Found Safe TN - MCET, 15, Abducted by Teacher, in Maury County, 13 March 2017 #16 *ARREST*

[LaneGirl]

Not ALL of them. Kat mentioned that the mother seemed to favor BL formerly BT. It looked to me that the interview we saw of the mother was at BL's home. I suspect that mom lives there. She was holding BL's baby in a photo from the interview. JMO

Then I stand corrected.

 

[Mom24]

I saw that too. Funny that he just filed for divorce and filed a restraining order, if the mother had not seen the kids on a year why bother now. Jmo

Because she was trying to see ET since she had been returned, even though there was already a restraining order in place. Additionally, the new restraining order prohibits her from attempting to use interviews and press conferences in contacting her chidlren in an attept to circumvent the initial restraining order.

 

[cady]

I saw that too. Funny that he just filed for divorce and filed a restraining order, if the mother had not seen the kids on a year why bother now. Jmo

There WAS a restraining order against her from Nov. 2015 to stay away from the home and no contact with the kids who lived there. The new restraining order was to keep her from being interviewed and published about the abduction and recovery of ET

 

[Lilibet]

BBM

I've thought about this comment I'm about to make for days. I'm reluctant because I believe I will get flamed BUT I am wondering if anyone else has had questions about this.

On several news stories about ET's mother abusing the children, it says that the abuse started in November 2014 and the father took the children and left on November 2015. So is everyone else understanding this like I am? That the abuse went on for a year, with the father in the house and he didn't notice?
I'm having a real problem with this and am wondering if maybe this "neglect" contributed to ET's situation as the abuse from the mother did?

Flame away......

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/26/missing-student-tennessee/100921288/

No flame here either. I've wondered the same thing and I think the ones posting explanations are likely accurate.

What I'm also curious about is why the abuse started in Nov. 2014. It sounds as if there was no abuse previously. What changed then?

 

[cady]

On top of the expense of divorce, AT says he is a catholic. If he is sort of old-school catholic, he probably didn't see divorce as an option. Plus, he was the only financial support of the family and as far as I know, the mother did not earn an income. Not divorcing was probably due to financial issues, and maybe his religious persuasion. This horror has made him take the plunge...and any donations, hopefully, the mother would be barred from collecting. Just my opinion.

 

[Mom24]

No flame here either. I've wondered the same thing and I think the ones posting explanations are likely accurate.

What I'm also curious about is why the abuse started in Nov. 2014. It sounds as if there was no abuse previously. What changed then?

Hard to say. She may have abused other children through the years as well, but this was ET's turn. Or she may have always been slightly quick tempered and dad had been around more and had interceded. There was a case where a mother had 3 children and the last one was tortured until her death at the age of 3. But she had been such a caring mother to her other two children that not even her husband could believe the horror she had inflicted on that child. When asked why, she responded that the child was colicky as a baby and it made her hate it so she just never bonded with it so whenever she was stressed she would hurt the child. But she said she loved her other children, so she didn't want to hurt them.

 

[gitana1]

I cannot fathom that they left the two together, unless as you bring up they were left together purposefully being recorded, as FBI would anticipate in cases like this he would be recorded 'till the end grooming her.

Gitana, is that a consideration?

It's a smart thought. I don't know why he felt the need to discuss actual evidence with the public though.

Interesting! Could be. The biggest difference between the cases was that Mary Kay and the boy were equally infatuated with each other. Not at all saying it was right. But they seemed to have a mutual attraction.

In this case, Tad Cummins groomed her, threatened her, stalked her. He was an oppressive domineering presence and he controlled her with fear and self doubt. And there is plenty of evidence that ET was trying to get rid of him. That wasn't an element in the Mary Kay case at all as I recall.

But you bring up a good point. I'm gonna guess that Tad thinks he will get off and he will renew his obsession with ET. What else does he have? Everyone knows he is a child molester. He'll never work around children again unless he changes his identity, and with his level of criminal bumbling, I don't see him being able to pull that off. ET will be in a much better state of mind by then too and he won't get far. And people know about him now so that is a really good thing.

His best option is to try to get back in with his wife and girls because if he ever gets out, his job prospects are pretty dismal, especally if an employer expects actual work. If I was Tad, I'd leave the commune off his resume, lazy firestarter.

