OH Pike County: 8 in Rhoden Family Murdered Over Custody Issue 4 Members Wagner Family Arrested#47

[Satchie]

Throwing this out here because it "sticks in my craw" and any of y'all who understand Ohio custody law, let us know. Could it be possible that the whole custody situation depended solely on Hanna marrying Jake? Remember in Fred's recent video she said she considered them married. In Ohio a single mother has ALL legal rights, not the father.

What I mean is Jake wanted ( legal) parental rights to Sophia---that's even how a relative worded it--- because according to Ohio law, as a single mom, only Hanna had the legal rights to make the decisions.

But how could Jake and Hanna petition the court together for Jake to have equal legal rights when he had sex with Hanna when she was under age? Could it be this whole thing is wrapped up in not just Jake getting full custody, but that he was denied any legal decision making and going to court could get him arrested? Angela said a lawyer was consulted but no lawyer has ever come forward or been found to confirm this. (And Jake and Angie lied a lot to LE)

In other words, were there only 4 options?

#1.) Petition the court for 50% of full legal rights to make decisions for Sophia and take the chance he would be indicted for having sex with an under aged minor?

#2.) Marry Hanna and all of the problems go away involving full legal rights to his daughter? And no chance of being charged with sex with a minor?

#3and op.) Have Hanna sign away full custody over to jake?

#4.) Get rid of Hanna and gain full legal custody because by law he is the father and has been supporting his daughter and seeing her 50% of the time and courts favor biological parents over grandparents and aunts and uncles?

As controversial as this may sound, could it be that this was more than just a custody dispute? Jake already had her 50% of the time since birth. Could it be about Jake wanting legal decision making status but needed Hanna to marry him for him to get it and not be prosecuted?

And when option #1 wouldn't work, then option #2 wouldn't work, then option #3 wouldn't work, they resorted to number 4?

Maybe Chris Sr. threatened Jake with rape charges because Jake and his family were too pushy. That would account for the extreme hate/rage and Chris being the first kilked, and the killers making sure Chris knew what he was being killed. Chris was not killed instantly but all the others were.

HR wasn't going to marry him, she'd left him. Besides, you can't retroactively marry someone, back to the date when the child was born.

I personally doubt that possible legal repurcussions about age of consent was really an issue for the W's or the R's. I would guess most teens in their world are violating that law, and no one bats an eye or even remembers that it's technically illegal.

It's been used in the indictment as part of the process of throwing the book at JW, but I seriously doubt a) police would have found out or been interested in it if it was revealed in court documents in a civil lawsuit over custody or b) the public prosecutor would agree to charge JW with it on behalf of one side in a child custody dispute. No one wants to jeopardize the future good relationships and happiness of a small child, for the sake of fulfilling the letter of the law, several years after the fact.

I think the W's problem was that HR had full custody, the best they could do was go to court to try to get 50% custody through a court order. Perhaps there was some reason they thought they might lose even the shared arrangement they currently had. Perhaps they didn't want HR to sue for child support. But, IMO, they were damned if they were going to go before a judge to ask, pretty please, for only 50% of the 100% they wanted.

 

[Kyshoegal]

........My 2 Cents Only...........

First off, I believe that any trusts that may or may not have been set up when Bob was alive are now under the complete control of Fred. Fred inherited everything is my opinon. I think Fred and Bob owned everything together and now Fred owns it all.

Jake MAY have been getting Social Security benefits for S, but not enough to commit murder for. I do not believe any of what happened on April 22nd 2016 had anything to do with getting S's money and inheritance.

A family member stated that the family did not even know (I would have to find the link but I did read this) if Chris Senior's property would be forfeited as a drug forfiture, or given back to the family.

The 4 Rhoden grandchildren of Dana and Chris are their sole heirs and any and all of Dana's and Chris's real property and assets go to all 4 grandkids, and Tony Rhoden petitioned the court to be the executor. I actually read an article that quoted LM saying that "everything goes to the grandkids." (Yes, again, I can look for link if interested.)

