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

[Meri]

Why would she want a baby that wasn't even hers? Especially with the lack of mothering she did with her own child.

I think you are right though, if anyone had a motive she would be at the top of the list. However, we have to assume LE checked her and her alibi out very thoroughly.

Although I did not make it clear in my comment, I didn't mean that she wanted Baby Lisa for herself. I could see a situation, though, where she would want to show Irwin what it feels like to be missing a child, especially if she somehow just found out about him having another baby and went off the deep end. I don't think she would actually do the actual kidnapping, though, but I could picture someone who is involved with her helping. Also, as others have mentioned, it could have been felt, with a child missing from the home, she would then be able to get her son in her custody. I'm not saying any of this is true, even in my mind, but I could see it happening.

 

[Melon]

Since we know NOTHING about what happened that caused this child to be in the custody of his father, and since we know NOTHING about why his mother was absent for this period of time, I will not judge. I make it a point to use facts to make logical conclusions and we have NOTHING to go on here but our own emotional triggers to our own personal life experience, not a good way to ascertain reality as it IS rather than as we shape shift it for our own comfort.

This is reminding me so much of poor Desiree, mother of missing Kyron Horman, who had strangers spewing the most venomous trash about her "motherhood" because Kyron's father had custody and she didn't see him for an extended time period in his early years. When the news was finally released that she had extremely serious kidney failure and actually had to leave the country to get treatment that saved her life, many felt pretty bad about having added insult and wrongful judgement to what was already a heartbreaking experience for her. I just won't trash young Irwin's mother without having ANYTHING on which to base that judgement. If we do not LEARN from history, we are doomed to REPEAT it.

ITA with the bolded. RR seems to bear the brunt of a lot of judgment and speculation.

_________________________________________________________
I really don't get any suspicions about the timing of RR filing for emergency custody. Given that a baby "went disappeared" from JI's home, we have learned that DB apparently drinks and has black out like periods and JI is apparently supportive of that behavior, even when she is the sole caretaker of 3 children, the cadaver dog hit, the lack of cooperation from DB and JI, the Halloween television special, the fact that her son's picture is out there on the internet for the world to see, I would think RR is terrified and horrified. Whatever skeletons are in her closet, she is certainly entitled to be worried for the safety and well being of her son right now. :moo:

 

[OneLove]

I am mystified about the extreme inconsistencies here. On one hand we have the "For God's sakes, she should have taken him out of the house the very next day after the disappearance" followed by 'why does she show an interest now after all this time'. I don't think the woman can win no matter what she does.

As for my own opinion, I have no problem believing she may have thought her son was in a good home with a decent parent until she saw FOR SURE that his caregiver had blackout drunken spells that may have cost another child her life and that this seemed to be acceptable to her own child's father.

At that point, the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD shifts overnight, hence the filing for custody AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME.

I don't see evil intent in this AT ALL.

In fact, if we are to look at what is WRONG with this whole picture, we need to be looking at the parent with a missing and presumed dead child.

 

[RANCH]

I am mystified about the extreme inconsistencies here. On one hand we have the "For God's sakes, she should have taken him out of the house the very next day after the disappearance" followed by 'why does she show an interest now after all this time'. I don't think the woman can win no matter what she does.

As for my own opinion, I have no problem believing she may have thought her son was in a good home with a decent parent until she saw FOR SURE that his caregiver had blackout drunken spells that may have cost another child her life and that this seemed to be acceptable to her own child's father.

At that point, the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD shifts overnight, hence the filing for custody AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME.

I don't see evil intent in this AT ALL.

In fact, if we are to look at what is WRONG with this whole picture, we need to be looking at the parent with a missing and presumed dead child.

If RR had been involved with her son more, she may have caught the horrible conditions he was living in and done something about it sooner. Wait a minute, if things were and are dangerous why is her child still with JI/DB?

 

[cityslick]

I am mystified about the extreme inconsistencies here. On one hand we have the "For God's sakes, she should have taken him out of the house the very next day after the disappearance" followed by 'why does she show an interest now after all this time'. I don't think the woman can win no matter what she does.

As for my own opinion, I have no problem believing she may have thought her son was in a good home with a decent parent until she saw FOR SURE that his caregiver had blackout drunken spells that may have cost another child her life and that this seemed to be acceptable to her own child's father.

At that point, the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD shifts overnight, hence the filing for custody AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME.

I don't see evil intent in this AT ALL.

In fact, if we are to look at what is WRONG with this whole picture, we need to be looking at the parent with a missing and presumed dead child.

As far as we know, the woman has no relationship with her son. No visits, no calls, nothing. She sees what's going on so she decided now to be a mother? Like you flip a switch.

 

[hambirg]

How is thanking one post about one issue have anything to do with another? RR not seeing/having any contact with her son for 6 years is a separate issue from the parents being interviewed by LE.

There are MSM links with comments from her own lawyer saying she wants to now 'reconnect' with her son. I have no problem with her trying to have a relationship with her child, I just question the convienence of the timing. We know from court records that legally she was never barred from seeing her child, she was allowed supervised visits and never took advantage of that. We know from court records she tried for custody back in 2008 and then never bothered to show up at the hearings. I have no idea what her reasons were for not seeing her son when she was not barred from seeing him legally. I just think it's interesting that she chooses October 2011, when another of JI's children vanishes from the home and questions surround him (and DB) to 'reconnect' with her son.

Legally barred or not, this is a woman who is an immigrant from a country that still burns women alive for not being pleasing to their husband's families. We can't expect her to be Helen Redding. . .I am woman here me roar! After JI was finished with her she ended up indigent in a group home. That speaks more about JI than it does about her. Who does that to their child's mother? And we know that he acts in that manner by the fact that he was doing the same to his own parents. JI has issues. He is a skilled tradesman that has to have some level of smarts, but yet he picks women that are uneducated and totally dependent on him. I believe RR when she says she was scared for her child. If this was about making money she would have sold her story. She didn't. I bet she knows a thing or two about JI. . this was no one night stand. They lived together. IMHO. . she is afraid of him. Even though we don't think she is powerless. .she believes she is. It's like the dog in the imaginary box.

 

[hambirg]

As far as we know, the woman has no relationship with her son. No visits, no calls, nothing. She sees what's going on so she decided now to be a mother? Like you flip a switch.

Or maybe she had been threatened and was afraid. She thought the situation was ok so she let it be. But after BL disappeared her fear for her son emboldened her.

MOO

 

[cityslick]

Or maybe she had been threatened and was afraid. She thought the situation was ok so she let it be. But after BL disappeared her fear for her son emboldened her.

MOO

If she was threatened she could of used the same means of trying to see her son( hiring a lawyer) that she used to file for custody. This not about just custody, it's about being a mother. Immigrant or not, it's still her child and a mother doesn't just give up on her child, no matter where they came from (yes, this applies to DB too). She was somehow emboldened back in 2008, just didn't follow through. Did he threaten to break her legs if she showed up to the hearing?

Let's not make JI the Mafia now.

 

[OneLove]

If RR had been involved with her son more, she may have caught the horrible conditions he was living in and done something about it sooner. Wait a minute, if things were and are dangerous why is her child still with JI/DB?

Why were Charlie and Brandon legally with Josh Powell? Why was Kyron Horman legally with an alcoholic caregiver? Why was Sky Metalwala in the custody of his severely mentally ill mother? Why were any number of children we have seen here at Websleuths in the custody of people who took their lives?

The fact that this child is still in the custody of JI and his black-out drunk gf does NOT give me comfort whatsoever.

 

[OneLove]

If RR had been involved with her son more, she may have caught the horrible conditions he was living in and done something about it sooner. Wait a minute, if things were and are dangerous why is her child still with JI/DB?

We could say the same about Desiree, mother of Kyron Horman. But many of us who followed that case have learned and remembered the lessons gained from it and therefore don't make statements like this.

Desiree did not LIVE in the home of her son. Even though she did exercise periods of visitation, she only saw his father and stepmother for very brief times, on neutral territory, during exchanges of custody. That is the norm for a great many children. There is NO WAY she could have known that Kyron's stepmother was drinking to excess. It is crossing boundaries to push your way into the other person's home, especially during the private evening hours when DB would have been drunk and neglectful. And a child that age wouldn't typically differentiate between any other drink and alcohol and would have no way of judging that sitting on the porch from 6:30 on then being in bed (passed out) was not "normal".

How exactly is it that RR was supposed to know "the horrible conditions" he was living in, even if she HAD been seeing her son?

And again, as we have seen over and over and over again with "dead child" cases here at Websleuths, a parent retaining legal custody of a child does not prevent their death or abuse. This is NO COMFORT whatsoever.

 

[cityslick]

We could say the same about Desiree, mother of Kyron Horman. But many of us who followed that case have learned and remembered the lessons gained from it and therefore don't make statements like this.

Desiree did not LIVE in the home of her son. Even though she did exercise periods of visitation, she only saw his father and stepmother for very brief times, on neutral territory, during exchanges of custody. That is the norm for a great many children. There is NO WAY she could have known that Kyron's stepmother was drinking to excess. It is crossing boundaries to push your way into the other person's home, especially during the private evening hours when DB would have been drunk and neglectful. And a child that age wouldn't typically differentiate between any other drink and alcohol and would have no way of judging that sitting on the porch from 6:30 on then being in bed (passed out) was not "normal".

How exactly is it that RR was supposed to know "the horrible conditions" he was living in, even if she HAD been seeing her son?

And again, as we have seen over and over and over again with "dead child" cases here at Websleuths, a parent retaining legal custody of a child does not prevent their death or abuse. This is NO COMFORT whatsoever.

BBM

The simple fact of the matter is she had supervised visitation with her son. She did not use that visitation to have a relationship with him. We can argue up and down the reasons for that but the fact remains, she obviously did not have a burning desire to have a relationship with him, let alone know what 'horrible conditions' he's living in. Because if she did, she had options available to her to try to see him. I could understand if it wasn't that long a period of time, but this is years we are talking about. Long enough to the point that I even question whether the boy actually knows her very well.

I don't like JT, but I find it interesting that when this stuff came out, JT called her out on it, saying she wanted no part of her son for all this time. And her lawyer had no comment to that, no rebuttal. In fact, I have not heard one explanation from RR's lawyer as to why exactly she had been absent all this time. I can pretty much guarantee you if it was something like some are alleging here, that JI was the ultimate cause preventing her from seeing him, RR's lawyer would of been screaming that to anyone who would want to hear it.

 

[vlpate]

If she was threatened she could of used the same means of trying to see her son( hiring a lawyer) that she used to file for custody. This not about just custody, it's about being a mother. Immigrant or not, it's still her child and a mother doesn't just give up on her child, no matter where they came from (yes, this applies to DB too). She was somehow emboldened back in 2008, just didn't follow through. Did he threaten to break her legs if she showed up to the hearing?

Let's not make JI the Mafia now.

She could very well be a slug of a mother, we don't know. I do know things are not always as they seem. Working with illegals years ago, I saw them taken advantage of in a great number of ways - everything from being made to work overtime to being victims of crime and not reporting it. They felt powerless to defend themselves because just about anything was better than having to go back home. It might not even be that though - I've noticed she has used many names, both first and last, so who knows....

 

[melissasmom]

BBM

The simple fact of the matter is she had supervised visitation with her son. She did not use that visitation to have a relationship with him. We can argue up and down the reasons for that but the fact remains, she obviously did not have a burning desire to have a relationship with him, let alone know what 'horrible conditions' he's living in. Because if she did, she had options available to her to try to see him. I could understand if it wasn't that long a period of time, but this is years we are talking about. Long enough to the point that I even question whether the boy actually knows her very well.

I don't like JT, but I find it interesting that when this stuff came out, JT called her out on it, saying she wanted no part of her son for all this time. And her lawyer had no comment to that, no rebuttal. In fact, I have not heard one explanation from RR's lawyer as to why exactly she had been absent all this time. I can pretty much guarantee you if it was something like some are alleging here, that JI was the ultimate cause preventing her from seeing him, RR's lawyer would of been screaming that to anyone who would want to hear it.

BBM

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Melon]

BBM

The simple fact of the matter is she had supervised visitation with her son. She did not use that visitation to have a relationship with him. We can argue up and down the reasons for that but the fact remains, she obviously did not have a burning desire to have a relationship with him, let alone know what 'horrible conditions' he's living in. Because if she did, she had options available to her to try to see him. I could understand if it wasn't that long a period of time, but this is years we are talking about. Long enough to the point that I even question whether the boy actually knows her very well.

I don't like JT, but I find it interesting that when this stuff came out, JT called her out on it, saying she wanted no part of her son for all this time. And her lawyer had no comment to that, no rebuttal. In fact, I have not heard one explanation from RR's lawyer as to why exactly she had been absent all this time. I can pretty much guarantee you if it was something like some are alleging here, that JI was the ultimate cause preventing her from seeing him, RR's lawyer would of been screaming that to anyone who would want to hear it.

Personally, I don't see what benefit counsel for RR would gain by entertaining any public jousting with the Irwin counsel. I am not sure why one would expect any sort of public rebuttal to any assertions from JT, I don't think it would be in the best interests of their interest to engage in any public displays. It's a matter of family court and the judges there. Keeping mum may just be their strategy, not a show of lack of strategy. :moo:

 

[cityslick]

Personally, I don't see what benefit counsel for RR would gain by entertaining any public jousting with the Irwin counsel. I am not sure why one would expect any sort of public rebuttal to any assertions from JT, I don't think it would be in the best interests of their interest to engage in any public displays. It's a matter of family court and the judges there. Keeping mum may just be their strategy, not a show of lack of strategy. :moo:

He did engage in public jousting but wouldn't comment when asked directly about if RR tried to seek visitation:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270248/attorneys-trade-barbs-over-baby.html

 

[Melon]

He did engage in public jousting but wouldn't comment when asked directly about if RR tried to seek visitation:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/16/3270248/attorneys-trade-barbs-over-baby.html

That's a pretty enlightening link, thanks. I guess it does kind of answer why RR has been absent, it appears she was "gravely prevented" from having a relationship with her child. Hrm. Wonder what that truly means.


FWIW, I do find the statements by RR's counsel to be more than what should be said. I think in a case of child custody, it is not appropriate to air dirty laundry in any public venue and especially not in the media. JMO.

 

[4Jacy]

That's a pretty enlightening link, thanks. I guess it does kind of answer why RR has been absent, it appears she was "gravely prevented" from having a relationship with her child. Hrm. Wonder what that truly means.


FWIW, I do find the statements by RR's counsel to be more than what should be said. I think in a case of child custody, it is not appropriate to air dirty laundry in any public venue and especially not in the media. JMO.

BBM

You are so right. Common sense, along with the welfare of the child, should made her realize that.