Emergency custody papers filed by mother of JI's son 11/14/11

New Posts

highflyer said:
So, people who don't think a Mom with a sick teething baby and two little boys getting drunk and blacking out on a school night with no other caregiver home is okay, are holier-than-thou according to you? That is very interesting.
Click to expand...

I was speaking in general terms.
 
cityslick said:
I am implying that it is not a fact that the woman never stepped foot in the door when she was outside. As for what is 'adequate' childcare, everyone has their own opinion of what that is. For example, is having a child watch tv while the parent is in another room typing on this forum 'adequate' childcare?
Click to expand...

Leaving children that age watching tv from 6:30 in the evening until the next morning unmonitored would be neglectful, in my opinion, yes. And a sick infant couldn't really even watch tv, so........
 
Truthwillsetufree said:
BBM Red - And we don't know that it didn't.
BBM Blue - One would think that of all people, these people would but that isn't always the case. Highly educated and acclaimed coaches, supervisors and The Dean himself couldn't muster up the courage to notify LE about suspected abuse going on right there under their noses.
No need to be sorry, I agree there are thousands of parents who drink and their children don't go missing but Lisa did.
Click to expand...


ETA: BBM
Point taken, but when it was exposed, people talked. I'm very sure that Deb and Jeremys lives have been gone through with a fine tooth comb, they have been analyzed and studied and investigated as parents. Jim Spellman won't name names if they aren't involved, neighbours could have spilled their guts to him, but no one had anything bad to say. I can't imagine that the FBI and local LE would not be concerned about these boys and have childrens services involved if they thought there was any neglect or abuse. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe Deb drank on a constant basis and didn't take care of her children.

If Deb had put the children to bed and gone to bed at the same time, she wouldn't have been able to check on them in her sleep.
 
cityslick said:
I think it's pretty irresponsible to say the boy is not being protected and loved now when you don't know what goes on in that house on a regular basis. Just mentioned above, but what if DB was blacked out due to Ambien? Or some other prescription drug? Does that change the 'neglect' aspect then?
Click to expand...

I said, " I hope and pray that the Judge is offered enough evidence to convince the Judge to place this child where he will be protected and loved".
This is to say, whichever place the Judge deems is the best place or the best interest for the child. The Judge will have more facts than what we do.

JMO. If a person has to take medication that alters their ability to be the responsible caregiver to children then other arrangements need to be made in order to assure the safety and well being of the children. Just like driving under the influence, which can mean any substance that alters the mind. If one can not operate a moving vehicle then that person should not be the sole person responsible for children and an infant and just because many other people do it does not make it right.
 
OneLove said:
Could be the same dynamic we have seen played out many times and is currently happening in the state of Washington with missing Sky. His mother was clearly and admittedly criminally neglectful. Law enforcement has clearly said that finding Sky takes precedence over arresting his mother for neglect but will not rule out doing so once Sky's whereabouts have been ascertained. :)
Click to expand...


Far from the same really, in that Sky's older sister has been removed from the mothers home and placed in foster care. CPS felt the need to step in in that case but not in DB/JI's case. They also did not place the child with her father because he has not seen her in almost a year and there were accusations of abuse. Not to mention both of Sky's parents had left him alone on at least one previous occasion.
 
saba said:
I think maybe the motion was filed as part of the original case. According to casenet, the info there is no longer publicly available.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Wondering why and if this is normal with casenet? I didn't know they ever deleted anything except addresses when attorney's requested it.
 
Truthwillsetufree said:
Yes, the Judge will take into consideration that an 11 month old child went missing while in the care of DB. JI's 8 year old son was also in the care of DB, who has admitted she was drunk and possibly passed out, leaving the children unsupervised.

The Judge will not decide on guilt but will decide what is in the child's best interest. I don't know enough about the bio mom to pretend what is best for this little boy. I hope and pray that the Judge is offered enough evidence to convince the Judge to place this child where he will be protected and loved.
Click to expand...

Good post TWSUF.

This is going to get interesting. In other cases where we've had this occur or where there were civil matters that needed to be addressed in court while a criminal investigation was going on---those cases got very interesting as far as who went to court, what was asked in court, how it was asked...all that kind of stuff.

(I said criminal because anyway you look at it its' a criminal investigation kidnapping/filicide/accidental death with improper disposal of human remains---etc.).

I have no clue who this child belongs with but I trust that a Judge is the best person to look at the big picture and do what is best for this young boy.

JMHO
 
OneLove said:
Leaving children that age watching tv from 6:30 in the evening until the next morning unmonitored would be neglectful, in my opinion, yes. And a sick infant couldn't really even watch tv, so........
Click to expand...

Right, and some parents leave their kids to watch tv or do whatever all day long while they are doing whatever.

