to try to get SM to tell more...
    Isn't that just legalese for the state's act of taking custody of their child and putting the child in foster care ?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge, WA
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by angorwat View Post
    Isn't that just legalese for the state's act of taking custody of their child and putting the child in foster care ?
    I am not sure. From what I have read, this is an action to end their parental rights, completely. To make the temporary state of their child being in CPS custody a permanent one. My understanding is that this action to end parental rights was put in place after Sherin was found and WM confessed to removing her body from the house. But I could be wrong.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Columbia River Gorge, WA
    Posts
    1,974
    This news report has a tiny bit in the video, where a man and woman (could be relatives of Sini's, maybe the ones who want to take care of the 4 year old) are let into the room with Sini and her lawyers.
    http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-math...hild/491232310
    The severing of parental rights may only be applicable to WM, according to the text of the article above.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    573
    Here here is the federal law regarding termination of parental rights of children in foster care as modified in 1997 via the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) prior to this family reunification was the primary goal and health and safety of the child secondary. I have bolded aggravated circumstances and more relevant passages.


    The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, Public Law 105-89) was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1997, after having been approved by the United States Congress earlier in the month.

    ASFA was enacted in an attempt to correct problems that were inherent in the foster care system that deterred the adoption of children with special needs. Many of these problems had stemmed from an earlier bill, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980,[1]although they had not been anticipated when that law was passed, as states decided to interpret that law as requiring biological families be kept together no matter what.[1] The biggest change to the law was how ASFA amended Title IV-E of the Social Security Act regarding funding.
    Moreover, ASFA marked a fundamental change to child welfare thinking, shifting the emphasis towards children's health and safety concerns and away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents without regard to prior abusiveness.[1] As such, ASFA was considered the most sweeping change to the U.S. adoption and foster care system in some two decades.[1] One of ASFA's lead sponsors, Republican Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, said, "We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first. ... It's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together."[


    Major provisions and tacticsEdit

    The major provisions of the law include:

    • Requires that States move to terminate parental rights for children who have been in Foster Care for 15 out of the last 22 months
    • Exceptions to the 15/22 rule include:[4]
      1. When the child is in a Foster Home with a biological relative (Kinship Care)
      2. When the Agency documents a compelling reason why parental termination is not in the Child's best interest
      3. When the State has failed to provide services necessary for reunification

    • Requires that Permanency Hearings be held every 12 months
    • Clarifies cases in which States are not required to reunite Families (Aggravated Circumstances)
    • Expands family preservation and support services
    • Extends subsidies for adoptive children
    • Provides incentives for States to improve adoption rates
    • Requires States to document efforts to move children toward adoption
    • Expands health care coverage for adoptive children
    • Provides funding for efforts at encouraging adoption
    • Clarifies that interstate boundaries should not delay adoption.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adop...e_Families_Act

    [105th Congress Public Law 89][From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


    <DOC>
    [DOCID: fubl89.105]


    [[Page 111 STAT. 2115]]

    Public Law 105-89
    105th Congress

    An Act



    To promote the adoption of children in foster care. <<NOTE: Nov. 19,
    1997 - [H.R. 867]>>

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
    United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Adoption and
    Safe Families Act of 1997.>>

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    (a) <<NOTE: 42 USC 1305 note.>> Short Title.--This Act may be cited
    as the ``Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997''.

    (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act is as
    follows:

    Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

    TITLE I--REASONABLE EFFORTS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOSTER CARE AND
    ADOPTION PLACEMENTS

    Sec. 101. Clarification of the reasonable efforts requirement.
    Sec. 102. Including safety in case plan and case review system
    requirements.
    Sec. 103. States required to initiate or join proceedings to terminate parental rights for certain children in foster care.
    Sec. 104. Notice of reviews and hearings; opportunity to be heard.
    Sec. 105. Use of the Federal Parent Locator Service for child welfare
    services.
    Sec. 106. Criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive
    parents.
    Sec. 107. Documentation of efforts for adoption or location of a
    permanent home.