I do NOT think that the possibility of Jake getting Social Security for S and the possibility of S inheriting land/assets from her Rhoden grandparents, had anything what-so-ever to do with the Wagner's wanting the Rhodens out of the picture.

I DO think that the Wagner's did not want Hanna and any future boyfriend/husband/children (including Kylie) she might have, to benefit from S Wagner's inheritence.

The Wagner's did not need the Rhoden estates but they did have reason to NOT want Hanna, her husband or boyfriend, or her other children, or other relatives, etc... to benefit from Fred's extensive lucrative estate. with HR refusing to marry Jake, there is no way on earth that the Wagner's would want the Rhodens to benifit----through Sophia's inheritance---from Fred's large estate.

I hope I am making sense here. It can get complicated. It is often complicated. I know a LITTLE BIT from being the executor of 3 different estates. One had a Living Will, one was with a Traditional Will involving Trusts that are currently set up, and actually right now I am sorting out another family member's estate without any Will at all.

But I am no professional and rely on my attorney!

I am giving my humble opinion only....2 Cents.....

Agree 100%. I do not think the murders had much to do with money in relation to FW or her estate. IMO it had to do with control of the child. I read somewhere that Jake's brother, GW4(?) (lord help me I can't find my cheat sheet CC) accused his ex of drugging their child and several other things to force her to turn over custody. Not certain if that is true, but I think this is primarily about not wanting anyone else to have those Wagner children, or any money associated with them. And Jake would have had to pay child support at some point, if not paying already. UNLESS he had full custody.

 

[rsd1200]

JW may have had good reason to believe the fight would be on with DR and CR if only HR died. We know that S was conceived when HR was under age and that was a crime. There may be something else they had on him that would have prevented him from being granted custody.

JMO

I don't think the underage thing would have stopped him, b/c he filed the papers, w/ the courts, and their info was on it, right after her death. Why didn't they charge him then, as they are charging him now? They're just throwing everything on them they think will stick, right now. Identical charges except for that one. That one charge will stick but it's the least of his worries.

It's very rare that grandparents win over a parent, in court, so it would have to be something just egregious, b/c the Rs had at least one skeleton they'd not want shaken out of their closet too. Unless they had protection.

I don't think they had dna done w/S. I think the two just put his name on the birth cert. That doesn't fly anymore if you're unmarried. He described her toe in his request for temp custody and provided baby pics of her, and himself, as proof of them being father and child. Did no one help him fill it out, or were his parents clueless too? They want that dna.

 

[Loomis124]

It was a lot to read. None of the victims, nor many of their acquaintances, had any type of privacy settings. I am constantly stunned at how many people there are, who don't have privacy settings on their SM.

IIRC, the FB posts arguing over the baby were only screenshots posted by God knows who. None of that was on any current (at the time) FB accounts. MOO

 

[Satchie]

JW may have had good reason to believe the fight would be on with DR and CR if only HR died. We know that S was conceived when HR was under age and that was a crime. There may be something else they had on him that would have prevented him from being granted custody.

JMO

I've been following a case in Florida where the mother died, and the foreign-born father, who often didn't live with them, immediately took the child overseas to his family. The mother's close relatives had no claim over the child, even to demand visitation. Although now he's in jail for her manslaughter, the courts have encouraged discussion around visitation, but only by mutual agreement.

 

[rsd1200]

Agree 100%. I do not think the murders had much to do with money in relation to FW or her estate. IMO it had to do with control of the child. I read somewhere that Jake's brother, GW4(?) (lord help me I can't find my cheat sheet CC) accused his ex of drugging their child and several other things to force her to turn over custody. Not certain if that is true, but I think this is primarily about not wanting anyone else to have those Wagner children, or any money associated with them. And Jake would have had to pay child support at some point, if not paying already. UNLESS he had full custody.

Very odd, too, about that thing that happened, with her last visit with H, before they took off to AK. I believe it was to get her distracted from them taking off to AK w/H. She'd not see it coming til they were gone.

 

[Cool Cats]

HR wasn't going to marry him, she'd left him. Besides, you can't retroactively marry someone, back to the date when the child was born.

