Mother of one of Lisa Irwin’s half brothers speaks out

[MsFacetious]

Sole physical custody means that a child shall reside with and be under the supervision of one parent, subject to the power of the court to order visitation. If a child lives with only one parent, that parent has sole physical custody and is said to be the custodial parent. The other parent is said to be the non-custodial parent, and may or may not have visitation rights with his/her child. If Jeremy wanted his child to spend any time with his mother, (even supervised visitation) he could ask for changes in visitation.

That isn't up to the parent though, it's up to the court.
If the court gives one parent full custody and says the other parent should have NO visitation, why would the parent with custody fight that?
It takes a lot from what I've heard in this county, for a father to get full custody.

Why should Jeremy be fighting for the mother to see her son? Isn't that HER job if she wants that?
He should absolutely do whatever he can to make him available, but going to court to demand visitation for the other parent? That seems a bit much.

I think we need more information on this... other than the docket itself. I think there is more to this.
I'm finding it hard to believe that Jeremy took the child and "hid" him from her in the house they all lived in together.
Or that they were unable to get visitation even though she wanted it and has had a lawyer all along.

It stinks to me.

 

[KCMommie]

Most every where tends to lean towards mothers and it still takes a lot for the father to get custody of the child. This says tons of POSITIVE things to me about Jeremy and not so much good about the birth mother.

Emphasis mine.
See, that is exactly my concern. People on the outside unaware of facts easily assume. Not good.

I guess it says neither to me until I see these records.

 

[Leila]

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...f-one-of-lisa-irwins-half-brothers-speaks-out

So, both DB's not-yet-ex-husband, and JI's ex-girlfriend and mother of his son, have not seen their sons in years. Once the custody battle was over with his ex-girlfriend, JI moved his newest girlfriend into his home and had a child, Lisa, with her.

This is not a healthy environment for either of the two boys, not being able to see and have a relationship with one of their parents. And whatever happened to marriage and long-term commitments? I don't want to appear too judgmental, but it sounds like JI treats relationships as a short term convenience, and then when he tires of that relationship moves on to a new relationship. This isn't good for any child.

 

[belimom]

I looked over the legal documents (what little info is available) and for the life of me can't figure it out. I'm not a lawyer though - LOL!

If someone wants to take a peek, here's the link:
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/nameSearch.do

I'm not sure what happened...?

(ETA: And unless I'm missing something major, I'm not sure the boy's mother fully understands her legal rights. Could that be?)

 

[KCMommie]

Why should Jeremy be fighting for the mother to see her son? Isn't that HER job if she wants that?
He should absolutely do whatever he can to make him available, but going to court to demand visitation for the other parent? That seems a bit much.

I think we need more information on this... other than the docket itself. I think there is more to this.
I'm finding it hard to believe that Jeremy took the child and "hid" him from her in the house they all lived in together.
Or that they were unable to get visitation even though she wanted it and has had a lawyer all along.

It stinks to me.

There are several things I agree with you. But the highlighted statement I respectfully disagree. It is expensive in this county to defend yourself as a parent. It takes more than just showing up and telling someone you love your child. It takes $2-3K at the least to retain an attorney at the least if someone wants to start a custody battle. Some individuals who don't make the type of funds cannot defend themselves. I am not saying that is the case here... but it happens all the time. Actually very sad.

 

[Pensfan]

Not all mamas are good. When I was 5 the court granted my father custody, and the birth-mother visitation. This is after she left us home alone for 2 weeks with no one to care for us, and knowingly allowed abuse for years prior. She didn't make use of visitation, and eventually her visitation rights were terminated.

I would be very careful about assuming this makes Jeremy a bad dude. Courts still favor mothers, and if she didn't even show up for the hearing then I'm not sure we can assume this is on him.

IME we vilify dads who walk away, but then vilify dads when their baby-mama walks away and feel empathy for the mother. Not all moms deserve empathy IME. As many would indicate is true for DB, right?

Who knows THIS situation, but I think we should judge this situation for what it is and what we know and not assume it's the man's fault. MOO

At a minimum, unless this mother was a threat to this child's life or he cowered in fear of her, her son should have been allowed some supervised visits with her. He will suffer from this abrupt separation.