    TITLE II--INCENTIVES FOR PROVIDING PERMANENT FAMILIES FOR CHILDREN

    Sec. 201. Adoption incentive payments.
    Sec. 202. Adoptions across State and county jurisdictions.
    Sec. 203. Performance of States in protecting children.

    TITLE III--ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND REFORMS

    Sec. 301. Authority to approve more child protection demonstration
    projects.
    Sec. 302. Permanency hearings.
    Sec. 303. Kinship care.
    Sec. 304. Clarification of eligible population for independent living
    services.
    Sec. 305. Reauthorization and expansion of family preservation and
    support
    services.
    Sec. 306. Health insurance coverage for children with special needs.
    Sec. 307. Continuation of eligibility for adoption assistance payments
    on behalf of children with special needs whose initial
    adoption has been dissolved.
    Sec. 308. State standards to ensure quality services for children in
    foster care.

    TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS

    Sec. 401. Preservation of reasonable parenting.
    Sec. 402. Reporting requirements.
    Sec. 403. Sense of Congress regarding standby guardianship.
    Sec. 404. Temporary adjustment of Contingency Fund for State Welfare
    Programs.
    Sec. 405. Coordination of substance abuse and child protection services.
    Sec. 406. Purchase of American-made equipment and products.

    TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATE

    Sec. 501. Effective date.

    [[Page 111 STAT. 2116]]

    TITLE I--REASONABLE EFFORTS AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR FOSTER CARE AND
    ADOPTION PLACEMENTS

    SEC. 101. CLARIFICATION OF THE REASONABLE EFFORTS REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 471(a)(15) of the Social Security Act (42
    U.S.C. 671(a)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(15) provides that--
    ``(A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made
    with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph,
    and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's
    health and safety shall be the paramount concern;
    ``(B) except as provided in subparagraph (D),
    reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify
    families--

    ``(i) prior to the placement of a child in
    foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for
    removing the child from the child's home; and
    ``(ii) to make it possible for a child to
    safely return to the child's home;
    ``(C) if continuation of reasonable efforts of the
    type described in subparagraph (B) is determined to be
    inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child,
    reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a
    timely manner in accordance with the permanency plan,
    and to complete whatever steps are necessary to finalize
    the permanent placement of the child;
    ``(D) reasonable efforts of the type described in
    subparagraph (B) shall not be required to be made with
    respect to a parent of a child if a court of competent
    jurisdiction has determined that--

    ``(i) the parent has subjected the child to
    aggravated circumstances (as defined in State law,
    which definition may include but need not be
    limited to abandonment, torture, chronic abuse,
    and sexual abuse);

    ``(ii) the parent has--
    ``(I) committed murder (which would
    have been an offense under section
    1111(a) of title 18, United States Code,
    if the offense had occurred in the
    special maritime or territorial
    jurisdiction of the United States) of
    another child of the parent;
    ``(II) committed voluntary
    manslaughter (which would have been an
    offense under section 1112(a) of title
    18, United States Code, if the offense
    had occurred in the special maritime or
    territorial jurisdiction of the United
    States) of another child of the parent;

    ``(III) aided or abetted, attempted,
    conspired, or solicited to commit such a
    murder or such a voluntary manslaughter;
    or
    ``(IV) committed a felony assault
    that results in serious bodily injury to
    the child or another child of the
    parent; or


    [[Page 111 STAT. 2117]]

    ``(iii) the parental rights of the parent to a
    sibling have been terminated involuntarily;
    ``(E) if reasonable efforts of the type described in
    subparagraph (B) are not made with respect to a child as
    a result of a determination made by a court of competent
    jurisdiction in accordance with subparagraph (D)--
    ``(i) a permanency hearing (as described in
    section 475(5)(C)) shall be held for the child
    within 30 days after the determination; and

    ``(ii) reasonable efforts shall be made to
    place the child in a timely manner in accordance
    with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever
    steps are necessary to finalize the permanent
    placement of the child; and
    ``(F) reasonable efforts to place a child for
    adoption or with a legal guardian may be made
    concurrently with reasonable efforts of the type
    described in subparagraph (B);''.

