Discussion in 'Lisa Irwin' started by HatesSociopaths, Oct 27, 2011.
This makes me so sad for her. I'm not going to pretend to know the story, but it makes my heart hurt. I can't imagine not being able to see my littles.
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.
Why hasnt she seen her son? I feel even more sorrow for the boy! Acrimonious divorce? I just cannot fathom being a mom myself, not seeing my kids. Phone calls? Child support? Visitation? More questions than answers, which for me is the most frustrating theme w this whole saga, day after day, week after week. I think so far that the parents in this sitch make my family look the Cleavers.
I wonder how Debra treats him? Is she mean to him in her drunken stupor? Does she make him watch the baby while she's drinking? Well at least he will get to talk to somebody, IMO those boys have been so traumatized.
Hmmmm....I did not know Synergy Services are involved. I have never been impressed with SS in the Northland. For this purpose, such a high profile case... hopefully, it will go well.
Let's just say, Clay, Co is known for their hard line approach with fathers. They tend to lean towards mothers and $$$
I hope she gets full custody. I see love in her eyes and I trust her a lot more than in the Irwin home. MOO.
They were never married.
Jeremy has full custody therefore, Jeremy gets to decide where his son goes and who his son will visit. Apparently, Jeremy didn't allow his son to visit his mother (not even a supervised visit) after he was given full custody.
Just because she lost custody doesn't mean she couldn't see her child unless it was ordered by the court and in the child's best interest. There is something strange here in that she did not show up to court for the custody hearing and is not making any attempt to see her son. It appears she thought her son was the child that was abducted so she didn't even know about Deborah, Lisa and Deborah's son.
I know from personal experience that visitation can be forced but obviously she has not pursued it if Jeremy is withholding the boy. He still lives where she lived with him so she does know his whereabouts. Jeremy has owned and lived in that house for 10 years so their son was born there.
Unless her parental rights were terminated (which takes something really bad) Jeremy can not stop her from seeing her son. He has physical custody. That means the boy resides with him which is unusual in itself. He would be in contempt and lose custody if he refused her visitation. Unless her rights were terminated.
ETA or she didn't give a hoot
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.
Didn't we hear something very early in the case from her parents? Hmmmmm... Maybe I'm confused with the other boy. I seem to recall that the younger boy's (deborah's son) father was out of the country. Shyest I'm rambling I need to go look it up. Was Deborah's husband possibly deployed?
I do have a fuzzy memory of jeremy's son's mother's parent's mentioning the custody battle. I'm guessing the situation must have been extraordinarily messy for him to get full custody and her to never have visited. Perhaps she has a substance abuse problem or mental illness, that's sad, regardless.
I am very upset by the fact that this mother did not show up for the court proceeding and has not had any, as in zero visitation with her son.. Jeremy Irwin cannot be blamed for what this mother has NOT done in attempting to keep, have, renew a relationship with her son.. Jeremy had custody but this woman infact still had rights to her son that she has chosen NOT TO PURSUE! that hasn't anything to do with Jeremy and Jeremy could not have kept this mother out of her son's life even if he attempted to.. It is by no choice but her own(this boy's mother) that she has not seen her son in years.. PERIOD!
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.
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?
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
I agree, greenpalm that there is likely a substance abuse or mental illness with mom.. Hard for a dad to get full custody in the firt place away from a perfectly healthy mom.. Also would make sense for her not pursuing a relationship with her son..
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.
Yep that's what I said. The court can terminate her rights but it has to be something really bad for her to not have court ordered visits, even if they are supervised. Why should Jeremy ask for her to have visitation? That's up to her. If she had her rights terminated maybe its because she didn't show up and ask for any. Her visitation is not Jeremy's responsibility and I can tell you that my abusive husband was allowed visitation even though the kids did not want to see him. Judge said I had to make go. Even though there was testimony from the kids that he was abusive. If I hadn't sent them I would have lost custody.
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:
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.
Separate names with a comma.