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

[cypress]

It's scary to me that in this country a child can be taken away from her mother without proof of abuse or any other crime. A sketchy (why does he have an alias?) landscaper's word for it doesn't constitute proof, IMHO. This sets a precedent for a child to be taken away from its parents on the basis of rumor alone.

 

[liz b.]

I saw that the majority of those polled do seem to think that Baby K should see her mother, albeit with supervision. I am in agreement with this. I would also like Baby K to be able to see her maternal grandparents, and her brother J. IMO

The only person I do not think Baby K should be around is her uncle Kristian. MOO


All JMO

 

[AlexisFresca]

It's scary to me that in this country a child can be taken away from her mother without proof of abuse or any other crime. A sketchy (why does he have an alias?) landscaper's word for it doesn't constitute proof, IMHO. This sets a precedent for a child to be taken away from its parents on the basis of rumor alone.

We also don't know everything that LE does, either - or even Kaine and Desiree, for that matter. There is a reason for all this, we just don't know it yet. The 'alias' thing was already covered, and makes perfect sense, especially if one is in this country illegally.

 

[cypress]

We also don't know everything that LE does, either - or even Kaine and Desiree, for that matter. There is a reason for all this, we just don't know it yet. The 'alias' thing was already covered, and makes perfect sense, especially if one is in this country illegally.

You're right, we don't know what LE knows; however, many assume LE have evidence. How does anyone really know LE has evidence, though? How does anyone know the focus on Terri isn't a case of tunnel vision or a mother's best hope that her child is alive? Terri has not been arrested. Terri has not been indicted by the grand jury. Whatever LE has isn't enough to bring about an arrest or an indictment, so how much evidence is there really? Also, we don't know what the alias means, as we know virtually nothing about Rudy Sanchez including his real name.

 

[GrainneDhu]

""The issue is not going to be whether the child's mother, Terri deserves to see the child. The issue is what does the child need and how can we be sure the child's needs are being met," said family law attorney Jody Stahancyk.

Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no." <snipped>

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Terri-Horman-Seeks-Visitation--104610209-missing-kyron-portland.html

Should TH be able to see baby K? Vote and discuss!

I believe that Baby K should be allowed to see TMH with adequate supervision to minimize the risk of abduction or harm.

I've seen for myself the terrible harm that can be done when a parent just disappears out of a child's life without explanation. If at all possible, Baby K should not be exposed to that harm.

 

[gwenabob]

It's scary to me that in this country a child can be taken away from her mother without proof of abuse or any other crime. A sketchy (why does he have an alias?) landscaper's word for it doesn't constitute proof, IMHO. This sets a precedent for a child to be taken away from its parents on the basis of rumor alone.

Children's services take children away all the time without court convictions. If they feel there is good cause and good suspicion a child is in danger, they will remove a child until things can be figure out. The child's rights to a safe, secure environment trump the parent's right to control over that child until allegations are proven in court.

We don't know what LE has. It is quite possible her phone and/or computer held enough evidence that Terri was not providing a safe, secure environment for the baby.

 

[GrainneDhu]

The baby girl would probably like to see her brothers and grandparents, too. I think it needs to be determined whether or not there was any mistreatment or abuse going on in the home before anyone is allowed to see the baby. I don't understand why Kaine would have any mixed feelings about the issue if he feels that Kyron was harmed by Terri. Kids taken away by child protective services due to being harmed aren't allowed to see their parents for good reason. I'm wondering if Kaine is going to fight visitation no matter how long or what it takes after making that statement. Of course the baby misses her mom, but things didn't turn out too well for Kyron, and visits right now would only upset the baby more IMO.

BBM

The statement I bolded is not factually true. Children removed by DHS in my state (the agency responsible for child protection issues) are actually often granted visitation of various sorts with their parents.

It is even possible for parents to earn back custody of children removed for abuse, in this state. It isn't easy but it can and has been done.

 

[cypress]

Children's services take children away all the time without court convictions. If they feel there is good cause and good suspicion a child is in danger, they will remove a child until things can be figure out. The child's rights to a safe, secure environment trump the parent's right to control over that child until allegations are proven in court.

We don't know what LE has. It is quite possible her phone and/or computer held enough evidence that Terri was not providing a safe, secure environment for the baby.

There's been no allegation against Terri where K is concerned.

 

[debs]

My god, yes.