    (b) Definition of Legal Guardianship.--Section 475 of such Act (42
    U.S.C. 675) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7) The term `legal guardianship' means a judicially
    created relationship between child and caretaker which is
    intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as evidenced by the
    transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with
    respect to the child: protection, education, care and control of
    the person, custody of the person, and decisionmaking. The term
    `legal guardian' means the caretaker in such a relationship.''.

    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 472(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
    672(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``for a child'' before ``have been
    made''.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Part E of title IV of such Act (42 U.S.C.
    670-679) is amended by inserting after section 477 the following:

    ``SEC. 478. <<NOTE: 42 USC 678.>> RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    ``Nothing in this part shall be construed as precluding State courts
    from exercising their discretion to protect the health and safety of
    children in individual cases, including cases other than those described
    in section 471(a)(15)(D).''.

    SEC. 102. INCLUDING SAFETY IN CASE PLAN AND CASE REVIEW
    SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS.

    Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) is
    amended--
    (1) in section 422(b)(10)(B) <<NOTE: 42 USC 622.>> --
    (A) in clause (iii)(I), by inserting ``safe and''
    after ``where''; and
    (B) in clause (iv), by inserting ``safely'' after
    ``remain''; and
    (2) in section 475 <<NOTE: 42 USC 675.>> --
    (A) in paragraph (1)--
    (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``safety
    and'' after ``discussion of the''; and
    (ii) in subparagraph (B)--
    (I) by inserting ``safe and'' after
    ``child receives''; and
    (II) by inserting ``safe'' after
    ``return of the child to his own''; and

    [[Page 111 STAT. 2118]]

    (B) in paragraph (5)--
    (i) in subparagraph (A), in the matter
    preceding clause (i), by inserting ``a safe
    setting that is'' after ``placement in''; and
    (ii) in subparagraph (B)--
    (I) by inserting ``the safety of the
    child,'' after ``determine''; and
    (II) by inserting ``and safely
    maintained in'' after ``returned to''.

    SEC. 103. STATES REQUIRED TO INITIATE OR JOIN PROCEEDINGS TO TERMINATE
    PARENTAL RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE.


    (a) Requirement for Proceedings.--Section 475(5) of the Social
    Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)) is amended--
    (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
    (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
    and inserting ``; and''; and
    (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(E) in the case of a child who has been in foster
    care under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the
    most recent 22 months, or, if a court of competent
    jurisdiction has determined a child to be an abandoned
    infant (as defined under State law) or has made a
    determination that the parent has committed murder of
    another child of the parent, committed voluntary
    manslaughter of another child of the parent, aided or
    abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit
    such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter, or
    committed a felony assault that has resulted in serious
    bodily injury to the child or to another child of the
    parent, the State shall file a petition to terminate the
    parental rights of the child's parents (or, if such a
    petition has been filed by another party, seek to be
    joined as a party to the petition), and, concurrently,
    to identify, recruit, process, and approve a qualified
    family for an adoption, unless--

    ``(i) at the option of the State, the child is
    being cared for by a relative;
    ``(ii) a State agency has documented in the
    case plan (which shall be available for court
    review) a compelling reason for determining that
    filing such a petition would not be in the best
    interests of the child; or
    ``(iii) the State has not provided to the
    family of the child, consistent with the time
    period in the State case plan, such services as
    the State deems necessary for the safe return of
    the child to the child's home, if reasonable
    efforts of the type described in section
    471(a)(15)(B)(ii) are required to be made with respect to the child.''.
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-1...-105publ89.htm

    BBM


    If doing the right thing were easy, more people would be doing it.
    ਸੂਸਨ ਮਿਲ੍ਸ
    ਸ਼ਿਰੀਨ ਮੈਥੇਵਸ
    Ó Coirbín

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    573
    Here are 2 links to a very short video by Dr. Sanjay Gupta on toxicology with relation to autopsies. A little simplistic but worth the watch.

    https://youtu.be/8TAFKzmvjaI

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cB...N_FV82Urk-hfq6


    If doing the right thing were easy, more people would be doing it.
    ਸੂਸਨ ਮਿਲ੍ਸ
    ਸ਼ਿਰੀਨ ਮੈਥੇਵਸ
    Ó Coirbín

  10. #25
    Grouchymom, your last BBM item in post #23 (Title 1 Sec 103 E) reads like it severs parental rights collectively.

    the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents

    Is that correct?


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    573
    Quote Originally Posted by watergirl62 View Post
    Grouchymom, your last BBM item in post #23 (Title 1 Sec 103 E) reads like it severs parental rights collectively.

    the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child's parents

    Is that correct?
    That is the way I interpret it and that is what occurs in the majority of cases that qualify under this statute. I suppose a good attorney could try to argue that “parents” refers to multiple cases as opposed to all parents in a single case. That is the fun of our legal system, it is only as good as the judges interpreting it.


    If doing the right thing were easy, more people would be doing it.
    ਸੂਸਨ ਮਿਲ੍ਸ
    ਸ਼ਿਰੀਨ ਮੈਥੇਵਸ
    Ó Coirbín

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Grouchymom View Post
    That is the way I interpret it and that is what occurs in the majority of cases that qualify under this statute. I suppose a good attorney could try to argue that “parents” refers to multiple cases as opposed to all parents in a single case. That is the fun of our legal system, it is only as good as the judges interpreting it.
    Thanks! Sorry if I scrolled through any previous discussion about this. I'm sure I did, this thread was flying. Trying to catch up a bit.

    Could mom get a second bite at the apple if she say... divorced dad, and was found to be an innocent non-contributing party to Sherin's death (assuming that's possible), and could provide a stable home, and and and... I am sure the list goes on. Just curious if a hill exists she can climb to regain custodial rights. Purely a technical question (no judgement regarding mom).

    Also, do you think the GAL findings Will provide a preliminary pass/fail for mom being able to pursue custody? TIA!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by georgiajean View Post
    This news report has a tiny bit in the video, where a man and woman (could be relatives of Sini's, maybe the ones who want to take care of the 4 year old) are let into the room with Sini and her lawyers.
    http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-math...hild/491232310
    The severing of parental rights may only be applicable to WM, according to the text of the article above.
    Thanks for this link. It clearly states
    Prosecutors are looking at taking away all of Wesley's parental rights, known as an aggravated circumstances motion and it will likely be filed in the next week or so.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    573
    IMHO - The mom is in a terrible quandary. Everything she does to keep from being charged in the death will hurt her chances with custody. Unfair as it may seem on the surface the “sleep” alibi under the standards of social services, plays as being unable or unwilling to protect her child(turning a blind eye) Refusing to comply with LE, while fully within her legal rights implies she has something to hide.

    Everyone of us at one point or another has thought in the back of our mind that someone who takes the 5th (the right against self incrimination)or a defendant chooses not to take the stand, in refusing to testify is guilty of something, that if they testified they would obviously incriminate themselves. It is a normal inference yet Judges are constantly instructing juries not to infer guilt from it. Sini will suffer from that same thought process. Even though she is acting on advice of her attorney, in part due to the fact he wasn’t present for the initial interviews and she may have been so upset at what was then the disappearance of her child, she may not remember what was said originally. When someone gives a repeat interview the can be in a catch 22 situation. If they answer a question differently either due to having time to calm down and think more clearly or by trying so hard to “see what they missed in the spouse that the have” created a false memory -they are assumed to be lying. Yet if they answer everything exactly the same they seem rehearsed and can be accused of manufacturing the story.

    So so back to custody, if something bizarre were to happen and the autopsy results were to come back natural causes (some undiagnosed condition as a heart defect or aneurysm) obviously her situation would improve dramatically. On the other hand if evidence of repeated abuse or sexual molestation were to be found she is sunk. Even if she were completely oblivious to it she would be held responsible for not knowing and failing to protect her child.

