Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*

New Posts

AZlawyer said:
Since the RO proceeding and the divorce proceeding were consolidated, IMO the RO proceeding "merged" into the divorce proceeding and does not place any kind of restraint on the judge changing the RO orders. It is up to the judge whether he wants to abate the entire case until January or allow the parties to raise certain matters like visitation prior to that time.

Still, if I were Kaine's lawyer, I would want to contest this request by saying "maybe she shouldn't have visitation with baby K if she is the type of person who attempts to (and possibly successfully does) have people killed." Then Terri would be asked some questions which (apparently) she doesn't want to answer, and we'd be back to square one. If I were the judge, I would say, ok, you can have supervised visitation at the home of [trusted person who is not a member of TH's family and is not Kaine but where baby K would be safe and comfortable]--assuming such a place exists.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the judge order that supervised visitation take place in (for example) the courthouse, CPS facility, someplace *official* that is secure and can be guarded/locked down? Or would the case have to be under CPS investigation for that to occur? (would CPS be involved already, considering the allegations in the RO application???)
 
Calliope said:
Couldn't the judge order that supervised visitation take place in (for example) the courthouse, CPS facility, someplace *official* that is secure and can be guarded/locked down? Or would the case have to be under CPS investigation for that to occur? (would CPS be involved already, considering the allegations in the RO application???)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think there would have to be CPS involvement for CPS to supervise. There wouldn't be CPS involvement here, because baby K is in the care of a parent who is able to care for her (Kaine). And I don't think the court system is set up to supervise visits in the courthouse.
 
AZlawyer said:
Yeah, I think there would have to be CPS involvement for CPS to supervise. There wouldn't be CPS involvement here, because baby K is in the care of a parent who is able to care for her (Kaine). And I don't think the court system is set up to supervise visits in the courthouse.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that CPS would have been involved somehow considering the allegations against Terri regarding Kyron, and Kaine's contention that baby would be in danger. Is that something that is automatic in cases like this?
 
Calliope said:
It seems to me that CPS would have been involved somehow considering the allegations against Terri regarding Kyron, and Kaine's contention that baby would be in danger. Is that something that is automatic in cases like this?
Click to expand...

No, normally CPS would not be involved unless the child had NO custodial parent willing and able to care for her.
 
AZlawyer said:
No, normally CPS would not be involved unless the child had NO custodial parent willing and able to care for her.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of the suspicion/allegations that she harmed Kyron.



Thanks :)

ETA: do you know if CPS can step in and investigate a matter on their own without having a complaint filed? IOW, if through media they become aware of a possible dangerous situation, do they have the authority to do so? IIRC, in the Aveion Lewis case, they did just that with regard to the other children still in the home.
 
Calliope said:
I was thinking more along the lines of the suspicion/allegations that she harmed Kyron.



Thanks :)

ETA: do you know if CPS can step in and investigate a matter on their own without having a complaint filed? IOW, if through media they become aware of a possible dangerous situation, do they have the authority to do so? IIRC, in the Aveion Lewis case, they did just that with regard to the other children still in the home.
Click to expand...

In AZ they can make their own complaints.
 
Calliope said:
It seems to me that CPS would have been involved somehow considering the allegations against Terri regarding Kyron, and Kaine's contention that baby would be in danger. Is that something that is automatic in cases like this?
Click to expand...

I would think LE would need to inititiate CPS involvement by reporting to them that Terri was a risk to a child.

Given that she currently has no access to baby K and the custodial parent or guardian of Terri's teenage bio son has stated he has no belief that she could harm a child (I am only assuming he has not changed his stance on that) I cannot imagine why CPS would currently be involved. However, I would also think that if some sort of order were issued allowing supervised visits, the court would asign baby K a social worker, or advocate and in that process CPS would become involved.

AZ?
 
tlcox said:
I would think LE would need to inititiate CPS involvement by reporting to them that Terri was a risk to a child.

Given that she currently has no access to baby K and the custodial parent or guardian of Terri's teenage bio son has stated he has no belief that she could harm a child (I am only assuming he has not changed his stance on that) I cannot imagine why CPS would currently be involved. However, I would also think that if some sort of order were issued allowing supervised visits, the court would asign baby K a social worker, or advocate and in that process CPS would become involved.

AZ?
Click to expand...

I don't know the inner workings of the court system there, obviously, so I don't know if the judge has social workers available to him to assign in a non-CPS case. Assuming he does have that resource available, I doubt that the mere assignment of a person to supervise visits would trigger a CPS file to be opened.

I heard that TH's bio son is in her care again. I suppose someone could make a CPS complaint that he could be in danger if his mom is prone to hiring people to murder other people, or "disappearing" children. But my guess is they would send out an investigator, the investigator would ask a few questions, there would be no evidence to go on, and the investigator would mark the file "unsubstantiated" and move on.
 
