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

[Abby Normal]

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.

I think the majority of courtrooms I've been in have held this very position. ITA that if there isn't a major negative reason for her to be denied visitation, that she shouldn't be.
:twocents:

 

[KCMommie]

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.

"If her attorney is paid" is a huge deciding factor in this county on who "wins". Attorneys simply don't want to take cases, or continue them if they don't get paid. Unfortunately.

I understand where you are coming from though.

It is always a bad sign to me when a parent is not encouraging a relationship with another parent. NO matter. Even an unfit parent to a degree. Each situation is different. How bad is the problem? Is it something that the accused parent is willing to work on through counseling? etc... Tons of factors. Of course, there are obvious times that a parent should have limited access to a child too.

I would be impressed if Jeremy Irwin had made SURE his child had a chance to see his mother unless she was a "threat" or "unfit". If that makes sense?

That being said, I know that I have seen cases where it clearly states that a parent has no right to a child on case.net. Sometimes even stipulating what they have to do to gain this ability. Of course, information appears to be limited on this case.

 

[AlmostGone]

Very sad...I hope this opens a door for mom to try and have a relationship with her son..

 

[Jaxson]

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.

Probably why she has an attorney who doesn't want her to speak...

 

[MamaK]

I'm not sure that this really gave us anything new to talk about. We already knew that JI had physical custody IMO. We don't have enough info to know exactly how everything went down and what it indicates as far as anybody's character/personality/parenting style.

Honest Question: Are we supposed to be sleuthing this lady? I don't think she's a POI or suspect, and I haven't seen anything saying the cops are remotely leaning her way...

MOO

 

[carole]

I'm not sure that this really gave us anything new to talk about. We already knew that JI had physical custody IMO. We don't have enough info to know exactly how everything went down and what it indicates as far as anybody's character/personality/parenting style.

Honest Question: Are we supposed to be sleuthing this lady? I don't think she's a POI or suspect, and I haven't seen anything saying the cops are remotely leaning her way...

MOO

BBM

I agree.

 

[MyBelle]

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."

Or he may have been ruthless because that's what he is. The speculation can swing both ways. A woman who has little education, no job or means of support such as DB is perfect prey for an abuser. Refusing to allow DB to be interviewed alone and not allowing the interviews of the boys are HUGE red flags.

JMO

 

[mysteriew]

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.

I don't know what state you live in. But in Ohio on paper both parents have joint custody (both parents are equal parents in the eyes of the law- on paper) with the parent where the child lives being called the custodial or residential parent. And the other parent is call the non__. The court orders visitation. And if the custodial parent decides not to honor the court ordered visitation, you can call a cop. They might go with you to ask for the visit (reluctantly, maybe.) But if the custodial parent tells them no, no visit today the cop will say no visit today and if you have a problem with it take it to court.

A custody case is considered a civil case and LE says they do not have to enforce civil orders.

 

[KCMommie]

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

Check the Judgment detail tabs on the case. She is the defendant in both cases.. He is the plantiff.

He appears to have paid court costs in the paternity suit in 2005:
Date: 09/06/2005 Description: Judgment Entered Against: RAIM, RASLEEN
Amount of Judgment: $0.00 Date of Satisfaction: not yet on file
Text: JUDGEMENT COSTS: 132.00, COSTS PAID: O, PAYMENT DATE: 2005-09-07, JUDGMENT SYNOPSIS: COSTS $132.00 (JEREMY) PAID

It was a default judgment in the paternity. (She may have not shown up to protest. In that case the filing party gets what they want.)

The Child Support case appears to be dismissed. Which could mean that they resolved the issue privately?

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

 

[Dr. Know?]

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.

This is not directed at your post at all, just jumping off your post to say, it's almost De ja vu...so much like another case, Haleigh Cummings, only combinded with Susan Powels & a few others. I'll just shut up and let the circus begin. Boy these defense attorneys are getting really underhanded if the spot light is on them via MSM. I guess that's the job that we let them do by our laws but... I've read the dockets for the divorce & won't post them here and interpretation of the dockets by posters or just by hearsay can differ from what actually happened. It's not going to be pretty if there isn't an arrest soon. jmo

Guess I'll just read the dockets & LE statements & check the daily bookings if this gets any worse via MSM & the discussions here esculate (chills from the old days). Thanks to whoever posted the circus video though, what a reminder! It's a shame this happens and a beautiful child is gone. I do have faith though that this LE will be able to nail this asap and they will find whoever took Lisa or covered up their guilt to bring Lisa home. What a shame our children can go missing or gone. They are just kids and babies. I'll never understand that.

xoxo jmo

 

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure that this really gave us anything new to talk about. We already knew that JI had physical custody IMO. We don't have enough info to know exactly how everything went down and what it indicates as far as anybody's character/personality/parenting style.

Honest Question: Are we supposed to be sleuthing this lady? I don't think she's a POI or suspect, and I haven't seen anything saying the cops are remotely leaning her way...

MOO

I think it was said that SB was off limits for "looking up" so I assumed the same.

I think most of us are just discussing the MSM article and what was contained within though.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I'm not sure that this really gave us anything new to talk about. We already knew that JI had physical custody IMO. We don't have enough info to know exactly how everything went down and what it indicates as far as anybody's character/personality/parenting style.