    The best scenario for Sini at the moment is to get the child into a kinship placement were in time she will have unfettered access, assuming she does not get charged before everything is done. If the department proceeds with termination of parental rights as yesterday’s comments seem to have indicated, once that court order is entered there are no second bites. At this point the best scenario I can come up with for Sini is if WM wants to show what a “wonderful family man” he is and how much he “loves” his family and makes a full and complete confession, pleads guilty to what ever was done to Sherin and makes the claim that he drugged Sini without her knowledge thus truly making her a victim also. With a plea deal WM would be able to avoid the death penalty as well.

    There are also a few precedents that could benefit Sini where agreements were made to give physical custody to family and the termination of parental rights were not fully persued. After all the interest dies down the family although illegal hands the child back to the parent without the knowledge of social services.

    If indeed this was a one time event where WM being tired and frustrated tried to speed up the 3 am drink and accidentally caused her to choke to death. Then in some sort of bizarre immature panic decide to hide the body and everything snow balled from there, it is a tragedy of unbelievable proportions that caused the death of 1 innocent child destroyed this family and did irreparable harm to the second child and wife. If the body ends up too decomposed to determine the exact cause of death social services can not take the chance that returning the second child would place her in possible danger. Ultimately, the death of one child at the hands of a parent especially if the other parent was in the near proximity just creates a risk factor for the other child that is rarely overcome.

    Now after all of that it is still a coin toss. The judge may see things differently than social services and interpret the law differently than the mainstream. She may order the department to attempt measures for reunification. I highly doubt it but it could happen. If I were Sini I would be preparing myself for a very different life and relationship with my surviving child.
    While she needs to hope and work toward getting custody retuned, she needs to know it is an uphill battle of epic proportions.


    IMHO


    Quote Originally Posted by watergirl62 View Post
    Thanks! Sorry if I scrolled through any previous discussion about this. I'm sure I did, this thread was flying. Trying to catch up a bit.

    Could mom get a second bite at the apple if she say... divorced dad, and was found to be an innocent non-contributing party to Sherin's death (assuming that's possible), and could provide a stable home, and and and... I am sure the list goes on. Just curious if a hill exists she can climb to regain custodial rights. Purely a technical question (no judgement regarding mom).

    Also, do you think the GAL findings Will provide a preliminary pass/fail for mom being able to pursue custody? TIA!


    If doing the right thing were easy, more people would be doing it.
    ਸੂਸਨ ਮਿਲ੍ਸ
    ਸ਼ਿਰੀਨ ਮੈਥੇਵਸ
    Ó Coirbín

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Grouchymom View Post
    .....
    If the department proceeds with termination of parental rights as yesterday’s comments seem to have indicated, once that court order is entered there are no second bites. ...
    Is there any MSM reporting that says the termination of parental rights is applicable to both parents ?

    The link from Alisha Ebrahimji, WFAA http://www.wfaa.com/news/sherin-math...hild/491232310
    only mentions "
    Wesley's parental rights"

    Prosecutors are looking at taking away all of Wesley's parental rights, known as an aggravated circumstances motion and it will likely be filed in the next week or so.
    Last edited by angorwat; 11-14-2017 at 01:48 PM.

Page 2 of 75 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #6 *Arrest*
    By tlcya in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 1059
    Last Post: 11-13-2017, 02:25 PM
  2. Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #4
    By tlcya in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 10-24-2017, 12:58 PM
  3. Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #3
    By tlcya in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 1106
    Last Post: 10-22-2017, 06:45 PM
  4. Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #2
    By tlcya in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 1324
    Last Post: 10-18-2017, 02:30 PM
  5. Found Deceased TX - Sherin Mathews, 3, Richardson, 7 Oct 2017 #1
    By perfectingpink in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 1193
    Last Post: 10-11-2017, 09:25 PM

Tags for this Thread