 

[germaine]

It's scary to me that in this country a child can be taken away from her mother without proof of abuse or any other crime. A sketchy (why does he have an alias?) landscaper's word for it doesn't constitute proof, IMHO. This sets a precedent for a child to be taken away from its parents on the basis of rumor alone.

bbm

they can't and then some. Horribly abused children in this country are routinely left with their parents. In th's case, she was accused and had the opportunity to challenge the accusations. She declined. And continues to decline. Her lawyer says she's going to seek a modication of the RO to see the baby. Don't hold your breath for that. jmoo

 

[gwenabob]

There's been no allegation against Terri where K is concerned.

There is the MFH allegation. That is not a safe and secure environment for a toddler.

As I said, we don't know what LE has. It could be they have tons of evidence that alone, without any MFH allegation, would be enough for Children's Services to take the baby.

The judge granted the RO for both Kaine and the baby. If there was no danger to the baby, the judge would have granted the RO as to Kaine only. I am going to trust the judge in this.

 

[2goldfish]

baby K needs her mom & I have felt so horrible for her all this time. she's only little and she was taken from her mother, it had to have been horrible for her! I am sure she is adjusting now because kids are adaptable but TH carried her for 9 months and the sound of her heartbeat is a part of baby k...she is only a toddler and she needs her mommy.

TH has NOT been charged and for all we truly *know* TH has the worst luck on the face of the planet and never did a thing wrong. now I am not saying that's true, I dont know what IS. there is no reason whatsoever to not allow well supervised visits between TH and baby K if there is any reason to believe baby K is not safe.


regardless of whether TH is unlucky or guilty as sin of terrible crimes, her DAUGHTER is totally innocent of anything and should NOT be punished.

 

[Elphaba]

I had just finished watching a documentary called "Dear Zachary" when I found out that TH was seeking visitation with K. My first instinct after watching the movie was: oh hell naw... do not let her get near that child and do what the mother did to her child in Dear Zachary. (DZ docu is a different kind of case, but still one of a dangerous mother) But after much thought and drying of my tears from seeing the movie, I re-assessed things and I'm okay with TH seeing K, but only under strict supervision. Very strict supervision...

 

[Trt]

baby K needs her mom & I have felt so horrible for her all this time. she's only little and she was taken from her mother, it had to have been horrible for her! I am sure she is adjusting now because kids are adaptable but TH carried her for 9 months and the sound of her heartbeat is a part of baby k...she is only a toddler and she needs her mommy.

TH has NOT been charged and for all we truly *know* TH has the worst luck on the face of the planet and never did a thing wrong. now I am not saying that's true, I dont know what IS. there is no reason whatsoever to not allow well supervised visits between TH and baby K if there is any reason to believe baby K is not safe.


regardless of whether TH is unlucky or guilty as sin of terrible crimes, her DAUGHTER is totally innocent of anything and should NOT be punished.

Terri Horman is the one who has continued to punish her daughter in order to protect Terri Horman's rights and best interests.

I don't know whether she should see her or not, but the fact that it's been four months and Terri Horman has refused to fight for her to date says a lot About
Terri Horman's priorities, IMO.

I do think that a judge would grant some sort of supervised visitation to Terri which is why I have such a problem with her refusal to fight.

Jmo

 

[BeanE]

- The stepmother of Kyron Horman wants supervised visitation of her 22-month old daughter, as she battles her estranged husband in a divorce case.

- "The issue is not going to be whether the child's mother, Terri deserves to see the child. The issue is what does the child need and how can we be sure the child's needs are being met," said family law attorney Jody Stahancyk.

- Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no."

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Terri-Horman-Seeks-Visitation--104610209-missing-kyron-portland.html

 

[Kat010]

There is much research and evidence that contradicts that, actually. The memory may be somewhat vague, but it is absolutely embedded. In fact, 50 years from now, under hypnosis, she would be able to recall great detail about her experiences so far with her mother. Trust me please; I am also a certified hypnotherapist and have experience with this.

First, I voted yes, with supervision, and I'd like to add: that supervison not to include Kaine in the room.

Kids do remember, and I can testify personally to that. Once my family and I were talking about early memories, and I contributed a memory. If you'd asked me, I would have said, oh, maybe I was 4 or so.

When I told the story, well, I'll never forget my father's expression. He said "You remember THAT?? You were only about 18 months old." And the incident was *not* a major one that people talked about. It was just a memory that apparently had significance to me. And to this day, decades later, I still have that memory--all of which my father verified as true, right down to the screen door on the house.