Honest Question: Are we supposed to be sleuthing this lady? I don't think she's a POI or suspect, and I haven't seen anything saying the cops are remotely leaning her way...

MOO

BBM I guess it depends on if you only want an excuse to bash these parents, or to look at "facts". Thanks for your excellent post.

 

[lynnb]

IMO...one of the reasons this mother may not have custody or sought visitation may be because of cultural differences.
Believe it or not, in some cultures the man is always right and his decisions will never be questioned by a woman. The decisions are just accepted and the woman abides by them.
Even when it comes to children.

 

[Pensfan]

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.

If you miss your hearing date, if takes months to reschedule IF you are allowed to reschedule. Many indigent women don't know how to reschedule a hearing and can't pay an attorney to help them. I am a advocate for those falsely accused of child abuse/neglect by CPS and for those that must attend family court hearings. Go read on forums about CPS abuse or family court forums. If you don't believe any of those individuals and their stories, read this from NPR. The reservation is not the only place where unfair practices occur involving CPS and family courts.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141662357/incentives-and-cultural-bias-fuel-foster-system?ps=cprs

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141700018/tribes-question-foster-groups-power-and-influence

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141672992/native-foster-care-lost-children-shattered-families

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141650809/a-fight-for-her-grandchildren-mirrors-a-native-past

 

[mysteriew]

One question I do have is the reporter 'filmed' her by camera phone. Did she know she was being filmed for publication?

Usually when they film for publication, they usually use a camera.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

We certainly should not assume just because she has an attorney now, she could also afford an attorney years ago. This attorney may be Legal Aid provided so that she can file for emergency, temporary custody of her son until this is sorted out.


JMO

 

[ynotdivein]

I'm not sure that this really gave us anything new to talk about. We already knew that JI had physical custody IMO. We don't have enough info to know exactly how everything went down and what it indicates as far as anybody's character/personality/parenting style.

Honest Question: Are we supposed to be sleuthing this lady? I don't think she's a POI or suspect, and I haven't seen anything saying the cops are remotely leaning her way...

MOO

Respectfully BBM. No, we can't sleuth this person. We can talk about what she said when interviewed. From what I've seen, posters are abiding by these rules thus far. Keep it up, and :tyou:

 

[Whisperer]

:waiting: I've been through this custody battle thingy on the board with ron cummings. He was a horrible parent, never married the mother and got full custody.

Whoever has physical custody of the child at the time of filing usually winds up the winner. It takes thousands and thousands of dollars to get an attorney to fight. Somtimes, all it comes down to is who has the most money. I am getting the impression that jeremy's family has money. Jeremy may have presented the court with house ownership (his parents gift). We may be looking at a better schooled and funded parent in this battle.

As in the Cummings case, jeremy had a place to live, a job, insurance and his parents may have told the courts they would babysit the child while he worked...dollars to donuts, he had an attorney.

Don't assume just because the mother didn't get custody that she did something bad.....not necessarily.

 

[CanManEh]

I don't know what state you live in. But in Ohio on paper both parents have joint custody (both parents are equal parents in the eyes of the law- on paper) with the parent where the child lives being called the custodial or residential parent. And the other parent is call the non__. The court orders visitation. And if the custodial parent decides not to honor the court ordered visitation, you can call a cop. They might go with you to ask for the visit (reluctantly, maybe.) But if the custodial parent tells them no, no visit today the cop will say no visit today and if you have a problem with it take it to court.

A custody case is considered a civil case and LE says they do not have to enforce civil orders.

Ya that sounds about right but it can cause the mom/dad that with held the child to loose thier custody if they do not provide a proof of the reason why they didn't show up you cant not show if its the other parents weekend just because you are mad at them you have to have a reason for the child to be at risk . You really cant tell where im from LOL I thought my name was a dead give away hahaha...Oh does anyone know how to start a topic or do u have to get a mod to do that and if so how do u find a mod.?

 

[Abby Normal]

If you miss your hearing date, if takes months to reschedule IF you are allowed to reschedule. Many indigent women don't know how to reschedule a hearing and can't pay an attorney to help them. I am a advocate for those falsely accused of child abuse/neglect by CPS and for those that must attending family court hearings. Go read on forums about CPS abuse or family court forums. If you don't believe any of those individuals and their stories, read this from NPR. The reservation is not the only place where unfair practices occur involving CPS and family courts.

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141662357/incentives-and-cultural-bias-fuel-foster-system?ps=cprs

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141700018/tribes-question-foster-groups-power-and-influence

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141672992/native-foster-care-lost-children-shattered-families

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141650809/a-fight-for-her-grandchildren-mirrors-a-native-past

I've stated previously that the reason I was never adopted out was because of my ethnicity. Indian Child Welfare Act Of 1978. I am familiar with native issues, and most of what you posted above.

You seem to have the impression that I think she's guilty? I've said in most of my posts otherwise.

My previous comments for reference:
post 1- "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"
post 2- "Absolutely. We shouldn't assume anything about either of them without information. JMO."
post 4- "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."
post 6- "ITA that if there isn't a major negative reason for her to be denied visitation, that she shouldn't be."

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it that I don't think we should assume anything about EITHER parent without more information. Dad or Mom. :waitasec: I never said she was in the wrong, I am saying it's a 50/50 shot in either direction. :waitasec: