Should baby K be allowed to see TH? ***POLL***

[wvjules]

I wanted to vote under supervision only, but I am one of those that thinks TH is guilty as sin of Kyrons disappearance and continues to keep the secret of what happened to Kyron.
Yes baby K probably misses her Mom and might even need counseling one day to deal with whatever problems might arise from her mother being removed from her life- but that happens everyday to kids whose mothers die, or go to jail....
Its someones responsibility to ensure Baby K is safe. HE77 NO she should not have alone time with the baby. Are you kidding??? Lets find Kyron and establish TH's innocence (or not) before deciding to roll the dice ok baby K's safety.If TH is guilty, is it really healthy to let baby K have a continued relationship with her mother?
I had to vote No. In the interest of baby K's well being, and thoughtfully considered.
I don't trust TH.

JMO

abbie

I thougth it was guilt that had to be proven, not innocence?

 

[Donjeta]

I thougth it was guilt that had to be proven, not innocence?

I hope it's not when it comes to children's safety. Of course little ones are not to be taken away from their parents because of mere rumors but I think there is sometimes serious reason to try to protect the children even though nobody's guilt has been proven yet. It may be too late for the child by the time the parents have been convicted for abuse.

I see lot of complaining about the child protection services (Why didn't they do anything, why did they ignore the complaints and let these children stay with their abusive caretakers and get seriously hurt, traumatized or killed, etc.) and it's bad now but it would be worse if they could only protect the children of those who have already been convicted of hurting their children.

 

[BeanE]

I hope it's not when it comes to children's safety.

BBM. I just awoke from a nap. Did the justice system in the U.S. change while I was sleeping?

 

[SmoothOperator]

I think its quite obvious that Donjeta is not saying anything about our courts burden having changed.. Nothing of the sort..

Thank God that the same rules do not apply for taking a child out of an abusive home that apply to convict someone in a court of law..
If that were the case then the already much too large a number of children that are presently in abusive homes would be a 100 times MORE of precious, defenseless, and helpless children left with sick and abusive parents waiting for the courts to convict the parent before they can be rescued..And no doubt there would be many many more dead while waiting for those courts to convict the abusive parent!!

Again Thank God the rules are not the same, no where near the same..

 

[Donjeta]

BBM. I just awoke from a nap. Did the justice system in the U.S. change while I was sleeping?

Just saying that if the child protection services were always forced to wait until the parents have been through the court and proven guilty of hurting their children according to all the standards of the justice system before they could take safety measures to protect these children from further hurt there would be more children dead and permanently damaged before anything could be done. IMO there are already too many.

 

[BeanE]

I thougth it was guilt that had to be proven, not innocence?

I hope it's not when it comes to children's safety.

Just saying that if the child protection services were always forced to wait until the parents have been through the court and proven guilty of hurting their children according to all the standards of the justice system before they could take safety measures to protect these children from further hurt there would be more children dead and permanently damaged before anything could be done. IMO there are already too many.

Thanks, Donjeta. I was addressing only the concept of proving someone innocent, in an attempt to point out ONLY and simply that that's not how our justice system works.

I agree with your sentiment. I say it over and over and over - there are too many murdered and abused children; we need to value our children more, and show that we value them, by working to change the laws, processes, and procedures that keep producing more victims.

I am a strong advocate for victims of domestic violence and abuse, and spent many years, prior to becoming disabled, working on a volunteer basis at the city, county, and state levels to do so, in addition to hands-on volunteer work to help abuse victims.

One thing I learned in that political arena, is that in order to help the victims, and make the changes necessary to support and protect them, one must know how our system works in regards to them. One of those concepts we need to keep in mind is that our justice system works on the premise of proviing guilt, not innocence.

 

[BeanE]

I think its quite obvious that Donjeta is not saying anything about our courts burden having changed.. Nothing of the sort..

Indeed. And it's quite obvious that neither did I.

 

[Donjeta]

Thanks, Donjeta. I was addressing only the concept of proving someone innocent, in an attempt to point out ONLY and simply that that's not how our justice system works.

I agree with your sentiment. I say it over and over and over - there are too many murdered and abused children; we need to value our children more, and show that we value them, by working to change the laws, processes, and procedures that keep producing more victims.

I am a strong advocate for victims of domestic violence and abuse, and spent many years, prior to becoming disabled, working on a volunteer basis at the city, county, and state levels to do so, in addition to hands-on volunteer work to help abuse victims.

One thing I learned in that political arena, is that in order to help the victims, and make the changes necessary to support and protect them, one must know how our system works in regards to them. One of those concepts we need to keep in mind is that our justice system works on the premise of proviing guilt, not innocence.

In the criminal court it does but when it comes to children's safety the issue is not always whether people are guilty or innocent but whether children receive safe parenting or are in dangerous situations. Someone can be guilty of having committed a crime in the past and yet be a functional, good enough parent in the future, and someone else may have a clean record, never been convicted of anything but yet be potential danger to his/her children. Of course there needs to be some evidence that the parent is a potential danger but they do not have to be proven guilty of having already done some heinous thing in order for the court to order supervised visitation if there is serious fear that they might do something heinous.

