TH's Reaction To Losing Daughter

[mchris1024]

If she really tried to hire a hit man to kill her husband, her daughter's father.

If she really lied to investigators about the day her stepson went missing.

If she really is the one they are looking at in her stepson's disappearance.

If they suspect her of harming her stepson, not just kidnapping but a possible homicide.

There is absolutely no way that a judge would give her supervised visits. He would give LE a few weeks which I am sure they would ask for at that point if they haven't already. If they hadn't made an arrest by then or produced hard evidence to the judge, then he would consider supervised visits.

They are not going to let her see her baby if they really believe that she tried to kill her husband and may have killed her stepson and believe they have proof of it. It just isn't going to happen, especially with the whole country watching. It would be playing roulette with a child's life, taking the chance that she could decide to avoid it all with a murder suicide.

Her attorney is big on public image, if he thought she could get her baby back he would have her trying to.

Terri knows what the judge knows, what is in the restraining order and Terri obviously knows that it's not worth fighting.

JMO

discussed the case at a party yesterday with a Family Law Attorney who says she WOULD get supervised visits because in this country she is pressumed innocent until proven guilty, she says the case is perplexing but she would get supervised visits and could request an emergency hearing to get them IF she wanted them......

 

[Aedrys]

If she really tried to hire a hit man to kill her husband, her daughter's father.

If she really lied to investigators about the day her stepson went missing.

If she really is the one they are looking at in her stepson's disappearance.

If they suspect her of harming her stepson, not just kidnapping but a possible homicide.

There is absolutely no way that a judge would give her supervised visits. He would give LE a few weeks which I am sure they would ask for at that point if they haven't already. If they hadn't made an arrest by then or produced hard evidence to the judge, then he would consider supervised visits.

They are not going to let her see her baby if they really believe that she tried to kill her husband and may have killed her stepson and believe they have proof of it. It just isn't going to happen, especially with the whole country watching. It would be playing roulette with a child's life, taking the chance that she could decide to avoid it all with a murder suicide.

Her attorney is big on public image, if he thought she could get her baby back he would have her trying to.

Terri knows what the judge knows, what is in the restraining order and Terri obviously knows that it's not worth fighting.

JMO

I kind of agree with you here. If she's seeing the odds stacked against her, she might feel that staying home and shutting up is the best thing to do even if it means not seeing her daughter.

But then I think, if you really love your child, wouldn't you go against logic and practicality and do anything to get your child back anyway? I would be crazy with grief, not caring what it made me look like, and do my damndest to get my child back (and I don't even have biological children and I feel this way).

She seems to be acting way too much like a emotionless, logical and practical man in this case, and not enough like a emotional, distraught, logic be damned mother who can't stand be to away from her child. It just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[gitana1]

Ok, this has been on my mind and then after talking about it yesterday with a group of women I thought I would throw it out for y'all. I don't understand why TH is just "accepting" losing her daughter. Why aren't we seeing papers filed to get visits etc.? During our divorce my ex pulled a fast one with a judge on a Friday afternoon and was awarded temporary custody my Monday I had that decision reversed and was picking my daughter up with the sheriff. A mother isn't going to just sit back and let someone "take" their child. So my guess is she either knows she's had or it's part of a plan and I'm leaning towards part of a plan. I think even if I knew I was going to jail I would want whatever time I could get with that baby even if it was supervised visits for an hour once a week....I would be fighting unless I knew it wasn't for real.....thoughts??

Here's the thing. The DV case is a civil one. But, anything you say in that case can be used against you in a criminal DV case, or towards criminal charges related to whatever caused the person to seek an RO. Therefore, caution needs to be used in replying to the DV motion and many people do not respond by filing responsive paperwork, they just appear and try the case, or ask for a continuance if any related criminal proceedings are pending, until after the crim case is over.
In TH's case, anything she says may be related not only to a DV accusation in both a civil and criminal court context, but also to the disappearance of Kyron. Any attorney worth his or her salt would tell her not to respond in writing.
Further, your case was probably not connected to a DV action. It was probably a garden variety ex parte motion in family law court which allowed your ex to get temporary custody. That kind of case differs in that usually, the hearing after the temporary hearing can be only a couple days later, espcially when a child has been taken from its parent. (DV hearings usually are set farther out). Also, in the regular family law setting, you can respond to orders made on an ex parte basis by filing your own ex parte application, using that method to get a quicker hearing and reverse temporary orders. That is much harder to do in a DV setting which carries all sorts of public policy considerations that make quick reversals difficult.

 

[gitana1]

Yes, in Ohio when you file for divorce they are standard.

There is confusion about this.. In pretty much every state, there are standard ROs that come into play the moment someone is served with disso papers. Those orders cover the conduct of both parties and have to do with property protection and not taking kids out of state. They are not "restraining orders" in the typical sense of the word. They are not related to domestic violence and do not prohibit contact or physically protect a party from another party. Your answer should probably be "No."
I think the question is a good one because how one may respond to a DV order which protects a party and keeps a kid away from its parent is much different from how one may respond to temporary orders in a regular family law setting. You can't just run into court and reverse the orders that bar custody in a DV case the way you can in a regular family law case. It's just different.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

I have spent 11 years fighting for this and that with my ex and no attorney ever told me to "wait" for anything we filed papers immediately and fought for my daughter......

But I'm guessing that in your case, fighting for your daughter didn't involve providing the court with evidence to refute allegations from your ex which are backed up by law enforcement, that you'd tried to hire someone to kill your ex, nor were you the last person to see your missing-for-a-month stepchild alive, nor had you flunked a couple of lie detector tests about the aforementioned events. Absolutely anything she tells a court in an attempt to get her daughter back is going to be usable in the criminal cases against her re trying to have her husband killed, and most likely also re "disappearing" her stepson.

Her lawyer has to be helping her craft a very, very careful defense, and to understand that she needs to make decisions now as to what she's going to claim in her criminal defense -- temporary insanity re the hit man thing? has no clue what happened to Kyron? killed Kyron by accident and got scared and tried to cover it up by hiding the body? Whatever position she takes now, there's no going back, because if she says one thing to the court in trying to get access to her daughter, and contradicts it in her criminal case, the contradictions in her sworn testimony will be put on display for the jury.

When you have nothing to hide, you can afford to fight like h*!! to get your child back. But when you're Terri . . .

 

[nanny2five]

By the way, I don't think it looks good that we haven't heard from her or her lawyer about her child being taken from her. My response would have been along the lines of, "There has been a horrible mistake or misunderstanding! I would never hurt any child, and I need to see my daughter now!" I would be on TV or writing letters, or talking to everybody, and have my lawyer release a statement. If I wasn't guilty of anything, why would my lawyer advise me against that?

this is where i am too, sofia. i don't know if any of the things we have heard about her are true and i hope that at least some of it is not true. but if any of it is untrue, her attorney should have been speaking out about it. TH needs to stay in and not say a word whether she is guilty or innocent. her attorney needs to say something on her behalf, imo. and if she is innocent, she needs to file a response to the RO and divorce action. it will take a lot more than i have seen to convince me that she is responsible for what happened to Kyron, but i have to say, the fence is getting wobbly.

 

[fran]

Well, we do know that there were two 911 calls made the evening after KH had left with the toddler. The first was to do with 'threats,' we do not know what that could pertain to. Was there a threat from an outside source? or was it KH talking to TH? or was it someone else talking to TH?

The second call made after 11: p.m. was about child custody of some sort. It was settled over the phone. She may have made some type of initial attempt to have the baby returned and was advised she'd have to wait until Monday, and we know how that went from there. After she thought about it, she may have realized, the custody issue was the least of her worries.

Just something to think about,
fran

 

[MsFacetious]

discussed the case at a party yesterday with a Family Law Attorney who says she WOULD get supervised visits because in this country she is pressumed innocent until proven guilty, she says the case is perplexing but she would get supervised visits and could request an emergency hearing to get them IF she wanted them......

Recent example, in this country: Doug Stewart was presumed innocent, accused of abusing his child, his wife was missing. Not charged, not convicted. He was allowed NO CONTACT with his children for their safety due to the abuse allegations and his missing wife. Now, he has been charged with his missing wife's murder.

The person you talked to, is incorrect. If that were true then no child would be removed from an abusive home until the parent was convicted. When it comes to the safety of a child there is little presumption of innocence, they err on the side of protecting the child.


The judge will do what is safest for the child within the law. IF the judge feels that Terri may be a real danger to the child and the judge has some sort of proof to back that up, along with LE supporting keeping the child away from Terri, then the judge is not going to give Terri access to the child.

It's that simple and Terri knows it.

 

[Em18966]

For all we know, she is going nuts without her child - but she isn't in front of the cameras, so how would we know?

Interestingly, she doesn't have a divorce lawyer - only a criminal lawyer. Can/would Houze file any papers regarding the divorce and RO? I was VERY much expecting to hear from Houze by now - from reading about him, he is big on Public Relations for his clients. I thought he would have released some kind of statement by now at least asserting that his client is a loving mother, grieving, wants to see her child again, etc. Something pretty harmless and basic.

It is really weird to me that there's been nothing from Terri and Houze at all.

I thought it was pretty strange that, in the midst of the divorce filing and her daughter being removed from her custody to the point that she doesn't even get SUPERVISED visitation, TH hired a criminal defense attorney rather than a family law attorney.