I hope his soon to be X and the girls make a new life for themselves and don't cave to his whining manipulations. They need counseling just as much as his victims. He is going to start working on them, just like he did his sister.

I don't know how a 12 year old little boy could be deemed to be "equally" infatuated with his teacher. And there was every indication that she, at 34, 22 years older than her young student, indeed groomed and manipulated the kid. This wasn't some "romance" that just happened between equals. It was a 12 year old sixth grader sexually abused by his teacher.

I just want to step in and add a caveat. He was 12. This is important. A developing child's sexuality is tied up into what happens to them at some very sensitive ages. It really messes with a 12 year old to have sex with an adult because if they don't receive the proper treatment their sexuality gets tied up in what it means to be intimate with an adult. Would you think it was healthy have a 12 year old watch *advertiser censored*? Do you think that would cause issues with them? Of course. Well picture how that same child would be affected by actually being in the situation of having sex, it's worse. 12 year olds are at a critical stage in their sexual development and MKL messed with that child and because he didn't receive the proper care, his entire life was messed up.

Thanks. As I've said on here, my best friend's son was abused when he was 14 by a woman in her 30's, when he went to stay with his dad. The kid thought he loved her. But he went from a smart, happy kid to a withdrawn, depressed kid. He's a heroin addict now.


It is very upsetting to me that we have a double standard when it comes to male and female victims of sexual abuse. How on earth can a 12 year old sixth grader be deemed to have been "equally attracted" to his 34 year old teacher? A woman 22 years his senior? It's horrible. Remember sixth grade? Telling each other that you "liked" someone? And then they said they "liked" you? And then you were "going out" which typically meant nothing more than that you told people you were going out. Sometimes you would hold hands. Some kids maybe even kissed!


Then to think of this child at 12 being engaged in actual full-on sexual intercourse with a mother of four who was his teacher? It's reprehensible. It's sexual abuse. It's statutory rape.

BBM

I've thought about this comment I'm about to make for days. I'm reluctant because I believe I will get flamed BUT I am wondering if anyone else has had questions about this.

On several news stories about ET's mother abusing the children, it says that the abuse started in November 2014 and the father took the children and left on November 2015. So is everyone else understanding this like I am? That the abuse went on for a year, with the father in the house and he didn't notice?
I'm having a real problem with this and am wondering if maybe this "neglect" contributed to ET's situation as the abuse from the mother did?

Flame away......

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/26/missing-student-tennessee/100921288/

No flaming. I think the abuse happened because dad was unaware somewhat. Maybe knew she was hard on them but not to the extent. I. Got the impression he worked a lot.


And we need confirmation but i think they separated but he went back in the house after she was accused of abuse? And she had to leave?

 

[cshea99]

Not ALL of them. Kat mentioned that the mother seemed to favor BL formerly BT. It looked to me that the interview we saw of the mother was at BL's home. I suspect that mom lives there. She was holding BL's baby in a photo from the interview. JMO

There is also a KT that sides with the mother. He is older now.

A divorce in TN with a marriage over 10 years is going to be about a $7,000 retainer. Money could have been a big hinderance.

Also, he is in pest control. He worked 14 hour days out of Nashville. It was told that he was only home on weekends.

I would like to know as well what triggered this all of the sudden?

 

[Gardenista]

Of all things ^^^ Some of the info reported/shared is irrelevent and some I think is to influence public opinion. Facts are that TC took a minor across state lines to have for sexual contact. He was a person in a position of authority who abused that. ET is a victim of his abuse and prior abuse. She isnt ols enough to consent to leave home or have a relationship with an adult.

I think the truth lies in the middle for most of the other facts. IMO people downplaying TC's criminal actions are wrong. People downplaying the victim's part might be wrong too. Not enough info to be sure but there is evidence that she wasnt taken by force. Im NOT saying she is to blame or that her age and past arent reason for her actions...or victim blaming. Just saying the truth should be dealt with head on and I hope it will be if she has any chance of growing into a healthy adult. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is speak the truth, deal with it and heal. There has been enough denial.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

There is no victim's part.

 

[cady]

It IS puzzling about the mother's abuse. Obviously, she was finally busted for it, but for how long had this been going on Supposedly (cough cough) the kids were all homeschooled...and the home is in a rural spot so maybe no neighbors witnessed the abuse. But it didn't start in 2015. Kat in her communications with us, indicated that she was not familiar with k-12 schools, so I think that NONE of them ever went to public schools until Dad took over and moved in. FINALLY someone reported the abuse! We do not know who. Who were the houseguests that the mother humiliated her children in front of...by making them strip naked? This woman is as guilty and perverted as TC, in my opinion. It amazes me that Kat apparently rose above all this to secure some kind of normal life. What a sad sad history. JMO

 

[gitana1]

Of all things ^^^ Some of the info reported/shared is irrelevent and some I think is to influence public opinion. Facts are that TC took a minor across state lines to have for sexual contact. He was a person in a position of authority who abused that. ET is a victim of his abuse and prior abuse. She isnt ols enough to consent to leave home or have a relationship with an adult.

I think the truth lies in the middle for most of the other facts. IMO people downplaying TC's criminal actions are wrong. People downplaying the victim's part might be wrong too. Not enough info to be sure but there is evidence that she wasnt taken by force. Im NOT saying she is to blame or that her age and past arent reason for her actions...or victim blaming. Just saying the truth should be dealt with head on and I hope it will be if she has any chance of growing into a healthy adult. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is speak the truth, deal with it and heal. There has been enough denial.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Except saying that a victim has a "part" in their own victimization is, indeed, victim blaming, even if someone says it's not.

We all know ET wasn't physically forced to get into the car. Beyond that, we know she is 15, he's 50 and was her teacher and that evidence showed he groomed her for months and she was conflicted. So beyond determining how the facts match up with the elements of various possible charges, there is nothing "wrong" with refusing to state the victim had a "part" in her own victimization.


The reason a kid that age cannot legally consent is because they are easily manipulated by older adults. Especially when they are already vulnerable from abuse. Especially when their molester is in a position of trust and authority over them and is charged with caring for them and disciplining them, etc.


I get that this blows people's minds but just because he didn't drag her off kicking and screaming, just because she didn't refuse to leave her house or refuse to get in the car with the predator or fail to alert her family as to his intentions, just because she expressed "love" for him and that she was his "wife" on social media, just because she didn't ask for help from someone during the ordeal, does NOT mean she went with him "willingly". For reasons that have been discussed on here extensively:

A kid that age who is vulnerable, lacks sophistication and wisdom, is dying for attention and grossly manipulated and groomed for months by her abductor, lacks the ability or maturity to make a decision as to whether she is going to be subject to abuse, or not. Or whether she is going to leave her family to go across state lines with a predator. How on earth could she have known what was going to happen to her or where they'd go? Of the dangers involved? That she could die from him trying to cross international waters into Mexico with her. Or that she would be totally cut off from phones or internet. Or that she'd lose weight from lack of food. Or would be gone or over two months.


My God. The kid thought she might come back that night!


A child can't be "willing" if they don't have all the info or the capacity to understand the ramifications.


Which is why this is illegal.


Of course it is differentiated from other crimes that involve actual force, like forcible rape and sexual assault crimes, and aggravated or especially aggravated kidnapping.


That's how this case differs from others. But no underage victim plays a part in their abuse.


And frankly, the insistence that she was a "willing" partner in this, or that she played her "part", acts to downplay the seriousness of the crime, IMO.

 

[Ontario Mom]

BBM

I've thought about this comment I'm about to make for days. I'm reluctant because I believe I will get flamed BUT I am wondering if anyone else has had questions about this.

On several news stories about ET's mother abusing the children, it says that the abuse started in November 2014 and the father took the children and left on November 2015. So is everyone else understanding this like I am? That the abuse went on for a year, with the father in the house and he didn't notice?
I'm having a real problem with this and am wondering if maybe this "neglect" contributed to ET's situation as the abuse from the mother did?

Flame away......

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/26/missing-student-tennessee/100921288/

No flames from me. I read it as well and had a similar thought. However, as a survivor of abuse myself I know how easy it is for one parent to abuse the kid(s) and the other parent genuinely have no idea it's going on. I read such comments all the time as "how could the parent NOT know!?" well, it happens, and it happens far too often. Mostly because the kids are too scared to say anything, and the abusive parent will go out of their way to do it when the spouse isn't there.

So, it's entirely possible this is exactly what went on in the Thomas house, until dad put a stop to it.

moo.

 

[LaneGirl]

Except saying that a victim has a "part" in their own victimization is, indeed, victim blaming, even if someone says it's not.

We all know ET wasn't physically forced I get into the car. Beyond that, we know she is 50, he's 50 and was her teacher and that evidence showed he groomed her for months and she was conflicted. So beyond determining how the facts match up with the elements of various possible charges, there is nothing "wrong" with refusing to state the victim had a "part" in her own victimization.


A kid that age cannot legally consent because they are easily manipulated by older adults. Especially when they are already vulnerable from abuse. Especially when their molester is in a position of trust and authority over them and is charged with caring for them and disciplining them, etc.


I get that this blows people's minds but just because he didn't drag her off kicking and screaming, just because she didn't refuse to leave her house or refuse to get in the car with the predator or fail to alert her family as to his intentions, just because she expressed "love" for him and that she was his "wife" on social media, just because she didn't ask for help from someone during the ordeal, does NOT mean she went with him "willingly". For reasons that have been discussed on here extensively:

A kid that age who is vulnerable, lacks sophistication and wisdom, is dying for attention and grossly manipulated and groomed for months by her abductor, lacks the ability or maturity to make a decision as to whether she is going to be subject to abuse, or not. Or whether she is going to leave her family to go across state lines with a predator. How on earth could she have known what was going to happen to her or where they'd go? Of the dangers involved? That she could die from him trying to cross international waters into Mexico with her. Or that she would be totally cut off from phones or internet. Or that she'd lose weight from lack of food. Or would be gone or over two months.


My God. The kid thought she might come back that night!


A child can't be "willing" if they don't have all the info or the capacity to understand the ramifications.


Which is why this is illegal.


Of course it is differentiated from other crimes that involve actual force, like forcible rape and sexual assault crimes, and aggravated or especially aggravated kidnapping.


That's how this case differs from others. But no underage victim plays a part in their abuse.


And frankly, the insistence that she was a "willing" partner in this, or that she played her "part", acts to downplay the seriousness of the crime, IMO.

Once again thank you for articulating my thoughts better than I could!

 

[gitana1]

There is no victim's part.

Damn. I wrote a thesis. You said it all. With five words.

 

[Safeguard]

It IS puzzling about the mother's abuse. Obviously, she was finally busted for it, but for how long had this been going on Supposedly (cough cough) the kids were all homeschooled...and the home is in a rural spot so maybe no neighbors witnessed the abuse. But it didn't start in 2015. Kat in her communications with us, indicated that she was not familiar with k-12 schools, so I think that NONE of them ever went to public schools until Dad took over and moved in. FINALLY someone reported the abuse! We do not know who. Who were the houseguests that the mother humiliated her children in front of...by making them strip naked? This woman is as guilty and perverted as TC, in my opinion. It amazes me that Kat apparently rose above all this to secure some kind of normal life. What a sad sad history. JMO

Mom is innocent until proven guilty. We don't know what really went down in that house. Often in unhealthy relationships, one parent will get vilified, when both played their part. I will reserve judgement regardless because I have seen, too many times, one parent a abuse the other, and the abused parent comes out looking like the bad one due to the inability to cope.
We have no idea what the dynamics were in ET's parents relationship. Aparently even the kids are torn about what was obviously a complex dysfunctional couple.

 

[pegs]

I don't know how a 12 year old little boy could be deemed to be "equally" infatuated with his teacher. And there was every indication that she, at 34, 22 years older than her young student, indeed groomed and manipulated the kid. This wasn't some "romance" that just happened between equals. It was a 12 year old sixth grader sexually abused by his teacher.

I think it was my bad way of saying it seems different because of the fear aspect. In the Mary Kay case you didn't hear of the threats etc. Wheras with Tad Cummins, he is very domineering and scary. Neither was right and I do think that in the boy in Mary Kay case had no chance to explore his own life. That is sad and he seems happy but your post about him not even getting to the point of being able to discern whether he is truly happy made me think. That is truly sad.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

BBMI've thought about this comment I'm about to make for days. I'm reluctant because I believe I will get flamed BUT I am wondering if anyone else has had questions about this.On several news stories about ET's mother abusing the children, it says that the abuse started in November 2014 and the father took the children and left on November 2015. So is everyone else understanding this like I am? That the abuse went on for a year, with the father in the house and he didn't notice?I'm having a real problem with this and am wondering if maybe this "neglect" contributed to ET's situation as the abuse from the mother did?Flame away......http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2017/04/26/missing-student-tennessee/100921288/