 

[BeanE]

In the criminal court it does but when it comes to children's safety the issue is not always whether people are guilty or innocent but whether children receive safe parenting or are in dangerous situations. Someone can be guilty of having committed a crime in the past and yet be a functional, good enough parent in the future, and someone else may have a clean record, never been convicted of anything but yet be potential danger to his/her children. Of course there needs to be some evidence that the parent is a potential danger but they do not have to be proven guilty of having already done some heinous thing in order for the court to order supervised visitation if there is serious fear that they might do something heinous.

I see what you mean. Yes, I agree. Or, thinking of Venus Stewart's case, where her little girl made claims that her father (Venus husband) had sexually abused her, but there was apparently no evidence, and of course no witnesses, and the little girl was only 5 yrs old I think, possibly younger. CPS got involved, and denied the father even phone calls with the two little girls until the investigation was done. He's up on charges for it now.

So sometimes not even supervised visitation or any contact, even when there's no physical evidence or witnesses, while CPS figures out what happened.

 

[Bluestars]

I think that if there is any chance that a parent is involved in criminal activity, the people involved in making a decision about visitation should be extremely careful. The last thing that needs to happen is for a child to be harmed because of the actions of a parent who is breaking the law. If the parent is unable to answer questions about possible criminal activity, I don't think it is wise to let the parent have visitation with the child until it is resolved.

Right now I believe the baby is safe. I hope she is kept safe until the possible criminal activity of her mother is resolved. She has a history of being neglegent with her other child, so I think it's important to find out all of the facts before exposing the baby to a parent who might be harmful physically or emotionally to her.

Terri might not be guilty of Kyron's abduction, but if she is involved with drugs or any other illegal activity, then the courts need to know that in order to make an informed deicision on what is best for the baby.

IMO

 

[GrainneDhu]

Tony, Desiree, and Kaine allowed Terri to remain Kyron's primary caregiver, which included driving him around, after she received a DUI -- does that make them bad parents? I don't think it makes them bad parents -- they realized Terri made a mistake, forgave her, and moved on.

If J's father was an unfit parent at the time of the filing, and he changed, should Terri continue to hold past actions against him? If he's made different and better choices and is a better person now than he was then, shouldn't he be given a chance to be a father to his son? Good relationships can emerge from situations that were at one point less than ideal. We have to allow for people to realize their mistakes, change, and make better choices in the future.

Back on track, yes, Terri should be allowed to see her daughter. By all accounts the only past action attributable to her wherein she endangered a child was an isolated incident. If and/or when the DA brings a case against her, then other evidence may come into play, but IMHO, a child/parent relationship shouldn't be severed because someone has a hunch or thinks something maybe, might be true. There needs to be some evidence to back up that hunch or belief, otherwise child/parent relationships and rights are at the whim of anyone with a grudge or who misunderstands a situation.

Well said! And I agree.

People can and do change. Substance abusers clean up their lives. Over the years, as treatment has improved, AIDS has moved from a terminal diagnosis to one of a chronic condition (more like hypothyroidism or diabetes).

Punishing a person forever for mistakes in the past. when that person has done what they can to change, is just vindictive and serves no real purpose. It's not justice, it's not fair, it's just a way of emotionally beating someone up for something they can no longer control (their past). No matter what that person does, they cannot change the past.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Indeed. And it's quite obvious that neither did I.

I do respectfully disagree that it was quite obvious what your post was referring to and/or referencing..

It was not clear what was being questioned...

Originally Posted by BeanE
I just awoke from a nap. Did the justice system in the U.S. change while I was sleeping?

Given the discussion that the post was referring to was about..

I thougth it was guilt that had to be proven, not innocence?

With responses to that post that thankfully the same rules did not apply for conviction vs. protecting children from abusive parents/guardians...

So, am simply explaining why the conclusion was drawn and replied to with my post, along with other posts[as there were other posts where the same conclusion was drawn with replies as well..but they disappeared and/or deleted]...

Thanks for posting to clarify its meaning.. I do appreciate it..

 

[loves2bmom]

Terri Moulton Horman seeks regular visits with her daughter


Terri Moulton Horman is seeking regular and frequent contact with her 22-month-old daughter K, who she hasn't seen since her husband left the home with the girl on June 26 and two days later filed for a restraining order and divorce.

In a motion filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court this week, Terri Horman's attorney Peter Bunch argues that his client is the primary caregiver for K. He says he'll offer expert testimony about the importance of K's well being of maintaining a relationship with his mother.

Terri Horman "is not in a position at this time to testify on her own behalf in support of an award of custody and parenting time," her lawyer said, because of the ongoing criminal investigation into 7-year-old Kyron Horman's disappearance.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/10/terri_moulton_horman_seeks_reg_1.html

Ooops, didn't see your post but just started another thread....

 

[mmmagique]

Well said! And I agree.

People can and do change. Substance abusers clean up their lives. Over the years, as treatment has improved, AIDS has moved from a terminal diagnosis to one of a chronic condition (more like hypothyroidism or diabetes).

Punishing a person forever for mistakes in the past. when that person has done what they can to change, is just vindictive and serves no real purpose. It's not justice, it's not fair, it's just a way of emotionally beating someone up for something they can no longer control (their past). No matter what that person does, they cannot change the past.

FR: but are you sure that Desiree and Tony even knew about the dui? If I were Kaine, I'd probably try to keep that on the dl.

ETA: Ooops! I think I meant to reply to the person you were replying to. The person who said Desiree, Tony and Kaine decided to give Terri another chance.