I personally doubt that possible legal repurcussions about age of consent was really an issue for the W's or the R's. I would guess most teens in their world are violating that law, and no one bats an eye or even remembers that it's technically illegal.

It's been used in the indictment as part of the process of throwing the book at JW, but I seriously doubt a) police would have found out or been interested in it if it was revealed in court documents in a civil lawsuit over custody or b) the public prosecutor would agree to charge JW with it on behalf of one side in a child custody dispute. No one wants to jeopardize the future good relationships and happiness of a small child, for the sake of fulfilling the letter of the law, several years after the fact.

I think the W's problem was that HR had full custody, the best they could do was go to court to try to get 50% custody through a court order. Perhaps there was some reason they thought they might lose even the shared arrangement they currently had. Perhaps they didn't want HR to sue for child support. But, IMO, they were damned if they were going to go before a judge to ask, pretty please, for only 50% of the 100% they wanted.

Jake already had 50% visitation but no legal custody. HR was considered the custodial parent who could make the decisions in what she felt was in S's best interests. In fact, it was up to Hanna how often Jake could even see her. Jake didn't even get permanent custody right away. He only got temporary custody, then he got the full legal custody later.

I don't know, but it seems like it could have been risky going to court and revealing the age difference. But it becomes moot if the couple marries.
The marriage would have solved his problems. Next he chose to eliminate the mother.

 

[Loomis124]

HR wasn't going to marry him, she'd left him. Besides, you can't retroactively marry someone, back to the date when the child was born.

I personally doubt that possible legal repurcussions about age of consent was really an issue for the W's or the R's. I would guess most teens in their world are violating that law, and no one bats an eye or even remembers that it's technically illegal.

It's been used in the indictment as part of the process of throwing the book at JW, but I seriously doubt a) police would have found out or been interested in it if it was revealed in court documents in a civil lawsuit over custody or b) the public prosecutor would agree to charge JW with it on behalf of one side in a child custody dispute. No one wants to jeopardize the future good relationships and happiness of a small child, for the sake of fulfilling the letter of the law, several years after the fact.

I think the W's problem was that HR had full custody, the best they could do was go to court to try to get 50% custody through a court order. Perhaps there was some reason they thought they might lose even the shared arrangement they currently had. Perhaps they didn't want HR to sue for child support. But, IMO, they were damned if they were going to go before a judge to ask, pretty please, for only 50% of the 100% they wanted.

JW had too much baggage to go to court with HR or anyone else. JMO

 

[Kyshoegal]

Throwing this out here because it "sticks in my craw" and any of y'all who understand Ohio custody law, let us know. Could it be possible that the whole custody situation depended solely on Hanna marrying Jake? Remember in Fred's recent video she said she considered them married. In Ohio a single mother has ALL legal rights, not the father.

What I mean is Jake wanted ( legal) parental rights to Sophia---that's even how a relative worded it--- because according to Ohio law, as a single mom, only Hanna had the legal rights to make the decisions.

But how could Jake and Hanna petition the court together for Jake to have equal legal rights when he had sex with Hanna when she was under age? Could it be this whole thing is wrapped up in not just Jake wanting full custody, but that he was denied any legal decision making rights for his daughter, and going to court could get him arrested? Angela said a lawyer was consulted but no lawyer has ever come forward or been found to confirm this. (And Jake and Angie lied a lot to LE, the media, and their attorney)

In other words, were there only #4 options?

#1.) Petition the court for 50% of full legal rights to make decisions for Sophia and take the chance he would be indicted for having sex with an under aged minor?

#2.) Marry Hanna and all of the problems go away involving full legal rights to his daughter? And no chance of being charged with sex with a minor?

#3.) Have Hanna sign away full custody over to Jake?

#4.) Get rid of Hanna and gain full legal custody because by law he is the father and has been supporting his daughter and seeing her 50% of the time and courts favor biological parents over grandparents and aunts and uncles?

As controversial as this may sound, could it be that this was more than just a custody dispute? Jake already had her 50% of the time since birth. Could it be about Jake wanting legal decision making status but needed Hanna to marry him for him to get it and not be prosecuted for sex with a minor (or maybe even rape if Hanna's parent 's pushed for it)

And when option #1 wouldn't work, then option #2 wouldn't work, then option #3 wouldn't work, they resorted to option #4?

Maybe Chris Sr. threatened Jake with rape charges because Jake and his family were too pushy. That would account for the extreme hate/rage and Chris being the first kilked, and the killers making sure Chris knew what he was being killed for, and who was doing it. Chris was not killed instantly but all the others were.

DeWine said this is the most bizarre case he has ever seen in his law enforcement career, and I think it's not just as simple as Jake wanting full custody and Hanna saying no to that. There is more to it..... 2 Cents .....

** I have 3 children, all have the same father, we were never married. I am sadly, very well versed in custody. There are different types of child custody, including physical custody and legal custody. Most states give the mother full physical custody over your child if you are unmarried. If the father is named on the birth certificate, he has legal parental rights. If no father is named, you are the sole custodial parent of your child, and you have all rights to care for and make decisions on behalf of your child. Physical custody determines the parent that the child lives with & the daily care of the child including activities that may relate to the child’s schedule, clothing, meals, and transportation. If they have joint physical custody, there will be a primary physical residence which is where the child resides primarily. In the case of 50/50 (which is what I have) we have joint legal AND physical, week one with me next week with him.

Legal custody determines the parent that can make legal decisions on behalf of the child. Including where the child attends school, what type of medical care and dental care that the child receives, and whether or not the child is raised in a religious setting.

You have sole custody over your child if you are a single mother and you have full physical custody and full legal custody of your child. If you have sole custody, you do not need permission from the child’s biological father to make daily decisions or long term decisions on behalf of your child.

You have joint custody over your child if you share physical custody and legal custody of your child with your child’s father. This means that you will make decisions on behalf of your child along with your child’s biological father. Hope this helps

 

[Loomis124]

Jake already had 50% visitation but no legal custody. HR was considered the custodial parent who could make the decisions in what she felt was in S's best interests. In fact, it was up to Hanna how often Jake could even see her. Jake didn't even get permanent custody right away. He only got temporary custody, then he got the full legal custody later.

I don't know, but it seems like it could have been risky going to court and revealing the age difference. But it becomes moot if the couple marries.

And...looky who the Judge was who gave him custody of SW righy AFTER her Mother was murdered in cold blood. Makes me sick to my stomach. MHO

 

[Cool Cats]

And...looky who the Judge was who gave him custody of SW righy AFTER her Mother was murdered in cold blood. Makes me sick to my stomach. MHO

Was it Deering? In court records somewhere? At that point the court didn't care about the underage girl charge, but yet he's being charged now. Why do they care now but not back in May 2016?

 

[Loomis124]

I don't think the underage thing would have stopped him, b/c he filed the papers, w/ the courts, and their info was on it, right after her death. Why didn't they charge him then, as they are charging him now? They're just throwing everything on them they think will stick, right now. Identical charges except for that one. That one charge will stick but it's the least of his worries.

It's very rare that grandparents win over a parent, in court, so it would have to be something just egregious, b/c the Rs had at least one skeleton they'd not want shaken out of their closet too. Unless they had protection.

I don't think they had dna done w/S. I think the two just put his name on the birth cert. That doesn't fly anymore if you're unmarried. He described her toe in his request for temp custody and provided baby pics of her, and himself, as proof of them being father and child. Did no one help him fill it out, or were his parents clueless too? They want that dna.

What was the one skeleton the Rs would not want shaken out of their closet??? The Rs who were murdered had no criminal records. Ha Look at the Wagners. Evil to the core. Even with their own horse and doggie customers. JMHO

 

[Satchie]

** I have 3 children, all have the same father, we were never married. I am sadly, very well versed in custody. There are different types of child custody, including physical custody and legal custody. Most states give the mother full physical custody over your child if you are unmarried. If the father is named on the birth certificate, he has legal parental rights. If no father is named, you are the sole custodial parent of your child, and you have all rights to care for and make decisions on behalf of your child. Physical custody determines the parent that the child lives with & the daily care of the child including activities that may relate to the child’s schedule, clothing, meals, and transportation. If they have joint physical custody, there will be a primary physical residence which is where the child resides primarily. In the case of 50/50 (which is what I have) we have joint legal AND physical, week one with me next week with him.