I don't see babies as blobs who don't understand, react and remember. And toddlers--they understand and remember a lot more than what people think, but that's JMO.

 

[stmarysmead]

I vote no.

Right now, the public knows very little beyond the fact that LE thinks Terri tried to hire a killer and probably is behind her stepson's disappearance. But that is huge. This is not a case of shoplifting. This is a woman suspected of the most odious kinds of crimes.

That means LE believes... from their investigation... that Terri is capable of living deviously...spending days that appear normal with her husband while she is arranging his death. Working on science projects with little Kyron...while Terri's "project" is to see that a 7yr. old who loves her.... never comes home.

That means LE believes.... from their investigation.... that Terri is capable of projecting a false positive image even to those closest to her and yet harboring the capability for the most cold-hearted violence. She's another version of Drew Peterson. Life means nothing to Terri when she is "done" with a person....but she has the capability to "act" normal...even act lovingly... while she is plotting and planning.

IMO that makes Terri extremely dangerous.

What if Baby K does not react to her as she expects? What if Baby K cries for her Daddy? What might Terri do in an instant? Or what might she plan... as she plays her "role" and waits for the State to give her opportunity to have Baby K alone? IMO if she could hurt a child that came into her life as an infant...if she can plan a murder against a man to whom she writes "Okay I love you."...then she can play-act and fool anyone to punish those whom she finds expendable.

And what is the value to Baby K to be around Terri?

She is with her wonderful loving Dad. Maybe one day there will be a new loving Step- Mom. IMO she does not need to be disrupted from her current stable and secure home by exposing her to a "Mother" that comes and goes...and may well be going to prison for a long time. Why should Baby K be put through all this back and forth?

Is it in the best interest of an infant to expose her to someone who might teach her these personal skewed values of pretending love and plotting violence ? Just because they share DNA?

Is it in the best interest of an infant to foster a relationship between her and someone who tried to have her Father killed and probably killed her brother? Just because she's her bio-Mom?

Is it in the best interest of Baby K to expose her to the morality of a married woman who (like another accused murderer Chris Coleman who got rid of inconvenient people) ..likes to send pictures of her "body parts" on any given day to strange men? What ELSE might she walk in on or learn to emulate?

Such a relationship only rewards and soothes Terri. It is nothing but destructive to Baby K. What life skills could she possibly learn from Terri? How can Terri be a role model? What has Terri, as a Mother, to offer her but disruption, and the aura of the worst kind of disgrace.


Is it in the best interest of Baby K to let her feelings of love and admiration for such a person be nurtured by repeated exposure?

Baby K deserved a stable life, loved and guided by people whose love can be trusted. She needs to be in a home where her safety is not a role of the dice. Baby K's safety trumps any "right" of her Mother.

Until Terri is absolutely cleared of BOTH charges...so that the image she projects can be trusted, and we can be sure she is not so twisted as to spend her days plotting murders and disappearances of anyone who disappoints her...I vote NO.

But that is just my humble opinion. of course.

Until then..Terri is too devious and dangerous to take even the slightest risk with precious BabyK.

 

[yosande]

""The issue is not going to be whether the child's mother, Terri deserves to see the child. The issue is what does the child need and how can we be sure the child's needs are being met," said family law attorney Jody Stahancyk.

Kaine Horman has mixed feelings about visitation, "Depending on the circumstances, the answer could be yes or no." <snipped>

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Terri-Horman-Seeks-Visitation--104610209-missing-kyron-portland.html

Should TH be able to see baby K? Vote and discuss!

Since she hasn't been charged with any crime, including mfh, then the only thing they have is her sexting, and showing Mike where Kaine was on the restraining order. It doesn't make sense that Mike is Kaine's high school buddy, so she wasn't hiring him for a mfh.

If an accusation is going to be made by LE, there should be enough evidence to charge her.

Having said all that, what is best for the baby is probably to see her mom, albeit supervised by the State CSD or whoever does that, so she can't kidnap or harm her, and if I were Kaine, I'd have backup there to make double sure, but that's just me.

Though it is likely she harmed Kyron, she is allowed to be considered innocent until she is proven guilty in a court of law.
moo and all that.

ETA; If I were the judge, I would make it a see you all back here in three months, and I want a detailed report of the baby's behavior before during and after each visit, then I'll decide if the visits can continue or not. If the baby starts to act out, and doesn't want to see her mom, then she shouldn't have to, because we don't know what she has seen. She could have seen horrible things on June 4. and before.
She might be afraid of her mom, and her mom might want to know if she does know anything. So, cautiously move forward.