No flaming from me! It's my understanding (from reading articles linked in these threads) that the abuse had been going on for about a year (since 2014, and involving only the four or five minor children still at home), and that one or more of the children wrote to the authorities about it. The social services people intervened in Nov 2015, which is when the dad and children were separated from the mom. By this point one of the children (a daughter) married and left home as well...so that it's my understanding that there are currently 4 minor children now living with the dad. Why dad didn't know about the depth of the problem is anyone's guess, but if he were working a lot, he may not have grasped the problem or its escalation right away--especially if this was some new kind of behavior from the mother.

 

[LaneGirl]

Mom is innocent until proven guilty. We don't know what really went down in that house. Often in unhealthy relationships, one parent will get vilified, when both played their part. I will reserve judgement regardless because I have seen, too many times, one parent a abuse the other, and the abused parent comes out looking like the bad one due to the inability to cope.
We have no idea what the dynamics were in ET's parents relationship. Aparently even the kids are torn about what was obviously a complex dysfunctional couple.

While I sorta agree with you I also disagree with you. A "couple" means both fully know whats going on and I personally have experience where one part of a "couple" was totally in the blind as to what happened when that part of the "couple" wasn't in the home. And to add to that, this half of the "couple" totally defeated the other half of the "couple" UNTIL physical evidence came up.

 

[gitana1]

I dont agree, but I understand what you are saying. Let me put it this way. When my 16 yr old daughter worked for a friend at his restaurant, he wanted her to go to Sam's Club to shop with him. We said no because he had no business going alone with her. We set a boundary. Had she as a minor, snuck and went with him, and something happened, she would have been a victim. 100%. IMO, he would be responsible for the crime. She however, would be responsible for disobeying us and putting herself in a position she had been taught to avoid. That would be her part. I would not follow that up by saying she didnt know better than to go, etc. because of her age. It is just my opinion and how we parent. Its.whybInlock my car doors at night. If a thief steals my car- they are 100 percent responsible but I helped the thief by allowing access. Im still a victim but I played a part in the crime.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

That's a false analogy. If the friend had groomed her for months and manipulated her with the intent to sexually molest her and then arranged for your child to not only disobey you, but also persuaded her to do so, and if your kid had been vulernable due to previous abuse, then we have an analogy. Otherwise, not at all similar.

I mean what are talking about here? The level of seriousness of the crime? The level of culpability that the child victim plays in the crime committed against her?

Let's say your 16 year old had been persuaded to lie to you and went off with this guy - not disobeying because ET, remember, did not ASK her dad if she could run off with TC and then "disobeyed" her dad - and something had happened with this friend. Would you then tell her, "I'm so sorry this occurred. But you are partly to blame because you went with him without permission"?


I don't understand.

 

[blue22]

I dont agree, but I understand what you are saying. Let me put it this way. When my 16 yr old daughter worked for a friend at his restaurant, he wanted her to go to Sam's Club to shop with him. We said no because he had no business going alone with her. We set a boundary. Had she as a minor, snuck and went with him, and something happened, she would have been a victim. 100%. IMO, he would be responsible for the crime. She however, would be responsible for disobeying us and putting herself in a position she had been taught to avoid. That would be her part. I would not follow that up by saying she didnt know better than to go, etc. because of her age. It is just my opinion and how we parent. Its.whybInlock my car doors at night. If a thief steals my car- they are 100 percent responsible but I helped the thief by allowing access. Im still a victim but I played a part in the crime.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

What you are failing to recognize is the psychological torment and upheaval being groomed and manipulated does to a victim. Your daughter...I assume...had not been groomed for months before going to Sams. Abuse victims are not "taught" to avoid abusive situations. They are "taught" that they only deserve abuse. They are "taught" that the only person who can love them and protect them is their abuser. They are terrified to lose their only option in life. They are broken down, traumatized, and left with what they feel like in their soul...is no other option.

As someone who was groomed and abused myself, and "behaved" very much like ET...you are 100% wrong.

ETA: If your daughter was raped...would you have still held her responsible for her "part?"