Legal custody determines the parent that can make legal decisions on behalf of the child. Including where the child attends school, what type of medical care and dental care that the child receives, and whether or not the child is raised in a religious setting.

You have sole custody over your child if you are a single mother and you have full physical custody and full legal custody of your child. If you have sole custody, you do not need permission from the child’s biological father to make daily decisions or long term decisions on behalf of your child.

You have joint custody over your child if you share physical custody and legal custody of your child with your child’s father. This means that you will make decisions on behalf of your child along with your child’s biological father. Hope this helps

Excellent summary, thanks.

Good point that it isn't just about physical residence, it's also about where the child will go to school, and to church, etc. And with shared custody, both parents have to agree.

Also, I wonder when the idea of moving to Alaska came up, was that ever discussed on here? Was the plan always for the 3 generations to start a new life there, after they'd carried out their final solution back in Ohio.

 

[Loomis124]

Was it Deering? In court records somewhere? At that point the court didn't care about the underage girl charge, but yet he's being charged now. Why do they care now but not back in May 2016?

No. Not Deering.

Judge Rosenberger, over probate and juvenile courts in Pike County. Do you have a guess as to why LE planned the arrest of AW in Scioto county? So the kids would not be in Pike! JMHO

 

[Satchie]

Was it Deering? In court records somewhere? At that point the court didn't care about the underage girl charge, but yet he's being charged now. Why do they care now but not back in May 2016?

Because now he's accused of murdering her. It's legally relevant that she was his victim when she conceived their child.

 

[FrescaandSouthernComfort]

And...looky who the Judge was who gave him custody of SW righy AFTER her Mother was murdered in cold blood. Makes me sick to my stomach. MHO

Also noted that Suds, Jake or the late Hanna at the time of her death were not residents of Pike County, Ohio when the judge in Pike County, Ohio made the decision to award custody to Jake.

 

[Cool Cats]

No. Not Deering.

Judge Rosenberger, over probate and juvenile courts in Pike County. Do you have a guess as to why LE planned the arrest of AW in Scioto county? So the kids would not be in Pike! JMHO

Well they arrested Angie at her home in Scioto, I assume CPS came along and picked up the kids there. . The family said that S is with CPS in Scioto Co. Even if the kids were in Pike visiting somewhere, they go by where you live.

The kids' are in limbo because their dads' are not convicted of anything, so the dads' have a right to have some type of visitation, but what that is? Who knows?

 

[Cool Cats]

Because now he's accused of murdering her. It's legally relevant that she was his victim when she conceived their child.

Of course. She's his victim, all bets are off. My brain took a break for a moment there!

 

[FrescaandSouthernComfort]

Well they arrested Angie at her home in Scioto, I assume CPS came along and picked up the kids there. . The family said that S is with CPS in Scioto Co. Even if the kids were in Pike visiting somewhere, they go by where you live.

The kids' are in limbo because their dads' are not convicted of anything, so the dads' have a right to have some type of visitation, but what that is? Who knows?

The custody decision was made days after the massacre by the judge, not at AW's arrest.

 

[rsd1200]

Was it Deering? In court records somewhere? At that point the court didn't care about the underage girl charge, but yet he's being charged now. Why do they care now but not back in May 2016?

Because he is charged with murder. They'll throw everything at them that they can. Sometimes, things don't stick when they get to court. They know that will likely stick b/c they have living proof. Idk how many 15 y.o and 19 y.o. would be split and children taken, if they charged every person in the land who had a relationship like theirs. Look closely at this region. They're just now cracking down on teachers who sleep with their students. That went on all the time when I was in school. Guys bragged, girls thought it was cool.