If you have not worked around a family court or with family court judges, it is difficult to accept that it is somewhat common for CPS and family court to schedule hearings without giving adequate notice to some family members.
Read any forum where CPS and family courts are discussed and you will find that this is fairly common.

 

[belimom]

(snip)

The comment from Raim's parents (first few days after Lisa disappeared) was that Jeremy was ruthless in seeking custody of the eight-year-old.

I wonder if DB had something to do with that? A little OT here: a friend of mine went through the same thing. Divorced - husband left her for another woman. Then they came after the child. Got the little boy (who was only 3 or 4) to call the new woman "mother", etc. In the end, the dad got custody after her remarried the new woman. It had a lot to do with $$$ --- he had a nicer home, a better lawyer, money to fight endlessly, money to bribe his son with gifts/toys. And a new wife who despised the ex-wife and did all she could to stomp on her. And she did... it has broken her heart.

Could something similar have happened here? Just thinking out loud.

 

[Abby Normal]

In Missouri, when you file for custody of a child, the child resides with the parent who files first. However, in recent years joint custody is the baseline by law for all cases. No matter who the child physically lives with. It does seem to be a monumental event that a parent gets restricted custody.

It is very expensive for mothers to afford defense if they were SAHM, reliant on fathers, and have little income. I've known many cases where the father makes the money; therefore, can afford a legal battle. Whereas the mother is left without the means to do so. Prime territory for abusers.

I have also felt that this county, including SS would not know a female narcissist if they smacked them in the face and have seen fathers taken to the cleaners by manipulators.

I would not jump the gun on the idea that this woman lost custody for being a "bad mom", it is possible; however, common if the fathers are abusers to get away with "legal abuse" IMVHO.

Most of the paternity case, and custody information has been removed on case.net in Missouri.

If you care to view go to:
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do?searchType=name
Search with the name; Rasleen Raim (check include alias)

You can do this with Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley -- or anyone else in MO for that matter. It's public record.

Absolutely. We shouldn't assume anything about either of them without information. JMO.

Also- she has an attorney, as the article quoted, so I doubt it was an issue of him having a financial advantage to afford attorneys that she could not. If her attorney is paid, it shows she has equal footing. If she is court appointed, it would show that there may be a reason she is not involved. I'm sure if it is vital to the investigation, LE will pursue it. IMO it's most likely unrelated just as SB is.

 

[Leila]

Sole physical custody means that a child shall reside with and be under the supervision of one parent, subject to the power of the court to order visitation. If a child lives with only one parent, that parent has sole physical custody and is said to be the custodial parent. The other parent is said to be the non-custodial parent, and may or may not have visitation rights with his/her child. If Jeremy wanted his child to spend any time with his mother, (even supervised visitation) he could ask for changes in visitation.

The comment from Raim's parents (first few days after Lisa disappeared) was that Jeremy was ruthless in seeking custody of the eight-year-old.

This is off-topic, but we have a case here in southern California in which a man went into a hair salon in Seal Beach and shot 9 people, killing 8, including his ex-wife who was a hair stylist at the salon. It's been stated by those who know him that he was ruthless in the custody battle between his ex-wife and himself. He wanted full control of his son with the ex-wife unable to have any say in decisions.

 

[DairyGirl]

There are 2 sides to every story and until/unless we hear Jeremy's I am not going to feel sorry for her. He may have very good reasons to keep him away from her, or at the very least she may not have tried very hard to have visitation. If she wanted to see him she could go to court and see him, even supervised. It seems she hasn't made any effort, but as I said, we have no way of knowing what the story is.
I do think it is telling that while her family is claiming Jeremy was ruthless in getting visitation apparently she couldn't be bothered to show up for the hearing. They seem to like whining about how unfair they have been treated but not being proactive in doing something about it.

 

[belimom]

Absolutely. We shouldn't assume anything about either of them without information. JMO.

