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
AZlawyer answered this I think. I'd like to elaborate. The fact that TH may have tried to sneak the baby away from Kaine, by asking the gym staff to alert her when the baby was there (while not contempt if done before being served), would be something I would use in court papers to show her state of mind/behavior. I would use that to show the court the way she operates and to argue that she is someone who may be at risk of kidnapping. This is because the alternative is to confront Kaine and demand the baby, or to seek court orders herself, granting her custody of the baby. The fact that she instead wanted to surreptitiously take the baby when Kaine was unaware, would be a fact I would use to show that she does not operate above-board. The court may simply see that behavior as game playing in the context of a domestic custody dispute, but in context with Kyron's disappearance, it could be beneficial information for the court to know and I would certainly use it.
I have a question that someone answered but I am not sure they were a lawyer. If TH doesn't contest the RO she can't see her baby for a year. Can she still go to family court for the divorce and ask for custody or visitation? I heard that family court will abide by the RO and not change the parenting time.
Eta, I just read this:
http://www.katu.com/news/local/98434609.html
Does that change the way things are done with the parenting time? So even if TH doesn't contest the terms of the restraining order she can still ask for parenting time in the divorce? Does this make sense?
In CA, even if consolidated, if a person fails to contest an RO and any requested orders in it that pertain to custody, they could not file a new action in the context of the dissolution action as a means of vacating or superceding the child custody orders in the DV case. In any case, DV, disso or guardianship, one can file a motion to modify custody orders that were issued, but one must have a good reason why those orders should be changed. In CA, the standard is "a substantial change in circumstances such that the custody orders should be modified". A substantial change would not be that one changed his or her mind. They could state that now they are in a better position to have custody, such as they just moved closer, but they would have to otherwise show that a modification is in the child's best interest.
Further, the reasons for the prior orders would bear on any modification. Also, the status quo as created by the orders the party wants to modify, would come into play and make it more difficult to obtain a modification.
In this case, TH cannot use the dissolution case as a means of bypassing the allegations in the RO petition. She would have to address those allegations in order to modify the current court orders.
Finally, although ROs do not last forever (in CA they can be from one to five years), once you obtain an RO and other associated court orders, at the regularly scheduled hearing on the RO (not the ex parte hearing), those orders are considered "permanent" orders, not temporary, even though they do not continue past the term of the RO.
The protected party would generally seek child custody court orders in connection with a divorce or paternity action, that mirror those issued in connection with the RO, so that there are custody orders lasting past the life of the RO.
In CA, there is a legal presumption that a person found by the court to have committed DV, should not have sole or joint legal or physical custody of a child. Thus, not contesting a RO application could be fatal to a parent who wants to have some sort of significant custodial time with their child. The basis for the RO child custody orders does not disappear when the RO ends.
For our verified lawyers I NEED to know the answer to just one question...
Today did Terri Moulton Horman terminate her parental rights to baby K? And if she did NOT then exactly what did she do?
TIA so much to those professionals that take the time for our questions it is very much appreciated.
TH did not terminate her parental rights. She gave up custodial rights today, meaning she does not have joint or sole legal or physical custody of her child or visitation rights. She can always go back into court to change the current court orders but those orders create a status quo and set a precedent that makes a modification of the orders tricky. She would have to answer the allegations in the RO if she wanted to modify and otherwise have a good reason why the court orders are no longer in the best interest of her child.
but here's a listing of the verified professionals:
