Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

[Calliope]

Apologies in advance if this has been asked and answered. Don't have much time today.

Even though it would violate hippa laws for a doc to reveal TH's medical/mental health history, is there anything barring a spouse or family member from revealing it publicly?

Could there be legal repercussions for this?

TIA

I'm not an attorney but someone who has HIPAA training yearly as a part of my job.

The answer (as far as HIPAA goes) is "no".

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html

Who Must Follow These Laws

We call the entities that must follow the HIPAA regulations covered entities.

Covered entities include:

Health Plans, including health insurance companies, HMOs, company health plans, and certain government programs that pay for health care, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Most Health Care Providers—those that conduct certain business electronically, such as electronically billing your health insurance—including most doctors, clinics, hospitals, psychologists, chiropractors, nursing homes, pharmacies, and dentists.

Health Care Clearinghouses—entities that process nonstandard health information they receive from another entity into a standard (i.e., standard electronic format or data content), or vice versa.

Who Is Not Required to Follow These Laws

Many organizations that have health information about you do not have to follow these laws.

Examples of organizations that do not have to follow the Privacy and Security Rules include:

• life insurers,
• employers,
• workers compensation carriers,
• many schools and school districts,
• many state agencies like child protective service agencies,
• many law enforcement agencies,
• many municipal offices

.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm not an attorney but someone who has HIPAA training yearly as a part of my job.

The answer (as far as HIPAA goes) is "no".

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html

Who Must Follow These Laws

We call the entities that must follow the HIPAA regulations covered entities.

Covered entities include:

Health Plans, including health insurance companies, HMOs, company health plans, and certain government programs that pay for health care, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Most Health Care Providers—those that conduct certain business electronically, such as electronically billing your health insurance—including most doctors, clinics, hospitals, psychologists, chiropractors, nursing homes, pharmacies, and dentists.

Health Care Clearinghouses—entities that process nonstandard health information they receive from another entity into a standard (i.e., standard electronic format or data content), or vice versa.

Who Is Not Required to Follow These Laws

Many organizations that have health information about you do not have to follow these laws.

Examples of organizations that do not have to follow the Privacy and Security Rules include:

• life insurers,
• employers,
• workers compensation carriers,
• many schools and school districts,
• many state agencies like child protective service agencies,
• many law enforcement agencies,
• many municipal offices

.

Thanks, C. This is exactly right.

 

[captivagrl]

At this point, with no arrest or conviction, can TM sell pictures, an exclusive interview, or anything else and profit from it immediately?
Thank you for your time.

 

[nurseratchett]

Concerning the RO, and the statement by media that TH tried to "abduct" the daughter from the gym on Monday 6/8/10 prior to being served the RO:
TH made a call to 911 late Sat 6/26/10 re: a "custody" dispute. Is it possible since LE had advised Kaine to move out with the daughter that TH had been told by them, at that time, that a RO would be filed and even though not formally served, she was to have no contact?

 

[Calliope]

Concerning the RO, and the statement by media that TH tried to "abduct" the daughter from the gym on Monday 6/8/10 prior to being served the RO:
TH made a call to 911 late Sat 6/26/10 re: a "custody" dispute. Is it possible since LE had advised Kaine to move out with the daughter that TH had been told by them, at that time, that a RO would be filed and even though not formally served, she was to have no contact?

To add to this post...

Can the police order a person not to have contact with their own child without a court order?

 

[eyes4crime]

To get information from Mr. C's phone wouldn't LE need a warrant? Or did they get all info from Terri's phone so far and not Mr. C's. Guess I'm confused as what criteria is used to get info. from two phones. TIA

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

Question. In the motion for contempt, it seems to me that all the allegations of any sexual affair, the details of sexting, pictures, etc., serve no purpose but to further assassinate the character of Terri Horman; as well as stating information that LE allegedly told them regarding the similarities of the conversations between TH and MC being the same as in the alleged murder for hire.

Stating the details of the alleged contempt, when showing MC the RO would seem to be all that is needed. Also, I don't see the point of detailing her (TH's) visit to the gym to inquire about her husband and daughter, at that point she had not been served with divorce papers or RO. At that point, she was a mother looking for her child that her husband had snatched from the marital home without her persmission.

Question is - 1) what purpose does the information about the gym visit serve?
2) When TH retains counsel for the domestic issues, or if the current attorney is handling the RO issues, can they ask for sanctions against Petitioner and his counsel for the unnecessary character attack? TIA

 

[desquire]

To get information from Mr. C's phone wouldn't LE need a warrant? Or did they get all info from Terri's phone so far and not Mr. C's. Guess I'm confused as what criteria is used to get info. from two phones. TIA

They would need a warrant to examine either phone or any phone records unless the owner gives them permission to search. Based on the articles and affidavit, it appears that Mr. C voluntarily consented to the search of his phone. Obviously they also had access to TH's phone records but it is unclear whether she consented, whether the phone is in KH's name and he consented, or whether they had a warrant. Most likely, TH and KH consented early on in cooperation with the broader search for Kyron.

 

[desquire]

Question is - 1) what purpose does the information about the gym visit serve?
2) When TH retains counsel for the domestic issues, or if the current attorney is handling the RO issues, can they ask for sanctions against Petitioner and his counsel for the unnecessary character attack? TIA

1. The gym visit information really isn't relevant to the contempt motion since the affidavit stated that it occurred prior to the service of the order on TH. Contempt requires the willful disobedience to, or disregard of, a court order. One can't willfully disobey something they when they have no knowledge of its existence. It may be that the gyms claim was included as a hail mary in case some evidence arises that TH had knowledge of the RO before being served but more likely it was included for the benefit of the court of public opinion.

2. If TH prevails on the contempt claim, she could seek sanctions against KH. Although it doesn't appear that the case for contempt is very strong, there is merit to it, so it's extremely unlikely that sanctions would be imposed for bringing the claim.

 

[ami]

In another thread we're discussing parental abduction. I found a legal definition that states:

>>In the absence of a court order determining rights of custody or visitation to a child, a person having a right of custody of the child commits the crime of parental kidnapping if he removes, takes, detains, conceals, or entices away that child within or without the state, without good cause, and with the intent to deprive the custody right of another person or a public agency also having a custody right to that child.>> [http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/parental-kidnapping/]

When Kaine removed the baby from the home because LE informed him that TH may be a danger to them, was that "good cause" or was it parental abduction? Do you need an RO in force to show good cause, or can you remove a child from danger without one?

Thanks!

 

[Calliope]

They would need a warrant to examine either phone or any phone records unless the owner gives them permission to search. Based on the articles and affidavit, it appears that Mr. C voluntarily consented to the search of his phone. Obviously they also had access to TH's phone records but it is unclear whether she consented, whether the phone is in KH's name and he consented, or whether they had a warrant. Most likely, TH and KH consented early on in cooperation with the broader search for Kyron.

Thanks. Wouldn't LE still have to have a court order or a legal document of some type to present to the carrier in order to get records? Not necessarily a search warrant if the person agreed to allow them to look at the records.

 

[Calliope]

In another thread we're discussing parental abduction. I found a legal definition that states:

>>In the absence of a court order determining rights of custody or visitation to a child, a person having a right of custody of the child commits the crime of parental kidnapping if he removes, takes, detains, conceals, or entices away that child within or without the state, without good cause, and with the intent to deprive the custody right of another person or a public agency also having a custody right to that child.>> [http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/parental-kidnapping/]

When Kaine removed the baby from the home because LE informed him that TH may be a danger to them, was that "good cause" or was it parental abduction? Do you need an RO in force to show good cause, or can you remove a child from danger without one?

Thanks!

I'd like to add to this by asking if the above link is applicable to all parents or if it's regarding those who have legally separated or divorced without court-ordered custody and visitation, meaning it doesn't apply to parents who are married and haven't begun the process of separation or divorce.

 

[gitana1]

If LE had "probable cause" in the technical legal, criminal-law sense of the phrase, IMO they would have arrested her by now--UNLESS they think that Kyron is still alive and that not arresting Terri will lead to his safe recovery. But I can't really think of a reasonable scenario fitting those requirements. :waitasec:

And no, I don't think failed polygraphs and the word of a landscaper that couldn't be confirmed through a "sting" operation would constitute probable cause. But confirmed lies about her whereabouts at critical times (e.g. through cell phone pings), combined with maybe phone records, purchase records, or computer records that were suspicious...that might do it.

Hey AZ, I'm family law, not criminal law like you so you would know better than I, but wouldn't LE wait to arrest someone, even if there is probable cause to do so, if they lack what they need to get a conviction? I mean, probable cause and reasonable doubt are not necessarily mutually exclusive, no?

 

[Kimster]

OH OH! I have a family law question!

Have you ever heard of it being a crime to sext with another man when you married? I realize this is a morale issue, but is it a legal issue as well?

 

[shelbar53]

Teri asked MC to lie to her attorney. What repercussions if any will that have with her lawyer? Can he resign? Will most attorneys resign under those circumstances

 

[AZlawyer]

Wow, I've been neglecting this thread apparently.

At this point, with no arrest or conviction, can TM sell pictures, an exclusive interview, or anything else and profit from it immediately?
Thank you for your time.

I guess so. But if her attorney allows it, he is a doofus.

Teri asked MC to lie to her attorney. What repercussions if any will that have with her lawyer? Can he resign? Will most attorneys resign under those circumstances

Terri ALLEGEDLY asked MC to lie to her attorney. Anyway, I would probably look at it as a "first offense" and give her The Talk (Re: Why It Is Important Not to Lie to Me) before resigning.

Concerning the RO, and the statement by media that TH tried to "abduct" the daughter from the gym on Monday 6/8/10 prior to being served the RO:
TH made a call to 911 late Sat 6/26/10 re: a "custody" dispute. Is it possible since LE had advised Kaine to move out with the daughter that TH had been told by them, at that time, that a RO would be filed and even though not formally served, she was to have no contact?

To add to this post...

Can the police order a person not to have contact with their own child without a court order?

No. But the police could say, "Look, Terri, we told Kaine to move out and take the baby, so we strongly advise you to leave them the he** alone while Kaine gets an official RO against you."

But I bet the 911 call was just because she had realized at that point that Kaine had moved out and was not going to let her see the baby.

Question. In the motion for contempt, it seems to me that all the allegations of any sexual affair, the details of sexting, pictures, etc., serve no purpose but to further assassinate the character of Terri Horman; as well as stating information that LE allegedly told them regarding the similarities of the conversations between TH and MC being the same as in the alleged murder for hire.

Stating the details of the alleged contempt, when showing MC the RO would seem to be all that is needed.

<snipped by AZL because other issue was answered by someone else>

I don't think the sexting allegations were irrelevant. I think the point was that Terri is possibly following a pattern of using sexting, etc., to get men to agree to harm Kaine. The fact that she showed MC Kaine's address and he Google-Mapped it perhaps suggests, when taken into context with the prior situation with the landscaper, that she wanted MC to go "get" Kaine for her.

In another thread we're discussing parental abduction. I found a legal definition that states:

>>In the absence of a court order determining rights of custody or visitation to a child, a person having a right of custody of the child commits the crime of parental kidnapping if he removes, takes, detains, conceals, or entices away that child within or without the state, without good cause, and with the intent to deprive the custody right of another person or a public agency also having a custody right to that child.>> [http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/parental-kidnapping/]

When Kaine removed the baby from the home because LE informed him that TH may be a danger to them, was that "good cause" or was it parental abduction? Do you need an RO in force to show good cause, or can you remove a child from danger without one?

Thanks!

IMO it is good cause to remove a child without an RO if you reasonably think the other parent is hiring murderers and killing children, especially if you then go out and get an RO right away.

I'd like to add to this by asking if the above link is applicable to all parents or if it's regarding those who have legally separated or divorced without court-ordered custody and visitation, meaning it doesn't apply to parents who are married and haven't begun the process of separation or divorce.

It applies to married parents as well. You can't hide your kid from your spouse without a darn good reason.

Thanks. Wouldn't LE still have to have a court order or a legal document of some type to present to the carrier in order to get records? Not necessarily a search warrant if the person agreed to allow them to look at the records.

The carrier would require either a subpoena (easy to get) or a written consent form from the customer (also likely easy to get in this case).

Hey AZ, I'm family law, not criminal law like you so you would know better than I, but wouldn't LE wait to arrest someone, even if there is probable cause to do so, if they lack what they need to get a conviction? I mean, probable cause and reasonable doubt are not necessarily mutually exclusive, no?

I'm not a criminal lawyer. 15 years ago, I probably knew more about criminal law than civil litigation, but now I only do criminal law on appeal.

You're absolutely correct that LE doesn't necessarily arrest someone even if they have enough info to arrest, if they don't have enough for a conviction. They might do so, however, (1) to scare the person into a confession, (2) if it appears likely that additional evidence is forthcoming, (3) if the person's continued freedom is putting others in danger or creating the opportunity for the person to interfere with the evidence/investigation, (4) probably other reasons I can't think of right now.

OH OH! I have a family law question!

Have you ever heard of it being a crime to sext with another man when you married? I realize this is a morale issue, but is it a legal issue as well?

It isn't illegal anywhere that I know of, but most husbands frown upon it from what I understand.

 

[Calliope]

The carrier would require either a subpoena (easy to get) or a written consent form from the customer (also likely easy to get in this case).

Thank you! That's the word LOL

Sorry... brain-farct.

Another question (you're going to regret agreeing to this lol)

Can an emergency RO be issued on weekends and during off-hours and be granted by a magistrate (kinda like how a TDO can be obtained) ? IOW, did he necessarily have to wait until Monday afternoon to file this petition? Given the immediacy of the mandatory remedy, I don't understand why someone in danger should be forced to wait for court to open.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you! That's the word LOL

Sorry... brain-farct.

Another question (you're going to regret agreeing to this lol)

Can an emergency RO be issued on weekends and during off-hours and be granted by a magistrate (kinda like how a TDO can be obtained) ? IOW, did he necessarily have to wait until Monday afternoon to file this petition? Given the immediacy of the mandatory remedy, I don't understand why someone in danger should be forced to wait for court to open.

I don't know of any way, at least in AZ, that you can get a restraining order while the courts are closed. But obviously you can call the police on weekends. And Kaine was, IMO, safer before he filed for the RO, because Terri didn't know where he was until he disclosed his address in the application.

 

[ZL27]

Could Kaine move back home and call LE to remove TMH since she's not allowed to be within X feet of him?

 

[AZlawyer]

Could Kaine move back home and call LE to remove TMH since she's not allowed to be within X feet of him?

That would probably work. I think he would rather have his return be calm and noneventful, however, for the sake of the baby.