Also- she has an attorney, as the article quoted, so I doubt it was an issue of him having a financial advantage to afford attorneys that she could not. If her attorney is paid, it shows she has equal footing. If she is court appointed, it would show that there may be a reason she is not involved. I'm sure if it is vital to the investigation, LE will pursue it. IMO it's most likely unrelated just as SB is.

bbm

Not all attorneys are equal... :no:

 

[mysteriew]

Sole physical custody means that a child shall reside with and be under the supervision of one parent, subject to the power of the court to order visitation. If a child lives with only one parent, that parent has sole physical custody and is said to be the custodial parent. The other parent is said to be the non-custodial parent, and may or may not have visitation rights with his/her child. If Jeremy wanted his child to spend any time with his mother, (even supervised visitation) he could ask for changes in visitation.

The comment from Raim's parents (first few days after Lisa disappeared) was that Jeremy was ruthless in seeking custody of the eight-year-old.

It is also true that sometimes the court orders the child visitation, and the custodial parent refuses to allow the visitation.

Without access to the court order, it is hard to tell what the circumstances of the custody order was, or why there was no visitation.

OTOH now that she has spoken publicly, she should be sleuthable. I wonder if she has a criminal history?

 

[greenpalm]

Her attorney didn't want her speaking on camera... so SHE has an attorney.

So why hasn't her attorney gotten her visitation?
It appears that they filed for custody after Jeremy got custody, but she didn't get custody back, why not?
If she is supposed to have visitation and hasn't gotten it, why hasn't her attorney gotten her visitation and/or custody?

I don't know if Jeremy is the one not allowing the visits here.
It actually appears that HE dismissed an action against her for not paying child support.
Perhaps that was a "if you aren't going to see him anyway, then let's just cut ties and live our separate lives" type of situation.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do

Terri Horman could go tell someone who doesn't know her that her ex husband hasn't let her see HER daughter in over a year... it doesn't mean it's true.
Terri hasn't asked to see her and there is a restraining order because Terri hasn't fought it.

I just think there is more to this situation... just looking at the docket, it doesn't appear to me that Jeremy took the child away and then kept him from his mother.
His mother LIVED in the house they live in! It's not like she didn't know where to find them!

I wonder if the COURT decided that this woman should not have visitation? Most parents (who are in the country and are able to have an attorney) would be pretty quick to fight for visitation they were being denied it by the other parent... and not by the court itself.
IF they are paying child support and not getting visits that is a pretty clear cut issue to the court.

If she isn't getting visits, WHY isn't she? WHO is denying her?

I just looked at the extremely minimal info from the courts. I'm confused. What makes you think SHE was paying child support? I couldn't see anything much but "paternity" and a date, and then "custody" and a date.

Wouldn't the purpose of a paternity hearing be verification that Jeremy is his father?

In Missouri, when you file for custody of a child, the child resides with the parent who files first. However, in recent years joint custody is the baseline by law for all cases. No matter who the child physically lives with. It does seem to be a monumental event that a parent gets restricted custody.

It is very expensive for mothers to afford defense if they were SAHM, reliant on fathers, and have little income. I've known many cases where the father makes the money; therefore, can afford a legal battle. Whereas the mother is left without the means to do so. Prime territory for abusers.

I have also felt that this county, including SS would not know a female narcissist if they smacked them in the face and have seen fathers taken to the cleaners by manipulators.

I would not jump the gun on the idea that this woman lost custody for being a "bad mom", it is possible; however, common if the fathers are abusers to get away with "legal abuse" IMVHO.

Most of the paternity case, and custody information has been removed on case.net in Missouri.

If you care to view go to:
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do?searchType=name
Search with the name; Rasleen Raim (check include alias)

You can do this with Jeremy Irwin and Deborah Bradley -- or anyone else in MO for that matter. It's public record.

It doesn't make sense to me that she was paying child support to him. Did I miss something?

 

[Abby Normal]

At a minimum, unless this mother was a threat to this child's life or he cowered in fear of her, her son should have been allowed some supervised visits with her. He will suffer from this abrupt separation.

