DCF Shelter Hearings

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ohreally said:
I have a huge concern that the judge and DCF will interview the girls on what thier wishes are in who gets custody of them. Normally I believe that children thier age should have an input on who raises them. Not in this case case. I believe that MS has spent the last six months tainting thier minds for whoever benefits him, not the girls. I am very concerned from previous AL interviews that the girls will say they don't want to live with any of TS's family because MS has programmed them what he wants them to say. I hope that I am wrong.
I am hoping that someone on TS's side of the family will believe custody and once MS is found guilty will be able to move them out of state.
Do we know if MS brought the girls to Missouri when he went to the wedding? It's sad to me to think that he went there where he still has family and didn't bring the girls to see them. Do the girls even have a relationship with the brother in Missouri that in my understanding is one asking for custody. I'm not knocking the brother as I know nothing about him. I just wonder if MS ever took the girls with him on his trips to Missouri for them to get to know him.
Click to expand...

the girls were not at the wedding he was alone at the ceremony and the reception. Whether they were with family I do not know.
 
AlwaysShocked said:
Another elephant in this room: BS is an elderly lesbian who apparently was once quite confused about her own sexual identity. As evidenced by her having been married for years to a man. I am not saying this as any kind of a put-down, but rather as a fact that will need to be considered by the Judge.

As far as moving children of these young ages to a home 1,000 miles away, families move all the time. A move of 100 miles or 1,000 miles does not make that much difference. There are schools everywhere; there are dance lessons, gymnastic lessons, music lessons, etc. everywhere. Children do adapt to moves. I did as a child of 8, so did many who read here I'd bet.

I think none of us at this point know exactly how things are handled when a single parent is jailed. But even within this case there was a single mother whom TS had helped who had been jailed for a drug offense and had lost her child as a result. Whatever happens now will be Temporary until there is a conviction and sentencing of MS. (And I am fully convinced there will be a conviction and sentencing.)

Somehow I just cannot envision a Judge requiring the presence of these two little girls in Florida so they can be taken into a jail for visits with their incarcerated father. Just the thought of that is abhorrent. But maybe that is the law - I don't know.

I'd love to hear from anyone who does know how these things work in Florida.
Click to expand...

BBM

:moo: I think that's nothing, literally, compared to other obstacles in her being a fit guardian. I guess (?) courts still see things like that as "issues." I wouldn't worry about who she chooses to share her life with, unless they are a criminal. I worry about her allegiance to her son.
 
I just got back online and couldn't find my post from earlier today. I had put a lot of thought into it and it hurt my feelings A LOT. I didn't think I had said anything wrong, and I wondered for 10 minutes why the mods would have deleted it. Well I found it ok. It was still on one of the many tabs I still had opened...and I did write it, but apparently I forgot one of the main steps. Like "submit reply" :lol:
howonkee said:
BBM

Who are you referring to here?
Click to expand...

Zuri said:
I think she is referring to MiP.
Click to expand...
Thank you Zuri, That's exactly what I meant :blowkiss:


howonkee said:
Oh, I get it now. MiP had already gone to Indiana to begin law school. So then she had only been in school the very first day, that Monday when TS was found. And since she and TS were close friends, she probably was so distraught she couldn't fathom going back and carrying on as normal, especially since law school is no picnic.
Click to expand...
Perfectly stated howonkee.