AZlawyer said:
Looks like TH is not really hoping for anything more than supervised visits, although the attorney doesn't spell out the procedure that should be used to accomplish that.

If the judge has the resources to arrange for supervised visits, my guess is that's what he'll do.
Click to expand...

Can the judge do that without having TH address the restraining order?
 
I guess my question is ... bottom line: is the judge's decision limited only to law, or will interpretation enter into it? IOW, it has been posted here that Oregon law is fairly explicit when it comes to custody vs an RO. If my memory serves. not contesting an RO pretty much eliminates your possibility of obtaining visitation. Yet, Bunch has said that Terri cannot contest the RO without abdicating her right not to incriminate herself. Given the fact that this judge granted an extension recognizing that fact - would you say that he is likely to grant Terri some sort of visitation if Kaine does not contest?

Does that make ANY sense? - my comment, not granting visitation....
 
loves2bmom said:
Can the judge do that without having TH address the restraining order?
Click to expand...

She is addressing the restraining order. She's asking for it to be modified.

SacreBleu said:
I guess my question is ... bottom line: is the judge's decision limited only to law, or will interpretation enter into it? IOW, it has been posted here that Oregon law is fairly explicit when it comes to custody vs an RO. If my memory serves. not contesting an RO pretty much eliminates your possibility of obtaining visitation. Yet, Bunch has said that Terri cannot contest the RO without abdicating her right not to incriminate herself. Given the fact that this judge granted an extension recognizing that fact - would you say that he is likely to grant Terri some sort of visitation if Kaine does not contest?

Does that make ANY sense? - my comment, not granting visitation....
Click to expand...

She is contesting the RO. The RO and the divorce action are consolidated now. But right now she is contesting only the part about no contact with the baby--and because she still doesn't want to testify, she seems to be resigned to the fact that the most she can expect is supervised visitation. This is a reasonable expectation. I don't see how she can get unsupervised visitation if she refuses to say whether she tried to get her husband killed and/or caused the disappearance/death of a child.

I think the judge will grant her supervised visitation whether or not Kaine objects, assuming that he (the judge) has some program available to him that will provide a supervisor for the visits. I don't think this decision would go outside the law--the law allows tons of discretion for a family court judge.
 
AZlawyer said:
She is addressing the restraining order. She's asking for it to be modified.



She is contesting the RO. The RO and the divorce action are consolidated now. But right now she is contesting only the part about no contact with the baby--and because she still doesn't want to testify, she seems to be resigned to the fact that the most she can expect is supervised visitation. This is a reasonable expectation. I don't see how she can get unsupervised visitation if she refuses to say whether she tried to get her husband killed and/or caused the disappearance/death of a child.

I think the judge will grant her supervised visitation whether or not Kaine objects, assuming that he (the judge) has some program available to him that will provide a supervisor for the visits. I don't think this decision would go outside the law--the law allows tons of discretion for a family court judge.
Click to expand...

How can she contest the restraining order without addressing the basis for it? And if she can do that, why didn't she do so when it was filed? Thanks again for answering!! :blowkiss:
 
loves2bmom said:
How can she contest the restraining order without addressing the basis for it? And if she can do that, why didn't she do so when it was filed? Thanks again for answering!! :blowkiss:
Click to expand...

She's only contesting the part about not seeing baby K, and her lawyer seems to understand that there's no way she is going to get unsupervised visits without addressing the basis for the order. But supervised visits are another matter.

She could have asked for supervised visits earlier in the process of the divorce case. There are a lot of possible reasons that she didn't. Maybe she didn't care so much about seeing her baby and was focused on her potential criminal defense issues. Maybe she told her lawyer NO WAY was she going to settle for supervised visits, and only recently gave in. Maybe her lawyers were slow to realize that there was perhaps a "middle path" between fighting-and-testifying and giving-up-and-not-testifying.
 
BeanE said:
:blowkiss: to AZlawyer and desquire :)

The sexting was in the contempt for RO document, in the affidavit by Rackner (Kaine's attorney) to show cause for the contempt. Kaine dropped that. Does that mean we take sexting off the table?

http://www.koinlocal6.com/media/lib/107/b/2/c/b2c0c26c-4221-4fde-a923-fa5788b1ad69/Horman.pdf

Thank you!
Click to expand...

That depends--if it's relevant to something else, it can be brought up again. Dropping a motion doesn't mean you give up the right to mention any of the facts set forth in the motion ever again.
 
One more question - okay, so she might get supervised visitation. Is she also going to have to pay for it? Is it normal to ask for the other party to pay for such a thing? What are the odds that the judge will grant supervised visitation but make Kaine pay for it?

Okay, so that was three questions relating to the same thing, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 122 more.
Total: 615 (members: 123, guests: 492)

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
492
Total visitors
615
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
596,480
Messages
18,048,452
Members
230,011
Latest member
Ms.Priss74
Back
Top