I get it, she messed up. Shouldn't had gotten drunk. Maybe she didn't mean to. If her story really is true, I'm surprised she's not on suicide watch based on the guilt alone. But it's one instance. We don't know any other instances (yet). That's what I was talking about with 'trends'.
 
menmo said:
I thought I read where it was 2008, not 2005?

Also in one of the other threads In da Middle stated that there had been no filing to challenge custody. I looked myself, also, and that is true as of tonight.
Click to expand...

In the 2005 paternity case, Ms Raim has a different address than the Irwin home, and used the same address for her 2008 case. I think one has to use their legal address?
 
Yesterday is not Now: In response to your post:
BBM1 = for a reason: the reason could have been misrepresented in the court of law.
BBM2 = maybe she hasn't made any attempt to see him? She had the right to and could have ensured that she did: Do you have a link that she did not try to acaquire visitation?
BBM3 = under investigation? Link??? We all know that Deborah Bradlee is somewhat under investigation -- don't we -- no link needed.
BBM4 = some judge, at some point handed down that justice -- yes judges too make wrong decisons as it is human nature.

I stand firm in my decision to look at other options for the welfare of this boy during this difficult time of his life

Okay as I said before he is living with his his father with his father's girlfirend that had a baby girl together who is now missing. NOW how in the world can you say that he is in the best care whether it be in his home or in another family home?
 
Littleone48 said:
BBM..How is this "BAM"? This is not a game...

Many husbands "work" all day and come home to help with the care of the kids. She is a stay at home Mom and she had to handle a "teething" sick child all day if he is capable of taking care of the kids giving her a break then I see no reason for him not to.

This is 2011 not 1960 just saying....
Click to expand...


It's presumptuous to act as if one knows how DB acted on any given day. What I know from my experience is that most mothers don't over drink when their babies are whinny, teething and have a cold! They don't maybe even black out when their sick babies are in bed....like DB did only to wake up to find a 'baby missing'.

DB's husband should NOT have to work 2 jobs and come home to contend with 3 children and drinking wife. just saying......... 1960-2011--a drinking mom is a drinking mom. moo
 
OneLove said:
Are you implying that, even if she COULD see the older children from the door ( she admitted she did not see the sick infant from 6:30 on) that this is an adequate standard of care for children from 6:30 on until past their bedtimes?

I find it highly unlikely that 2 children this age camped out within view of the door hour after hour after hour unless they were begging and crying for help (that never came).
Click to expand...

First of all, the boys were in their room watching a movie, however, no one has stated if they ever came out and asked for a snack or drink, to play outside or to go to the bathroom. The house isn't that large that either one of the boys or even the mom would possibly hear Lisa cry if she woke up. When I put my child to bed at her normal time, I didn't go opening her door to look at her every 1/2 hour. If she's sleeping like normal, I would listen but if she isn't up, I'm not waking her...I dont' get how she had to go into the room and physically look at her or she is neglectful...Why would she even think anything was different if this was the norm. She may have gone into bed thinking that Lisa would be awake in 1/2 hour or so and she would have to get up again.
 
bbb28 said:
Yesterday is not Now: In response to your post:
BBM1 = for a reason: the reason could have been misrepresented in the court of law.
BBM2 = maybe she hasn't made any attempt to see him? She had the right to and could have ensured that she did: Do you have a link that she did not try to acaquire visitation?
BBM3 = under investigation? Link??? We all know that Deborah Bradlee is somewhat under investigation -- don't we -- no link needed.
BBM4 = some judge, at some point handed down that justice -- yes judges too make wrong decisons as it is human nature.

I stand firm in my decision to look at other options for the welfare of this boy during this difficult time of his life

Okay as I said before he is living with his his father with his father's girlfirend that had a baby girl together who is now missing. NOW how in the world can you say that he is in the best care whether it be in his home or in another family home?
Click to expand...

Because you (and anyone else) have no idea what the living conditions would be with the bio mom. All we know now is he has custody and there have been no complaints about the child's welfare previously. You're right, it's not the best situation for the boy, but you would be taking him out of that into an unknown situation, which could be worse.
 
Minette said:
With respect, what then does this say about the non-custodial parents of DB's son and JI's son? In both cases, the non-custodial parent says they have not seen their child for years. How can you just not see your own child for years unless you are being legally prevented from doing so? Wouldn't you do everything in your power (backed up by the force of the law) to see your own child?

Not directed towards you, OneLove, but a thought from an earlier discussion: how is being removed from the custody of the only parent (JI) with whom he has had continual contact throughout his young life with considered 'normalcy'?

As others have said, if CPS had reason to believe that there was an immediate threat to the health or safety of the child, they could already have acted.

I just don't see any perfect solutions here, but I'm not so quick to believe that being taken away from the father who has raised him from an early age is the best one for this little boy.
Click to expand...