mikeinmo said:
Not trying to be devils advocate but some insight from personal experience. The court/DCS will investigate all possible guardians that could be available. I say available as there are some "young" enough to take custody but are not able to due to their own family situation, not ready to handle two children and yes do not want the responsibility. They will investigate the potential "guardians", their residences, determination what schools they could attend all this will come into play when the time comes for the decision.
The major elephant that they are going to look at is are the prospective guardians capable of ably handling (if necessary) their insurance payout I realize this sounds cruel but they have to have the children s best interest in all of this.
One final comment if I may as far as Grandparents being too old it is dependent on each individual case. I say this as in our family's case the closest siblings were not able to take two children in, the fraternal grandparents were not eligible due to other problems, the maternal grandparent had same issue. We as great grandparents talked and decided to take both, we were investigated by both the court and DCS and the determination was made we were the best fit. At the final custody hearing the judge, bless her heart, did ask us the following "you both are not spring chickens... are you physically prepared, mentally prepared to take a hyper 7 year old and a 3 year old special needs children in. We looked her in the eye and said definitely. BTW we are both over 60.
Click to expand...
mikeinmo :heart:
I have nothing but respect for you and your compassionate husband. I'm sure you never expected to spend your golden years raising your great grandchildren. (or any children for that matter) Even though it wasn't exactly what you planned, I'm sure you wouldn't do anything different under the circumstances. Life has a funny way of changing our perspective's when we least expect it, and I absolutely admire you very much. That being said, It seems no matter how I say this, I'm afraid it will sound unkind. Believe me, it is not meant to come across that way.
So please understand that I say this with the utmost respect to you and your husband.
But IMO there is a big difference between over 60 and 76. BUT, my
thoughts/feelings were mostly in regard to these 2 particular grandmothers, who I am sure both love their granddaughters very much.

As well as age, both of these grandmothers face so many unique challenges. First of all and always, there's the stigma attached that will forever be associated with these two children. Will BS feel she was a failure as a parent? I hope not, as this was a choice Mark himself made. These 2 grandmothers themselves, in addition to feeling guilt, anger and sorrow over their own children's lives, may feel the additional burdens of having lower energy, age related illnesses and the big "what if's"? What if I suddenly can't drive anymore? What if something happens to me?

These innocent little girls life's have been forever changed in less than a year and they are surely traumatized. Unfortunately they will still have Mark in the picture who will be very Unhelpful I'm afraid and confusing them more by interfering with their custody issue. He's brainwashed and controlled them for so long will they still abide by what/who "daddy" says?

I completely agree with you 100% mikeinmo that this paragraph you wrote is by FAR the biggest elephant in the room. It certainly has been something I too wanted to add myself, but my words were lacking as to how to say it. Thank you for wording it perfectly :bow:

The major elephant that they are going to look at is are the prospective guardians capable of ably handling (if necessary) their insurance payout I realize this sounds cruel but they have to have the children s best interest in all of this.
 
I havent gotten through the thread yet. Teresa's will specified who she wanted as guardians for her children. A couple was named. they werent family.
 
wondering25 said:
I havent gotten through the thread yet. Teresa's will specified who she wanted as guardians for her children. A couple was named. they werent family.
Click to expand...

It's been awhile since I read her will, but I thought she named her younger brother. I am probably wrong though.

ETA ~
What's up with the centered text?? Does everyone have it, or just me?
 
I believe it was her college roommate and spouse who were named as guardians for her children in the will. Anyone?
 
wondering25 said:
I havent gotten through the thread yet. Teresa's will specified who she wanted as guardians for her children. A couple was named. they werent family.
Click to expand...

Dmacky said:
It's been awhile since I read her will, but I thought she named her younger brother. I am probably wrong though.

ETA ~
What's up with the centered text?? Does everyone have it, or just me?
Click to expand...

wondering25 said:
I believe it was her college roommate and spouse who were named as guardians for her children in the will. Anyone?
Click to expand...

Looks like we were both right. Her brother first, and if he is unable or unwilling, then her good friend from college.

What I am "wondering" :wink: about though, Is IF MS still has the legal power/authority to override her decision since he has not been tried in a court of law yet? I certainly hope not!
 
Dmacky said:
Looks like we were both right. Her brother first, and if he is unable or unwilling, then her good friend from college.

What I am "wondering" :wink: about though, Is IF MS still has the legal power/authority to override her decision since he has not been tried in a court of law yet? I certainly hope not!
Click to expand...

It's the other way around--TS's opinion is legally irrelevant to the decision, because when she died the girls still had a legal parent. Her opinion would only be considered if her death left them orphans (i.e., if MS had died first).

ETA: And for SOME purposes, a parent who killed the other parent would be treated as having "died first" in Florida and most other states, but that applies only to money and powers that came to the murderer as a result of the murder. MS's parental rights existed before the murder so the Florida "slayer statute" doesn't apply.
 