If you have not worked around a family court or with family court judges, it is difficult to accept that it is somewhat common for CPS and family court to schedule hearings without giving adequate notice to some family members.
Read any forum where CPS and family courts are discussed and you will find that this is fairly common.

Since I'm a foster parent and child advocate, I understand that court dates get changed.

Rarely do women lost visitation for years over one court date. JMO.

 

[Abby Normal]

bbm

Not all attorneys are equal... :no:

no, but JI isn't living in a big expensive house either, and thus paying big shot lawyers.

I'm not saying this is the mom's fault. I'm saying that we should not assume it's JI's fault. I'm just saying that dead-beat mothers also exist.

 

[greenpalm]

Sole physical custody means that a child shall reside with and be under the supervision of one parent, subject to the power of the court to order visitation. If a child lives with only one parent, that parent has sole physical custody and is said to be the custodial parent. The other parent is said to be the non-custodial parent, and may or may not have visitation rights with his/her child. If Jeremy wanted his child to spend any time with his mother, (even supervised visitation) he could ask for changes in visitation.

The comment from Raim's parents (first few days after Lisa disappeared) was that Jeremy was ruthless in seeking custody of the eight-year-old.

Right, "ruthless." That could just mean that she was a wreck and wasn't responsible enough to parent the boy, or even be trusted with unsupervised visitation. Perhaps he minced no words in dragging all her dirty laundry through the court. I would do that too, if I thought my children needed to have exposure to a person I considered dangerous to them either denied or severely restricted. I'd be ruthless too, to keep my kids safe. I wouldn't handle it with kid gloves or try to be polite. Depending on what testimony was given, her parents may have felt it was "ruthless."

 

[MyBelle]

I had wondered where the 8-year-old's mother was and if her parental rights were terminated. It appears that this is not true, but Jeremy has full custody of the eight-year-old and Jeremy has not allowed the boy's mother to see him in two years. There have been no supervised visits allowed either.

This says volumes of negative things to me about Jeremy. That custody battle was likely wretchedly traumatic for his eight-year-old son and likely still causes that little boy sadness. Deborah moved in shortly after this event or during the end of this battle.

It does say volumes and also indicates a pattern of control with JI at the center, not DB. I wasn't aware he had refused to allow DB to be interviewed alone until I heard it tonight from Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew. Was DB preparing to leave JI and that's why she got another cell phone? Is Lisa alive and in a safe place or did JI harm her so that DB couldn't have her?

Talking to both boys could solve this mystery sooner rather than later.

JMO

 

[CanManEh]

The Law's must be way different In the states as Iam in somewhat simmilar situation In that my ex has custody but i have every other weekend and certin holidays but in my case well for one we are still friends and practice co'parenting and in her house and in mine which i know is hard trust me it wasn't that easy to begin with but now its all good but my point is that is my ex didn't bring my daughter on the date and the time mind you again cause were civil we change times and date's all the time but i do know is she didn't show up well i can call the police she can be arrested not sure if its called kidnapping or not but i do know she has to show up by law and court papers. So I dont know why the bio mom wouldnt beable to see her son that tells me he has some pretty bad stuff to say about her and the courts agreed heavily in his favor.

 

[Pensfan]

That isn't up to the parent though, it's up to the court.
If the court gives one parent full custody and says the other parent should have NO visitation, why would the parent with custody fight that?
It takes a lot from what I've heard in this county, for a father to get full custody.

Why should Jeremy be fighting for the mother to see her son? Isn't that HER job if she wants that?
He should absolutely do whatever he can to make him available, but going to court to demand visitation for the other parent? That seems a bit much.

A parent with sole custody should not abruptly terminate contact with a significant other whom the child has bonded unless something wretched has occurred. This is done because a parent must do whatever is in the best interest of your child and put their own needs second to the child's. The ability to bond (form attachment to others) and the feeling that he (the child) is loved will be the building block from which all his other healthy emotions develop. When this building block is damaged, the emotional health of the child is damaged. This damage might be permanent.

 

[Abby Normal]

hm. Just realized she would probably have a house key. Interesting.

I doubt she's involved, but that just popped in my head- as long as we're interviewing anyone with access. I assume LE is on it though.