I feel sure that, if CPS and family court decide the best environment for the child is with the mom that his father will be granted visitation.

I'm sure, since he is such a good father, that he will be certain to utilize every visitation he is awarded.

So there should be no "ripping away" involved.

I don't know why the mom has not exercised her visitation, but I do know for sure why SOME parents don't because I worked in social services once upon a time. Some people are threatened, I know of an attempt on one persons life, and I know of apparent hiring a hit on the other parent. I'm not saying this mother was threatened, but we really don't know the details. Sometimes one parent exerts extreme alienation of affection and it disturbs the child so much the other parent backs off for the child's sanity. there are many reasons. Then again, it could be she had addiction problems back then. No one knows.

For sure, WHATEVER happened in the past should not prevent a good reassessment of what is in this child's best interests NOW. Any argument against that, IMO, is merely a flashing neon sign of each individual's personal projection based on their OWN life experience. It has no bearing here.
 
cityslick said:
I think it's pretty irresponsible to say the boy is not being protected and loved now when you don't know what goes on in that house on a regular basis. Just mentioned above, but what if DB was blacked out due to Ambien? Or some other prescription drug? Does that change the 'neglect' aspect then?
Click to expand...

There is no "what if." DB has already admitted she got drunk outside the home while four small children were unattended inside the home. One child disappeared and is possibly dead. I don't know how any Judge could ignore the obvious neglect.

JMO
 
bbb28 said:
I do not post very often however I feel very strong about this post. Why should the step-brother (who is not really a step-brother because they are not married) not have a chance with his biological mother. Right now he is hunkered down in a home where he cannot go outside and play due to media around his step-mother (not really) and lives with two adults that are in my opinion very disfunctional and if not in a very emotional state. Yes there is a reason his mother was not granted custody however it has been stated that it was a very "ugly custody" battle.

Here we have a father that is not married to the mother of their daughter and has custody of his son and not allowing him to see his biological mother -- not to mention that his "girlfriend" is under investigation about the wearabouts of their daughter.

WHAT a Man he is -- not in my opinion.

May justice be served for this little boy and his biological mother. I pray.
Click to expand...
How do we know he did not seek custody because RR may have been black-out drunk EVERY night? I think we should be careful wanting her to have custody. There easily could be a very good reason she does not have it now.
 
menmo said:
Thank you. Wondering why and if this is normal with casenet? I didn't know they ever deleted anything except addresses when attorney's requested it.
Click to expand...

One of the parties probably filed a motion to seal the case. Nothing is deleted really, we just can't access the info. It might also mean that future hearings/proceedings would not be open to the public.
 
cityslick said:
Right, and some parents leave their kids to watch tv or do whatever all day long while they are doing whatever.

I get it, she messed up. Shouldn't had gotten drunk. Maybe she didn't mean to. If her story really is true, I'm surprised she's not on suicide watch based on the guilt alone. But it's one instance. We don't know any other instances (yet). That's what I was talking about with 'trends'.
Click to expand...

BBM. IMO the judgement on the drinking that evening has gotten a bit out of context. I can see it happening..buy a box of wine because you are going to hang out with a neighbor to talk..maybe about the husband moving out that day...you talk..you drink and before you know it you have had too much...it's happened to me as I am sure it's happened to many...no where does it state that she had a drinking problem...no where...and by all accounts, she was a great mom..even her former in-law and that speaks huge to me...I do not think for a minute that she planned on drinking too much, blacking out and waking up to her baby missing, not one minute..and I am sure she is living with the guilt everyday..I know I have made mistakes, plenty and I thank God everyday that none of my mistakes resulted in the injury to anyone...All IMO
 
MissFine said:
It's presumptuous to act as if one knows how DB acted on any given day. What I know from my experience is that most mothers don't over drink when their babies are whinny, teething and have a cold! They don't maybe even black out when their sick babies are in bed....like DB did only to wake up to find a 'baby missing'.

DB's husband should NOT have to work 2 jobs and come home to contend with 3 children and drinking wife. just saying......... 1960-2011--a drinking mom is a drinking mom. moo
Click to expand...

Why would Jeremy have to deal with a drunk wife or 3 children? They were sleeping. The most he would have had to do is change Lisa and give her a bottle and a cuddle.
 
menmo said:
I thought I read where it was 2008, not 2005?

Also in one of the other threads In da Middle stated that there had been no filing to challenge custody. I looked myself, also, and that is true as of tonight.
Click to expand...
2005 sounds more correct. RR has not lived there 2-3 years before DB did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 219 more.
Total: 4,073 (members: 220, guests: 3,853)

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
3,853
Total visitors
4,073
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,698
Messages
17,957,714
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top