AZlawyer said:
It's the other way around--TS's opinion is legally irrelevant to the decision, because when she died the girls still had a legal parent. Her opinion would only be considered if her death left them orphans (i.e., if MS had died first).

ETA: And for SOME purposes, a parent who killed the other parent would be treated as having "died first" in Florida and most other states, but that applies only to money and powers that came to the murderer as a result of the murder. MS's parental rights existed before the murder so the Florida "slayer statute" doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
All of that being said, who has the children in this "limbo" period while the courts decide a more permanent arrangement? Are they in foster care with strangers? i dont think anyone here or in their family would think that is acceptable even for a few days or weeks. Mark's family could easily claim that the children are better acquainted with them and move for temporary custody, for example. i wouldnt bank on TS's family getting the children. JMO
 
I still think that some of Teresa's family will relocate to Florida because -even if not granted custody of the girls - they will want to be a part of the girls' lives. Their hearts will lead them to these girls.

I have a question for the wonderful AZLawyer:
Will the girls have a say in the decision of whom they will be residing with? Thanks in advance!
 
wondering25 said:
All of that being said, who has the children in this "limbo" period while the courts decide a more permanent arrangement? Are they in foster care with strangers? i dont think anyone here or in their family would think that is acceptable even for a few days or weeks. Mark's family could easily claim that the children are better acquainted with them and move for temporary custody, for example. i wouldnt bank on TS's family getting the children. JMO
Click to expand...

At one of the last hearings it was reported the kids were with a family (Naples area), someone the Sievers know (TS knew). In the news video part of their last name was audible, wasn't totally edited out---I recognized it but will not say since it should not be made public.

STILL the kids should be with TS family, away from this craziness.
 
Hearing tomorrow. On tablet, having difficulty with linking nbc-2 article.
 
zencompass said:
I still think that some of Teresa's family will relocate to Florida because -even if not granted custody of the girls - they will want to be a part of the girls' lives. Their hearts will lead them to these girls.

I have a question for the wonderful AZLawyer:
Will the girls have a say in the decision of whom they will be residing with? Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the rule is in Florida, but in many states kids 12 and over have a say in the decision. I believe the oldest Sievers girl is only 11?

Unless the judge decides that the girls' visits with MS should be limited to phone calls only for the duration, he/she won't allow them to move to CT. I think the short-term plan was phone visits only, but the judge might want to leave open the option of in-person visits. Many times the kids will have an appointed therapist who will recommend what type of visitation they can deal with when a parent is in jail.
 
AZlawyer said:
I'm not sure what the rule is in Florida, but in many states kids 12 and over have a say in the decision. I believe the oldest Sievers girl is only 11?

Unless the judge decides that the girls' visits with MS should be limited to phone calls only for the duration, he/she won't allow them to move to CT. I think the short-term plan was phone visits only, but the judge might want to leave open the option of in-person visits. Many times the kids will have an appointed therapist who will recommend what type of visitation they can deal with when a parent is in jail.
Click to expand...

So many details here, but do they have a GAL, do you recall? If two children ever need one, these two do, IMHO.
 
Imo. Both grandmothers can not handle the young girls at this point. Jmo.

1 granny daughter has just been killed. And 1 granny son is the main culprit behind the murder.

Now we are left with uncles and aunties.

Now Teresa wanted her brother in charge for whatever reason when she made her will.

So Teresa felt that her brother was the best ccandidate at that time.

So *advertiser censored* what Mark wants. Jmo

Especially since he murdered Teresa. Jmo.

But I am surprised that Teresa didn't name her sister.

But I must remember that at the time that the will was made; Maybe her sister had enough on her plate for the moment.

But in all honesty. Teresa was the bread winner that cam8from decent stock.

So the court better not allow Mark side to have full custody.

Now Bonnie is ok by me. But definitely not for full custody. Jmo.

Because she will definitely slowly feed the murderer Mark that money. Jmo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 87 more.
Total: 3,248 (members: 88, guests: 3,160)

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
3,160
Total visitors
3,248
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,182
Messages
17,964,757
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top