Of course, with the leaking of the information re: the alleged murder for hire plot, her actions make more sense.

All of that being said, if I were innocent of any wrong-doing and my soon-to-be ex husband had removed my daughter from my custody, I would be doing everything in my power to get her back. I realize that people react to these kinds of things differently, but it is still mind-boggling to me that her daughter has been out of her custody for a week now and she has yet to take any (known) steps to to get her back.

 

[jessigirl]

I understand the procedure, I don't understand TH just sitting back and accepting it. No mother I know would just say, "You want my daughter, ok you can have her." It just doesn't make sense. She was ok enough to go to the gym and post on FB, but not ok enough to fight for her daughter......I'm not believing it.

I haven't had a chance to read thru everything(I'm playing catch up too from holiday weekend)
But has anyone mentioned that with her other bio-child she had sent to live elsewhere(w/her parents) and now he lives w/a man that adopted him(her 2nd husband)that did not have contact with him for several years... I don't think Terri has acted or reacted like any of us would thru out this entire time, but IMO I don't think Terri is worried about getting her daughter back(atleast not at this time) I agree with those that think her atty probly explained to her that just isn't going to happen right now(in light of the new murder for hire story)... To my knowledge she doesn't even have a family atty retained and If I'm not mistaken Houze would not be able to handle that portion of the case(child custody)...
Lastly, I wanted to inquire about mchris1024's posts about her not fighting for her daughter because this was planned? and that she knew she would have her daughter back in the end that this was all part of the plan?.. I'm interested to know what your opinion is of this possibly being all part of a plan and who is involved with the plan... TIA

ETA: I hope everyone(all you from west coast all the way to the east coast and to any others abroad[I know we have a few from "over the pond"[my hometown London, England]) had a great 4th of July whether with fam and friends or just some time off relaxing... Hope everyone enjoyed their 4th(even those that don't celebrate the 4th I hope your weekend was great)!!!
~Jess

 

[wondering1]

I thought it was pretty strange that, in the midst of the divorce filing and her daughter being removed from her custody to the point that she doesn't even get SUPERVISED visitation, TH hired a criminal defense attorney rather than a family law attorney.

Of course, with the leaking of the information re: the alleged murder for hire plot, her actions make more sense.

All of that being said, if I were innocent of any wrong-doing and my soon-to-be ex husband had removed my daughter from my custody, I would be doing everything in my power to get her back. I realize that people react to these kinds of things differently, but it is still mind-boggling to me that her daughter has been out of her custody for a week now and she has yet to take any (known) steps to to get her back.

Not defending TH, but there is only ONE thing she can do wrt to the RO. She can request a hearing and wait for one to be set. Once she asks, a hearing must be set w/i a very short period of time. I haven't seen anything to indicate she's done that yet, but as mentioned above, there are things her attorney has to consider because anything she might say in connection with the RO can and will be used against her. Plus, if the RO is upheld, the court will have to have made legal findings against her that will also then be part of the official record. Right now, it's just an ex parte RO and KH's allegations could be true or false. If she gets a hearing, the Judge will have to make actual findings about whether they are true or false.

As also mentioned above, this is not the same as a custody order issued in the dissolution proceedings. She can't just go to family court and demand custody or visitation of any kind. Whether or not she can see baby girl is strictly in the hands of the Judge that entered the RO and will not be changed by the family court unless and until the RO is dissolved.

imo, any failure by TH to act wrt baby girl is based on the advise of her attorney. And it makes perfect sense to me that HE and not a family law attorney would be handling the RO issues since they have significant implications wrt to the criminal investigation by almost all accounts. I doubt it means anything in terms of her feelings about it, whatever they might be.

jmo

 

[RandomThoughts]

IMO, the news of trying to hire a hit on Kaine is the very tip of a huge iceberg. It might also be that the hit is the least jaw dropping part of it. I'm not even going to let my mind go to what else there might be. :sick:

 

[revampz]

well we know that the day he moved out with the girl was the day he was told about the "hit" plot.......

surely a fight ensued.......I am wondering if in the heat of the fight she made a threat "to take them all out"........meaning herself, him and the little girl........if she has said this then she is stuffed and knows it......

I think of some of the ugly things that have been said in my fights with hubby....and I grew up in a very volatile yelling fighting family, so know how things are said on the spur of the moment...

imagine the added stress of being a suspect in a child murder/disappearance, the world watching in and scrutinizing you, your husband had an affair, the others have turned against you and then the police tell your husband about a hit you tried to organize on his life, AND the police try to catch you out with a convo with the landscaper.....

whew what a stressful, pressure cooker situation.......... I really can imagine something like "taking us all out" being said.....