Supervised visitation when the parent is high risk to kidnap is usually done in a State building with a two way mirror, or a State worker in the room with the parent and child. The visits will might be video recorded because of the situation. The other parent isn't there. They bring them in before the other parent arrives, and leaves, then picks them up after the other parent leaves, so the parents don't see each other, afaik.

 

[stmarysmead]

First, I voted yes, with supervision, and I'd like to add: that supervison not to include Kaine in the room.

Kids do remember, and I can testify personally to that. Once my family and I were talking about early memories, and I contributed a memory. If you'd asked me, I would have said, oh, maybe I was 4 or so.

When I told the story, well, I'll never forget my father's expression. He said "You remember THAT?? You were only about 18 months old." And the incident was *not* a major one that people talked about. It was just a memory that apparently had significance to me. And to this day, decades later, I still have that memory--all of which my father verified as true, right down to the screen door on the house.

I don't see babies as blobs who don't understand, react and remember. And toddlers--they understand and remember a lot more than what people think, but that's JMO.

I agree Kat. And that is what I fear even now. What has Baby K been exposed to around Terri already? What was happening in that house after Kaine left for work? Sexting, Murder for Hire, relationships with Landscapers, a brother who disappears?

Maybe much more.

It's chilling.

 

[yosande]

I vote no.

Right now, the public knows very little beyond the fact that LE thinks Terri tried to hire a killer and probably is behind her stepson's disappearance. But that is huge. This is not a case of shoplifting. This is a woman suspected of the most odious kinds of crimes.

That means LE believes... from their investigation... that Terri is capable of living deviously...spending days that appear normal with her husband while she is arranging his death. Working on science projects with little Kyron...while Terri's "project" is to see that a 7yr. old who loves her.... never comes home.

That means LE believes.... from their investigation.... that Terri is capable of projecting a false positive image even to those closest to her and yet harboring the capability for the most cold-hearted violence. She's another version of Drew Peterson. Life means nothing to Terri when she is "done" with a person....but she has the capability to "act" normal...even act lovingly... while she is plotting and planning.

IMO that makes Terri extremely dangerous.

What if Baby K does not react to her as she expects? What if Baby K cries for her Daddy? What might Terri do in an instant? Or what might she plan... as she plays her "role" and waits for the State to give her opportunity to have Baby K alone? IMO if she could hurt a child that came into her life as an infant...if she can plan a murder against a man to whom she writes "Okay I love you."...then she can play-act and fool anyone to punish those whom she finds expendable.

And what is the value to Baby K to be around Terri?

She is with her wonderful loving Dad. Maybe one day there will be a new loving Step- Mom. IMO she does not need to be disrupted from her current stable and secure home by exposing her to a "Mother" that comes and goes...and may well be going to prison for a long time. Why should Baby K be put through all this back and forth?

Is it in the best interest of an infant to expose her to someone who might teach her these personal skewed values of pretending love and plotting violence ? Just because they share DNA?

Is it in the best interest of an infant to foster a relationship between her and someone who tried to have her Father killed and probably killed her brother? Just because she's her bio-Mom?

Is it in the best interest of Baby K to expose her to the morality of a married woman who (like another accused murderer Chris Coleman who got rid of inconvenient people) ..likes to send pictures of her "body parts" on any given day to strange men? What ELSE might she walk in on or learn to emulate?

Such a relationship only rewards and soothes Terri. It is nothing but destructive to Baby K. What life skills could she possibly learn from Terri? How can Terri be a role model? What has Terri, as a Mother, to offer her but disruption, and the aura of the worst kind of disgrace.


Is it in the best interest of Baby K to let her feelings of love and admiration for such a person be nurtured by repeated exposure?

Baby K deserved a stable life, loved and guided by people whose love can be trusted. She needs to be in a home where her safety is not a role of the dice. Baby K's safety trumps any "right" of her Mother.

Until Terri is absolutely cleared of BOTH charges...so that the image she projects can be trusted, and we can be sure she is not so twisted as to spend her days plotting murders and disappearances of anyone who disappoints her...I vote NO.

But that is just my humble opinion. of course.

Until then..Terri is too devious and dangerous to take even the slightest risk with precious BabyK.

Imo I think the problem is she hasn't been charged with anything,,,yet.